645 réponses à ce sujet

[Xarathox]

Fpriestly wrote...

Gaiden96 wrote...

How does it affect your enjoyment in any significant way though?

Unless you're playing the game for the mechanics alone I don't see how it would be a deterrent to something as broad and expansive as ME3.

As one poster above said, it's an immersion breaker.

Not just that though.  It just irks me knowing that I've paid for mediocrity from a game developer...

Ever played Batman Arkham City?  It's the best comic book hero game ever, and one of the best games of all time.  The metacritic score is insane.

Anyway, Rocksteady, an amateur developer with only one title under their belt managed to pull off something that Bioware has never been able to do, despite their much greater experience.

Rocksteady made a game (using UE3.5) that gave their fans/consumers high resolution textures, PhysX, 3D Vision, realistic looking hair and hair physics, smooth animations, awesome gameplay.....and the list goes on.

Now if Rocksteady can do it, why can't Bioware?  Bioware can do it I have no doubt, but they cut one too many corners, and thats mostly because their fanbase allows them to do so.

How many times have I heard on these forums,"You don't play Bioware games for the graphics, you play them for the story."

But who says we have to choose between a great story and great graphics?  The two have been merged successfully before many times, and since Bioware is supposedly a AAA developer, you'd think they'd have the capability to do it.

But they always fall short, due to laziness I think.

I'ma make love to this post.

[LeCavalier]

Fpriestly wrote...

Gaiden96 wrote...

How does it affect your enjoyment in any significant way though?

Unless you're playing the game for the mechanics alone I don't see how it would be a deterrent to something as broad and expansive as ME3.

As one poster above said, it's an immersion breaker.

Not just that though.  It just irks me knowing that I've paid for mediocrity from a game developer...

Ever played Batman Arkham City?  It's the best comic book hero game ever, and one of the best games of all time.  The metacritic score is insane.

Anyway, Rocksteady, an amateur developer with only one title under their belt managed to pull off something that Bioware has never been able to do, despite their much greater experience.

Rocksteady made a game (using UE3.5) that gave their fans/consumers high resolution textures, PhysX, 3D Vision, realistic looking hair and hair physics, smooth animations, awesome gameplay.....and the list goes on.

Now if Rocksteady can do it, why can't Bioware?  Bioware can do it I have no doubt, but they cut one too many corners, and thats mostly because their fanbase allows them to do so.

How many times have I heard on these forums,"You don't play Bioware games for the graphics, you play them for the story."

But who says we have to choose between a great story and great graphics?  The two have been merged successfully before many times, and since Bioware is supposedly a AAA developer, you'd think they'd have the capability to do it.

But they always fall short, due to laziness I think.

Aye.

[Agamo45]

Can someone post a video that shows these apparently awful animations?

[DnVill]

Michel1986 wrote...

Well I think its a resource issue. THey can easily put 3d objects with decent animations there and appease everyone so they can watch people run around while the reapers rip Earth appart. Say they do... then I would like to see players with their xbox 360s try and handle the extra resource load. 

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

I agree that the demo is either a) missing animations to save on size, representative of a very unfinished product and hopefully not the product we will receive come launch.

Also omg the movement animations, they are bad, like free MMORPG mad, I don't know what they were thinking in that respect...other than that nothing else negative caught my eye, most of the visuals looked good, the cutscenes seemed a little different, but maybe its because I'm so used to some other games I've been playing.

[LeCavalier]

Agamo45 wrote...

Can someone post a video that shows these apparently awful animations?

There is a post with a gif showing it on one of the pages. It shows Anderson awkward running and how stiff Shep looks while default running.

[slimgrin]

It's the critics that need to call Bioware on the lousy animations. If reviews don't point out stuff like the Nintendo sprites or Shepard's erratic movement then I'm going to be pissed because Rock Steady produced godly animations in Arkham City and that aspect was hardly even praised from what I saw. Probably because they set the bar so high in their first game. I honestly think the animations in ME2 were better than whats in the demo.

[Guldhun2]

Agamo45 wrote...

Can someone post a video that shows these apparently awful animations?

Here you go.

[slimgrin]

LeCavalier wrote...

Agamo45 wrote...

Can someone post a video that shows these apparently awful animations?

There is a post with a gif showing it on one of the pages. It shows Anderson awkward running and how stiff Shep looks while default running.

Or simply run Shepard down any ramp. They didn't even adjust for the downward slope, she just keeps running as if on a flat plane.

But I'm sure if the game had better animations the story would have suffered. Somehow...

Modifié par slimgrin, 16 février 2012 - 01:31 .

[CC-Tron]

slimgrin wrote...

It's the critics that need to call Bioware on the lousy animations. If reviews don't point out stuff like the Nintendo sprites or Shepard's erratic movement then I'm going to be pissed because Rock Steady produced godly animations in Arkham City and that aspect was hardly even praised from what I saw. Probably because they set the bar so high in their first game. I honestly think the animations in ME2 were better than whats in the demo.

I think the animations from ME1(which weren't that good either) look better than this demo. I don't think I'll use the pistol often because Shep's animations are way too stiff.

[LeCavalier]

slimgrin wrote...

LeCavalier wrote...

Agamo45 wrote...

Can someone post a video that shows these apparently awful animations?

There is a post with a gif showing it on one of the pages. It shows Anderson awkward running and how stiff Shep looks while default running.

Or simply run Shepard down any ramp. They didn't even adjust for the downward slope, she just keeps running as if on a flat plane.

But I'm sure if the game had better animations the story would have suffered. Somehow.

I hope it's just cause the demo is of an older model and the animations were not polished. That is wishful thinking though...

[Abirn]

slimgrin wrote...

