Thread: can someone explain the whole 1.0 graphics > 2.0?

Originally Posted by Mishini_Dracoto

I do wish, that you would put a bit more effort into cut scenes, similar to the Hildebrand quest line. They don't need to all be silly, but that much effort going into main scenario, and perhaps 1-2 other quests on the same patching schedule similar to hildebrand. (And, I don't mind if they are nonlinear. It would be nice to have diversity)

I think this is what we all want
Better camera movements, better choreography and don't limit the animations to the emote list.
Hildibrand storyline show that this is possible even with the new engine.

Originally Posted by Mishini_Dracoto

I think it's hilarious that people argue saying they think graphics are better in 2.0. The Deve team specifically stated that they scaled the graphics down. This has been quoted with references multiple times in this thread. It's not really a debate.

I don't think that's what people are saying, in general. I think people are saying that, on a given middle-of-the-road computer set to the graphics settings that allow the game to run at a full 60fps, the graphics in 2.0 are superior to 1.0. At the highest settings, it's hard to argue that the graphics weren't technically better in 1.0, but very few people played at those settings. On the average graphics settings, I think 2.0 really shines compared to 1.0. Of course, I never played 1.0, so I'm really just talking out of my (scaled-down) behind.

You certainly can't argue that 1.0 on the lowest graphical settings looked better than 2.0 does on the highest graphical settings. The image above (which reminds me so much of Meridian 59, the very first 3D MMO) refutes that plain as day. Comparing highest to highest is valid, but comparing average to average is valid too and a heck of a lot more relevant.