157 réponses à ce sujet

[eye basher]

I just come here to read the funny comments.

[Arkitekt]

eye basher wrote...

I just come here to read the funny comments.

Thing is, if the OP had written a sane thread opener, with the question on how and why and where are the graphical engines of mass effect (or bioware games for that matter) going for, what are their limitations and why there are no substancial differences between mass effect games, many good answers would have been produced already.

As is, it's just a battle of stupidity, blindness, devotion to ME1 vs ME2, etc.,etc.

There are good reasons why ME3 looks similar to ME2 and ME1. It's much better (specially the lighting and the textures, alongside with a few effects), but it is undeniable that 5 years were gone between the 1st and the 3rd. In 1993 id produced Doom, and in 1998 id had launched quake 2 (in christmas 97). The qualitative difference between those two games is far greater than the qualitative difference between ME1 and ME3.

Now we could get ourselves a good thread and explain why this is so, but I seriously doubt this is possible given the utter immature level that the OP degraded this discussion from the start.

[Ruathrar]

TAJ4Life wrote...

I was at the Eurogamer Expo and had a go on ME3 at first glance it just all looked brighter, and then the same usual static boring empty enivironments, same robotic moving characters and then alas Commander Shepard with his robot face emotionless look.

Since this is supposed to be the end in the trilogy the final attack etc I would have thought Bioware would have put more time and effort in making this game look epic and feel epic.

Why not give the characters a better feel and look? Why not make the characters seem important? Why not include things in the environment?

Also in ME1 it was all about being a Spectre however it did have some feeling of importance when you became one yet in 2 it means nothing and in 3? Well time will tell.


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 personally having tried ME3 its just ME 2.5 at best its a big shame I was seriously hoping given Biowares reputation on making some pretty awesome games that ME3 would have had a lot more to in it.

But I guess thats what happens when you go over to EA...You are forces to make games yearly...If only you guys has gone with Microsoft and kept it exclusive eh?

Don't like it ... don't buy it. Problem solved.

[Carfax]

jreezy wrote...

Hardware limitations maybe?

This in combination with typical Bioware laziness and lack of ingenuity when it comes to visual presentation.

Batman Arkham City, which uses the same engine as Mass Effect 2 and 3, looks arguably much better, with significantly more detailed textures and superior animations......and don't even mention the PC version of Arkham City, because that just blows ME3 clear out of the water..

I will admit though, that ME3 does look noticeably better than ME2....though thats not saying much, because ME2 wasn't much to look at to begin with.

[Kijin]

Since when do graphics matter? I can understand why somebody would enjoy playing a game with amazing graphics, but graphics seem to be the more important than the gamplay for so many people. The amount of arrogance and ignorance in this thread is astounding, and both sides are responsible. According to critical and fan acclaim, both ME 1 and ME 2 are classics. Which one is better is largely a matter of opinion. With that said, both games are hardly perfect.

ME 1 was more open-ended, with far more side quests and the planet exploration aspect was quite fun. Unfortunately, the worlds you could explore using the MAKO tended to be bland wastelands. In comparison, the few planets you could explore in ME 2 were vibrant and full of life. The planet you could explore in Mass Effect 2: Overlord was far more beautiful than any planet in ME 1 - but it's still only one planet. I don't expect every planet to be scenic, but they should at least be interesting - I don't want to look at barren rocks dozens of times in a playthrough. 

The individual who made the thread also mentioned Sheppard's emotionless face and awkward movements. Granted, the movement animations are a little jerky, and the facial animations could be improved, but these are two problems that every Bioware game since Jade Empire has had. The fact that ME 3 does not improve in those two areas should not come as a surprise. The facial and movement animations are still better than most games. Hell, there are many other AAA titles (God of War franchise, Call of Duty franchise, Halo franchise, Fallout 3, Oblivion, arguably Skyrim, arguably Deus Ex: Human Revolution and the Witcher 2, etc) whose facial and movement animations are worse than those found in ME 1 and 2. And as I said before - who cares? RPG classics like Planescape Torment had virtually no facial animation, yet they are still incredible to play, even today. 

