164 réponses à ce sujet

[GuardianAngel470]

Zu Long wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

FRANCESCO84Inn wrote...

the real preblem its the console, in this time the pc its more powerfull.

Yeah blame it on the console.  

The real problem is not the console, the real problem is the developer using an outdated engine. If you only knew how much a newer engine could do for both platforms, console AND pc.

For example, look at this: 



That my friend, is a screenshot from the XBOX 360 version of The Witcher 2. The game is developed in a very new engine specifically developed for that game; the RED engine. 

Amazing what you can do with a modern and well-tailored engine, isn't it?



But honestly, for an Unreal 3 engine game, Mass Effect 3 looks amazing.

Except...that honestly doesn't look any better to me than the mass effect screenshots. The peasant NPC faces on the left actually look considerably WORSE than the Alliance NPCs from the beginning of the game.

Have you played the game?

And you call yourself a PC gamer. The Witcher 2 as the best, and I mean THE BEST PC game that came out in 2011.

The NPC faces all look like that, it's a part of the basic game. They are supposed to be ugly, nose-picking, filth encrusted maggots. 

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Still don't see any ME3/ME2/ME1 comparison pics to back up the nonsensical "graphics are crap" claims... which I suppose shouldn't be a surprise... as it's totally wrong.

[Zu Long]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Have you played the game?

And you call yourself a PC gamer. The Witcher 2 as the best, and I mean THE BEST PC game that came out in 2011.

The NPC faces all look like that, it's a part of the basic game. They are supposed to be ugly, nose-picking, filth encrusted maggots. 

Tried it, disliked it, returned it. Combat was a broken mess and to be honest I found the entire world pretty unappealing, perhaps for the very reason you mentioned. Arkham City was a VASTLY superior game IMO, but to each his own.

Modifié par Zu Long, 15 février 2012 - 08:55 .

[Unbannable]

Luc0s wrote...

I know more about the Unreal 3 engine than you do, I work with it at school on a daily basis as a game-design student.

Well if thats the case, I'd love to hear you explain why Rocksteady, a studio with not even half the experience of Bioware, can make Batman Arkham City with high rez textures, amazing animations, realistic looking hair and hair physics (Talia Al Ghul), PhysX, DX11, 3D Vision etc while Mass Effect 3 has none of those features.

[Zu Long]

Unbannable wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

I know more about the Unreal 3 engine than you do, I work with it at school on a daily basis as a game-design student.

Well if thats the case, I'd love to hear you explain why Rocksteady, a studio with not even half the experience of Bioware, can make Batman Arkham City with high rez textures, amazing animations, realistic looking hair and hair physics (Talia Al Ghul), PhysX, DX11, 3D Vision etc while Mass Effect 3 has none of those features.

Well, spending an EXTRA FREAKING MONTH developing it might have helped. And it still didn't have good DX 11 support until it got patched even later on. Personally, I'll take getting the damn game on time, and the graphics wonks can deal with waiting the extra month for their hi-res goodies.

[string3r]

The animations are pretty damn bad. But then again ME has never had amazing animations to begin with.

[Srau]

Yeah, can't wait for the X720 to get out and people buying it, i am getting tired to have X360 quality level port on my computer.

[FluffyScarf]

Bannable has a point. Arkham, visually and technically is superb. The water in ME3 doesn't even look like water. Shoot it, and it doesn't react to gunfire at all.

[Unbannable]

Zu Long wrote...

Well, spending an EXTRA FREAKING MONTH developing it might have helped. And it still didn't have good DX 11 support until it got patched even later on. Personally, I'll take getting the damn game on time, and the graphics wonks can deal with waiting the extra month for their hi-res goodies.

The reason why AC was delayed was due to the wonky DX11 implementation, which still hasn't been fixed properly.  I'm still glad they decided to implement DX11 though.  I'm sure it was a difficult thing for them to do, seeing as the Unreal Engine 3.5 has no native DX11 support (don't quote me on this). 

The DX9 path was flawless however, and it had all the other non DX11 features intact.

[MilenaM]

ME2 on the PC looked good when it was released first. ME3 PC not having any graphical improvements is really disappointing however. They could've done high-resolution textures at least but maybe that's still coming some time later. UE3 is continually updated btw, it's not an outdated engine at all. Batman AC and Afterfall Insanity are based on the last UE3 version and come with great graphics. And yeah, the Witcher 2 is probably the best looking game ever along with Metro, BF3 and the Crysis series.

[FluffyScarf]

Imagine if M3 utilized tessellation properly. Especially with the character and gun models. If only...

