578 réponses à ce sujet

[childofbhaal]

/shrug. The only thing that REALLY bother me are some of the
'gritter' local textures.

Like the wilds/swamp, for example. The textures for that tile set were pretty
**** awful.

And SOME animations are down right strangely deficient. Thin wynne when she is
removing her barrier. Those beginning 'sparks' may have well been crayola drawn
before the more acceptable 'poofy' magic loot replaced it.



I mean sure it bugged me, but the rest of the game is good enough for me to get
used to it.
Well. The game ‘has’ been in development for 5 years.

Modifié par childofbhaal, 04 novembre 2009 - 05:45 .

[NewYears1978]

Andrew Eric Knight wrote...

I will go to the area you posted in your screenshot and look at it tomorrow. It seems either people are saying everything looks great, or people eare saying some things are looking bad, leading me to think it's a user to user issue.

Maybe an issue of LOD's not up-rezzing for you...

That's kinda what it looks like...that the environment textures are not uprezzing..and staying blurred.

But I don't know if that's just how they are, or there is an issue. 

[Twitchmonkey]

The graphics definitely haven't wowed me, but I also haven't been bothered by them. They are adequate, though I suppose adequate can be seen as disappointing when measured against the game's overall high level of quality. Hopefully the toolset will be out soon enough and someone with skills in that area can get to work on a texture replacer. The work of modders certainly did great things for Morrowind, and even brought Oblivion to a higher standard, and it was pretty nice looking to begin with, especially for the time.

[NewYears1978]

I have beenmessing with the settings recently..and I notice that turning on Frame-Buffer makes everything about 5x brighter...which doesn't really look better..also the bad textures are more noticable when you have frame-buffer on.



Just a note...might help.

[UziBeatle]

shrug. I dunno the graphix look good to me. Could it have been a bit better? I suppose so. Bottom line is I'd not call em bad or terrible at all.


But, then I'm playing with everything maxed and using a nvidia gtx 285 so it can handle any frame rate issues that a lesser card might cough furballs on.


Before I'd b i t ch  bout the graphics in the npc camp or anyplace I'd ****
about the lack of a 'boob' slider in the character setup. That was a horrific oversight.
IMO.
burp.

Modifié par UziBeatle, 04 novembre 2009 - 05:51 .

[UziBeatle]

[Darpaek]

BioWare's strength has never been in graphics. For DA:O I find it odd that once they sold out to EA I figured they'd chip in some cash to fix it.

Bioware has never deeply cared for graphics. I have a POS computer i can run on hight detail will AA off, Bioware has said multiple times in different q/a for different games they dont want their grpahics like crysis so it could be given to all people. Dont like the graphics go back to AoC or crysis. I think the game looks awesome. TY for this gift from god bioware.

I completely disagree.  The BGs were absolutely stunning for their time - no one outside of the niche would have gotten far enough to realize how amazing the story was if the graphics hadn't sucked them in in the beginning (load up Dark Sun or Menzo - eek!).  Mass Effect was gorgeous (even though I disliked the game strongly).  Even KOTOR was pretty good looking, particularly for the XBox at the time (if not the PC).  NWN was intended to be modular, but still worked to maximize visuals within modular constraints.

[JamesX]

Should really take a screenshot so we know what you mean by graphic is not good.



It may be an driver issue and the game graphic could actually be better.



or it could be the game is already as pretty as it can be and you just don't like it.

[Servant778]

It's a port, thier running graphics comparable to a 360 hence the 3 year dated looking graphics. At least Borderlands and 2K updated thier port for PC capable graphics. The unforunate part is they had console like depth for Bordelands which has been common lately.

[AcrylamideTic]

I'm trying to upload pictures of cave textures, but am having a bugger of time using the album feature on this social website.

[NewYears1978]

Well..zooming all the way out makes textures look much better..it's as if textures were designed for zoomed out..and not taken into account being zoomed in. The worst one bar fire is the wagons..the side and wheels..just looks like a blurry mess.



It really reminds me of 3d RTS games where zoomed out looks decent but when you zoom in things get bad. Sorta like looking at a low res picture afar, looks good, then zooming in looks bad.