[shinobi602]

3:15 to 4:15

Better visuals than anything I've seen in ME2.

[Carfax]

Kijin wrote...

RPG classics like Planescape Torment had virtually no facial animation, yet they are still incredible to play, even today. 

Thats an erroneous comparison, because PST was an isometric 2D game, so the focus was never on graphics or animation to begin with.

3D games like Mass Effect on the other hand, are graphics bound by their very nature, because they attempt to mirror the real world much more closely.

[Kijin]

Carfax wrote...

Kijin wrote...

RPG classics like Planescape Torment had virtually no facial animation, yet they are still incredible to play, even today. 

Thats an erroneous comparison, because PST was an isometric 2D game, so the focus was never on graphics or animation to begin with.

3D games like Mass Effect on the other hand, are graphics bound by their very nature, because they attempt to mirror the real world much more closely.

No, it's not erroneous. I realize that Planescape was an isometric 2D game - but by today's standards, it's graphics are antiquated. Quite frankly, they're ugly. Hell, it's graphics weren't amazing even when the game was first released. 
Yet that does not change the fact that it is one of the greatest games of all time. 

A game that looks good today, will look horrible 2 years from now. Yet a game with great  gameplay will always be fun to play. 

Edit: Whether or not ME 3 is a good game won't be determined by how good it looks.  

Modifié par Kijin, 02 octobre 2011 - 12:47 .

[Carfax]

Kijin wrote...
No, it's not erroneous. I realize that Planescape was an isometric 2D game - but by today's standards, it's graphics are antiquated. Quite frankly, they're ugly. Hell, it's graphics weren't amazing even when the game was first released. 
Yet that does not change the fact that it is one of the greatest games of all time. 

Again, no one is saying that a game can't have good graphics yet still be fun to play.  Lots of games are like that, including some of the greatest games ever created.

However, games like Mass Effect cannot be compared to games like PST, BG, Super Mario Bros etc, because it is 3D and attempts to mirror the real world closely from a visual perspective. 

When you do that, you unintentionally open yourself up to criticism when your "imitation" World isn't as immersive and realistic as it could be.

[Kijin]

Carfax wrote...
Again, no one is saying that a game can't have good graphics yet still be fun to play.  Lots of games are like that, including some of the greatest games ever created.

However, games like Mass Effect cannot be compared to games like PST, BG, Super Mario Bros etc, because it is 3D and attempts to mirror the real world closely from a visual perspective. 

When you do that, you unintentionally open yourself up to criticism when your "imitation" World isn't as immersive and realistic as it could be.

...I'm not comparing a 2D platformer to an RPG. I'm comparing a 2D RPG to a 3D RPG. Let me be clear: games like Planescape (or Fallout, or Ultima, or whatever your old school RPG of choice may be) are not great because they look good. People come back to those games time and time again because of the roleplaying depth they had. This is especially true of Torment - it still provides one of the deepest roleplaying experiences ever found in video gaming.

and since when is the ME world realistic? ME is a fantasy series in space. Hell, some of the main characters use magic (you can call them Biotic abilities or Force powers all you like, but it's still a semi-mystical, poorly explained energy source capable of performing feats that seem supernatural). The ME universe is just as fantastical and unrealistic as games like Planescape, or Baldur's Gate. The fact that it's in 3D doesn't make it more or less realistic. It simply changes how the game is presented. But at its core, ME 1 (and to a lesser extent ME 2) are supposed to be Roleplaying games, which means the core appeal of the genre should still be there. And to a large extent, those elements are present in both ME 1 and ME 2.  

Edit: I'm honestly trying to respond to your posts, but I'm not quite understanding your overall premise. You seem to think that the graphics of 3D games can't be compared to the graphics of 2D games, and I can't understand why you think this way.

