People keep assuming this to hope they're right instead of their fear it's just getting lower and lower in quality. Also SE stated time and time again:
"We don't use high settings and all the bells and whistles"
Whenever they show things off, even Yoshida stated they're using fairly lower spec comp/laptop for the presentations. Seriously though, going from low > high won't suddenly change the graphical direction, so they're either downgrading the overall detail or they're really hoping their shaders work magic.
Last edited by Elexia; 09-19-2012 at 11:56 PM.
That's how it should be.People keep assuming this to hope they're right instead of their fear it's just getting lower and lower in quality. Also SE stated time and time again:
"We don't use high settings and all the bells and whistles"
Whenever they show things off, even Yoshida stated they're using fairly lower spec comp/laptop for the presentations.
Imagine if they showed a new screenshot/video for the game that looked like this:
The hype would go through the roof! OMG BEST GRAPHICS EVER!! But oh wait, I don't have a NASA super computer...so my game turns out looking like this:
That's a HUGE turn off for many people, especially for console gamers who might not be into dropping tons of money for new 3D cards just for one game. If you show things with an average appearance, it's better off than showing the top.
Two screenshots of the same game, one on maximum settings (top), one on lowest settings (bottom). One looks drastically worse than the other, yet the game remains the exact same! Shocking! A lot of people here seem to forget that graphics don't make the game. Yes, nice graphics ARE a plus, but the game will still be playable on lower settings...so stop with the whole "game looks awful" nonsense.
Now, I'm still personally skeptical on this part, since I remember launch, and still play with graphical settings that don't actually do anything...but remember, this is a PC game. It is possible to alter graphical settings, such as textures and shadows...so to dismiss this stuff as being the best we'll get is silly. If Yoshi-P has taught me anything...it's to put a little faith in him. He turned this game into something I actually enjoy playing...so I don't really see A Realm Reborn having terrible graphical options.
Also, this isn't the first time Square-Enix has shown stuff that isn't on the highest graphical quality.
Note the lack of Depth of Field, or Ambient Occlusion.
Last edited by KiriA500; 09-20-2012 at 12:29 AM.
=\ Either they're doing something awkward with the PS3 version or they're at least a year away from a final product -- Looks way too rough and something from the late PS2 era actually.
Aw. And I couldn't even see the trailer. >.<
I wouldn't go with "cartoony", but there's definitely a Team Fortress 2 quality I've seen on occasion even in the Limit Break trailer... However, as much as I wish we didn't have to sacrifice graphics for the sake of a wider game demographic, I'm also tired of each console Final Fantasy looking "sexier" than the last, while the gameplay suffers in the opposite direction...
If SE utilizes some sort of inverse correlation between graphic quality and gameplay quality, then ARR's gameplay should be an improvement over 1.0's .
"Ul'dah can keep their dusty markets, and their streets paved in silver and gold.
Limsa Lominsa keep your pirates, and your ships covered in musty mold.
My loyalty lies with Gridania, with the Moogles and the tree spirits of old." -The Forky Conjurer
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Cookie Policy
This website uses cookies. If you do not wish us to set cookies on your device, please do not use the website. Please read the Square Enix cookies policy for more information. Your use of the website is also subject to the terms in the Square Enix website terms of use and privacy policy and by using the website you are accepting those terms. The Square Enix terms of use, privacy policy and cookies policy can also be found through links at the bottom of the page.