57 réponses à ce sujet

[robotnist]

so i have now read 4 DA reviews. 2 were just posted today one for 360 and one for PC, both on the same site. every time i see a review i see 8-10s for story, sound etc, but when i see the marks for GFX i see 7s...

now, this isnt a thread to debate whether number ranks are a viable review option.
but why are these lower marks showing up?

from what i have seen in the character creation kit, im very impressed. theres not many GFX options but one thats really important to me is anti-aliasing and that had the option of x2, x4 and x8.

i cant imagine how the rest of the game could look much worse as to spurn "dropped" scores in the GFX area. i have read about certain bland textueres of hillsides, and general evironment looking "simple".

i dont know, i mean i noticed some stuff done in mass effect that wasnt the best texture work, but all together i was so enveloped in a nice visual package i cant imagine disliking DAs looks.

anyone have an opinion as to why we might be seeing lower GFX scores?

[Herr Uhl]

Because it is a seven in graphics. Not bad, not great but decent.

[xioth]

Because people are spoiled by game like Crysis and the like.. besides, 7 is still a goodscore - it's average. If it were anything less than 7 I would be concerned.



Like you said.. this game will probably be a "nice visual package" but not necessarily "OMG! This is so life-life!"



Besides, the story > graphics.

[Flamin Jesus]

AA has been in nearly all games of recent years, even back when most cards could hardly handle AAx2, AAx16 was a common (if rarely used) option.



The reason is that the DA Engine isn't the most current and doesn't exactly use every trick in the book (Which is one of the reasons the game has so relatively low requirements, not that I mind), art style is important and one of DA:Os strong suits from what I've seen, but the engine drags the GFX rating down.

[Craig McDermott]

I agree that in this era of crappy console ports it's rare to even see AA options in-game.



Bottom line though is that DA isn't very impressive graphically. It doesn't utilize any new technology, which I guess is the price we pay for having excellent writing and characters. With slick-looking games like Crysis and the Stalker series on the market, games like DA won't be scoring 9's and 10's in the graphics department.

[Baelin Firestorm]

I have to admit; after seeing some of the vids from DA:O, I was put off a bit with the graphics. One of the things I criticize Bethesda for was a slight cartoonish aspect to their characters. I'm a big fan of realism. Kind of hard to look at avatars in ME and then step down to the ones in DA:O. I understand what BioWare was aiming for, but still...

[Lord Clocks]

The honest fact is that the graphics in the in-game footage and screenshots are not impressive. They are reflective of a quantity approach to art assets and offer an expansive story and universe however they dont have the luxury of an engine with immersive, life like character rendering, with all of the bells and whistles that a more recent engine with DX11, et al, could offer.



It isnt just engine. When you build a game this big, just getting the art assets constructed takes a long time. Imagine if the added technology requires an additional hour per asset in development time. Thats thousands or even tens of thousands of man hours.



So decent but not astounding. A 7 would be borne out by the screens and videos we have seen thus far.

[Dennis Carpenter]

Not worried about the graphics watched some of the tourney looks fine besides it is so reminiscent of the baldurs gate and NWN that it could just be called a Hybrid and that is fine with me. it is exactly the kind of game I have been looking for and enjoy the most to play

[Baelin Firestorm]

Dennis Carpenter wrote...

Not worried about the graphics watched some of the tourney looks fine besides it is so reminiscent of the baldurs gate and NWN that it could just be called a Hybrid and that is fine with me. it is exactly the kind of game I have been looking for and enjoy the most to play

Agreed. It might not have the realism I prefer, but I've no doubt it will pony up where it matters. I.E, Substance.

[Dennis Carpenter]

BTW how many other games does anyone know about that went gold in all platrforms10 days before they hit the shelf..... would like to know as that is something I never followed.

[Selzurius]

I'm a member of the story > graphics club, but WHY people think the graphics here suck begins with..



1. No independent lighting

2. Limited shading / textures

3. Terrain tiles instead of rendered areas



Overall the graphics in this game play well to the flavor and setting. It is dark, exciting and should hopefully lend itself well to the story. But it isn't a "visual orgasm" like most modern gamers are used to in a hyped up new release.

[Jayross]

The graphics seem a step up from WoW, and with a bit more shrubbery.

[Deviija]

Honestly, I am quite confused about the low graphics scores. I suppose I look at graphics in a very different light, but the character creator and detail on the models quite exceeds the likes of Mass Effect 1, Fallout 3, Fable 2, and a host of other recent action and RPG games that have come out within the last year. At least, in my personal opinion.



Unreal Engine graphics may be better with scenery and armors and grittiness in atmosphere, but everything is usually so dark and reused throughout so many games that I find this refreshing.

[Dennis Carpenter]

Deviija wrote...

Honestly, I am quite confused about the low graphics scores. I suppose I look at graphics in a very different light, but the character creator and detail on the models quite exceeds the likes of Mass Effect 1, Fallout 3, Fable 2, and a host of other recent action and RPG games that have come out within the last year. At least, in my personal opinion.

Unreal Engine graphics may be better with scenery and armors and grittiness in atmosphere, but everything is usually so dark and reused throughout so many games that I find this refreshing.