Modifié par Kijin, 02 octobre 2011 - 01:25 .

[Sethan_1]

Kijin wrote...

Since when do graphics matter? I can
understand why somebody would enjoy playing a game with amazing
graphics, but graphics seem to be the more important than the gamplay
for so many people.

*ding*

Give that man a prize.

Gameplay matters more than graphics, especially if you're going to play the game more than once.

I'm a PC gamer with a high-end PC, and the single-player game I play when I get bored with the substanceless glitz that is most modern games, was released in 1994, with graphics that weren't cutting edge even then.  It has great gameplay which is why I keep going back to it.  The multiplayer game I play was released in 2002.

My measure of value on a game is how much play time I get.  If it was fun to play once, I don't feel like I was ripped off, but don't really feel like I got good value either.  If I can go back to a game month after month, year after year, and enjoy the game play - then that game was a heck of a value, whether I paid $10 for it or $100.

Recently I've been playing ME1 and ME2 again, and enjoying them... so, by my measure, good value there.  Based on what we know will be in ME3, and the fact that Bioware/EA is manifestly NOT rushing it out for Christmas, I expect it to be an excellent game - and wouldn't be disappointed if there was no graphics improvement (though I know there will be).

[Edit - Having worked in the game industry, I'll add this:

It took guts and integrity for Bioware/EA to resist rushing the game out for Christmas 2011.  Kudos to them for taking a stand on that, and it is one of the factors that makes me want to pre-order (depending on the DRM).]

Modifié par Sethan_1, 02 octobre 2011 - 01:25 .

[Shockwave81]

Sethan_1 wrote...
It took guts and integrity for Bioware/EA to resist rushing the game out for Christmas 2011.  Kudos to them for taking a stand on that, and it is one of the factors that makes me want to pre-order (depending on the DRM).]

And of course had nothing at all to do with the studio releasing a rather ambitious MMORPG around that time of year?

[Carfax]

Kijin wrote...

and since when is the ME world realistic?

Mass Effect isn't realistic, but it attempts to create a hypothetical World almost 200 years from the present thats as realistic as possible.  Earth, and many other real planets are featured in the storyline, and so are many of the cities and nations that exist today as well.

Anyway, thats irrelevent.  The art, animations and graphics style try to be as realistic as possible.  They even used the facial scan of a real person as the basis for Commander Shepard's face..
 

ME is a fantasy series in space. Hell, some of the main characters use magic (you can call them Biotic abilities or Force powers all you like, but it's still a semi-mystical, poorly explained energy source capable of performing feats that seem supernatural). The ME universe is just as fantastical and unrealistic as games like Planescape, or Baldur's Gate. The fact that it's in 3D doesn't make it more or less realistic. It simply changes how the game is presented. But at its core, ME 1 (and to a lesser extent ME 2) are supposed to be Roleplaying games, which means the core appeal of the genre should still be there. And to a large extent, those elements are present in both ME 1 and ME 2.

Does ME have fantastical elements?  Yes it does, but to compare it to the likes of PST or BG is simply ludicrous.   

PST and BG are complete fantasy, where as ME is more Sci-Fi/fantasy.. 

Edit: I'm honestly trying to respond to your posts, but I'm not quite understanding your overall premise. You seem to think that the graphics of 3D games can't be compared to the graphics of 2D games, and I can't understand why you think this way.

It's simple.  3D graphics are inherently more realistic than 2D.  Increased realism is the whole point of 3D graphics!

[Made Nightwing]

Not sure if the OP be trolling...or just an anti-social dick.

[Kijin]

Carfax wrote...

Mass Effect isn't realistic, but it attempts to create a hypothetical World almost 200 years from the present thats as realistic as possible.  Earth, and many other real planets are featured in the storyline, and so are many of the cities and nations that exist today as well.

Anyway, thats irrelevent.  The art, animations and graphics style try to be as realistic as possible.  They even used the facial scan of a real person as the basis for Commander Shepard's face..
 
