157 réponses à ce sujet

[Martanek]

From ME3 gameplay videos I have seen so far, it looks pretty much the same as ME2. Barely distinguishable. Furthermore, the UI looks exactly the same, which means we are going to see one of the ugliest UI in history again. And I doubt it Bioware changes ME3's overall appearance to something visually distinctive or even appealing. Bioware's latest games have been suffering from a lack of good UI designs since the release of DA:O. Maybe it is because we PC gamers are more demanding in terms of fine-looking UIs and other visual elements. Porting ME3 to PC can hardly do it any good.

[nelly21]

firefireblow wrote...

so how is that weather today?

lovely isn't it right?

Oh you poor, sweet, innocent child. Run! Run far away lest your soul be lost!!!

[AdmiralCheez]

If I remember correctly, the UI in the ME2 demo was basically ME1s. That's one of the last things they tweak, I think.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

TAJ4Life wrote...


Again Mass Effect 1 is still the best, not only did it look great but it was an RPG it had loot and all sorts

The loot system was horrible, the shops were a nightmare, the RPG elements were laughable, and the story was too linear and got boring fast.

Mass Effect 2 was a true masterpiece, and improved over the old game in every way. I hope ME3 is as much like it as possible.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

RPG

F*ck that.  I hate tedious inventory and petty fetch-quests.  It's the dialogue, story, and character customization that make it an RPG for me.

But but but it's not a real RPG without some broken inventory system, needlessly complicated skills, terrible open-world MAKO levels... and don't forget horrible bland armour that comes in 14 power levels and 5 colours that basically changes Jack **** for your performance!

Modifié par Spaghetti_Ninja, 01 octobre 2011 - 07:52 .

[Cainne Chapel]

Jeez and here I thought not only was I an Avid Gamer, but a lover of RPGs, to find out that i must be stupid for preferring ME2 over ME1 to RPG purists.


*shrug*

as far as RPGs go, DA:O was leagues better as an RPG than ME1 ever was, DA:O was also very boring at points, but a great classic RPG none the less. DA2...eh not so much, but still a decent game.

ME1 when you look back on it, was great in theory and I liked that they tried to merge different playstyles and archetypes into one game but it did fall flat in a lot of areas.

I feel ME2 hit the stride that the IP needed. Tight combat and the right amount of dialogue/story. Could of used a little more in the back end (RPG features) but hopefully ME3 will remedy that.

Given that ME1 was majority combat, making hte combat responsive and fun is hardly bad.

Oh and to the poster about the Gears/skyrim comment, just remember Gears 3 did 3 million its first WEEK... on ONE console, I dont like gears as a series (didn't find it fun past 1) but ANY developer would kill for those type of week 1 sales.

Besides Mass effect as a series and skyrim as a series are two wholly different beasts, only thing they have in remote common, is the monicker "RPG" attached to them which, as BSN proves, has as many different defintions as the meaning of the word " Video Game"

[Reptillius]

Tup3xi wrote...

Neurotics wrote...

Carfax wrote...

Neurotics wrote...

Lol.
The graphics are fine.
So what if they get pixilated when you zoom in really  close?

So let me ask you something.  Is it fine in your eyes for Bioware to use the same textures for PC that they use for the Xbox 360, given the fact that the modern gaming PC has far more available VRAM and system memory, plus orders of magnitude more computational power?

Would it be fine in your book, for a theoretical Mass Effect 4 that will run on the Xbox 720 (or whatever the hell it's going to be called) to have the same texture and graphical quality as it's predecessor, despite running on more advanced hardware?

I'm starting to really hate elitist PC pricks now.

You aren't any better. See it our way. There's nothing elitist about wanting developers to keep innovating and making use of current hardware.

I finish this conversation from my part.

Now I may be missing a couple of gems in the dust storm that is computer gaming. But by and large. No game is even close to taking advantage of even a half decent gaming pc let alone the over done and not really needed ones from some of the high end specialty builders that are going to cost you several grand and have pieces in them you are never going to use.

I've got what can be considered a halfway decent one and even the prefered and ultra spec's don't even come close to really using my computer.  Even when the pc version is built with the PC in mind. Even high Res Packs and DX11 support isn't really changing that.  And High Res pack's don't improve the worse games no matter how hard you try when the environments suck somewhat.

ME3 looks good and has some really nice environments. They aren't really that empty compared to several other games I could think of and they actually look like they were done sometime this year.  That is a good thing.  Whether you want to pick things apart out of your own boredom so that you can have something to whine about and demand or not. 

could certain details about it be improved? Probably. There usually is in just about everything.

Have some of them been improved? Definitely. You'll have to wait and see exactly what ones because you really don't know but from what I've seen the lighting as just one example already looks better than it used to.  Details on the environments do to.  And we have yet to see anything close to say like a hub world to pick up quests or anything like that yet. 

