I prefer how Titan looks in XVI though. Also, I don't see any discernible difference in quality between XV's Titan or XVI's Titan whatsoever. I'm really not sure what you mean by your comments on XV's looking better. If you could explain in further detail, that would be appreciated.
You can prefer XVI's Titan on a design level, but the XVI asset just seems far, far less impressive. I'll start with XVI's this time, then compare from there:
XVI Titan has a lot of jagged edges that scream "low-poly normal mapped UE3 model" to me. The rocks in the upper left quadrant next to Titan's face are particularly egregious in this regard -- if you trace the edges of the rock, there are straight lines dozens of pixels long that are offset by light responding to fake detail in the normal map. The normal maps in question are lower resolution than the base texture, which results in a weird grainy/blurry look to the image overall.
I will admit that I'm probably overly sensitive to low-poly normal mapped UE3 models; I despised
them in the PS3 era and I'm still rather allergic. But when I look at FFXVI Titan, I see the same sort
of faults that I see in something like Gears of War, just an order of magnitude less eye-gouging:
(Note again the extended straight lines pretending not to be straight thanks to lighting that responds to textures rather than polygons... with the unfortunate consequence of the lighting feeling blotchy due to quarter-res normal maps. Ugh.)
Now, let's take a look at FFXV Titan:
FFXV Titan is full of all of the organic curves that XVI Titan lacks. He looks like this with completely flat lighting:
The reason why he retains all of his detail under such conditions is because practically all of his detail is polygonal -- at 400,000 poly
, he's made of more triangles than Cloud from Advent Children. And when proper lighting is applied to such a model, there's no mismatch between the edges of the actual model and where the edges are supposed to be according to the normal map.
I also find that XV's lighting while impressive, also has a lot of flaws with really awkward self illumination in a lot of situations, and of course the poor AA etc. A lot of these things hamper the overall quality of XV. I think XVI looks really good right now, and I think that XVI will ultimately look a lot better than XV in the long run.
Until full raycasting is implemented, dynamic lighting is always going to break in some circumstances. Either XVI will use static lighting, or it will break just as egregiously sometimes.
With regards to the AA, though, that might be a problem on consoles, but it's not a problem with the Windows Edition. To the extent that XVI solved the problem, I'd be shocked if the solution didn't come down to the 4k resolution. =P
It's weird though, some people say that XVI looks like a PS3 game which is baffling to me. Other people think it runs on Luminous. I don't know why the community is so split on graphics.
I think it's because of the low-poly normal mapped look. Some people are almost completely oblivious to the difference between low-poly normal mapped models and their fully-polygonal equivalents, while others think it's a massive leap. (I actually think the difference between PS3 and PS4 is more impressive than the difference between PS2 and PS3, because the low-poly normal mapped look is the visual equivalent of nails on a chalkboard. >_>; )