Does ME have fantastical elements?  Yes it does, but to compare it to the likes of PST or BG is simply ludicrous.   

PST and BG are complete fantasy, where as ME is more Sci-Fi/fantasy.. 

It's simple.  3D graphics are inherently more realistic than 2D.  Increased realism is the whole point of 3D graphics!

That's not the premise I was referring to. The central point I was arguing in my first post was that, in any video game, the gameplay was far more important. To help prove my point, I brought up Planescape, which is still a classic, despite the fact that its graphics have aged.

Planescape (and 90s RPGs like it) aren't classics because their graphics are two-dimensional, or because they're not three-dimensional - they're classics  because they're a blast to play. I consider DAO to be a classic, not because of its graphics, but because I love the story, the characters and the complicated morality. In short, I find the gameplay to be far more enjoyable than DA 2 (although I do love DA 2 and it could have been a classic, but the 1 year development time really hurt it). 

When Mass Effect 1 came out, people raved about how beautiful it looked - but compare ME 1's graphics to modern games, and you can clearly see, in the graphics department, ME 1 does not stack up. A game with great graphics TODAY will not have great graphics a year from now, but a game with great gameplay today will still be awesome 10 or 20 years from now. 

That is my premise. I want to understand and respond to your posts, but I don't quite see how you can't compare ME 1/2 to Torment, or Fallout, or DAO - they are all RPGs. Granted, ME 2 is an Action RPG - but I'd argue it still has strong roleplaying elements. The fact that ME 1 and 2, DAO, DA2 and Jade Empire are all 3D does not make them better or worse than Fallout, or Torment, or Ultima, or Arcanum (underrated classics FTW). You may think ME 3 looks beautiful - 5 years from now, you won't. 

Modifié par Kijin, 02 octobre 2011 - 02:50 .

[shepskisaac]

For all I care games could stay on late PS2/Xbox1 graphics level too me in the industry. It's sure nice to look at pretty visuals, but as long as I know what I'm looking at (unlike early 3D games), then I'm mostly concerned about gameplay and story.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 02 octobre 2011 - 02:32 .

[shadowhunter509]

well it looks like the nerd war is over on this post
i shall find annother

[Gatt9]

Carfax wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Hardware limitations maybe?

This in combination with typical Bioware laziness and lack of ingenuity when it comes to visual presentation.

Batman Arkham City, which uses the same engine as Mass Effect 2 and 3, looks arguably much better, with significantly more detailed textures and superior animations......and don't even mention the PC version of Arkham City, because that just blows ME3 clear out of the water..

I will admit though, that ME3 does look noticeably better than ME2....though thats not saying much, because ME2 wasn't much to look at to begin with.

It's not really laziness or lack of ingenuity,  it's more a lack of good design when creating ME's version of the engine and EA's need for making things at the absolute cheapest production value possible.  The ME engine version clearly wasn't designed well,  as evidenced by the large number of other technological roadblocks,  and EA's buisness plan to is to create sequels as fast as possible reusing the original engine with little effort to improve it.

As always,  most of the problems stem from EA's involvement.

Does ME have fantastical elements? Yes it does, but to compare it to the likes of PST or BG is simply ludicrous.

PST and BG are complete fantasy, where as ME is more Sci-Fi/fantasy..

There's no difference.  In Fantasy it's called magic,  in Sci-Fi it's called "Science!",  they both do the same thing.  In fact,  give me a couple days with the 2nd edition AD&D series of spell books,  and I would bet my next paycheck that I could find a spell whose description is identical to all the biotic powers except the combat drone,  and I'd argue that is the equivalent of a Summoning spell.

Further,  I'd argue that you do not want realistic graphics,  especially in the ME series.  Sci-Fi works only via suspension of disbelief,  the components must be sufficiently detailed to be recognizable and understandable,  but sufficiently vague so that people don't relate it to real world objects and see through the illusion.

