125 réponses à ce sujet

[Ylhaym]

Raygereio wrote...

Ylhaym wrote...
Imagine Bioware telling a story using that kind of graphical level. 

it would be the exact same story, but with a few extra sparkly effects added. Woohoo! Excitement.

Competent controls, fun gameplay, good looking art, solid gamedesign, compelling writing. Those are the things that can make a game good or bad. Not bloom, tesselation and bazzilionxhumongous textures.

I was thinking of what devs can do with a good machine. I think you misunderstood me, i was talking about devs utilizing the current gen machine for their games, not just DX11 and Graphical stuff.

Integration of Physics and/or Destructibility to create a fun gameplay. Destroying a wall to create your own way to flank the enemy. Or denying them the ability to flank you at a certain side? 

Increased number of AI running at the same time? How about increased amount of enemy rendered at the same area? Massive AI battles happening in realtime? Battle of Denerim happening with 40+ soldiers fighting for you vs 40+ darkspawn while you push through the gate in realtime instead of being a cutscene? Thats a gameplay possibility for using a modern hardware.

Compelling writing can also be hindered by lack of computing power. You can create an amazing setting for your game, But the hardware can't handle it, what happens? Kirkwall is supposed to be a busy city with many people, what do we get? almost empty streets. Imagine Kirkwall NPCs talking to each other then walking away, not just standing there for 1 year. Guards actually doing their patrols and roaming around the city.They can also write an emotionaly engaging scenario but wait... they can't render all the things they want to happen in that scene that's why they can't do it. Writers creativity may also be limited by limited computing resources.

Crysis 2 also suffered from hardware limitations... Crysis gameplay was known for (at least the first 2/3 of the game was) large open maps that allows you to approach situations whatever way you want... We all know what happened to Crysis 2...

edit: added this part...

If Battlefield 3 becomes successful, we may see those overclocked i7s and 8gigs of ram being utilised, not just the GPUs. 

Its sad when you learn some games only use 2gigs of ram when you still have more ram capacity to spare

Modifié par Ylhaym, 01 juillet 2011 - 09:46 .

[mauro2222]

Why is not moddable? why I can't mod a game? why? WHY? WHY!!!??? To where the times of pc games with mod support have gone?. Giving life to old games, correcting new games, adding new gameplay. Bridge Commander why?. Stupid DLCs

[Fredvdp]

mauro2222 wrote...

Why is not moddable? why I can't mod a game? why? WHY? WHY!!!??? To where the times of pc games with mod support have gone?. Giving life to old games, correcting new games, adding new gameplay. Bridge Commander why?. Stupid DLCs

Here's why

[Sesshomaru47]

Textures....did they ever patch Garrus' face in the first game?

[Fredvdp]

Sesshomaru47 wrote...

Textures....did they ever patch Garrus' face in the first game?

No. They released a patch and it said in the patch notes it was fixed, but there's a difference between writing about a fix and actually making it. They later said they can't fix Garrus' face without making an entire texture pack available for download and they said people don't want to download a 1GB patch. Now that they released a texture pack for DA2, I don't see why they can't do it for ME1.

[Sesshomaru47]

Fredvdp wrote...

Sesshomaru47 wrote...

Textures....did they ever patch Garrus' face in the first game?

No. They released a patch and it said in the patch notes it was fixed, but there's a difference between writing about a fix and actually making it. They later said they can't fix Garrus' face without making an entire texture pack available for download and they said people don't want to download a 1GB patch. Now that they released a texture pack for DA2, I don't see why they can't do it for ME1.

Because it seems to me with ME related problems they either don't know how or can't be bothered. Ask anyone who played the PS3 version of ME and you will hear tales of patch related neglect. That aside I wouldn't be holding my breath for a high-res pack for 3 or any awsome tinkering options in the game either...given past history.

[mauro2222]

Fredvdp wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Why is not moddable? why I can't mod a game? why? WHY? WHY!!!??? To where the times of pc games with mod support have gone?. Giving life to old games, correcting new games, adding new gameplay. Bridge Commander why?. Stupid DLCs

Here's why

That is the excuse? <_<
*facepalm* Someone, please, gives me a shotgun.

[Icinix]

*rubs hands together*

Oh - How I would love some high res textures and some graphical tweakness goodness so the textures don't look so blurred and stretched at 2560x1600.

[Raygereio]

Ylhaym wrote...
i was talking about devs utilizing the current gen machine for their games, not just DX11 and Graphical stuff.

Thing is; graphical stuff is the only thing the current generation of PC's are truly better at then the previous generations.
For example, AI scripts don't suddenly become intelligent if you let the program run on 4 cores, instead of 1. Clever coding and level design makes an AI look intelligent.
Now I'll admit that if you for instance want really huge, open areas with the graphical detail that has become standard these days, or huge quantities of NPC's running around to make a city feel alive then you're going to need lot's of memory. But then we're back to square one with me saying that something like that doesn't make a game fun.
I maintain the position that the progress in technology in the last decade has done very little in regards to allowing videogames to be better, save for allowing them to look more fancy. One can even make a case that the technological progress have made videogames stagnate or worse since it means that more manpower and money have to go the graphical side of things, allowing less resources for any other aspect of the game's development.

