157 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainne Chapel]

gammameggon wrote...

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!

Gamma... you seem REALLY hung up on this non-linear exploration stuff....Why?

ME isn't a sandbox, never was, So why do you think non linear exploration will come into play?  I have never seen... any game really, that has full freeform non linear exploration honestly, except maybe a big sandbox game where you can go anywhere and do anything so to speak.... doubt we'll see that in ME3 honestly, ME isn't built like that really. Even ME1 wasn't.0

Big square boxes with copy/paste buildings from ME1 is not non linear, It's just a bigger corridor really. and as for combat, well ME was ALWAYS billed as a hybrid action/rpg, So.... shooting being controlled by the character is great for the feel of the game/setting I would say, need to have the "action" part somewhere right? Combat would fit that bill

But then i take it you're the type that over-generalizes and over-estimates his own opinion when it comes to something like your word is gospel and if gamma doesn't like it... it must be bad right?

[vvDRUCILLAvv]

If ME3 looks as good as ME 2 I will be happy.

[sorentoft]

ITT: Thinking graphics makes for a good game. Also that stats and skills are an essential part of an RPG.

I laugh at the foolishness.

[Fishy]

Do you guy realize that higher fidelitly and better technology is the primary reason that gameplay in videogame  get better? If we were  still controlling sprites well keep saving the princess.

Anyway ... has for the subject of the conversation . No idea op . We haven't seen much to be honest.

Modifié par Suprez30, 02 octobre 2011 - 11:11 .

[Nizzemancer]

successful troll is successful

[Umbrage_89]

From the day I finished playing ME2 to this present day, I've never thought once about the graphics in ME3.
(because I know that the graphics can not possibly get worse than ME2)

My thoughts are rather: How will Ashley react after she finds out I cheated her?
                                          What is the origin of the reapers?
                                          What will happen to the illusive man?
                                          What new characters are there going to be?
                                          
                                                  ... to name a few

[Kijin]

moneycashgeorge wrote...

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.

The nature of the graphics, and the perspective from which you play the game will change how that game is played, this is true. As a 3D, Third-Person Shooter, Mass Effect 2 plays a lot different from a 2D isometric game like Fallout. This does not mean that Mass Effect 2 or Planescape is automatically better. Improved graphics does not mean that the gameplay has gotten better, and it certainly does not mean that the gameplay has gotten worse. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to AAA titles, the  quality of gameplay has remained more or less the same in the last 10-15 years. Games haven't gotten more or less fun for me (at least, not the games that I've been playing). 

Developers constantly work on better graphics, mainly for marketing - Bioware, like any other developer, wants to make money and if they were to release a game that the gaming community thought had subpar graphics, the game probably wouldn't sell as well as a game with superior graphics. I am aware of this - I just don't think this has any impact on the gameplay. 

I truly don't understand your fascination with graphics - this is my entire point! It's all you want to talk about. The fact that Mass Effect 1 no longer looks great does NOT MEAN it's less fun to play! The fact that Mass Effect 3 will look far better than Mass Effect 1 does not mean it is a superior product. You can talk about the "illusion of reality" all you like - but what you really are talking about is how immersive the game is. I simply disagree - I have never played a game, in which the game's great graphics have made it more immersive or enjoyable. 

Your argument can essentially be broken down into: Newer games have better graphics, which therefore means they are more immersive. You must have figured that I would completely disagree with you - my "graphical standards" are non-existent - I don't judge a game if it has bad graphics. I do judge a game if it's not fun to play. I get it - YOU think graphics are important. However, I am willing to play a great game, regardless of how it looks - and if you read back through the comments, you'll see that many people agree with me. 

The quality of the graphics does not affect the game's immersiveness, it's gameplay, and it certainly does not guarantee that it will be a better game. For me, and many other people in this thread, that is the reality. I don't care if ME 1 doesn't look as good as ME 2. Likewise, I don't care if DAO looks far worse than DA2 - I still think DAO is the better game.

Modifié par Kijin, 02 octobre 2011 - 02:53 .

[Ohei]

My opinion:

I'm an artist. I work with digital art, sketching, 3D texture appliance and some other means. I LOVE me some good eye candy, especially from videogames: it amazes me how far the industry has gotten. When graphics improve, so does my smile as I play through the game, because I love paying attention to the detail of the surroundings and the high detail that is present all over the characters. It is a HUGE plus when a game has beautiful graphics.

Mass Effect 2 had beautiful graphics. I don't see why Mass Effect 3 could disappoint in ANY way.

Now, will this affect how I feel about the game? Hell no. I love the series, I will play them if they look beautiful or mediocre. I play the ME games for the story, immersion, character depth and gameplay itself in some aspects. Beautiful graphics are just a plus. BECAUSE I work in the area, and as an artist AND a spectator, improved graphics add to my overall experience.

So for you all saying that people who believe graphics hold a level of importance are naive, or stupid, or do not know what makes a good game, or whatever the heck, here's the catch:

Graphics are not all. They're simply a plus. They're not what define a good game from a bad game. They're simply a very enjoyable plus, to some of us at least. Period.

Mass Effect 3 looks lovely. Not the reason I will be buying it, but I'll probably be smiling constantly as I play.

Modifié par Ohei, 02 octobre 2011 - 04:24 .