Is this game uglier than RTW?

**Modestus** · 10-12-2006, 09:48

Is this game uglier than RTW? Now before everyone thinks I have gone mad I do know that everything has more of everything in MTW2, in close on very high settings the game looks amazing but as you zoom out to have a proper view of the battlefield a lot of this beauty quickly disappears the grass becomes superfluous, you then find yourself looking at very colorful blobs.

The movements of the calvary are quite jarring at certain times especially when they turn, very reminiscent of the 2D units in MTW1.I have been struggling to play this game on various settings so I have been fooling around a lot to find a comfortable area. The individual soldiers seem to have their own little space to perform killing movements, loading muskets etc however zoomed out a lot of this is lost or worst looks wrong.

There seems to be a lot of sliding on the landscape this could be due to my settings, sometimes I find a certain number of individual soldiers in a unit (especially horses) will perform no animation and simple slide across the screen. Now if this is dependent on your settings what will happen if you attempt to have larger unit sizes as in RTW. I think most people like the larger unit size, if the only why of achieving this is to lower your settings or have a turbo charged system will you end up having a higher percentage of horses performing no animation.

End result an uglier looking game?

**Braden** · 10-12-2006, 10:01

This is the point I’m getting to. Now I can’t comment on the complete lack of animation nor any animation as I don’t have the demo and couldn’t play it anyway BUT…

…..taking that fancy “bloom” away and zooming out it appears to me from the screenshots everyone’s providing that the graphics are at least “no better” than Rome. The battlefields appear to be bigger though, the settlements have more detail etc but the “nuts-n-bolts” of what counts – i.e. Military units – doesn’t seem to be as large a leap as we’d all thought.

To be honest the Lack of horse animation sounds like a Beta-test issue that shouldn’t be in the finished game.

**Bob the Insane** · 10-12-2006, 10:25

Well isn't the thing that the models have twice as many polygons now and higher resolution textures. But if your machine can't play on High everything they is is not necessarilly going to look way better (especially if you where playing RTW on high everything). If I switch off shadows (or set to Lowest) I can set everything else to High and all plays well...

On High, with 1280x1024 with AAx2 and AFx4 and Bloom I have to say that the individual soldiers look fantastic. And the more fluid aminiations makes everything look more natural. Now if I have 1280x1024, no AA and AFx2 and no Bloom things start loooking a bit more like RTW, but I think the model textures are still more detailed.

Zoomed out is another story and I have noticed lighting issues with units being lit or in shadow depending on your viewing distance to them. Additionally the sprite versions of the models are noticably brighter then many of the actual models which can have an odd effect.

I have see individuals slide around without animation a bit, but only occasionally.

I certainly do not thing th game any less pretty than Rome and I will sound the often heard cry of old demo version for some of the issues we are discussing...

**SirRethcir** · 10-12-2006, 10:29

"Is this game uglier than RTW?"

Well if your PC just meets the minimum requirements, yes.
Zoomed out it looks like MTW.

**Tempiic** · 10-12-2006, 10:31

Well I did not like the looks of RTW when zoomed out either. ;)

**SirRethcir** · 10-12-2006, 10:48

Originally Posted by Tempiic

Well I did not like the looks of RTW when zoomed out either. ;)

M2TW:
- Sprite-Distance is a lot nearer
- furthermore, the differences between sprites and 3D objects are immense, due the fact that 'every' soldier look different
-> so you have white and brown horses in the same unit, but the sprites have just one appearance

- only 'uber-computer' could turn shadows on
-> shadows make a hugh difference when you look at your troops from afar

**Mount Suribachi** · 10-12-2006, 10:38

THe difference between medium & high unit detail was very noticable to me. I'm still twiddling with the settings to get the best look & speed.

However, it would be fair to say IMO that RTW with mods such as RTR on high settings, looks better than vanilla MTW2 demo on medium-low settings.

But thats comparing apples & oranges

**Incongruous** · 10-12-2006, 10:50

At high settings I find it a beautifull game, however on lowest it looks like horrible stuff.

**Kwartjuh** · 10-12-2006, 11:06

The game looks WAY better than Rome... animations, cloths, armor, flags... i really don't understand why you say that Rome looks worse, altough on lower settings it is indeed ugly. But that is only because CA hasn't optimized the lower settings.

**Modestus** · 10-12-2006, 10:37

I would have to say they look better not uber better, I know its a demo and now we have a new term called a beta demo? So allowances are due. But it seems the game was designed to draw you in close to the units yet most people will zoom out to control the battlefield, it is here that I think things get a little strange and you must wonder about the need for all these extra pixels.

Edit: And units are at normal size I wonder what will happen at the largest size.