The last Star Trek is a great example,  it tred *way* too close to what is common knowledge and received numerous complaints about it.  The Black Holes were often complained about,  because people are well aware what a Black Hole is going to do to you.  Scotty's trip through the engine room tubes is a good example of not being sufficiently specific enough,  many people complained because he was "Bathed in chemicals!",  not realizing that the term "Inert Coolant" means water,  not chemicals.

ME has alot of glaring problems.  People wandering around naked in firefights,  "Thermal clips" that already challenge anyone who's seen the inside of a computer case to not laugh at them,  the design of the normandy that would make pretty much all of it's space maneuvers completely impossible.  I would argue that making the graphics "More realistic" would be counter-productive.  I'd argue that if you increased the realism significantly,  the already glaring improbabilities would be even harder to accept.

Now don't misunderstand,  I'm not saying that it shouldn't be made to look better,  the game is in desperate need of anti-aliasing and other techniques.  I'm saying that in this,  and TBH most games,  photo-realism is an extremely counterproductive goal.  Especially when they take completely insane approaches...and expect consumers to not notice.  ME2 isn't the worst offender,  Fallout 3 is hands down.  "Drinking water from a radiated toilet bowl heals you!  Never mind those prevously deadly bacteria that undoubtably mutated into something that should be lethal in seconds!"

[gammameggon]

I don't care too much about "graphics". Really? "Graphics"? I recognize and agree these new animations look pathetic, although it may just be an early build. Yet why show it without that disclaimer?

Mass Effect, instead of how it is being made, should have maintained a KOTOR / The Old Republic feel to it. Shooting kill should have been based off of just that...the characters' skill...I mean, not that Shepard is nothing more than BioWare's character they loan out to us, anyway. To not have Skills be the primary and indistinguishable bond and influence in how Shepard shoots is ridiculous for a role playing game. But even then, as a genuine hybrid, I'd be ok with it. It's the corridors...the endless, narrow, confining and damn linear gameplay I don't like AT ALL. It seems to have gotten much worse; and vistas are nice scenery but are only illusions that don't change the fact of how linear it is. Now there are cinematic loadscreens when you reach a certain part in the linear progression that unlocks yet another linear path.

Then there's the plasticness we are seeing. IMO, the omni-tool is a plastic and cheesy add-in that completely alters my perception of the game in general. Wtf is the omni-blade....what a completely lame, superawesomebutton, facepalm and ridiculous thing. Add that in to what we see with FemShep. What. The. Heck? Way to pull a page from the Nintendo/Metroid/Samus fiasco and create this artificial and corporately built character. Its their IP, but boy does it seem to make the characterization shallow. Same with Hawke and that neatly placed blood-smear on the nose. Some really, really cheesy and fake characterization.

I have a strange suspicion there isn't being much shown of the story not because people cried spoilers, but because it isn't the primary focus of the game anymore and even if there is a lot of relative content, it suffers from DA2 syndrome. I mean, its already delegated to just saving earth for the 100 millionth time when the Reapers are interested in harvesting all life in the galaxy. Supposedly...I thought that was the case?? Anyhow, we know, too, all we need to do is unite the galaxy for a final battle-royal showdown. This decharacterizes them sooooooo much. Based on the characterization up until now, they would absolutely obliterate a unified force with utter ease. This implies their characterization is severely lowered, which doesn't bode too well with me and even if you think its too early to state....with many others. What...is Shepard gonna find some big handy dandy Super Ray to kill the baddies with? Oh look, a big powerful gun!!!! Ha, Reapers!

Is there a BioWare game anymore where there isn't this big Recruit Fest that occurs, because I want to see it again. I mean, cmon, really?

Be prepared for many a narrow corridor ahead. Two-levels and a ladder in route to mix it up is laziness and not even a genuine effort. We aren't buying it, BioWare. You know what we meant by non-linear exploration. But at least there is ubercool guns, right! And an Energy Sword!

Modifié par gammameggon, 02 octobre 2011 - 05:56 .