[Omega Torsk]

Fine, then let's hope Bioware releases a hi-res pack for the PC gamers.

It's kind of interesting to see how vitriolic PC users can be against consoles and console gamers in general. I started the Mass Effect saga on X-Box because I didn't own a gaming PC with the necessary requirements to run the game at max settings at the time. It wasn't because I was lazy and didn't know a thing or two about PC gaming; I just didn't have the capabilities. Now I have a PC that's capable of running the ME saga on max settings... however, I'm sticking to the X-box for the time being because I'm used to the controls and because all of the saves I've built up and all of the DLCs I bought are on my X-Box. Maybe after ME3 has been out for awhile (and probably if Bioware ever releases a "bundle pack" for the saga), I'll play the game on PC to enjoy the graphical sensations and more accessible control schemes. But right now, I'm just content with my prehistoric gaming console for the time being, thank you very much.

So yeah, here's hoping Bioware can give you your cake so that you may enjoy it.

Modifié par Omega Torsk, 01 juillet 2011 - 11:31 .

[kregano]

Fredvdp wrote...

Sesshomaru47 wrote...

Textures....did they ever patch Garrus' face in the first game?

No. They released a patch and it said in the patch notes it was fixed, but there's a difference between writing about a fix and actually making it. They later said they can't fix Garrus' face without making an entire texture pack available for download and they said people don't want to download a 1GB patch. Now that they released a texture pack for DA2, I don't see why they can't do it for ME1.

They can't fix it because ME1 is a technical clusterfrak that was so bad that Bioware decided to rebuild the engine from scratch for ME2. You can tell how bad it was when Bioware scrapped their plans to bridge ME1 to ME2 with DLC after one story DLC that was followed up over a year later with a glorified shooting gallery.

[Ylhaym]

Raygereio wrote...

Ylhaym wrote...
i was talking about devs utilizing the current gen machine for their games, not just DX11 and Graphical stuff.

Thing is; graphical stuff is the only thing the current generation of PC's are truly better at then the previous generations.
For example, AI scripts don't suddenly become intelligent if you let the program run on 4 cores, instead of 1. Clever coding and level design makes an AI look intelligent.
Now I'll admit that if you for instance want really huge, open areas with the graphical detail that has become standard these days, or huge quantities of NPC's running around to make a city feel alive then you're going to need lot's of memory. But then we're back to square one with me saying that something like that doesn't make a game fun.
I maintain the position that the progress in technology in the last decade has done very little in regards to allowing videogames to be better, save for allowing them to look more fancy. One can even make a case that the technological progress have made videogames stagnate or worse since it means that more manpower and money have to go the graphical side of things, allowing less resources for any other aspect of the game's development.

I know AI scripts intelligence is based on coding, but my point is the max amount of AI running at the same time isn't the same for 4cores and 1core CPUs. My point in my example from what i posted earlier about cities feel alive is focused more about writing being limited by tech than making a game more as a whole. But it adds immersion. Will the game be more fun if they have a setting that feels real? Maybe, maybe not. But would you rather have the game have a lifeless city instead of city feeling alive?

 In terms of gameplay, im sure devs can do more to improve gameplay with a more capable hardware.  

One could even make a case that the limitation of hardware have made videogames stagnate or worse since it means that more manpower and money have to go to graphical side of things where they find a way to make a game look shiny even with the limitation of hardware, allowing less resources for any other aspect of the game's development 

Sorry for copying you for the last part... 

Edit: english isn't my native language... 

Modifié par Ylhaym, 02 juillet 2011 - 11:44 .

[Destr1er]

@ Omega Torsk
I'm pretty sure your DLC will work on the PC version too. You can't port over your Xbox saves tho.

That is if you own a copy of ME2 on PC as well as Xbox.
There's a Steam summer sale and ME2 will be on sale. Also EA Origin store will have ME2 for sale on the 4th of July.

[Terror_K]

I see no reason why the PC version can't just come on an extra disc or something. The game is always installed to a hard drive, so it's not like it needs to be swapped. Then not only would better textures be possible but there could be higher quality pre-rendered cutscenes, and we also wouldn't have that horrible low-res stuff dotted with artifacting that ME2 PC was riddled with.

If the cost of an extra disc is just too much to justify, then at least let us who don't get digital versions download the improvements. Obsidian did that for the pre-renders for KotOR II for example.

Modifié par Terror_K, 02 juillet 2011 - 01:14 .

[Ylhaym]

Terror_K wrote...

I see no reason why the PC version can't just come on an extra disc or something. The game is always installed to a hard drive, so it's not like it needs to be swapped. Then not only would better textures be possible but there could be higher quality pre-rendered cutscenes, and we also wouldn't have that horrible low-res stuff dotted with artifacting that ME2 PC was riddled with.

If the cost of an extra disc is just too much to justify, then at least let us who don't get digital versions download the improvements. Obsidian did that for the pre-renders for KotOR II for example.

the problem is, they rather use their time before launch to do a Day0 DLC than improve PC version. At least they showed we can atleast hope for  a HD texture pack.