[Duncaaaaaan]

Nomanor wrote...

Catsith wrote...

What is "crap" about the graphics for you? What exactly are you disappointed with? Your post contains no valuable feedback for the developers.

Graphics look BAD. Like something you'd expect in 1998

faces and characters in general look terrible, animated terribe


did you see the RUN animation?

Dude... 1998 is a bit much. But yeah the graphics are very outdated, muddy and low res. Even skyrim looks better. Yep.

Faces look pretty good. And the animations are pure tripe I'm afraid.

[Ashator]

Well I didn't have any problems with the graphics, looks much better then ME2, and that is enough for me, graphics ain't everything. The gameplay itself and the control system felt great, all those new moves were also very cool.

[FluffyScarf]

Heavily modded Lagrim with custom FXAA profiles, 6 gigs worth of texture/mesh and animation replacements looks better.

[GirlPower23]

Luc0s wrote...
I know more about the Unreal 3 engine than you do, I work with it at school on a daily basis as a game-design student.

Yea, I'm sure you do. How's Wikipedia University going for you? 

The technology behind UE3 is pretty good. It's no 4A Engine or CryEngine 3 but it's got a lot of neat things. That cannot be utilitized by consoles.. thus we get crappy games. UE3 is far from outdated.. considering it's consistantly updated regularly. Also, Samaritan would like to say hello, while it's something UE3 can do it's not practical.. Consoles are the reason games look like crap, that's just a fact of life. It has little to do with UE3.

[Zu Long]

Unbannable wrote...

Zu Long wrote...

Well, spending an EXTRA FREAKING MONTH developing it might have helped. And it still didn't have good DX 11 support until it got patched even later on. Personally, I'll take getting the damn game on time, and the graphics wonks can deal with waiting the extra month for their hi-res goodies.

The reason why AC was delayed was due to the wonky DX11 implementation, which still hasn't been fixed properly.  I'm still glad they decided to implement DX11 though.  I'm sure it was a difficult thing for them to do, seeing as the Unreal Engine 3.5 has no native DX11 support (don't quote me on this). 

The DX9 path was flawless however, and it had all the other non DX11 features intact.

So what? I waited a month and half for the implementation of something that, as you point out STILL DOESN'T EVEN WORK.Rockstar's inexperience with the engine they were using caused a pretty big problem, they got over ambitious. Bioware, with more knowledge of the system, seems to want to do a better job of staying within the limits of the Engine to avoid the same issue. We won't beable to compare them with certainty until we're actually playing the game rather than the demo, but on looks alone, I don't feel like there's that much difference between AC and ME3-Demo on my PC.

In any case, I stand by what I said. Give me my game on time and let the people who want to feel superior because Batman's face is EXTRA grizzled on their PC wait.

[GirlPower23]

Srau wrote...

Yeah, can't wait for the X720 to get out and people buying it, i am getting tired to have X360 quality level port on my computer.

What do you think the next generation is going to do? Magically make games look amazing? Look at the rumoured hardware the next Xbox is going to be rocking, you'll be lucky to see nextgen Console games reach the quality of Crysis 2 DX11 Mode. The fact that console manufacturers are aiming for a more entertainment system than dedicated console.. that could potentially harm what they will do as well. In the end.. in five years.. we will be back to square one. Consoles holding everything back and blah blah blah. Consoles are a blight for graphics technology and said bligth needs to disappear.

[Obadiah]

Got the demo in the XBox. The textures look great, but the animation looks really off. Did they stop using FaceFX or something? The facial expressions used to look fantastic - now they remind me of Dragon Age: Origins.

[GirlPower23]

Zu Long wrote...
In any case, I stand by what I said. Give me my game on time and let the people who want to feel superior because Batman's face is EXTRA grizzled on their PC wait.

First off it's RockSteady, not RockStar. Secondly, people who want games rushed out the door are just as bad as publishers who do annual releases. Games being delayed is always a good thing. I'm sorry you have no patience.

[FluffyScarf]

It also takes year for games to reach a 'peak' visually when a new console is released. Compare Oblivion in 2006 to Lagrim in 2011. Big difference.

[Aloren]

I thought it looked great. Definitly not something from 1998... (the year when Baldur's Gate came out)

[MotorWaffle]

Graphics are fine, even if it looks like ME2, for the size, scope and fluidity of the combat, I'd say it's golden.

Just......yea they need to change that script immediately before I stop taking the characters and events seriously.
Wrex sounds different, and seems to talk much faster than he did in the previous games.
Lost most of his badass side