Add new comment

Luckily i'm not such polygon-sensitive as others seems to be.
Also i think it's important here to distinguish between DS1 and DS2, eg. most weapons in DS2 have much more polygons than in DS1, just compare the meshes once with AnimViewer.

A really doubtable legacy of DS1 seems to be the texture quality.
Most armor textures in DS2 are still 256x256 as in DS1 although larger textures surely should fit meanwhile into a graphic card.
In particular the armors of half-giants or big monsters (like Orthac) often look quite washy and the fact that DS2 is using the lossy and compression-artifacts-afflicted DDS format (instead of Raw/PSD as in DS1) makes it even worse.

I guess larger textures did not fit on 4 CDs, and since DVD drives are very unpopular and in some contries probably illegal as well they decided for small graphics and compression. /

But generally i think too the over-all graphic impression of DS2 is ok compared with other RPGames i know.
Well Spellforce 2 does even look a bit better but you really must have strong PC (it's only half as funny having good graphics with 15fps :-o), Titan Quest would have a nice anticent graphic style but unfortunately this gets absorbed by a rough interface and a jolty/unsmooth camera conduct. The screen shots of Siverfall look very attractive, but if you try out the demo you will notice that you don't only need a better PC - you also should have a Phys-X card.
At least these are the experiences i made with an AMD 3700+, 1GB Ram and an ATi X800XL, usually at 1280x1024.

Sometimes it's really interesting how different people are thinking about the DS2 look.
Often details about the hardware or the exact matters are missing so you can't really get a good opinion, however playing DS2 at 800x600 with a detail slider only at 50% and no Anti-Alising i wouldn't be happy neither.