This has improved graphics right?

[TheFinkinator]

I've always wanted to play the ACCOUNT series because of how highly my friend praises it, so during the sale I bought the first 5 games. (1-3)

My computer isn't the most powerful, so I played about the first 20 minutes of each game (turning off audio for 2 and on to avoid spoilers) to make sure my cimpute could run them all before the refund period expired.

Anyway, I thought I noticed a significant drop in graphic quality between 1 and 2. 1 didn't look that bad, but 2 loozed like straight ps2.

So does the steam version of AC1 have graphical enhancements (I think it's the directors cut edition?) Or am I just delusional for thinking the graphics in 1 looked better than the graphics in 2?

[Lobstersaurus]

I haven't played AC2 on the PC yet, so I can't say.

But if you are comparing the PC version to the 360 version of the first Assassin's Creed, then yes it does have improved graphics. I'm even running the game in 120 frames per second.

[Larry]

I have a disc copy of the PC version. I bought AC during this sale on STEAM because it was three bucks and I didn't want to bother looking for patches to the disc version(Plus the disc version is the regular one, not the Directors Cut I don't think).

From what I can remember of the disc version the STEAM/Directors Cut version of the game seems to have much better graphics over the original release version. I remember the disc version(I got from release but never got far) looked significantly worse. Here, however, the shadows look much sharper, the ground textures look better and so do the character models. The cloth physics are horrible regardless(Distractingly so).

I could just be remembering it wrong though and it looks the same as the release version but I don't think that's very likely.

[s3bsta]

AC2 (on max settings) is definately better on the character models (like Ezio) and the cloth physics and slightly improved in other areas. But despite that, the environment can look worse because of the poor resolution of the moving shadows used for the day/night cycle which AC1 doesn't have at all.

[TheFinkinator]

Originally posted by {PHSN} s3bsta:

AC2 (on max settings) is definately better on the character models (like Ezio) and the cloth physics and slightly improved in other areas. But despite that, the environment can look worse because of the poor resolution of the moving shadows used for the day/night cycle which AC1 doesn't have at all.

Well i wasnt talking about day-night cycles or anything like that.

Ive played around 4 hours or AC1, then tried out the first 10 seconds of AC2, when desmond is in abstergo, and his chin looks like Ed from Ed Edd and Eddy. like its just bad.

[krashd]

I haven't played AC2 either on PC or my 360, but I do own AC1 on both and the PC graphics are way better than the 360, they didn't just port the game they instead built it for both platforms at same time giving the more powerful PC a shinier version.

If AC2 on the other hand is a direct port from 360 to PC then it stands to reason that it would probably look inferior to AC1 on PC. AC3 and AC4 both look stunning on PC so it's likely AC2 was just Ubi trying to make a quick port and learning that PC users have a great deal of scorn for direct ports.

[Cryiox]

The PC version of AC I was visually groundbreaking at launch. It looks better than consoles (better textures, better shadows, better lightning, higher render distance), especially in DirectX10.

AC II has better lightning and a soft bloom effect, a la Prince of Persia Sands of Time, though overall visually is inferior to AC I in polygon count, shadows, geometry and render distance. The games got visually better again with Brotherhood and continued to push visuals ever since.

If you have an Nvidia card, you can force HBAO+ ambient occlusion in the driver.

Forcing 16xAF on both AMD and Nvidia improved the quality of textures in the distance quite a lot.