578 réponses à ce sujet

[AcrylamideTic]

MogwaiX wrote...

Slimcharles wrote...

SpaceAlex wrote...

Whatever, I think the game looks great in motion.

That's because you are simpleton.

And you have absolutely no manners.



Well... I'm still waiting for my CE. I have never expected this game to LOOK great. And comparing this game to oblivion (which btw. has a very different engine) is rediculous.

Okay, how about the Withcer, which is on the Aurora engine (another Bioware engine for a similiar type of game) or Drakensang which is a very similiar play style (very different art style admittedly.) Neither of those games had these kinds of texture problems.

[finc.loki]

I don't know if my update came up in my post the forum seem a little sluggish.

Anyways here is a better picture to see how really awful some textures are in the game.

Take a look at this comparison pic of 360 and PC, look at the fire wood stack at the left on the floor.
That is a texture that is the same as on a game like Half Life 1 (1998).

That is really really really bad.

BBCODE might not work so just click or paste the link, it is worth it:

Link for FULL RESOLUTION use it since you can see it better (you can also right click the image and select view image and then resize it in the browser):

http://www.pcgames.d...91103154735.jpg

Modifié par finc.loki, 04 novembre 2009 - 08:18 .

[Chesta12345]

When I first loaded the game and started playing, the graphics looked like total ass. 

It was so bad that I almost freaked out.  I went ahead and downloaded a new driver for my video card and now it looks much better.

Yea, the graphics aren't as good as Mass Effect's, but they're good.

[Nosuchluck]

Are you guys really freaking out about a few of the objects having low textures? I mean I can't actually decide if you're just messing about, overeacting on purpose or geniunly care that much about visuals. Yes some of the textures suck on a few things like the tents and some of the armour statues. They really don't get in the way.



Just suck it up and stop freaking out. If you can't enjoy the game because of a few bad textures then you really need to sort out your prioritys on why you bought a story-driven RPG.

[nycplayboy78]

I agree with the OP in the sense that graphics are "next-gen" or anything like that. If I am not mistaken EA makes the C&C series right? Also they had and then suddenly shelved the Tiberium game. EA is known for making games with extremely great graphics but on the flipside you remember when Crysis came out and only a few with extremely high end PCs at the time could even run that game. When a developer creates a game they use a baseline and that baseline is usually specs that is across the board and generally accepted hardware that has been on the market for sometime and has been proven. Remember developers and game companies main focus is to push titles out the door and sell as many as possible to a broad spectrum of PC owners. I feel that we won't seen any true DX11 titles for at least another year maybe 18 months because right now there are very very few true DX10 PC games out there. Also graphic quality won't improve until developers drop making 32-bit applications and create purely 64-bit applications but alas it is very cheap to make a 32-bit application vs 64-bit application but with MicroSoft stating that Windows 7 will be their last OS that will have a 32-bit client and their next OS probably 3-5 years down the road will be purely 64-bit then will we see truly breathtaking graphics and gameplay the way it was meant to be on the PC/MAC platform

[Timortis]

The graphics indeed are bad, but it has nothing to do with video cards and game engines. It's an art problem. And Bioware has had this problem for a very long time, they need to re-evaluate their approach to game art-design and they need to understand, that design is much more important than bland realism. They could learn a thing or two from Blizzard when it comes to making a game that has "a visual style".

[AcrylamideTic]

Nosuchluck wrote...

Are you guys really freaking out about a few of the objects having low textures? I mean I can't actually decide if you're just messing about, overeacting on purpose or geniunly care that much about visuals. Yes some of the textures suck on a few things like the tents and some of the armour statues. They really don't get in the way.

Just suck it up and stop freaking out. If you can't enjoy the game because of a few bad textures then you really need to sort out your prioritys on why you bought a story-driven RPG.

Most of us have said we are enjoying the game. At the same time, we're trying to figure out if this is a fixable problem on our end, and if not, we're trying to let BioWare know so that if they can or know how too, they might fix it.

[Craptrain]

I'm playing on medium graphic settings and I think the game looks fine. Then again, I'm not superficial and I'd rather have decent gameplay and story than graphics anyday.

[PromisedPain]

AcrylamideTic wrote...

I agree. Even at 1080p with everything maxed significant parts of this game look like rubbish. Especially the environmental textures, yuck. Above post was right though, it looks better if explore in 3rd person and try not to look directly at the walls around you, just at the light coming in through the windows and what nto.

Great game none the less though.

And I don't think this makes us graphics snobs. I'm more then happy to go back and play Diablo 2 or Baldur's Gate and am fine with those graphics. But when I'm playing a modern 3d game, it's just jarring to see such awful textures as if I'm playing an old version of Quake.

Actually, i was expecting better graphics. These look like from an old neverwinter game.

I mean, cmon? It's 2009 not 1995.

[nimzar]

LOL! I've looked at some of the screens people are using to showcase these so called "terrible" graphics or textures. Could they be BETTER... of course. Are they bad. I don't think I'd say so. How spoiled have people become.

Yes, I think games like Oblivious--er--Oblivion (that was an actual typo btw) and Fallout 3 look fantastic, but saying DA:O looks terrible is stretching it a bit.

If DA:O looked like say MORROWIND or FFVII I'd say you have a valid point. Personally I think it looks BETTER than NWN2.

[hannahb]

Kordesh wrote...

Honestly, I don't see an issue with the graphics. They're not Crysis, but then again for something that was originally designed to be played in the old school iso view I didn't expect much at the zoom level that was added in later, but even then they're still fair enough. Also keep in mind the final version of the game has essentially been sat on for around six months thanks to EAs marketing team so we're looking at something designed for the average system almost a year ago.
Still, the amount of nitpick about this is hilarious, especially the post about how "the story means nothing if the graphics suck" about an RPG...

