70 réponses à ce sujet

[JyrikGauldy]

When i played me3, i noticed rough edges and bad animations frequently (just look at shepard run), but mass effect 2 was a consistently sharp and fluid game throughout. In me3, a lot of characters just dont look as good as they did in the last game. Miranda was very well animated in the me2, but she seemed sorta stiff in a lot of places during me3. Joker looked great in me2, but his mouth and face animations are terribly awkward here. The only character that looks upgraded is liara (maybe ashley..... but she just got a makeover, and her face isnt really different). Also, some enviroments in me3 are, i dont really know how to put in it words, but too "video gamey". The level makes it blaringly obviously that you are playing a video game, and the immersion is broken. Just look at the Rannoch reaper battle. If you turn around, there is a big flat rock wall that cleary shows the level's limit. During the invasion of earth you can see poorly rendered "people" running on the ground, all indentical, with robotic movements. Instead feeling like being in the middle of a reaper invasion, i felt like i was just playing through a video game level. If you turn around during the beam charge, there is another giant flat video game wall yet again. If you decide to just stand there you'll notice that the running soldiers are identical and spawn infinitely, making it obvious that you are playing a computer game. I never encountered jarring graphical and design aspects like these in mass effect 2, but i often did while playing mass effect 3. Though I will say that a few of the backgrounds during missions are a lot better in mass effect 3. Vistas like the one on Sur'kesh are gorgeous, and the missions where you're in the middle of reaper destruction, like thessia and palaven (not including earth) are spectacles. But while mass effect 3 has peaks and valleys in its graphical quality, mass effect 2 stays almost consistently good throughout the entire experience.







btw, cerberus normandy DESTROYS alliance normandy 

Modifié par JyrikGauldy, 15 mai 2012 - 01:58 .

[JyrikGauldy]

jreezy wrote...

JyrikGauldy wrote...
btw, cerberus normandy DESTROYS alliance normandy 

psych (or is it "sike"?).

its psych


sike!

Modifié par JyrikGauldy, 14 mai 2012 - 05:54 .

[Cyne]

They were about the same, though facial animations were better in ME2. It felt like ME2 in general was a bit more polished artistically.

And yeah, Cerberus Normandy kicks the crap out of Alliance Normandy, but I preferred humanoid EDI.

[Kaelef]

Cyne wrote...

They were about the same, though facial animations were better in ME2. It felt like ME2 in general was a bit more polished artistically.

And yeah, Cerberus Normandy kicks the crap out of Alliance Normandy, but I preferred humanoid EDI.

Odd - I thought the facial animations in ME3 were a distinct improvement over ME2.  Not so much the graphics themselves but the animation work.  Everyone looked plain creepy in ME2.  Creepier than in ME1.

Modifié par Kaelef, 14 mai 2012 - 06:00 .

[Cyne]

Kaelef wrote...

Cyne wrote...

They were about the same, though facial animations were better in ME2. It felt like ME2 in general was a bit more polished artistically.

And yeah, Cerberus Normandy kicks the crap out of Alliance Normandy, but I preferred humanoid EDI.

Odd - I thought the facial animations in ME3 were a distinct improvement over ME2.  Not so much the graphics themselves but the animation work.  Everyone looked plain creepy in ME2.  Creepier than in ME1.

Not all of them, just a few mouth animations I think were better in me2. Both games surpassed me1 by miles though.. I remember those weird eyelids that seemed to overlap when they closed.

Modifié par Cyne, 14 mai 2012 - 06:17 .

[Eclipse merc]

No, I like the alliance Normandy more, and I think that ME3 has better graphics, though ME2 beats it in animations.

[ref]

I liked ME2's "style" more, it looked more realistic. But I didn't mind ME3's, at least it wasn't as awful as DAO ----> DA2 imo.

Modifié par Refara, 14 mai 2012 - 07:04 .

