1059 réponses à ce sujet

[ruiribeiro]

Valkyre4 wrote...

for example The last part with ... is clear evidence) and almost...

Careful with Spoilers please!

Done, hehe!

Modifié par ruiribeiro, 19 mars 2012 - 11:25 .

[Valkyre4]

^^

You are right I apologise, I will edit my message, again sorry. (though that means you have to edit yours too  )

Modifié par Valkyre4, 19 mars 2012 - 11:15 .

[TauAngelicus]

After reading through the thread I am beginning to think part of the problem is hardware related and can be partially fixed by a hard drive install. Some have mentioned bluray load times are slow. As your drive ages it will get slower this could account for instances where people are saying they haven't noticed a problem. But this wont solve the issue of being capped at 20fps, unless the whole reason we are capped is the lack of an install.

[rye80]

Valkyre4 wrote...


PS: I would really like and I am not being sarcastic here, for those people who claim to have no framerate problems to post a youtube video of the Citadel presidium commons AFTER the actual Citadel mission. Go to the Presidium Commons and navigate around by panning the camera. I would really love to see your performance there, because in my system (and almost everyone else's) the game runs at 15-20 frames per second and even less. So if by some chance your game runs better, I would really like to see it.

My system is a slim PS3 with a 60GB SSD in it.

i think 15-20 frames is noticeable to the naked eyes. so far  i haven't seen any low frame rate at presidium commons. the frame rate is fine and the graphic is crisp.
i'd like to post my video on youtube. but you have to wait to see it

[ioannisdenton]

Ok. In all seriousness the game is Far from unplayable up to now ; at least in my ps3. Yes the framerate gets a low count SOMEtimes but it is not as bad as anyone here says it is. Dragon age origins had far worse framerate. as for citadel it is not perfect 30fps but it is not bad either. Maybe you are overeacting , and in my opinion having a solid framerate is crucial to a game.
And it is ps3's fault not Bioware's. ps3 is hard to program and NO bioware and every "bioware" cannot just waste resources and endless time into coding a game for Ps3 in order to be perfect; unlike ps3's exclusives which are 10 - 15 hours long and each one gets at least 2 years in development. Blame sony for that, everygame has the same issues compared to xbox 360. And i am not a fan of microsoft at all.

Modifié par ioannisdenton, 19 mars 2012 - 05:03 .

[ruiribeiro]

ioannisdenton wrote...

Ok. In all seriousness the game is Far from unplayable up to now ; at least in my ps3. Yes the framerate gets a low count SOMEtimes but it is not as bad as anyone here says it is. Dragon age origins had far worse framerate. as for citadel it is not perfect 30fps but it is not bad either. Maybe you are overeacting , and in my opinion having a solid framerate is crucial to a game.
And it is ps3's fault not Bioware's. ps3 is hard to program and NO bioware and every "bioware" cannot just waste resources and endless time into coding a game for Ps3 in order to be perfect; unlike ps3's exclusives which are 10 - 15 hours long and each one gets at least 2 years in development. Blame sony for that, everygame has the same issues compared to xbox 360. And i am not a fan of microsoft at all.

I felt tempted to comment the above mentioned, but since there are plenty of comments on this thread that answer all your sentences, I won't do it.

[ioannisdenton]

ruiribeiro wrote...

ioannisdenton wrote...

Ok. In all seriousness the game is Far from unplayable up to now ; at least in my ps3. Yes the framerate gets a low count SOMEtimes but it is not as bad as anyone here says it is. Dragon age origins had far worse framerate. as for citadel it is not perfect 30fps but it is not bad either. Maybe you are overeacting , and in my opinion having a solid framerate is crucial to a game.
And it is ps3's fault not Bioware's. ps3 is hard to program and NO bioware and every "bioware" cannot just waste resources and endless time into coding a game for Ps3 in order to be perfect; unlike ps3's exclusives which are 10 - 15 hours long and each one gets at least 2 years in development. Blame sony for that, everygame has the same issues compared to xbox 360. And i am not a fan of microsoft at all.

I felt tempted to comment the above mentioned, but since there are plenty of comments on this thread that answer all your sentences, I won't do it.

i really do not mean to be offensive and i stated that in my ps3 Me3 runs at acceptable Fps. but you right , i should not have posted in the first place as this is place for people who face technical issues, however i thought that you may be overreacting. nevermind please.

