Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

PS3 Graphics Follow

#102 Aug 13 2013 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Xoie wrote:
While I think Filth has a history of prematurely tossing the "graphics are nerfed" card out a little too often, there's a good chance he's right about the PS3 but perhaps not for the reason you'd expect.

They came out and said that they were going to scale back graphics so that they could display more character models. Literally used the term quantity over quality if memory serves.


It's not what my comment was referring to, but I agree with you on this. Yoshida has stated that they would be removing things like visible belts in an effort to show more characters on the screen at once. And I agree with Yoshida for doing it. One of the saddest things about 1.0 was being in a city surrounded by hundreds of connected players yet only seeing a paltry dozen here and there plus some NPCs thrown in, and heaven forbid that you move down the street.

It's just sometimes you see graphic nerfs like the dogs in Up see squirrels. I don't think it's nearly that pervasive (or distracting).
#103 Aug 13 2013 at 10:58 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,145 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
As for the nerf, I never heard them mention this. If you have proof, please provide it was the PS3. I'm not taking your word, only facts with a source.


Yoshi specifically said that PS3 draw distance is not as high and that textures were lowered to accommodate. I'm not gonna dig for it, but this was stated at or around E3 2012. I remember because I got smoked on these forums for making a joke about how PS4 would be announced shortly after the release date for 2.0 on PS3. Jokes on who? Smiley: wink

ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
So because you feel FFXIV's graphics aren't as good on PC as they should be, does that mean you're not going to play? I'm asking this because of your negative attitude about the game. It's like you want to make other people disgruntled and quit.

I never stated or implied that and as a matter of fact, several times just in this thread alone I stated otherwise. I don't care if the game looks like cubeworld. For me, it's all about gameplay.

I don't have a negative attitude about the game. Facts are facts. If the word 'nerfed' carries a negative connotation for you then there's really nothing I can do about that. Would you prefer I said that the quality was reduced? Essentially, it means the same thing. I don't even know where the idea comes from that I want people to quit.

ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
We really need to drop this elitist attitude that a game must be maxed specs of a monster gaming rig otherwise it's not worth playing. I begin to wonder that people are only upset because they invented far too much money into their rig thus the desire for more performance.

What attitude? The only reason max specs was brought up was because the easiest way to see how different 1.0 and 2.0 are is to run them both at max settings. The money I personally invested was well spent because I spent most of my time playing other games. If you ever checked into the computer building or upgrades threads you will usually find me there telling people to get a PS3. Yet somehow, I'm hating on PS3? Izzatso?

If you can't see the difference in detail and shadows between the images from 1.0 to 2.0 I really don't know what to tell you. There is no image comparison I can add here because even if I did, you wouldn't be able to discern any difference anyway.





Edited, Aug 14th 2013 12:59am by FilthMcNasty
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#104 Aug 13 2013 at 11:05 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
751 posts
Just my opinion so I'll don my flame shield and duck for cover afterwards but....

Version 1.0 had higher quality textures, but graphically overall A Realm Reborn is better.

It isnt just about the quality of textures. In my opinion lighting effects are better in ARR, variety is better in ARR and the overally visual appeal of the game is greatly enhanced. I will grant you that side by side, on a stationary screen shot and without reference to the whole package version 1 had it graphically.

But this is a game that is about more than one static image so overall, I think there has been a significant improvement.

(that said, I was one of the few masochistic crazy people who liked version 1.0 so maybe my opinion holds no importance anyway - my karma certainly took a hardcore bashing back in 2010).
____________________________
FFXIV: Crafty Hallie, Ultros





#105 Aug 13 2013 at 11:24 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:

Yoshi specifically said that PS3 draw distance is not as high and that textures were lowered to accommodate. I'm not gonna dig for it, but this was stated at or around E3 2012. I remember because I got smoked on these forums for making a joke about how PS4 would be announced shortly after the release date for 2.0 on PS3. Jokes on who? Smiley: wink


I recall the interview you're talking about, but this wasn't what I asked you about. I knew that the PS3 version was going to be toned down because of hardware limitations. What I asked you was to prove that the PS3 was the reason that the PC version of ARR was "nerfed".


Quote:

If you can't see the difference in detail and shadows between the images from 1.0 to 2.0 I really don't know what to tell you. There is no image comparison I can add here because even if I did, you wouldn't be able to discern any difference anyway.


I have yet to see a 1.0 screenshot that impresses me. You're free to hold your opinion, but there are no facts to back it up so far. I preferred the 2.0 version of all the pics I posted. Are you suggesting 1.0 is better?

Hallie wrote:

Version 1.0 had higher quality textures, but graphically overall A Realm Reborn is better.


That's possible I suppose, but like you said, ARR looks better overall so it's kinda moot.

