184 réponses à ce sujet

[TheKillerAngel]

But they're not Battlefield 3 good. That's for sure.

They are, however about equal (and even slightly better in a few instances) compared to Mass Effect 2. Most of the gripes have to do with textures, and I agree that the PC could get some higher resolution textures. This was an Xbox title first and foremost, so this is to be expected. Ultimately, the overall aesthetic and creative design is more important than the pure graphical quality. A game with inferior aesthetics and superior graphics might not always look better - and the opposite is true. Mass Effect has generally succeeded in achieving a good aesthetic along with graphics that, while having aged, have generally held their ground.

Modifié par TheKillerAngel, 16 février 2012 - 02:27 .

[Doctalen]

I think they are great

[teh_619]

What are you comparing those graphics with?
They'd be good 5 years ago

[VolusvsReaper]

teh_619 wrote...

What are you comparing those graphics with?
They'd be good 5 years ago

smh

[CaptainZaysh]

I think they're great. The game looks amazing compared to ME2, and that was light years ahead of ME1.

[wijse]

Ehm.

When the Xbox and the PC has the same graphics when the PC settings are maxed out. Something is wrong.

http://www.pcgames.d...x-360-868381/3/

Feel free to google translate it, if you can't read german. Also there is a texture slider, just move your mouse left and right on the top picture.

Modifié par wijse, 16 février 2012 - 02:28 .

[Greed1914]

I won't complain about the graphics. I actually appreciate that they were thinking of people with older PCs when they made this. It's not such an awful thing to be able to start and end a trilogy of games with the same rig.

[What a Succulent Ass]

I don't get the gripe about graphics. The textures could use improvement, surely, but I'm not about to whinge about being able to run a game on my poorwoman's rig.

The only (minor) complaint I have is aesthetics. It seems that, whilst the models became more realistic, everything else went back to ME1's drab, slightly desaturated look. Skin especially. Everyone looks like a walking corpse especially Anderson.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 16 février 2012 - 02:29 .

[TheKillerAngel]

teh_619 wrote...

What are you comparing those graphics with?
They'd be good 5 years ago

Crysis was released in 2007 and it has better graphics than Mass Effect 2/3.

[CrisisOne]

I thought they looked amazing.

[Abirn]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

But they're not Battlefield 3 good. That's for sure.

They are, however about equal (and even slightly better in a few instances) compared to Mass Effect 2. Most of the gripes have to do with textures, and I agree that the PC could get some higher resolution textures. This was an Xbox title first and foremost, so this is to be expected. Ultimately, the overall aesthetic and creative design is more important than the pure graphical quality. A game with inferior aesthetics and superior graphics might not always look better - and the opposite is true. Mass Effect has generally succeeded in achieving a good aesthetic along with graphics that, while having aged, have generally held their ground.

Can we please stop saying this was an Xbox first game.  That argument is valid for only the first game.  The second and third ones were made with PS3 and PC in mind knowing full well they were coming to both systems.  Therefor it should have been designed to take advantege of that increased power.  At the very least it should have been created to port downward from PC then to port upwards.

[teh_619]

VolusvsReaper wrote...

teh_619 wrote...

What are you comparing those graphics with?
They'd be good 5 years ago

smh

Was that an attempt at communication?

[FFinfinity1]

A good game to me is one that I can have fun with and have it be memorable. Not the quality of its Graphics...

[VolusvsReaper]

They should have jacked the settings as high as they could so I could hear people whine about how their PC's struggled to run it or the frame rate issues...would be hilarious.

[TheKillerAngel]

CrisisOne wrote...

I thought they looked amazing.

Try comparing them to this:

 

[GirlPower23]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

But they're not Battlefield 3 good. That's for sure.

They are, however about equal (and even slightly better in a few instances) compared to Mass Effect 2. Most of the gripes have to do with textures, and I agree that the PC could get some higher resolution textures. This was an Xbox title first and foremost, so this is to be expected. Ultimately, the overall aesthetic and creative design is more important than the pure graphical quality. A game with inferior aesthetics and superior graphics might not always look better - and the opposite is true. Mass Effect has generally succeeded in achieving a good aesthetic along with graphics that, while having aged, have generally held their ground.

Ultimately they probably have a lot of high quality textures that were downscaled for the limits of the XBox. Which they could release for the PC Crowd. That's generally how HD Texture packs come into fruition. Aesthetics can be hindered by terrible graphics.

[FlashedMyDrive]

>Jagged Edges
>Low resolution
>Horrendous lip sync.
>Poor Lighting
>Poor Coloring

The graphics aren't very good, but they aren't bad. They are, "meh".

[Metalunatic]

Graphics should be the least of everyones worries in a Mass Effect game.

[Biotic Sage]

I'd rather them make gameplay improvements to the graphics engine they're familiar with and get us the game sooner than spending years trying to adapt everything to a new one.

[TheKillerAngel]

Abirn wrote...

TheKillerAngel wrote...

But they're not Battlefield 3 good. That's for sure.

They are, however about equal (and even slightly better in a few instances) compared to Mass Effect 2. Most of the gripes have to do with textures, and I agree that the PC could get some higher resolution textures. This was an Xbox title first and foremost, so this is to be expected. Ultimately, the overall aesthetic and creative design is more important than the pure graphical quality. A game with inferior aesthetics and superior graphics might not always look better - and the opposite is true. Mass Effect has generally succeeded in achieving a good aesthetic along with graphics that, while having aged, have generally held their ground.

Can we please stop saying this was an Xbox first game.  That argument is valid for only the first game.  The second and third ones were made with PS3 and PC in mind knowing full well they were coming to both systems.  Therefor it should have been designed to take advantege of that increased power.  At the very least it should have been created to port downward from PC then to port upwards.

I agree with your thinking, but that was evidently not the developer's mentality, and as far as we can tell they focused on Xbox compatbility over PC features.

[FFinfinity1]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

CrisisOne wrote...

I thought they looked amazing.

Try comparing them to this:

 

There aren't exactly a truckload of games that look like that anyways except maybe Crysis or Metro2033

[Spartan901]

Looks good to me. Especially the second part of the demo. Wrex looks boss. Two thumbs up

[Takamori The Templar]

Sorry that is not Mass Effect 3 related, but this is a "indie" production.


The graphics kinda put ME on shame.

[teh_619]

VolusvsReaper wrote...

They should have jacked the settings as high as they could so I could hear people whine about how their PC's struggled to run it or the frame rate issues...would be hilarious.

If the graphics are too good, you can just lower them a bit.

If the graphics are crappy, you can just laugh at them.

The latter is what's happening