Rather than complaining about how your pc isn't really being used by the game when in reality there aren't many games if any that do. Try hoping simply they learn from things that hurt some other recent games and improved on those points at least instead of demanding they use this flashy technology or that one that isn't necessarily an improvement.

[DarthSliver]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Neurotics wrote...

Carfax wrote...

Neurotics wrote...

Lol.
The graphics are fine.
So what if they get pixilated when you zoom in really  close?

So let me ask you something.  Is it fine in your eyes for Bioware to use the same textures for PC that they use for the Xbox 360, given the fact that the modern gaming PC has far more available VRAM and system memory, plus orders of magnitude more computational power?

Would it be fine in your book, for a theoretical Mass Effect 4 that will run on the Xbox 720 (or whatever the hell it's going to be called) to have the same texture and graphical quality as it's predecessor, despite running on more advanced hardware?

I'm starting to really hate elitist PC pricks now.

I'm starting to hate console elitists who think their game machines should represent the upper limit of graphical fidelity in gaming, while willfully ignoring the obvious advantages that a PC comes with. The kicker is that when PC players start to point out said advantages, console fanboys scream "Elitist!" and shut them down.
Of course, when a game like Battlefield 3 comes along that offers significantly higher-quality graphics and a higher player count to PC players, actually utilizing the hardware capabilities of the average gaming PC, console players **** about it anyway. Does that seem right to you?

Well you do know if they made a console as good as a PC the console would cost too much and therefore gaming would die with it. A good gaming PC cost to much to buy and can cost alot to build. Also not everyone knows how to do things with PC and all that jazz so they go console for that exact reason.  I would love to become a PC gaming because i know how better it is but right now it cost too much for me to become one and consoles are well cheaper. I play games for the story it brings and to have fun, thats all that really matters to me.  Thats all it should ever matter when it comes to games. But consoles will always be behind PCs because consoles wont get the fancy hardware until it becomes cheaper to mass produce, its a fact of life being a console gamer but we deal with it. But I will admit PC is the way to go if you can afford it.

As for the OP and his complaining about it being Ported from the 360, the nerves of the guy. The game being ported is a good thing not a bad thing. It being limited to just one console makes the game harder to succeed, console exclusive hurts the company making the game more than it does if they made it for all consoles.

[firefireblow]

nelly21 wrote...

firefireblow wrote...

so how is that weather today?

lovely isn't it right?

Oh you poor, sweet, innocent child. Run! Run far away lest your soul be lost!!!

a man can dream, a man can dream.

[Bluko]

While I'm inclined to agree that ME3 isn't taking a huge leep in terms of graphics from ME2, what did you expect? It's pretty much been known since the PS3 version came out that ME3's engine was only going  to be a very slightly improved version of ME2. Which is fine by me as for the most part ME2 is a pretty good looking game for this console generation. (Shadows are bit excessive in ME2, but otherwise not much to gripe about in terms of looks.)

As far as I can tell from the gameplay demos they have been making an effort to clean up the textures. So yeah... Although again due to console limitations we likely won't see real high resolution textures and there'll still be a few fugly ones here and there.

Now the animations... gotta say what I've seen so far from ME3 looks pretty bad. Worse then ME2, which is a bit puzzling to me as I thought they already optimized them enough for better framerates. I hope what we have seen so far is just an early build and that the final product will have much more fluid animations. Although given their preference to fast-paced action I won't be entirely surprised if they simplified animations yet again so you can reload, roll, an run in 0.1 seconds. The more stupid fast your game is the more choppy you have to make animations to deal with the rapid transitions without glaring breaks.

I suspect if the OP isn't just trolling that they are more then likely being put off by the animations. I can't say I've been very impressed by Bioware's effort in this regard as all of their games have as of late had pretty lack-luster animations far as I'm concerned.

As for the environments... Erm what? They look fine to me. I won't say they're mind blowing, but so far they look a lot more dynamic then ME2's. Although admittedly it seems like the level paths are still fairly narrow and straight forward. Suppose they can't make anything too complicated without adding back a map feature. It would be nice to see a wide open environment that was actually favorable to sniping/flanking. Although due to the design of the Vanguard class this will probably never be. So Soldiers and Inflitrators who've been hoping for some legit sniping are probably SOL.

Modifié par Bluko, 01 octobre 2011 - 09:03 .

[Fixers0]

I just feel i need to respond

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...
The loot system was horrible,

Agreed, Inventory and loot were poorly excuted, that still doesn't justifiy the Improve = remove policy Bioware has aplied to the Mass Effect series.

