184 réponses à ce sujet

[mrbauxjangles]

The graphics aren't bad for a console port.

[TheKillerAngel]

teh_619 wrote...

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

lol very true

[Abirn]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

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.

Right, but that is why everyone is complaining.  PC users HATE getting console gaming ports with no effort involved to make them better for the PC.  I'm just pointing out that ME2 and ME3 are not "xbox central" games even if that's how the developers approached them.  PC users have valid reasons to complain about that,  it really doesn't help that every thread where we try and communicate our concerns is trolled by xbox kiddies telling us to STFU.  

[VolusvsReaper]

The graphics are crappy? You must truly be spoiled to never have played games with incredibly bad graphics then.

[double02]

They're good! hahahahahah

[teh_619]

Metalunatic wrote...

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

That's totally BS.

You can't enjoy the galaxy with crappy graphics.

[Jestina]

Not that bad...for five years ago.

[TheKillerAngel]

As much as people like to discount graphics, they do play a pretty important role in creating (or breaking) immersion.

[teh_619]

VolusvsReaper wrote...

The graphics are crappy? You must truly be spoiled to never have played games with incredibly bad graphics then.

I don't have a problem with bad graphics.

For example, I'm now replaying hitman 2.

That was released 10 years ago though. Bioware, with all their budget, has no excuse.

[Aryck the One]

Are you kidding? Why would anyone complain about the graphics in ME3? They look beautiful to me.

I've been going back and forth between ME2 and new Demo, and Mass Effect 3's graphics are way ahead of it predecessor. The detail they put into the characters, the armor, and the weapons especially. They even made the old Mass Effect 1 armor models look brand new, so they fit right in with the new stuff, as opposed to ME2, where glimpsing old armor models always made me think "whoa, Bioware must have gotten lazy".

. . .

Or is this a satirical thread, and I didn't get the joke? In which case, *facepalm*

Modifié par Aryck1095 V2, 16 février 2012 - 02:41 .

[Doctalen]

Jestina wrote...

Not that bad...for five years ago.

I assume everyone said the same about ME1s graphics then? 

[MrChowderClam]

Graphics are pretty sick.

[Azjurai]

FlashedMyDrive wrote...

>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".

See above, agree. Bad graphics are bad, Let us download the non-cutdown graphics or something at least >.>

Saying 'way ahead of ME2' etc doesn't really do much. Yes, they are 'bett'er (sort of >.>) but on PC they're still more than awful. As has been linked previously, indie games are doing better graphics-wise than ME3. When you get indie game vs AAA w/ millions of $$ thrown at is, the indie game really shouldn't come out on top there.

Sad to see the PC neglected (again) in some way due to the doorstops =/

Modifié par Azjurai, 16 février 2012 - 02:43 .

[VolusvsReaper]

Dragon Age Origins graphics were laughable...yet the game was amazing...Crysis 2 had amazing graphics...and the game sucked....soooooooooooooooooo did Medal of Honor.

[Takamori The Templar]

VolusvsReaper wrote...

Dragon Age Origins graphics were laughable...yet the game was amazing...Crysis 2 had amazing graphics...and the game sucked....soooooooooooooooooo did Medal of Honor.

Sorry for this slight ad hominen but with all respect .hell are you drunk?
DA:O graphic were good for the time when it was released.

[teh_619]

VolusvsReaper wrote...

Dragon Age Origins graphics were laughable...yet the game was amazing...Crysis 2 had amazing graphics...and the game sucked....soooooooooooooooooo did Medal of Honor.

DA2 had terrible graphics, and it sucked too.

Shogun II has awesome graphics, it's quite decent.

[VolusvsReaper]

Takamori The Templar wrote...

VolusvsReaper wrote...

Dragon Age Origins graphics were laughable...yet the game was amazing...Crysis 2 had amazing graphics...and the game sucked....soooooooooooooooooo did Medal of Honor.

Sorry for this slight ad hominen but with all respect .hell are you drunk?
DA:O graphic were good for the time when it was released.

It was released around the same time Crysis 1 was....it had horrible graphics I am sorry but it did

[teh_619]

Takamori The Templar wrote...

VolusvsReaper wrote...

Dragon Age Origins graphics were laughable...yet the game was amazing...Crysis 2 had amazing graphics...and the game sucked....soooooooooooooooooo did Medal of Honor.

Sorry for this slight ad hominen but with all respect .hell are you drunk?
DA:O graphic were good for the time when it was released.

That's not true actually. DA:O even paled in comparison to ME1.

[Takamori The Templar]

Now that you put in that way , have to agree.

[Chuvvy]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

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.

Crysis has better graphics than most PC exclusives do today.

[Elecbender]

*shrugs shoulders*

[Atmosfear3]

VolusvsReaper wrote...

Takamori The Templar wrote...

VolusvsReaper wrote...

Dragon Age Origins graphics were laughable...yet the game was amazing...Crysis 2 had amazing graphics...and the game sucked....soooooooooooooooooo did Medal of Honor.

Sorry for this slight ad hominen but with all respect .hell are you drunk?
DA:O graphic were good for the time when it was released.

It was released around the same time Crysis 1 was....it had horrible graphics I am sorry but it did

Lay off the booze buddy. Your delusions are not making sense anymore.

Crysis 1 is one of the best, if not the best looking games ever made. Clearly you've never played it with the settings beyond low. Oh and it was released 2 years before DA:O.

[GirlPower23]

teh_619 wrote...

That's not true actually. DA:O even paled in comparison to ME1.

No it didn't. 

[Jestina]

mrbauxjangles wrote...
The graphics aren't bad for a console port.

It does kinda resemble a Rockstar port.

[teh_619]

GirlPower23 wrote...

teh_619 wrote...

That's not true actually. DA:O even paled in comparison to ME1.

No it didn't. 

Source?