184 réponses à ce sujet

[Duncaaaaaan]

It's funny because ME1 graphics are actually the best in the series in terms of texture quality.

There wasn't much lighting and shading, so much of the textures were actually very high res, and it created a very clean look and feel to everything, instead of mucky brown and bloom f*cked contrast settings.

I'm not exaggerating in the slightest, look at character model textures in ME2/ME3, then look at them in ME1, you'll be blown away by the difference.

Also, the reason wh the PS3 runs constantly at 20fps, whereas the 360 runs at 30fps, is because v-sync is enabled on the PS3, which often gives a big performance hit. Why v-sync is enabled is pretty baffling to be honest.

edit: also, here's something I found out.

I tried the demo on my macbook with bootcamp, (unibody model made in 2009, geforce 320M card, 2.4ghz processor speed and 4gb ram, very low specs that fall below the majority game's of minimum requirements) and it actually ran the game better than the xbox or PS3. It was consistently staying above 30 fps, not by a whole lot, but it was above, and it looked the same as far as I could tell.

So any of you wondering if ME3 might be good on the PC, but are concerned your PC might be a bit too old, just give it a try. Chances are it can run it better than the console anyway.

Is there controller support? Console players can be even more at ease if they like the controller.

Modifié par Duncaaaaaan, 16 février 2012 - 09:28 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Only graphics ****s complain about graphics.
I'm sick an tired of poeple complaining if the game doens't use all the newest and shiniest graphics gimmicks.
Seriously, graphics are good enough. PC will prolly get a high-res texture pack.


Gameplay/story >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graphics

Weird,  I find myself agreeing with you.

The power of reason compels you!

[Candidate 88766]

I'm perfectly happy with these graphics. My new Xbox cost me £180 (including a couple of games). There is no PC in the world selling for £180 that is capable of running graphics like the ones ME3 has. I mean, they're not in the same league as Crysis or Battlefield 3, but to run those games on maximum requires rather a lot more than £180. 

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Only graphics ****s complain about graphics.
I'm sick an tired of poeple complaining if the game doens't use all the newest and shiniest graphics gimmicks.
Seriously, graphics are good enough. PC will prolly get a high-res texture pack.


Gameplay/story >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graphics

Weird,  I find myself agreeing with you.

I agree with him as well. Never thought I'd be able to say that, but there you go.

[GirlPower23]

Chiefje wrote...

The graphics are poor, but normally i wouldn't complain about it, multiplatform titles just don't look great. But what bothers me is the inconsistencies. The squadmates have high quality texture suits, but the suit shepard and the rest of the alliance wears in the start of the demo, looks like its made in 1998. It's that blurry and ugly. Oh and AA doesn't do much, putting inject SMAA in ME3 will make it look a lot better...

SMAA isn't going to make the game look better. It's just another AA Solution. The game will just look sharper in the end.  It won't fix any of the major glaring issues.  Although I'm curious what the FXAA Injector will do with this game. Considering all the things that you can do with the FXAA Injector.

[Siegdrifa]

I would complain for few animation but graphics looks descent. It is clearly improved from ME2 while the main dev plateforme hasn't changed, even on pc i liked it so far, but a high rez texture pack would be welcome.

I hope we will get some mod to replace the eyes texture soon after the release... they are mostly awfull, they looks like painted plastic ball with unreal bright color instead of iris.

[KotorEffect3]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Only graphics ****s complain about graphics.
I'm sick an tired of poeple complaining if the game doens't use all the newest and shiniest graphics gimmicks.
Seriously, graphics are good enough. PC will prolly get a high-res texture pack.


Gameplay/story >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graphics

Weird,  I find myself agreeing with you.

The power of reason compels you!

Nah I think it was the nachos I ate last night.

[Massefeckt]

All the problems with the PC version are fixable.

Ability to change FOV,
High Res Texture pack
Graphical controls(which I'm guessing will be in the full game anyway)

None of these are a big deal to fix. If Bioware care about customer service they can have them fixed with a day 1 patch easily. I guess we'll see how much they care about their pc customers.

