117 réponses à ce sujet

[Merci357]

While I'd like to see more PC games that use the features of the platform, that make use of Dx11, High Res textures and whatnot, I can see the other side of the coin as well.

My PC isn't top of the line - but then again more then good enough to run every recent game with maxed grafic options. In a way the need to constantly upgrade your PC to play new games in all their beauty has considerably slowed down. And I'd say it's a boon for PC gaming, since more people are able to play games on their system. PC gaming is already the weakest platform in sales numbers for the kind of games I enjoy - since we are on this board, BioWare games are amongst them. Some I might enjoy - like Red Dead Redemption - don't even get a PC port anymore, sales numbers (due to a variety of reasons) aren't attractive enough it. Do you really want to weaken the platform if only a smaller percentage could use their systems to play new games? How many have a full Dx11 card?

Why do you think Windows XP - ten years old - is still supported by game developers? Why do you think MMOs, about the only genre where PCs are the leading platform, run on years old PCs? Because they want to reach a broad audience. Honestly, I'd love to see Dx11 features more often, but I don't think they should be an requirement right now.

[JediMB]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Why to hell someone think that if game support DX9.0c, it can't also support example DX11. Also who to hell would be so crazy that doesn't want to support DX9.0c in PC, when they would lose about 25% of they customers because of it.

If I remember correctly?
DX9.0 max texture size 4k (4096x4096)
DX10 max texture size 8k
DX11 max texture size 16k

Same reason why older games won't work on current PCs, old games are just not programmed for newer hardware or newer operating systems. Want to play a Windows 95 game like Star Wars: Dark Forces 1 on your PC? You can only do it on Steam, your current disc is useless for your PC.

Actually, Dark Forces (which is a DOS game) is installed with DOSBox on Steam. DOSBox is free to download and can be used with your old retail copy of the game.

Windows 95 games tend to still work well in Vista/7, as long as they were programmed properly back when they were made.

[Lumikki]

charmingcharlie wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

First there is no extra work to make DX9 stuff, because they ALLREADY have to do it because Xbox. So to make DX11 is the extra work, but so is the PC UI and keyboard and mouse controls. Also it's very high probability that ME3 has DX11 support.

Once again you missed the point, so I will repeat it shall I ?  If they make a Dx9 version and a Dx10/11 version BOTH versions will need extensive tweaking and testing.  If they just do a Dx9 version then only that version needs testing and tweaking.

Only thing needed is to detect what version of Direct X you have and what you graphics card supports. That should not be hard to do. Of course they also need to test that they graphics engine is working with DirectX's what it support.

Oh and obviously the "old stuff" does not work fine because you are in here complaiining about the low res textures.

Actually where you see people who still use DX9 complain about they texture quality? It's not them complaining, it's people like you. Where did I complain about low res textures?

Lumikki wrote... It's waste of money to upgrade if you don't need one. Just because your gaming need is more in high end, that doens't mean it's okey to blame others about your own selfish needs to get everyting faster.

The PC is all about new tech, it is all about upgrading.  I have been a PC gamer for 20 years and never had a problem with upgrading my PC to meet the demands of the new games.  If people do not like upgrading then they shouldn't be gaming on the PC.  If they want a stable/cheap system for playing games that is what the console systems are for.  Once again 76% of PC gamers are on a Dx10/11 system only 23% of pc gamers are still using Dx9 hm it seems to me the selfishness of the minority is affecting the majority.

The PC can be that for you, but assuming that other people have same values and needs from they PC's, then you are just ignorance. Side note, what is you excuse not to upgrade you old computer with DX10 to todays DX11 standard? I have had my DX11 computer over year now, why are you draging us down? Did this feel good for you? Point was, what you feel as fine computer upgrade rate may not be same to others.

OS restriction:
Windows 7: 46%
Windows Vista : 23%
Windows XP: 24% (DX9.0c max)
---------------------------
Total of 93%

Hardware restriction:
DirectX 11 graphics card 12%
DirectX 10 graphics card 40%
DirectX 9 graphics card  (assuming more than 30%)
---------------------------------
Total of 82%

Monitor resolutions:
1920 x 1080 18%
1680 x 1050 18%
1280 x 1024 14%
1440 x 900 10%
1920 x 1200 7%
1024 x 768  7%
1280 x 800 6 %
1366 x 768 6%
1600 x 900 4%
-----------------------
Total of 90%

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 février 2011 - 08:28 .

[Yada Yada Yada]

I really didn't see a texturefailure  issue folks. But I do have some suggestions!!!

I have seen some fluttering around the eyesof all players in parts of the story( like talking to Anderson on the citidal).... and the textures for the female shepard I have to say are sh*tty compared to the male version, but all and all better then a majority of games out there.  my feeling is this: hammer down the female shepard so I can have a lynx and not a mouse.

Give Garris a better mouth and face( he seems uncompleted)! get rid of the eye flutter I see in the same areas no matter how many times I play the game!

[Ulzeraj]

CharmingCharlie an engine its not exactly related to graphics. The reason that ME2 on PS3 looks like ME2 on other platforms doesn't mean there was no improvement. If that was the case, most of the games would look exactly like Unreal.As I understand, a game engine its like a Framework.

Also those statistics you're posting are from Steam. It would be stupid to think they apply to the ME2 userbase. Not all steam users are mass effect users and not all mass effect users bought it from Steam. Blizzard collects a lot of information about whats on the users computers through battle.net and hey... what a surprise their games support DX9! Also note that they don't need to worry with Console limitations. Don't need to be a genious to know that Bioware also have their methods of collecting data.