[Mazandus]

It DOES NOT run at an acceptable rate. I am happy for you ioannisdenton that you seem to have a super magical ps3 with no frame rate issues, but on my month old slim, I have horrendous frame rate dips in almost every cut scene, absurd loading times whenever I go to change my armor or appearance, unfinished "fuzzy" textures that draw in during the game, characters blinking out of existence during cut scenes, and truly atrocious performance during the Sur'Kesh mission. Granted most of the actual shooting gameplay has been fine, but just walking around the citadel while I hear the blu ray stretch and cry to load every goddamned audio and visual file it needs every 30 steps or so is absolute bull****.

You may have low standards, I do not. As far as programming and developing for the ps3 goes, the machine is what, 8 years old now? It becomes easier, not more difficult to develop for hardware as time goes on. The issue isn't the "difficulty" in writing the code, the issue is they decided they didn't want to bother at all. I wouldn't be shocked if we find out a few years from now that all the AAA multi-plat titles of the past year or more, and every one down the pipe until ps3 discontinuation, is nothing more than the actual xbox code wrapped in a shell that can be read and processed by the blu ray.

It certainly takes time to develop for the ps3, when you actually try. I have a strong suspicion that no one is bothering anymore and are just running everything off the laser. It has nothing to do with hardware capability, only publisher costs.

[rye80]

Mazandus wrote...


It DOES NOT run at an acceptable rate.

i disagree

[Battlepope190]

rye80 wrote...

Mazandus wrote...


It DOES NOT run at an acceptable rate.

i disagree

I'm not happy with the framerate being clearly lower than the Xbox and PC versions, but I sadly must agree; it IS playable, but it should match the Xbox/PC framerate.

[Mazandus]

I get the feeling you 2 are the type who would go up in arms over a teacher's salary but have little to nothing to say about systemic fraud and corruption. Race. To. The. Bottom.

[Valkyre4]

with some people saying that the extremely low fps in certain parts of the game and in pretty much every cutscene out there, you pretty much are going to make sure that bioware never fixes or improves anything.

"Hey the framerate is problematic yes, and it is worse than the 360, but you know what? it is playable, so it is just fine!"

This is wrong... you guys are pretty much digging your own hole... you are allowing devs to treat your system as a poor port machine and you are not complaining at all.

I never thought ps3 users should have valid complaints only when their game is unplayable... yeah... you know what? A game is playable when it runs at 10 frames per second. It really is. You can complete it, i mean it is going to take you ages and it is going to be a pain, but hey! It IS playable... right? So because it is playable and I can complete it, suddenly 10 frames per second are going to be "ok"?

Come on people... you should demand more... you are paying the same price, you were promised a version that has no differences , and now you are saying that you are ok with this... especially you guys, PS3 gamers that have witnessed some of the best console graphics this gen... and they ran beautifully in your system...

your behavior is not helping in making peole at bioware take us seriously. While we are playing certain mission parts at 20 frames per second , your fellow xbox360 gamer enjoys rock solid 30 frames per second no matter what is going on on his screen. When you guys are watching most cutscenes run in sub 20-15 frames (Tuchanka event is even below 10 frames at parts), your fellow 360 gamer enjoys them in rock solid 30 frames per second.

You must decide whether you want companies to treat you equally with respect or treat you like you are the next tollerant "port-job" guy who always pays more and gets less.

Numbers are not lying. We are not talking about a few frames we are talking at a huge performance difference when it comes to cutscenes especially. Demand what you paid for.

Modifié par Valkyre4, 19 mars 2012 - 09:05 .

[Galson]

Nothing like 60fps on PC, but yeah I prefer playing games from the liberty of my couch, that's why I got ME3 on PS3, playing on PC feels like I'm working - I've enough sitting in front of PC at work. I'm not fussy about every little jaggy or texture pop up but this framerate, among other things must be fixed. Period. Could live with some fps drops here and there, I mean Demon's Souls or Dark Souls have their share of problems in this matter (Blighttown anyone?) but it's not happening throughout the game.

Modifié par Galson, 19 mars 2012 - 09:41 .

[Valkyre4]

another prime example of very poor performance is the side mission on Gellix lab... Try playing that mission on ps3 and tell me that this is an acceptable performance for you guys, or that it is considered "minor hiccups".

@galson

xbox360 gamers are also playing from the comfort of their couch... only they do so at 30 frames per second.

Modifié par Valkyre4, 19 mars 2012 - 09:46 .

[known_hero]

Wow, 60 fps! PC gamers got it made

Come on Bioware, don't leave us hanging.

[starscreamerx31]

Yeah sure it playable but yeah something has to be done because the fps is ridiculous. Theres really no excuse other than its a bad port, but then again look at the forums and there are problems across the board. Im sure they are aware of the issue, there just not saying anything, and thats whats pissing me off.