Well you see, if it was just a story it would be great.  Unfortunately it is a video game which packages the story into a visual experience.  Since the imaginative part of the whole experience is overriden by the what you are seeing then yes the story means nothing.  So basically what you are saying is that you would have been happy if this was a purely text adventure game... that is what is truly hilarious because I seriously doubt you would pay 50-100$ for a choose-your-own adventure book.

[AcrylamideTic]

nimzar wrote...

LOL! I've looked at some of the screens people are using to showcase these so called "terrible" graphics or textures. Could they be BETTER... of course. Are they bad. I don't think I'd say so. How spoiled have people become.
Yes, I think games like Oblivious--er--Oblivion (that was an actual typo btw) and Fallout 3 look fantastic, but saying DA:O looks terrible is stretching it a bit.
If DA:O looked like say MORROWIND or FFVII I'd say you have a valid point. Personally I think it looks BETTER than NWN2.

I love your profile pic.

[Nosuchluck]

That's a strawman arguement. If it was purely a text adventure game it wouldn't of cost 50-100. You're also ignoring the gameplay and such. Actually I'm finding it difficult to figure out how you think that he was basically saying he wanted a text adventure game. Just because someone believes graphics aren't that important in a story-driven game doesn't mean they're saying they don't want graphics, or gameplay and everything which a game has which a text-adventure doesn't.

[Infiltrator.SF]

The game doesn't look TERRIBLE like you say to me. There's certainly room for improvement, but I don't see much to complain about tbh.

[hannahb]

Ok I'm wrong. You would pay 100$ for a choose your own adventure book. Unfortunately, that isnt contributing to the issue that the game graphics may be bugged or that their are no normal maps for what appears to be a large majority of the environmental textures. Since it wont ruin your experience if Bioware is kind enough to fix it for those of us that care then I don't see this thread a being a problem for you.

[NewYears1978]

I think it's just clear there are some really poor textures...the past 3 hours I have been playing..and things have looked pretty good but thats because there was so much going on I didn't stop to say..wow look at that texture...hehe. Also turning off that stupid bloom effect has made a big improvement of the overall appeal which lessens the texture issue.

Still doesn't take away from the fact that some of the textures are just plain bad..not average, or ok, but BAD.

Still loving the game though.

[finc.loki]

Craptrain wrote...

I'm playing on medium graphic settings and I think the game looks fine. Then again, I'm not superficial and I'd rather have decent gameplay and story than graphics anyday.

Superficial?

Ah I see so when someone demands proper quality that are superficial, sigh..

I see that you make the stupid assumption that great game play = bad graphics and great graphics = bad game play.

That is, sorry to say extremely ignorant.

One doesn't exclude the other. Do you honestly think that the "story" would somehow suffer cause of better looking graphics?
One could say that the " game play" mechanics are not all that great in this game either it is a concept that is a decade old.


I think that they purposly made some textures really low in quality in order to reach more players on PC and to be able to fit the game on 360.
This is a typical trade off "optimization" to gain a few FPS.
Hell some graphics drivers do this in order to score more FPS, does anyone here remember ATI and Nvidia  couple of years ago, meaning the days of Geforce 2 etc, they had these "cheat" drivers when benchmarking took place to look like they were faster than the competition.

Think about it, why the hell would they have such an extremely poor textures and at the same time in the same scene have nicer and crisp texture's.
It is optimization and I bet they already have higher rez texture's.

This is also reflected in the performance of the game, if some of the requirements were higher they would reach a smaller market and also when a 3GHZ dual CPU with a 5870 at 1680x1050 doesn't score higher than 37fps average with 4x anti-aliasing , then you could see the problem with introducing even better textures.

I don't think anyone here complains about the actual game as a whole it is great, it is just sad when you see things like this.
Once you notice it that is ALL you see and then it affects your judgement.

Modifié par finc.loki, 04 novembre 2009 - 09:22 .

[AutumnGhost]

Craptrain wrote...

I'm playing on medium graphic settings and I think the game looks fine. Then again, I'm not superficial and I'd rather have decent gameplay and story than graphics anyday.

Then read a **** book if you're so 'non-superficial.'  It's idiotic and dickish to claim people are superficial because they enjoy great graphics.  Maybe some people believe all aspects including graphics are important to a VISUAL RPG experience.

[StonerMkII]

Personally i love the graphics. Ive got the PS3 version and i think it looks pretty great.

[AutumnGhost]

MogwaiX wrote...

And neither of those games have been worked on for 5 years. Some of the textures are most likely very old. Upgrading them would have taken another year or 2, and by then they would have looked "bad" also.

Just a guess.

Not the best guess... That's suggesting that games released will always have bad graphics, because they can never keep up with industry trends.  There's not such an insurmountable amount of textures in this game that they will always be behind in standards.

[Nassou]

Play the **** game. Seriously, play it for real. Once you get into it I guarantee you won't even be focusing on the graphics. You'll be trying not to get your ass handed to you constantly.

[Xalm Grey]

I have to admit i feel the same way a bit. The characters look great but after wandering the swampy area in the beginning of a campaign i gotta say i was pretty underwhelmed by the static water and blocky trees. Its hard to get immersed in a world that is so obviously shown to be a video game with huge polygons and trees that look like they came out of World of Wacraft. I guess i'm a bit dissapointed. My rig could handle so much more. Hopefully a new high res pack will come out?

[Jekaboom]

I agree, textures are on some places not quite OK. Then again, coming from NWN2 I like the visual upgrades they made :-)



and hey.. they still need room to improve for Dragon Age 2, right?