Thanks Deviija very well said and I agree completely

[aragfore03]

The graphics aren't cutting edge by any stretch of the imagination. They're not bad but they're not great either. I understand the low marks but I'm happy how the reviewers realize that this isn't a game that' about graphics and that the games depth still earn it high marks.

[Corkus LeBlunth IV]

I'd have to agree with Deviija's opinion.

[flungmuk]

Corkus LeBlunth IV wrote...

I'd have to agree with Deviija's opinion.

Ditto.
Better a 7 in GFX than Story or playability.

[pharos_gryphon]

If I recall correctly, the reasoning for some of the low marks on graphics were that the terrain and the like is somewhat generic and nothing really popped out to catch the eye alot of the time, it was more just a backdrop. In regards to graphics in general it was also said several times that they were average for what's on the market in the last year, but nothing new, innovative, or cutting edge, thus while acceptable, there's nothing there to wow or overly impress folks.



Personally, I don't mind at all. Gameplay and graphics are two distinctly different things. Tetris, PacMan... older games have horrid graphics when compared to cutting edge Xbox or PS3 shooters, but the it's innovative gameplay that'll keep a game getting played and talked about decades after its release, -not- a prettier blood splatter.

[Craig McDermott]

Deviija wrote...

Honestly, I am quite confused about the low graphics scores. I suppose I look at graphics in a very different light, but the character creator and detail on the models quite exceeds the likes of Mass Effect 1, Fallout 3, Fable 2, and a host of other recent action and RPG games that have come out within the last year. At least, in my personal opinion.

Unreal Engine graphics may be better with scenery and armors and grittiness in atmosphere, but everything is usually so dark and reused throughout so many games that I find this refreshing.

Disagree here.  Mass Effect is 2 years old and looks at least on par with DA.  Fallout 3 is over a year old, looks better vanilla and significantly better modded, and has a massive open world that DA doesn't.  And none of these games really have state of the art graphics that I think would deserve 9's or 10's.

Honestly I would be afraid that Bioware had skimped on the story if the writing received the same score as the graphics for DA.

[Lord_Rian]

It is refreshing to see a game that does not care to cater to the eye-candy crowd, in favor of the unspoken majority who prefer a game that plays well with a great story.

Craig McDermott wrote...

Deviija wrote...

Honestly,
I am quite confused about the low graphics scores. I suppose I look at
graphics in a very different light, but the character creator and
detail on the models quite exceeds the likes of Mass Effect 1, Fallout
3, Fable 2, and a host of other recent action and RPG games that have
come out within the last year. At least, in my personal opinion.

Unreal
Engine graphics may be better with scenery and armors and grittiness in
atmosphere, but everything is usually so dark and reused throughout so
many games that I find this refreshing.

Disagree here. 
Mass Effect is 2 years old and looks at least on par with DA.  Fallout
3 is over a year old, looks better vanilla and significantly better
modded, and has a massive open world that DA doesn't.  And none of
these games really have state of the art graphics that I think would
deserve 9's or 10's.

Honestly I would be afraid that Bioware had skimped on the story if the writing received the same score as the graphics for DA.

Fallout 3 is built on the Gamebryo engine, well established middleware that has been used by every game of the past millenium, all the way back past Morrowind. DAO is built on a brand new engine from scratch.

Apples and Oranges. Besides, Oblivion & F3 were tear-inducingly bland.

Modifié par Lord_Rian, 28 octobre 2009 - 10:49 .

[Sarevok Anchev]

When i played the first time BG2 (the tutorial) i was perplexed because of the graphics.

First after some hours i could blend this "shock" out and later i even enjoyed the

rendered backgrounds more then the LEGO- 3D look of NWN.



... and i saw gameplay vids of DA:O and know its okay(just like Mass Effect) for me, so

my experience will surely be positive

[Craig McDermott]

Lord_Rian wrote...
Fallout 3 is built on the Gamebryo engine, well established middleware that has been used by every game of the past millenium, all the way back past Morrowind. DAO is built on a brand new engine from scratch.

Apples and Oranges. Besides, Oblivion & F3 were tear-inducingly bland.

Why does that make it apples and oranges?  We're talking purely about aesthetics here.  Oblivion is a crap game but when it came out its visuals were cutting edge.  Fallout 3 probably looks better vanilla than DA.

Visually, DA just isn't very impressive.

[Torrius]

7 isn't all that bad a score. I mean, let's face it... compared to some shooters, or a game like Modern Warfare 2, it shouldn't receive a 9 or 10. Heck, if you played Oblivion at highest settings with Qarl's Texture Pack and all the other mods, it probably exceeds what DA will be. 7 to me is a fine graphics grade for what will be an excellent RPG (I hope!).

Modifié par Torrius, 28 octobre 2009 - 10:58 .

[GhoXen]

Engine is still DX9, while DX11 is coming out. There aren't that many DX9 games which can still get a 7 these days on reviews. The other possible candidate I can think of is L4D2.

[Guy4142]

I think it looks perfect, not in a fanboyish way but in an artist way. I see no jagged edges or poorly done textures and from what i've seen everything fits well together creating the exact atmosphere i would expect from the locations. The graphics are good enougth to be as immersive as i could want, so it hasn't really been an issue for me. 7/10 is pretty good.