[Galson]

Valkyre4 wrote....

@galson

xbox360 gamers are also playing from the comfort of their couch... only they do so at 30 frames per second.

Oh I know that but I won't be buying 360 to play one game... I've played all 360 games I wanted anyways.

[Valkyre4]

^^my point is not to make you buy a 360 to play Mass Effect 3... really is that what you got from what I am saying? What I am saying is that all of us should demand for a performance on par with the 360 version -which we were promised- and not settle and tolerate all these so called "minor hiccups" which arent minor by any means when 80% of the games cutscenes are running so poorly.

Yet some people are saying "hey it is playable" , as if we should just accept this and move on, until the next game comes out and runs even worse on our system, because Bioware has already got the memo: "ps3 gamers are ok with choppy ports, as long as it is playable, so let them have it!".

I hope my friend that now you understand my point better.

[MegaSovereign]

Cutscenes that run at 20-25 FPS aren't a major issue considering the fixed cameras and less-action oriented scenes. However I found that there were times that the framerate would drop sporadically during the gameplay segments which affected controller response. What IGN said was true though, the frame-rate did feel better the more you played the game.


While it is sad that the performance of the PS3 version isn't up to par on the 360, Digital Foundry does note that the visuals are basically identical (in fact, the PS3 version edges it because of some shadowing technique that is only enabled on it). And it's also settling to know that ME3 on PS3 still fares better than the likes of Skyrim (PS3) or ME1 (360). I haven't played the 360 version but it sounds like the performance advantage isn't all that great considering the disc swapping issues. It seems to be much worse than it was in ME2, even to the point that Digital Foundry made a big mention about it in their Mass Effect 3 Face-Off article.

If the frame-rate can be improved in future patches that would be greatly appreciated. With that said, I feel like they should first fix the ME2 importing problems and lip syncing issues since those issues are a bit more obvious...

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 19 mars 2012 - 11:54 .

[hawkens982]

At this point I'm just really hoping for a patch that lets us install the game to the HDD. I don't really mind the face importing bug and lip syncing because imo those are small fry issues that doesn't really affect gameplay majorly, as opposed to not being able to combat enemies properly or not being able to go to certain areas within the citadel.

[MegaSovereign]

Yea they should definitely fix the freezing issues. I don't know if this only happens with the disc version but it's getting annoying. I almost wish I got the digital version..

[ruiribeiro]

Yes, an HDD install would be great, I think!

[rye80]

Battlepope190 wrote...

rye80 wrote...

Mazandus wrote...


It DOES NOT run at an acceptable rate.

i disagree

I'm not happy with the framerate being clearly lower than the Xbox and PC versions, 

not until you see my video. actually it is more equal to high end pc's than xbox 360.

[Valkyre4]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Cutscenes that run at 20-25 FPS aren't a major issue considering the fixed cameras and less-action oriented scenes. However I found that there were times that the framerate would drop sporadically during the gameplay segments which affected controller response. What IGN said was true though, the frame-rate did feel better the more you played the game.


While it is sad that the performance of the PS3 version isn't up to par on the 360, Digital Foundry does note that the visuals are basically identical (in fact, the PS3 version edges it because of some shadowing technique that is only enabled on it). And it's also settling to know that ME3 on PS3 still fares better than the likes of Skyrim (PS3) or ME1 (360). I haven't played the 360 version but it sounds like the performance advantage isn't all that great considering the disc swapping issues. It seems to be much worse than it was in ME2, even to the point that Digital Foundry made a big mention about it in their Mass Effect 3 Face-Off article.

If the frame-rate can be improved in future patches that would be greatly appreciated. With that said, I feel like they should first fix the ME2 importing problems and lip syncing issues since those issues are a bit more obvious...

where did you get the thing about ps3 version being better looking than the 360 one? For one digital foundry clearly state that even visually thr xbox version is better even if it is not by much. It is
in big quoted letters as well in the article. It is just that the performance is vastly superior on 360. seriously i dont know why Bioware didnt try to at least make the cutscenes watchable. Some of the epic ones with a lot of action simply look horrible on ps3. You cant tell what is going on due to the low fps... Just look at grunt cutscene or the one in tuchanka...

[rye80]

Kev87 wrote...

most of the time multiplayer has awful framerate. after 5th wave you literally move at a snails pace until computer kills you. then if your lucky your returned to the menu otherwise the game freezes.

i think i experienced  different thing. the multiplayer mode has solid, smooth frame rate on my ps3.