Assassin's Creed 2 Graphics

[Escapefromwhatever]

As most everybody knows by now, Assassin's Creed is a beautiful game. In fact, in his Prince of Persia review, Yahtzee gives an incredibally astute description of the AC engine, likening it to a sexual experience. Now, with that out of the way, I want to ask, does anybody else feel like there was a noticable downgrade in graphics from Assassin's Creed to Assassin's Creed 2? The sequel improves on so many other things (the combat, for example), and yet the visuals seem underwhelming compared to the first. Still great, but not as great. I feel like I may be one of the only people experiencing this, so I thought I'd ask my fellow escapists what they think. I don't usually care about graphics that much, but it's a little sad when the original has better graphics than the sequel, especially in a game that is otherwise so immersive.

Here are some screenshots for comparison:
Assassin's Creed:

Assassin's Creed 2:

 

[Julianking93]

Assassin's Creed looked amazing when I first played it.

ACII only slightly improved the graphics, but I don't remember them saying it was any better than the first.

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[reg42]

I think the graphics are slightly different, not better. Though I haven't actually played the game, I'm just judging from screenshots I've seen

 

[Doc Incognito]

I think something changed, because I remember that Lucy's face was suddenly deformed in ACII, but the graphics didn't seem radically different.

 

[GodsAndFishes]

I thought it was slightly better (aside from Lucy's face), but not a huge diffence.

 

[afaceforradio]

Yeah Yahtzee got it bang on with "Fish Woman", I think! Hehehe.

I actually thought myself that the scenery wasn't as pretty graphically - lighting seems a bit jankier (like shadows seem more jagged or something?)

 

[EliteFreq]

I found some the graphical effects in AC2 immense, but Lucy definately looked better in AC1.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I have not noticed such a downgrade, but I did notice a couple of differences. For instance, the graphics appear to be...softer to the eye, if that makes any sense. They feel smoother, in animations as well. That usually works out great, since Ezio actually shows some personality and proper emotions. Not always though, because Yathzee's comparison between Lucy and a fish isn't far from the truth if you ask me.

A more substantial thing was the amount of pop-up, especially in the countryside. Now it could be that the same was present in the original AC, but you just noticed it less because all you basically ran around in was desert and more desert, whereas Tuscany is lush with greenery.

In the end I was more impressed with AC2 than I was with AC, on all fronts including graphics. Maybe it's mainly because of the Italian countryside and architecture, I'm o so very fond of the Renaissance, whereas medieval Palestine was a bit...bland.

 

[SantoUno]

It's been a while since I saw AC 1, but they both looked real great to me. Not sure but I think you think AC 2 looks worse because it was slightly more colors and blooming.

 

[YoUnG205]

I have to agree with you I too did feel that they were not as good.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

I noticed this definitly. The shadows where gaggy as hell, while some of the faces...well, they looked like shit. The people just wern't that well animated in the cut scenes. They wern't bad but not great.

That's not to put AssCreed2 down though, because while I thought AssCreed was pretty muh, the sequel is pretty amazing so far.

 

[Cherry Cola]

The graphics have improved from AC, but I don't think they're that good. Especially the character animations, they are horrible.

 

[Pimppeter2]

It seems like AC2 focuses more on detail. While AC1 has more emphasis on environment. It might just be that AC2 is more light, so things stick out more.

I think AC2 looks better (from what I can tell from the screenshots)

 

[Omikron009]

There were certain areas where the graphics seemed worse in AC2. For example, both of the games had problems with little objects clipping into one another, and since Ezio wears such a fancy outfit with so many little parts, it become very noticeable. I did think the lighting in AC2 was phenomenal, though.

 

[MetaKnight19]

Its a nice looking game, but I have noticed some things. Lucy for a start, looked better in the first game. During some of the cutscenes or the more intense fights, the framerate can start to dither. Lastly, I have noticed grass growing right before my eyes while I was on horseback.

But these are all minor quips in an otherwise very well presented game.

 

[Garaw]

I can't honestly say I thought AC2 was worse graphically. I can't even see a negative difference in the screenshots you posted.

 

[Ben Legend]

Never noticed a downgrade. I thought the graphics for both were great. But AC II includes so much more, so this may explain the toning down of graphics.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

Why are we putting so much emphasis on the game's graphics? Graphics shouldn't matter if the story and gameplay keep you interested.

 

[Ghostkai]

Want to see something depressing though?

Climb.
Climb really fucking high, at day. Look down.

See those fucking horrific pixilated shadows of the buildings?

Yeah, I know, bad right?

(Minor gripe ofc, the game is stunning besides minor details like that, but worth seeing)