Edited, Aug 14th 2013 12:26am by ShadowedgeFFXI
#106 Aug 13 2013 at 11:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*
154 posts
There are people who will always vote Democrat, and those who will always vote Republican. Same goes for the old console/pc debate. Obviously pc has better graphics, and mods will add to game experience. I played P3 on PS3 and the only problem that initially bothered me was targeting. Initially. Graphics were just fine to me.

It basically comes down to whether or not you can afford a pc upgrade and whichever platform you're more comfortable with. I'm getting it for both pc and PS3 because I'm fine with both versions. I have not played the pc version of ARR but I'm excited to see what my new pc can do...when it finally gets here...because the first time it came I had an issue with it and shipped it back...dammit I promised I wouldn't cry again...

#107 Aug 14 2013 at 12:29 AM Rating: Decent
****
4,145 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
FilthMcNasty wrote:

Yoshi specifically said that PS3 draw distance is not as high and that textures were lowered to accommodate. I'm not gonna dig for it, but this was stated at or around E3 2012. I remember because I got smoked on these forums for making a joke about how PS4 would be announced shortly after the release date for 2.0 on PS3. Jokes on who? Smiley: wink


I recall the interview you're talking about, but this wasn't what I asked you about. I knew that the PS3 version was going to be toned down because of hardware limitations. What I asked you was to prove that the PS3 was the reason that the PC version of ARR was "nerfed".

In the same interview, as you'll recall(if you remember the whole thing), Yoshi explains that the reason the graphics are being reduced across the board is so that PS3 graphics are in line with medium settings on PC. He then goes on to explain that while the textures, shadows, lighting, ect. will be reduced quality, players with better PCs will be able to display more character models on screen at the same time. It's pretty clear and I remember discussing this with people back when it was stated. Increasing settings won't drastically increase quality as it does in other games, it mostly allows more characters to be displayed.

ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
You're free to hold your opinion, but there are no facts to back it up so far. I preferred the 2.0 version of all the pics I posted. Are you suggesting 1.0 is better?

Do I just have better vision than you? Can you not see the detail on the accessories? The lighting and shadow differences? I don't even... I really don't know what to suggest to make you see something so clear to me and probably a lot of other people.

It isn't important whether or not you like it or I like it, or even which we prefer. Processes that require more resources are considered to be higher quality regardless of what looks more appealing. Maybe we should start up a donation drive and try to get you some glasses or a better monitor Smiley: glare
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#108 Aug 14 2013 at 1:07 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:

In the same interview, as you'll recall(if you remember the whole thing), Yoshi explains that the reason the graphics are being reduced across the board is so that PS3 graphics are in line with medium settings on PC. He then goes on to explain that while the textures, shadows, lighting, ect. will be reduced quality, players with better PCs will be able to display more character models on screen at the same time. It's pretty clear and I remember discussing this with people back when it was stated. Increasing settings won't drastically increase quality as it does in other games, it mostly allows more characters to be displayed.


I remember Yoshi saying he wanted more computers to be able to handle the game. Considering 1.0 was a complete disaster in every possible way, I'd say he had his work cut out for him. FFXIV's 1.0 failure drained the SE coffers and it makes sense that they wanted to make it more accessible. The recycled textures over and over again sure wasn't doing any favors for the graphics of the game. The detail of your character pales in comparison to a world that is believably and diverse.

Quote:

Do I just have better vision than you? Can you not see the detail on the accessories? The lighting and shadow differences? I don't even... I really don't know what to suggest to make you see something so clear to me and probably a lot of other people.

It isn't important whether or not you like it or I like it, or even which we prefer. Processes that require more resources are considered to be higher quality regardless of what looks more appealing. Maybe we should start up a donation drive and try to get you some glasses or a better monitor Smiley: glare


I zoomed in the picture and I saw what you mean. I liked the accessories better, but I found the face too CGI looking for my tastes. The 2.0 version looks more natural.

#109 Aug 14 2013 at 1:12 AM Rating: Default
****
4,145 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I zoomed in the picture and I saw what you mean. I liked the accessories better, but I found the face too CGI looking for my tastes. The 2.0 version looks more natural.


I guess I'll have to settle for half an admission that the previous graphics were more detailed. Good enough Smiley: lol
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#110 Aug 14 2013 at 1:14 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
751 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I zoomed in the picture and I saw what you mean. I liked the accessories better, but I found the face too CGI looking for my tastes. The 2.0 version looks more natural.


I guess I'll have to settle for half an admission that the previous graphics were more detailed. Good enough Smiley: lol



Ahhhh you guys, you make me want to hug the internet...
____________________________
FFXIV: Crafty Hallie, Ultros





1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 58 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (58)