[Embrosil]

I do not like ME2 as it is insanely, yes, insanely dark. I do not know what they were trying to accomplish, but the game simply looks bad. Otherwise, ME2 has the same graphics as ME3, which means low res textures everywhere making the game look good only when you are not too close to an object.

[Shajar]

They already told why. To make room for MP. Console games cant have much, you have to cut something out.

But damn, make different PC version and not just cheap port

[F00lishG]

Yeah it's just you.

[Robhuzz]

I felt ME3 had slightly better graphics though the animations were certainly a step down from ME2.

They already told why. To make room for MP. Console games cant have much, you have to cut something out.

But damn, make different PC version and not just cheap port

Or be like CDP and make the PC the leading platform. It makes sense to use the most powerful and most versatile system for designing your games then downgrading them so they can run on consoles.

[Andromidius]

Depends. Its inconsistant, some of the facial animations are better in ME3, and the enemies look amazing. But then sometimes it looks dreadful and buggy, low res textures and weird animations... And honestly a lot of returning characters seemed to have exactly the same model they had in ME2 (Miranda, Jacob, Thane...).

ME2 was very consistant with its graphics, even if they were a slight step down when it came to faces. I like consistancy.

[FlamingBoy]

there pretty damm close in the graphics department
but as a game, me 2 and 1 are superior

[DaJe]

Lighting is much better in ME3. But characters faces look worse in my opinion. Then there is no more film grain option.
ME2 with ENB looks almost as good as ME3 overall and better in some areas.

[Icinix]

Personally I see ME3 as better - but a lot of the lighting in ME2 and ME3 was badly done making the whole galaxy look like like it was in twilight or in the shadows.

I loved the lighting in ME1 more than the later two personally.

[Nassegris]

The faces in ME3 look like they’re made from clay. Something is seriously wrong with the way they’re lit in the lighter areas – the skin looks extremely pasty and pockmarked.

I’m not at all very fond of the facial animations either, specifically female Shep’s mouth tends to look horrible when she smiles or talks. A lot of the personality seems to have gone out of her, too. No more sly little smirks or glowers.

I think the actual graphical quality is roughly the same but the characters are poorly lit, weirdly animated. The face textures in the previous game just worked better. The lashes worked better. In a lot of cases, the faces just plain looked better.

In a game where you spend so much time looking at your character and chatting with others, the designers might want to think a bit more about the weird Uncanny Valley clay-sculptures they try to pass off as humans.

[res27772]

I'd say they were about the same, but some aspects were better in 2. I do prefer the graphics in 2 because it was kind of 'brighter', all the darkness in 3 makes it a bit depressing and oppressive, imho. The Normandy design, imho, is a lot worse in 3 - in 2 it was nice, clean and tidy, in 3 it's a complete mess.

[chester013]

Anyone else think that paragraphs just ruin forum posts? No? Just me and the OP I guess

[MichaelSD]

I liked ME2 better. The difference is marginal, but ME2 was a game put together and functioned as a whole, while ME3 is a patchwork of parts. Therefore subjectively, ME2's graphics is much more involving, despite the face it is not that much better.

[lillitheris]

No, ME2 graphics were significantly better overall, on the PC.

I wonder if there’s a PC - console disparity here?

[What a Succulent Ass]

Refara wrote...

I liked ME2's "style" more, it looked more realistic. But I didn't mind ME3's, at least it wasn't as awful as DAO ----> DA2 imo.

I really didn't understand that art shift.

And yes, OP, ME3 was comparatively unpolished. Graphically, it's superior in most places, but aesthetically, I'd say it's the ugliest game of the series.

[MichaelSD]

Random Jerkface wrote...

I really didn't understand that art shift.

And yes, OP, ME3 was comparatively unpolished. Graphically, it's superior in most places, but aesthetically, I'd say it's the ugliest game of the series.

They tried to make a gritty, war tale instead of a space opera. Well, they did not succeed.