I started playing the game,,,the overall picture you see looks good but the details are horrible from the faces to alisinig problems .I just got to the city so i haven't seen much of the city (it might get better)

I was really blown away by AC I graphics but this is just not doing it.  is it the case that it hasn't improved much since 2 years ago, so it is not apealing anymore?or does AC I actually looks better???

I sold my AC I long time ago so i can't check myself.

what do you think about graohics???I m mostly dissapointed cause i was wowed by AC I graphics.

I was thinking the same thing. Although I like 2 better than 1.

i thought the exact same thing when my friend showed me the game

The parts outside the animus are really bland and ugly, but I'd say Italy looks just as good if not better than the first game.  I haven't played the first in ages though.

AC2 does look better than AC1. There just haven't been huge upgrades, but I still think the graphics hold up nicely. And on the PS3 version, performance has been boosted nicely, with a more stable framerate and less screentearing.

How could it look worse than the first game? I'm pretty sure they took the same engine from the first one and put a shit load of polishing into it. But like most people in this thread, I haven't played the first one in ages.

I have read it somewhere : they were commenting on how ACii was perhaps inferior in term of visual but used bigger environnement, NPC, etc .. etc ...

Yes, it does. I read that in the VGC review, I think.

It does look "worse" than AC1. But the framerate and screen tearing is much improved because of it, so I really don't mind.

However, the faces are one of the worst in any game I've ever seen.

It is some kind of curse upon Selnor it seems. Every single game he graphically hyped, turned out to fall from expectations in some spetacular ways.