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...
the shops were a nightmare,

Actually, to me they felt like proper gun stores, sure it does tie back into the broken iventory sustem, but it's not some a gun store that sells no guns or a shop on an islolated world that sells state-of-the-art technology.

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...
the RPG elements were laughable,

Define RPG Elements? Everyboy has a different interperations of those.

There's plenty of world interaction in both games though.

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...
and the story was too linear and got boring fast.

And that line was just a short rant about you trying to trash Mass Effect's story, by using 2 generic terms, just listen to yourself: "boring fast" Why? because it takes time to build up and establishs a universe, Because the story is in a context that's actually works because of the proper storytelling?

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...
Mass Effect 2 was a true masterpiece, and improved over the old game in every way.

That's you're opinion.

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...
I hope ME3 is as much like it as possible.

I hope not, i hope it will be a solid, inovate and challeging experiance that has believability and player interest as most important points.

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

TAJ4Life wrote...


Again Mass Effect 1 is still the best, not only did it look great but it was an RPG it had loot and all sorts

The loot system was horrible, the shops were a nightmare, the RPG elements were laughable, and the story was too linear and got boring fast.

Mass Effect 2 was a true masterpiece, and improved over the old game in every way. I hope ME3 is as much like it as possible.

As problematic as ME1 was at times, ME2 was hardly a 100% improvement over ME1. For all the improvements we did get even bigger problems were created:
-Overrall Linear gameplay- I.e. Corridor shooting
-No real difference in gameplay between classes
-No Crouch
-Too much of a cover shooter
-Unreasonably handicapped Biotic/Tech abilities
-No Vehicles (except for the lousy HH)

I'm annoyed with all the people who wish ME3 completely regressed back to ME1 mechanics but I am also put off by people who seem to think ME2 is a huge improvement over ME1. It wasn't. It succeeded in some way and failed in others.

[littlezack]

[quote]TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...


[/quote]As problematic as ME1 was at times, ME2 was hardly a 100% improvement over ME1. For all the -Overrall
-No real difference in gameplay between classes
-No Crouch


[/quote]

The others I'd argue with you about, but these seem a bit, well, wrong. ME2's classes are very different from each other; each class relies on a different set of tactics. You can't play an Infiltrator like you play a Vanguard, you can't play an Adept like you play a soldier (and be successful, anyway) Each class approaches combat in very distinct ways.

And there's no crouching because there's no real need to crouch. The main reason you crouched in ME1 was to increase accuracy, which you don't need to do in ME2. If crouching was in, it'd be a pointless feature.

[Dionkey]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Neurotics wrote...

Carfax wrote...

Neurotics wrote...

Lol.
The graphics are fine.
So what if they get pixilated when you zoom in really  close?

So let me ask you something.  Is it fine in your eyes for Bioware to use the same textures for PC that they use for the Xbox 360, given the fact that the modern gaming PC has far more available VRAM and system memory, plus orders of magnitude more computational power?

Would it be fine in your book, for a theoretical Mass Effect 4 that will run on the Xbox 720 (or whatever the hell it's going to be called) to have the same texture and graphical quality as it's predecessor, despite running on more advanced hardware?

I'm starting to really hate elitist PC pricks now.

I'm starting to hate console elitists who think their game machines should represent the upper limit of graphical fidelity in gaming, while willfully ignoring the obvious advantages that a PC comes with. The kicker is that when PC players start to point out said advantages, console fanboys scream "Elitist!" and shut them down.
Of course, when a game like Battlefield 3 comes along that offers significantly higher-quality graphics and a higher player count to PC players, actually utilizing the hardware capabilities of the average gaming PC, console players **** about it anyway. Does that seem right to you?

LOL U TROLL HAHAHA MAD PWNEDDD

On a serious note: I totally agree with you. Games should be developed and optimized for the PC, and then ported to consoles. It's like slowly deconstructing a tower, you start from the top and go down. Starting at the bottom and staying there is counter-productive and only serves a portion of your audience.

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

[quote]littlezack wrote...

[quote]TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...


[/quote]As problematic as ME1 was at times, ME2 was hardly a 100% improvement over ME1. For all the -Overrall
-No real difference in gameplay between classes
-No Crouch


[/quote]

The others I'd argue with you about, but these seem a bit, well, wrong. ME2's classes are very different from each other; each class relies on a different set of tactics. You can't play an Infiltrator like you play a Vanguard, you can't play an Adept like you play a soldier (and be successful, anyway) Each class approaches combat in very distinct ways.

And there's no crouching because there's no real need to crouch. The main reason you crouched in ME1 was to increase accuracy, which you don't need to do in ME2. If crouching was in, it'd be a pointless feature.

[/quote] I'm just comparing how I personally played all classes in ME2 as opposed to ME1. Essentially, it didn't really change all that much. With the exception of using powers to a degree I personally saw very little nuances. 

