Crumb_ wrote:

Yeah I think they went a bit overboard when people reacted negatively to the high contrast and lighting. Heaps of post process effects were also removed since the alpha. I hope they get added back because the game lost a lot of its visual lustre without them.

True, I think the teased post Mission Alpha visuals that included all the initial changes were actually fine, even though the decrease of the bright desert could've been a bit more subtle. It would be nice to know why Relic decided to downgrade the graphics further to what we have now. It doesn't make sense to me and the only reason I can think of is the still missing final lighting pass.

Picture 1: Mission Alpha

Picture 2: Post Mission Alpha tease (labled as work in progress)

Picture 3: Release (worse lighting, worse contrast, worse / no post processing)

Compared to the teased post Mission Alpha graphics the release version is missing a lot of depth and looks rather flat in my opinion.

JiongJiong wrote:

I doubt they'll switch back to the old lighting.

Well, they changed the graphics because a lot? of people complained, or at least a very loud minority? Who knows... But now a lot of people complain about the graphics again and I see more and more people using Reshade to improve the visuals. Maybe they'll listen again, if we're enough or at least loud enough. I'll doubt they go back to the pre-alpha visuals too, although I'd really like to see that, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for the teased post Mission Alpha visuals, since the downgrade after that was totally unnecessary. Plus the dynamic lighting for muzzle flashes and (small) things like that.

Well, they changed the graphics because a lot? of people complained, or at least a very loud minority? Who knows... But now a lot of people complain about the graphics again and I see more and more people using Reshade to improve the visuals. Maybe they'll listen again, if we're enough or at least loud enough. I'll doubt they go back to the pre-alpha visuals too, although I'd really like to see that, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for the teased post Mission Alpha visuals, since the downgrade after that was totally unnecessary. Plus the dynamic lighting for muzzle flashes and (small) things like that.

I dont know. Maybe it's not a priority too many thing to fix, or there aren't THAT many people complain since you can use Reshade. :(

JiongJiong wrote:

I dont know. Maybe it's not a priority too many thing to fix, or there aren't THAT many people complain since you can use Reshade. :(

Sure, it's probably not on top of the list of things that need fixing, but it still creates a lot of criticism and shouldn't be forgotten in the long run. Besides that, they stated in the most recent patchnotes for patch 1.0.7 "We’ll soon have additional news on other top areas of player feedback, including when to expect future patches and content. Stay tuned!" So fingers crossed.

Jaedodn wrote:

It might possibly...have been too bright in the alpha. But isn't direct sunlight gazing at pale terrain quite harsh? I think they removed way too much lighting.

I hope they acknowledge the fact that they went overboard with the changes of the lighting and contrast and revert them to what they initially envisioned for CoH3, basically the visuals of the video that runs in the background of CoH3's official website. It looks so much better and almost feels like a completely different game! Just add an additional contrast / saturation slider for people who want a less colorful Italy and they're done. Well, except for the dynamic lighting, but I'm pretty sure they have an update for that in the making too. ;)