184 réponses à ce sujet

[anlk92]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

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.

This has nothing to do with the game being bigger or anything. If you weren't given that choice there would simply be 4 acts instead of 3. They decided to give you that choice and sacrifice from the game's length which was fine for me but it doesn't make the game bigger than ME games.

[ArkkAngel007]

FinalFantasy84 wrote...

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.

Not to mention Witcher 2 runs on a completely different, in-house built engine.  ME3 runs on the same one as ME2, so of course it's going to be "outdated" compared to games released in the past 2 years.  

Content wise, I can't really speak for it as I haven't played through the whole thing...maybe only 7 hours thus far.  

Here's my thing though:  ME3 doesn't have to be the best game ever made.  I know expectations have been high and the hype train is driving the GOTY propaganda, but it seems to do more harm than good.  An amazing game should be enjoyed as an amazing game, not on if it's the best of the best.

[GuardianAngel470]

anlk92 wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

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.

This has nothing to do with the game being bigger or anything. If you weren't given that choice there would simply be 4 acts instead of 3. They decided to give you that choice and sacrifice from the game's length which was fine for me but it doesn't make the game bigger than ME games.

The point being made about the size of the game was that a 20 person studio had produced a game larger than ME. If the content was there, it had to be produced. If it was produced, it means that a 20 person team created more than an 80+ person team.

That's why the existance of that second path is important.

[Ross42899]

I don't have problems with the graphics. I think the graphics of the demo are decent. Only problem I have is with some animations (or the lack of animations at some points. Like speaking characters not moving their mouths).

[prothytheprothean]

i dont get why everyines complaining , the graphics are perfect!

[Sarevok Synder]

Somebody needs a new pair of glasses.

[jbadm04]

Abirn wrote...

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.  

What effort? You think they develop on an xbox with an attached keyboard? Their hardware is quite potent and as an artist I can tell you: its easier to create a highres texture and let the comp skale it down for you, then to produce a low res texture in the first place. Bioware HAVE highres textures. But they just dont handle them out. They assume: if they did, a lot of people would buy ME3 for PC instead of xbox/ps and that meddles with their "economic plan". On the other hand, we can all be nicely surprised when bioware releases a highres pack for the PC.

What realy bugs me is their use of the UE3... its capable of so much more...

[Sarevok Synder]

jbadm04 wrote...

What realy bugs me is their use of the UE3... its capable of so much more...

*cough* rocksteady *cough*

[Obro]

Most of the complaints arent about "bad graphics" they are bout s*itty framerate.

[Eyeless17]

The textures in this game are embarrassing. Why couldn't we have gotten a high resolution texture pack like in Dragon Age?