Modifié par Ylhaym, 02 juillet 2011 - 01:46 .

[blackholepcs]

I have to agree, I will be pretty disappointed if the textures are as shoddy as ME2. Take Zaeed for a great example. His head texture was possibly the best I've ever seen in a game. But if you have him stand next to Jack, holy hell! Her head texture was fine, but her BODY texture? For a chick covered in detailed tatoos, she looked like a wet napkin with cheap ink on it. There really was no reason for such low rez body textures on the characters.

With the average gamer having a 512mb+ card and 4Gb+ of RAM, there's no reason we shouldn't be given at least a menu setting that allows those of us with the capability to run high rez to do so.

[Dustbeard]

Agreed, better texture for the PC please. It was mentioned in an interview that PC users with high-spec machines might see generally better graphics (maybe) but if some of the textures are sub-par to begin with better hardware isn't going to help.

If it's not possible with all environment textures, they should at least ensure character textures of people you converse with are high-grade. Conversation characters with blurry clothing annoy me, and improving them would require a minimum of extra resources.

[robarcool]

mauro2222 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

What we want are the original textures, not the twice-ported textures we end up getting.
Hi-res texture created.
Condensed, and ported across to xbox.
Ported back to PC.

Modern PC's are capable of handling the original textures, but for some reason we cant use them. Possibly because the outcry from the console herd would be too loud for anyone in EA/Bioware to bear.

Yeah but is almost stupid if that happens, I mean instead of complaining, why don´t they just learn something about computers.

Too lazy is my guess. I ran across a topic the other day where an xbox user was complaining about his dashboard nxe lagging. According to him, that's supposed to happen on PC's, and never on consoles.


-Polite

Haha like if consoles are other technology.

They are. They ages old outdated silicon junk!

[robarcool]

But on topic, I would like ME3 to have hi res textures. ME2 didn't have many (should I say any?) large scale battles, mostly (or all) confined to corridors and rooms. But with larger scale in ME3, as seen at E3 2011, I say that those scenes will really come to life on an HD monitor with hi res textures. Imagine that reaper falling to dust and we can see its red eye blinking and then go poof!

[Marn_Cherone]

it would be very poor, when ME3 wouldn't feature DX11 or high res textures, while there are games games like BF3 hitting the marked soon

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

kregano wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

Sesshomaru47 wrote...

Textures....did they ever patch Garrus' face in the first game?

No. They released a patch and it said in the patch notes it was fixed, but there's a difference between writing about a fix and actually making it. They later said they can't fix Garrus' face without making an entire texture pack available for download and they said people don't want to download a 1GB patch. Now that they released a texture pack for DA2, I don't see why they can't do it for ME1.

They can't fix it because ME1 is a technical clusterfrak that was so bad that Bioware decided to rebuild the engine from scratch for ME2. You can tell how bad it was when Bioware scrapped their plans to bridge ME1 to ME2 with DLC after one story DLC that was followed up over a year later with a glorified shooting gallery.

All three Mass Effect games use the Unreal Engine 3 game engine.

[Lumikki]

I play on PC with DX11 compability so of course I want as good quality for graphics as possible. Is it extra DVD or downloadable content, doesn't matter as long it's not controlled by DRM. So, yeah I would like higher textures to make make gameplay as pleasant as possible. That's why games have game options, so player can choose what works best for player and PC.

Unreal 3 engine by the unrealengine.com web-page does support DX11 in PC platform version.

Modifié par Lumikki, 03 juillet 2011 - 01:05 .

[Kandid001]

UE3 supports DX11, and even the pathetic excuse of an RPG Dragon Age 2 had a first day hi-res texture pack and DX11 support. Who in their right mind doesn't want high res textures and DX11 support for ME3?

[raz3r]

mrcrusty wrote...

kregano wrote...

Fredvdp wrote...

Sesshomaru47 wrote...

Textures....did they ever patch Garrus' face in the first game?

No. They released a patch and it said in the patch notes it was fixed, but there's a difference between writing about a fix and actually making it. They later said they can't fix Garrus' face without making an entire texture pack available for download and they said people don't want to download a 1GB patch. Now that they released a texture pack for DA2, I don't see why they can't do it for ME1.

They can't fix it because ME1 is a technical clusterfrak that was so bad that Bioware decided to rebuild the engine from scratch for ME2. You can tell how bad it was when Bioware scrapped their plans to bridge ME1 to ME2 with DLC after one story DLC that was followed up over a year later with a glorified shooting gallery.

All three Mass Effect games use the Unreal Engine 3 game engine.

Didn't know this guy was famous also outside Italy 

[robarcool]

Kandid001 wrote...

UE3 supports DX11, and even the pathetic excuse of an RPG Dragon Age 2 had a first day hi-res texture pack and DX11 support. Who in their right mind doesn't want high res textures and DX11 support for ME3?

I think you are talking about the March 2011 update and the Good Samaritian demo. Well, that demo required 3 GTX 580s to be run in SLI for a smooth framerate. I don't think that they will implement that just so it can run on only $2000 PCs.