Modifié par Ulzeraj, 03 février 2011 - 09:13 .

[Burdokva]

Here's an interview that might be useful: [url]http://www.pixologic.com/interview/mass-effect2/1[/ulr]



There was another one I can't find, that discussed in detail the process of creating the Collector homeworld. Notice how much detail there is in the screenshots. Garrus' texture from Page 6 in particular - I bet it's a 2048x2048 compared to the in-game 1024x1024. Why didn't they include something they already spent a ton of tie working on I can't understand.

[Ryzaki]

I agree with the wanting of improved textures.



And some hotkeys please.

[Skilled Seeker]

BIOWARE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT PC PEOPLE!

[lolwot]

I just don't understand why Bioware would purposely gimp their own game like this. Even now, what's stopping them from releasing an official HD Texture Pack with a higher texture setting? How much time and effort would that require?

[Bogsnot1]

Kinthalis ThornBlade wrote...
Well it's a bit of a catch 22, isn't it?
If
they don't use it, you don't feel the need to upgrade, but their less
likely to use it because people like you still haven't upgraded.
Get with the time guys, XP is a DECADE old OS. Also, an upgrade to windows 7 is NOT $300. It's more like $80 for an OEM copy.
Finally,
adding DX11 features does not mean that it can't run on XP. It can
remain a DX 9 title, and simply use the more advanced, and faster API's
on systems with a modern OS on them.
It's been done with a ton of games already. Dirt 2, Crysis 2 will feature DX 11, Metro 2033, F1 2010, etc, etc.

It is in Australia, and can cost up to $700 for some versions. Despite the strength of our dollar, US based compnies seem to think they can bend us over and roger us good and proper. I would never go for an "upgrade" version, as they tend to scerw more things up than they resolev.

charmingcharlie wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...
The only problem with that idea, is then they would have to make 2 versions for the PC, one for XP users the other for Vista/Win7 users.

Nope they wouldn't have to make 2 version of Mass Effect 3 they would only have to make 1 version of Mass Effect 3, the Dx11 version.  If you are still using XP and Dx9 in this day and age then you can't be all that bothered about gaming on the PC platform and if cost is an issue then there is always the console route.
Now I am not trying to be nasty here and I appreciate money does not grow on trees but at the end of the day Dx9 users are now in a minority in the PC gaming community.  The latest steam survey shows that Dx9 users account for only 24% of PC gamers (and that figure gets lower every month).
Let me put it this way, if I came in here asking if Mass Effect 3 would run on my 10 year old PC I think the collective response would be "you have to be kidding us ?".  Seriously Win Xp passed it's used by date years ago, let it die and let the PC platform move on.
I don't own a Dx11 card myself yet, I am still using a GTX260 which is a Dx10 card.  But I would love to use Mass Effect 3 as an excuse to upgrade to a Dx11 card.  I want Mass Effect 3 to be something special on the PC, I want it to make use of all the new tech both hardware and software wise.  Alas it is all a pipe dream and all we will get is a Dx9 port of an xbox 360 game to keep that 24% happy because they won't finally ditch a 10 year old operating system.

They could always skip the DX problem by using something far superior, like OpenGL. Or MS could do the responsible thing and not change the format of everything just because they release a new version of their OS. New linux builds will still run on 10 year old hardware, and still run 10 year old programs. Yes, I know that MS have a business model to uphold, but forcing upgrades on people because they believe in shinies first, stability second and security third is not the best way to go about it.

An operating system should be exactly that, and operating system. The only reason why Windows requires a constant hardware upgrade with each new release, is all the crap that gets included with it, that you cannot remove from Windows because it is inherantly tied into the operating system. Tie too many things into the kernel, and you end up with a great deal of security problems.

[Tested-Faythe]

how bout you just enjoy the damn game, without kvetching about subtle differences in the way it looks?



kthxbai

[Pepper4]

what I want are true HD cotscenes. They can give them as downloadable content.

[GediminasM]

I don't want any graphic improvements in ME3. Mass Effect 2 looks amazing and works on max settings without any problems. I hope they optimize ME3 same as ME2.

[MaaZeus]

Tested-Faythe wrote...

how bout you just enjoy the damn game, without kvetching about subtle differences in the way it looks?

kthxbai

Someone said that they arent enjoying the game because of subpar textures? <_<

[Confused_Shepard]

I would take PS 1 graphics if they gave me a great story and a large world to play around in with lots of set pieces, dramatic moments, emotional engagement and all that stuff



Garrus's textures took up so much space that they couldn't find space for dialogue (SARCASM)

[kalle90]

Lumikki wrote...
Hard to say, when the graphics is good enough. Of course we all wanna see photo realistic graphics someday.

I stopped caring when the Xbox1/PS2/CG-gen came. Most games before that actually looked ugly, but games like Dead or Alive 3, Splinter Cells, Forza, Halo and nearly all other games look just great even today IMO. I'd say only GTA has truly benefitted from this-gen graphics because GTA3-SA looked a lot like PS1 games

Today I think a game looks impressive when there is a lot of traffic, physics, AI, open level design etc. on screen. So if ME3 has 4000x3000 resolution textures I wouldn't be impressed if all the handful of NPCs still just stand around

[Ahglock]

I am all for it, though honestly once a game starts I barely notice things like this. Heck even those texture comparisons shown in this thread did not look that different to me. So once I actually get into the game, I wouldn't notice a thing. And sometimes the "bad" textures looked better to me, the outfits looked more used or worn and less shiny and new.