For me crouch served a much more important purpose than steadying a shot. It allowed me to fire outside of cover and not rely to heavily on it like in ME2. It made retreating from fire a bit easier and moving from cover to cover was a much more viable tactic. Besides how else would you maintain a lower profile in combat when there is no cover. Prone would be the best option obviously (and I hoped that would be in ME2) but that's an unlikely addition.

I know that there are some technical reasons why crouch wasn't in ME2 but there was a much bigger issue: 
ME2's entire combat mechanics were fundamentally flawed. The fact that improving enemy AI meant than they ALWAYS hit you whenever you were out of cover was the first problem I noticed. That led to the entire game being a cover shooter. (and not a very good one. GTA 4 and RDR moreso worked so much more as cover shooters) Do even get me started on the blatantly obvious cover that was a clear as day.(Purgatory was the biggest offender)  Then there are the robotic movement animations that are even worse than ME1. The fact that every time you wanted to more from cover to cover you had to be a bullet sponge because A) Enemy AI are the most talented marksmen in the Galaxy and Shepard and Squad have to stand up like marching soldiers whenever there was no cover around or if you are transitioning from cover to cover.

Prime examples of thise can be seen here:
Shepard meeting Jacob:
www.youtube.com/watch (Starting at 5:27)

Firefight: (Liara vs Vasir)
www.youtube.com/watch (Starting 0:09)

I always facepalm seeing how unnatural those animations were. I'm moreso annoyed at Shepard standing in the middle of a firefight instead of doing a running crouch. To me that is one reason why ME2 took a considerable step backward.  

Modifié par TheShogunOfHarlem, 01 octobre 2011 - 10:37 .

[Thompson family]

ME3 doesn't look any better or different from ME2...

Life sucks, then you die.

[Beerfish]

Get ready for much much more of this when ME3 is released boys and girls. After the volume of sheer and utter trash on the DA2 forums after some people being 'dissapointed in it' and very little hard moderation on the subject there will be a box load of 'critique' posts like this.

[Mx_CN3]

If the textures in ME3 look anywhere near as good as Hackett did in Arrival, then I will be happy. Other than that, they did do a lot of stuff so well in ME2 that it'd be hard to make it better without screwing over the console players.

Also, I would like to point out that when they released the demo of Dragon Age 2 (I think it was 2-3 weeks before release?), I felt that the game looked and played like crap, and I nearly cancelled my preorder, but the final game was much better in both areas.

Summary: calm down, it'll be fine. A game that is in development is not the same as a released product.

[The Elder King]

Mx_CN3 wrote...

If the textures in ME3 look anywhere near as good as Hackett did in Arrival, then I will be happy. Other than that, they did do a lot of stuff so well in ME2 that it'd be hard to make it better without screwing over the console players.

Also, I would like to point out that when they released the demo of Dragon Age 2 (I think it was 2-3 weeks before release?), I felt that the game looked and played like crap, and I nearly cancelled my preorder, but the final game was much better in both areas.

Summary: calm down, it'll be fine. A game that is in development is not the same as a released product.

I felt the opposite with DA2. But probably because the game (which isn't that bad, though I prefer DAO) was rushed and nearly unplayable. Though it was hilarious to see Hawke moving like Neo and Morfeous.
Anyway, I agree that people should calm down. Though from what I saw from the various demo and a ME2/ME3 graphics analysis video, they improved the graphics. They could do a lot of things to make the game better in term of graphics in this months. Though I think they should implemente high-res textures for the PC version like they did with DA2.

Modifié par hhh89, 01 octobre 2011 - 10:54 .

[Shockwave81]

JimiShep wrote...

Captain Crash wrote...

Righttttttt.....

OP did you even watch this video???????

Ugh...the youtube user put promotional screenshots (possibly touched up by BioWare) and videos in a 'comparison' video.  He/she also mentions 'God Rays' as being a technically challenging component of video game presentation - funny thing is that I remember seeing them at various times in Mass Effect 2, it's hardly a 'vast improvement' worth mentioning. 

I don't necessarily agree with the OP, but I sure as hell won't agree with drooling sycophants either.  

Mass Effect 3 does look nice, but it doesn't look significantly better than ME2 from what I've seen.  It's certainly not worth the endless posts and threads that pop up in criticism/defence of it.  

Only a few more months until I can play ME3 and the obsession will end - in addition to my visits to BSN.

[aquaticidioticus]

My reaction to this thread:

[Arkitekt]

OP should be banned for stupidity, blindness, trollness, stubborness, etc.

All of his statements could be switched over and only then make some connection with reality.

That is all.

[JeffZero]

TAJ4Life wrote...

I like ME1 more than ME2.

Cool. I like them both equally.