It's the critics that need to call Bioware on the lousy animations. If reviews don't point out stuff like the Nintendo sprites or Shepard's erratic movement then I'm going to be pissed because Rock Steady produced godly animations in Arkham City and that aspect was hardly even praised from what I saw. Probably because they set the bar so high in their first game. I honestly think the animations in ME2 were better than whats in the demo.

Video game reviews are a complete joke.  There is no integrety to the reviews, they just write favorable reviews to the game companies that pay them and if you don't you get blacklisted from getting earlier previews, which is required to attract readers thus selling advertising.  People get fired for writing negative reviews of publishers that advertise with their employer.  There is no journalistic integerty in the video game critic industry.  You ever notice how no games, no matter how bad get below a 7/10.  The whole thing is an absolute joke. 

[didymos1120]

Abirn wrote...

 You ever notice how no games, no matter how bad get below a 7/10. 

This is of course nonsense.  Do a little fact-checking, why doncha?

http://www.ign.com/index/reviews.html

Now that said: yes, there is review score inflation.

[Abirn]

didymos1120 wrote...

Abirn wrote...

 You ever notice how no games, no matter how bad get below a 7/10. 

This is of course nonsense.  Do a little fact-checking, why doncha?

http://www.ign.com/index/reviews.html

Now that said: yes, there is review score inflation.

Your right, I'm sure there are a few that get even below I was using hyperbole to make a point.  the whole industry of video game review is corrupt and cannot be trusted. 

[Atmosfear3]

Fpriestly wrote...

As one poster above said, it's an immersion breaker.

Not just that though.  It just irks me knowing that I've paid for mediocrity from a game developer...

Ever played Batman Arkham City?  It's the best comic book hero game ever, and one of the best games of all time.  The metacritic score is insane.

Anyway, Rocksteady, an amateur developer with only one title under their belt managed to pull off something that Bioware has never been able to do, despite their much greater experience.

Rocksteady made a game (using UE3.5) that gave their fans/consumers high resolution textures, PhysX, 3D Vision, realistic looking hair and hair physics, smooth animations, awesome gameplay.....and the list goes on.

Now if Rocksteady can do it, why can't Bioware?  Bioware can do it I have no doubt, but they cut one too many corners, and thats mostly because their fanbase allows them to do so.

How many times have I heard on these forums,"You don't play Bioware games for the graphics, you play them for the story."

But who says we have to choose between a great story and great graphics?  The two have been merged successfully before many times, and since Bioware is supposedly a AAA developer, you'd think they'd have the capability to do it.

But they always fall short, due to laziness I think.

Bolded the points that should be emphasized.

This is 2012. There is zero excuse as to why the production quality for this game is so low. I look at games like The Witcher 2 and the Batman series from Rocksteady and I see incredible quality. You can easily tell that a lot of work went into the presentation of those games. Are Rocksteady and CDProjekt Red AAA+ studios? They should be but they're not (yet). Bioware is a huge company with lots of resources at their disposal; so why can't they do the same?

But I guess since Bioware can tell a great story all is forgiven right?

[Alithinos]

I think that the way the body parts are moving (those that are moving) is nice,and that the bad thing is that there are not enough body parts moving...

In technical terms,it just seems the skeleton used for most character 3d models doesn't have enough 'bones' that the animators could manipulate,or didn't included  movement for some bones while they should.

Many people complained on how Anderson looks while running.
But if you pay close atttention you will notice that the way his legs move are correct (as correct as a not motion captured animation can be) and what makes his overall movement look weird is the fact that from his waist and up his body doesn't move the slightest.
Having a model of a character that is running and watching only his legs moving like there is no inertia to the rest of his body,while there is for Shepard,makes Anderson stand out in a bad way.
My guess is it's yet another animation limitation because of limited RAM.

Modifié par Alithinos, 16 février 2012 - 02:06 .

[LeCavalier]

Shep and Anderson both need work on the animations. BUT if this is a old build of the game then we got nothing to worry about and the animations will be just fine in the final product.... at least we hope so.

[realguile]

Guldhun2 wrote...

Agamo45 wrote...

Can someone post a video that shows these apparently awful animations?

Here you go.

that was great. lol

[Mikeiser]

Keep the old run animation. Right now it seems very awkward. Legs are too spread apart, making it look like he runs like a neanderthal. We've evolved to have slimmer hips to transfer the motion and weight of running faster and more efficient.

[LeCavalier]

Yeah the old running animation was better. Keep in mind though that it isn't the finished product. It might not as bad in the final version of the game.

[Takamori The Templar]

Roll back the run animation for real, or I will listen the song from Guldhun2 video every time that I sprint.

[teh_619]

LeCavalier wrote...

Yeah the old running animation was better. Keep in mind though that it isn't the finished product. It might not as bad in the final version of the game.

It is a finished product.

[Ryuu814]

I'd also like to point out that the animations were more or less the same in this demo, compared to the demo I played at Gamefest 2011.
I was somewhat disappointed but honestly? I don't really mind. Animations and graphics and what-not don't make up the game. It's the mechanics and the story to me.
A game could have the WORST graphics in history yet have a great story and mechanics and in this day and age it wouldn't get a look...
because of it's graphics...

I think people are getting a bit too uptight now about things. I'm all for constructive criticism (I practically live on the stuff for my writing) but this is a tiny bit ridiculous.
Okay so the animations look bad yes, but looking past that did you enjoy the demo? I certainly did and the multiplayer more so.

Just my 2 pennies...*puts on flame suit*

[Brockololly]

[LeCavalier]

teh_619 wrote...

LeCavalier wrote...

Yeah the old running animation was better. Keep in mind though that it isn't the finished product. It might not as bad in the final version of the game.

It is a finished product.

Bummer