Overall the graphics of the demo were worse than ME2 which I find very strange.

[Massefeckt]

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.

With a PC you can up or lower the settings to suit your pc.

[FRANCESCO84Inn]

ya, its possible made for the pc user a pathc, for give more quality texture, and for put adjustment to game play and another problem, and in the future its possible give texture in Directx 11.

[Siegdrifa]

Massefeckt wrote...

All the problems with the PC version are fixable.

Ability to change FOV,
High Res Texture pack
Graphical controls(which I'm guessing will be in the full game anyway)

None of these are a big deal to fix. If Bioware care about customer service they can have them fixed with a day 1 patch easily. I guess we'll see how much they care about their pc customers.

Overall the graphics of the demo were worse than ME2 which I find very strange.

Hey, it's me or there was no movie filter ? i couln't fin it in the option... i didn't like (but still use it) the ME1 filter because it was too brutale, but i like the ME2 filter, i hope we will have the option to activate it.

Also, please, an option to turn off the blur like we had in previous game.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Overall the graphics of the demo were worse than ME2 which I find very strange.

Not really, since it's a demo.

Peak into the game files says the textures are about a third of ME2's, so the final product is likely higher res.

...Probably.

Only thing I care about is the loss of vibrance. Not sure if the final game is comparable, though, since the trailers look significantly less grey.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 16 février 2012 - 09:55 .

[FinalFantasy84]

ColdRiver wrote...

FinalFantasy84 wrote...

People seem to have a hard time in grasping that discs have limited space. They especially have a hard time grasping this when thinking of a game's overall size (as far as things you can do) and graphics. Generally games with lots of things to do have lesser graphics when compared to games that don't have as much to do. Stop complaining about graphics when they aren't really that bad.

Yeah tell that to the guys at CD Project Red, who made a bigger, better looking game, with a smaller dev team and smaller budget.

LOL @ bigger game.....I would guess you're referring to witcher 2 which sir was not a bigger game.  Mass Effect 2 had more content than witcher 2.  Mass Effect 3 is supposed to have more content than 1 or 2.  Also....better???  That's so subjective....holy crap.

[What a Succulent Ass]

FinalFantasy84 wrote...
Also....better???  That's so subjective....holy crap.

Subjective indeed. Bought it a while ago because of all the hype, and I can honestly say I was completely underwhelmed. Played up until defeating the kayran, and by that point I was so bored I didn't touch it for three months. When I finally got back to it, I still couldn't care about the universe or the characters.

[GirlPower23]

FinalFantasy84 wrote...
LOL @ bigger game.....I would guess you're referring to witcher 2 which sir was not a bigger game.  Mass Effect 2 had more content than witcher 2.  Mass Effect 3 is supposed to have more content than 1 or 2.  Also....better???  That's so subjective....holy crap.

A little anecdotal, but I completed both games about at the same time. So they have about the same content at least from my personal experience. Both are tiny ass linear RPG's.. however. Witcher 2 did have quite often bigger areas with less load screens. So yes.. areas can be quite a bit bigger and prettier. Witcher 2 definitely accomplishes more. With that said.. Witcher 2 was designed for PC's from the ground up. So it's going to destroy everything related to consoles, especially ME3. They had to make a serious amount of changes to the engine to even get Witcher 2 to run on consoles.. doesn't mean much. The game still looks better than ME3 even on consoles.

[R3MUS]

Story, gameplay > graphics

That being said, why not try to make it the best detailed game ever. Like the fleeing people on the Earth level on the ground. 2D sprites? That was so horrible. That must be lazy workers and rushing through the game and not "i wanna make the most masterful game ever with the details being as good as they can be".

I hope the full version will have better graphics.

If not, i think Bioware will release a HIGH Texture pack like they did to Dragon Age 2.

Modifié par R3MUS, 16 février 2012 - 10:17 .

[Prom001]

In The end for Me it isnt a dealbreaker. Will Enjoy The Game anyways.

Still i Wish we Get an textures Package as a Download, just cause i know they have Those better textures.