Guess will just have to accept it for now...again I love BioWare..and the game..just curious and hoping to solve some issues is all.

[NetBeansAndJava]

Don't know if someone already mentioned this, but if you want to see terrible graphics in game, play the Dwarf Noble origin and look at the crowd in the background at the proving grounds. They made me laugh hard because they look like they're straight out of super nintendo. No joke. Pixelated gif animation. Looks like a placeholder.

[AcrylamideTic]

http://social.biowar...bums/63980/5714



Sorry, don't have another site where I can host it myself in its full 1920x1080 size, but hopefully you can get the idea from it. I think those cave textures look AWFUL. And that is again 1080p with everything maxed.

[astrallite]

Actually I would recommend turning OFF AA as it tends to reveal flaws in games that don't look the greatest.

[Andrew Eric Knight]

Are you sure you are in a high resolution setting?







1:34 and 2:56 shows the clear difference between high and low

[AcrylamideTic]

http://yfrog.com/0wbadtexture1g



Alright, there it is where you can click on it and least get it in much higher resolution, same cave textures.

[StormbringerGT]

Well the engine is like what? 6 Years old or so?

[NewYears1978]

Just wanted to point out, I turned off frame-buffer and played a bit..and most textuers appear to look nicer this way. There is more depth and contrast. Could there be an issue with frame-buffer effects?



When I turn it on things get bloomy and about 5x brighter...and Im thinking maybe this isn't working as intended? But since I don't know what each area is INTENDED to look like I can't tell. Right now I am in the Brecellian (sp?) forest and with Frame-Buffer on everything is very bright and day-time looking..when turning it off, things are much darker and ominous looking...so..not sure which is intended?



Hopefull a Devcan look into this. Still doesn't make textures better..however it gives a better depth appearance..maybe the bloom effect is washing out and blurring textures appearances?

[AcrylamideTic]

Andrew Eric Knight wrote...

Are you sure you are in a high resolution setting?



1:34 and 2:56 shows the clear difference between high and low

I'm starting to think it's a bug. When I try during down my texture details to low, there's no difference in the wall textures. I'm assuming there should be? Right now they're set at high, I don't see any option for Very high in texture, only in graphics (which is turned to very high.)

I'm on a 4850, which is admittedly not a grand spanking new card, but it runs great at 1080p (always 30fp+) and I have a hard time believing textures would look that different. A texture is a texture right?

Modifié par AcrylamideTic, 04 novembre 2009 - 06:08 .

[NewYears1978]

Andrew Eric Knight wrote...

Are you sure you are in a high resolution setting?



1:34 and 2:56 shows the clear difference between high and low

Well see, players look amazing..the problem is with environmental textures... Like the wagons...or that fence I showed..etc.

Look into my frame-buffer post..I think there may be an issue there.

Here is a shot of the frame-buffer on and off...one is much darker but notice the tree stump has more contrast and thus looks better..but Im not sure if that area is intended to be that dark..

http://img134.images...framebuffer.jpg

Modifié par NewYears1978, 04 novembre 2009 - 06:13 .

[NewYears1978]

AcrylamideTic wrote...

Andrew Eric Knight wrote...

Are you sure you are in a high resolution setting?



1:34 and 2:56 shows the clear difference between high and low

I'm starting to think it's a bug. When I try during down my texture details to low, there's no difference in the wall textures. I'm assuming there should be? Right now they're set at high, I don't see any option for Very high in texture, only in graphics (which is turned to very high.)

I'm on a 4850, which is admittedly not a grand spanking new card, but it runs great at 1080p (always 30fp+) and I have a hard time believing textures would look that different. A texture is a texture right?

I notice this too..when I turn to low sometimes textures looks just as crappy in low as high...others I can notice the change.  PC's I can see the change..some environments I can..but a lot of them look equally bad in both..especially if you have frame-buffer on as I showed above.

[RomperStomper]

this is looking more and more like a bug, maybe driver related. all the textrues ive seen are high rez and look great. but i also suspect some snobbery in here as well.

[KingSarevok]

I still love to play BG2 as if it is 2001. Therefore I hope that I won't mind the graphics.

[KingSarevok]

I still love to play BG2 as if it is 2001. Therefore I hope that I won't mind the graphics.