[moneycashgeorge]

Kijin wrote...

That's not the premise I was referring to. The central point I was arguing in my first post was that, in any video game, the gameplay was far more important. To help prove my point, I brought up Planescape, which is still a classic, despite the fact that its graphics have aged.

Planescape (and 90s RPGs like it) aren't classics because their graphics are two-dimensional, or because they're not three-dimensional - they're classics  because they're a blast to play. I consider DAO to be a classic, not because of its graphics, but because I love the story, the characters and the complicated morality. In short, I find the gameplay to be far more enjoyable than DA 2 (although I do love DA 2 and it could have been a classic, but the 1 year development time really hurt it). 

When Mass Effect 1 came out, people raved about how beautiful it looked - but compare ME 1's graphics to modern games, and you can clearly see, in the graphics department, ME 1 does not stack up. A game with great graphics TODAY will not have great graphics a year from now, but a game with great gameplay today will still be awesome 10 or 20 years from now. 

That is my premise. I want to understand and respond to your posts, but I don't quite see how you can't compare ME 1/2 to Torment, or Fallout, or DAO - they are all RPGs. Granted, ME 2 is an Action RPG - but I'd argue it still has strong roleplaying elements. The fact that ME 1 and 2, DAO, DA2 and Jade Empire are all 3D does not make them better or worse than Fallout, or Torment, or Ultima, or Arcanum (underrated classics FTW). You may think ME 3 looks beautiful - 5 years from now, you won't. 

Actually Kijin, Carfax is making perfect sense and you are the one who is failing to grasp a simple argument. Its completely true that graphics inherantly play a much large role in games trying to imitate reality than any games made in an intrinsically unrealistic way, like 2D, Isometric, or stylized 3D games like Mario 64.

There is a fundamental difference between those kinds of games and many modern games, for example the Mass Effect series, in which everything is intended to appear the way it would if it was viewed in real life. The people are meant to look like people, the aliens are meant to look the way they would if you actually met them.

No one is saying that means its better, but it means the two distinct graphical approaches aren't directly comparable. Graphics will always be important in "visually realistic" games, because the illusion of reality is part of the appeal. As people's standards constantly improve, it becomes more and more difficult to maintain that illusion. As you yourself said, ME1 doesnt look nearly as good today as it did on release, because your graphical standards have become more critical and discerning, as a result of better technology. The reality illusion inflates perpetually, and developers have to keep up.

[robarcool]

Well, I haven't played any demo of the game, but I will say that 10 minutes could be a little too short to judge a game. TC, if you are not happy with the current progress level in ME3, play it after launch if you find the reviews favorable. Problem solved! I will play it even if it is not much better than ME2 because ME2 is itself a neat game despite its imperfections and I want to complete the story.

[robarcool]

IsaacShep wrote...

For all I care games could stay on late PS2/Xbox1 graphics level too me in the industry. It's sure nice to look at pretty visuals, but as long as I know what I'm looking at (unlike early 3D games), then I'm mostly concerned about gameplay and story.

I like to have good visuals, though not at the cost of gameplay. Good visuals improve the experience if gameplay is solid.

[robarcool]

jreezy wrote...

Carfax wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Hardware limitations maybe?

This in combination with typical Bioware laziness and lack of ingenuity when it comes to visual presentation.

Batman Arkham City, which uses the same engine as Mass Effect 2 and 3, looks arguably much better, with significantly more detailed textures and superior animations......and don't even mention the PC version of Arkham City, because that just blows ME3 clear out of the water..

I will admit though, that ME3 does look noticeably better than ME2....though thats not saying much, because ME2 wasn't much to look at to begin with.

Yeah it just seems like BioWare just doesn't know how to utilize the UE like other developers. Gears of War 3 looks a lot better than Gears of War 2 imo because Epic knows how to squeeze a lot out of the engine (obviously).

I agree. Batman AC looks really good compared to ME3, but ME3 is not bad looking by any standards. Improvements will be welcome though.