107 réponses à ce sujet

[VanDraegon]

flem1 wrote...

 If EA's gamble on DA (this site+DLC) works, that would be something, but make no mistake -- it's pretty much the last hope for real PC development.

rofl.

Sure thing. PC gaming has been dying and coming to an end for at least 10 years now.

Modifié par VanDraegon, 15 novembre 2009 - 06:59 .

[Brentra]

Here's the bottom line: PC versions will eventually get high resolution texture packs and other graphic enhancing mods. Console versions will not. End of discussion.

[Seifz]

They don't even need new, high-res texture packs to look far, far better than the consoles do. I've been comparing my PC version to my buddy's 360 version and the difference is huge. The 360 graphics are just ugly compared to the graphics that my PC is capable of*.



* In the interest of full disclosure, my PC is capable of running this game on maximum settings, and that's probably not typical.

[Chromie]

Everyone look at the graphic difference!

http://www.gamespot....9466/index.html

Clearly the PC version is better especially with people releasing texture mods already.
The title is misleading I play DA on 1920x1200 thats better then a consoles 1080p.
But what I wanna know is what mess did Bioware do with the 360 version?
Sometimes I play on my couch and DA on a big can be just as fun buts its ugly on the xbox

Modifié par Ringo12, 15 novembre 2009 - 07:19 .

[lizardglenn]

Still shaking my head at the thread title "High end PC graphics vs console HD graphics" my understanding of console gaming is that many games are 720p anyway,
my modest little PC that i put together myself may not be a "High end PC" but runs the game fine & looks good in 1080p i must admit i have turned the AA down to x2 just to keep things at a nice consistant frame rate & keep the heat down a little
may have to invest in a new mid range graphics card next year ( around the price of 2 new release console games)

no intention of blowing $400-$500 AUD on a console then shelling out $120 for the latest games

Modifié par lizardglenn, 15 novembre 2009 - 08:48 .

[Dam Wookie]

Running the game at full on a 3.8 Ghz PC with an OC ATI 4890 on a 42' 1080p TV. There is nothing special about the graphics. Even with mods there will be nothing special about the graphics. You can add higher and higher texture packs and increase the AA and AF to as high as possible. It doesn't do allot. The overall feel of the game is that the graphics are a bit flat in areas and the drop in graphical qualities through my 2 GHz nvidia 7900 GS laptop are minor. I'd even down clocked my gpu to it's minimum when I'd left my computer on overnight, forgot and played the game. I didn't notice, neither did the game, it ran fine. These aren't awful graphics, but they haven't wowed me like some other games on my PC, Xbox or PS3.
Love the game. But it isn't a graphical beast. Whatever your system or format you aren't missing out on allot if you don't have a pc capable of running it at its highest. Just a few little "oh yeh that bit looks quite nice" moments. Where as say Uncharted 2. Not a fan of the game, but it had more wow moments graphically.
Things like texture packs, true 1080p over scaled 1080p, AA and AF are very minor graphical improvements. They don't "make" the games graphics. Take a game from the 90's say Half Life. Play it at 1080p, full AA and AF with high res texture packs and!.....it looks like a game from the 90s.

Modifié par Dam Wookie, 15 novembre 2009 - 09:09 .

[SpecPT]

there's been a lot of talk about bad graphics on all versions. but running the game at max specs on my pc i'd say the the only games that look better are crysis and MW, and i've played most of the "blockbusters" that came out the last couple of years (haven't bought mass effect though). and I did notice a reasonable improvement from the texture pack!



Dam Wookie I think comparing any game to Uncharted 2 in terms of graphics is toooootally unfair. In hd is completly hipnotizing