[Almostfaceman]

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.

Yup.

[FinalFantasy84]

GirlPower23 wrote...

FinalFantasy84 wrote...
LOL @ bigger game.....I would guess you're referring to witcher 2 which sir was not a bigger game.  Mass Effect 2 had more content than witcher 2.  Mass Effect 3 is supposed to have more content than 1 or 2.  Also....better???  That's so subjective....holy crap.

A little anecdotal, but I completed both games about at the same time. So they have about the same content at least from my personal experience. Both are tiny ass linear RPG's.. however. Witcher 2 did have quite often bigger areas with less load screens. So yes.. areas can be quite a bit bigger and prettier. Witcher 2 definitely accomplishes more. With that said.. Witcher 2 was designed for PC's from the ground up. So it's going to destroy everything related to consoles, especially ME3. They had to make a serious amount of changes to the engine to even get Witcher 2 to run on consoles.. doesn't mean much. The game still looks better than ME3 even on consoles.

Well being built for the PC is definitely going to make it automatically look better than being built for a console.  Some people I would think do forget that Mass Effect was made for the 360 first and therefore was probably built for that console from then on.  Also, I would figure that you have to compare the universes to each other and wonder why Mass Effect would even want huge pretty open areas....it wouldn't make sense.  The most open area you would get in the mass effect series would be back in number 1 when you had open planets...but those weren't pretty at all.  Not that I cared due to the fact that the planets were just a diversion from going into a building to do the real stuff....plus you had to use the Mako...ugghhhh.

Edit: Got distracted from my main point, which was that gameplay times may vary.  I played ME2 for 80 hours on insanity.  I'm fairly sure I couldn't get that much gameplay out of Witcher 2.  Granted, I wonder how much of that time was spent scanning planets lol.

Modifié par FinalFantasy84, 16 février 2012 - 10:33 .

[Sarevok Synder]

No they aren't that bad, however they are sub-par. The PC version in particular is just laziness on Biowares part.

[Holoe4]

They are epic to me :3

[Sarevok Synder]

Bioware should take a lesson from rocksteady as to what can be done with the Unreal 3 engine on a PC, and consoles for that matter.

[Haventh]

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.

I really wish they had done that for the demo. Blast it, I missed my show.

My PC can pretty much run anything, but I know there are people who can't. Particuarly in the RPG gamers groups people don't really care for the graphics, at least not high end.  For me, and many people I know what matters most are the details and how smooth it runs. In that regard, Mass Effect 2 and 3 performs admirably.

If you play RPGs and want overwhelming high-end graphics, sorry mates, I think you're in the wrong genre then.  There is more to life than the covers of the books people.

[Fredvdp]

Just increase FOV (or make it adjustable) and slap on some current-gen textures and I'm happy with the PC port.

[GuardianAngel470]

FinalFantasy84 wrote...

ColdRiver wrote...

FinalFantasy84 wrote...

People seem to have a hard time in grasping that discs have limited space. They especially have a hard time grasping this when thinking of a game's overall size (as far as things you can do) and graphics. Generally games with lots of things to do have lesser graphics when compared to games that don't have as much to do. Stop complaining about graphics when they aren't really that bad.

Yeah tell that to the guys at CD Project Red, who made a bigger, better looking game, with a smaller dev team and smaller budget.

LOL @ bigger game.....I would guess you're referring to witcher 2 which sir was not a bigger game.  Mass Effect 2 had more content than witcher 2.  Mass Effect 3 is supposed to have more content than 1 or 2.  Also....better???  That's so subjective....holy crap.

Uh, yeah, yeah it was bigger. End of Chapter 1 you get a very crucial choice. That choice changes the entire second half of the game DRAMATICALLY. A single playthrough may not take much more or less than a playthrough of ME, but the total possible amount of gametime is dramatically higher.

I can't think of a good analogy to put it into perspective but when I say dramatically I mean it. Almost nothing happens the same way or even in a similar way.

If you want to know, google Iorveth's path and Roche's path. I don't want to spoil the game for those who haven't played it.