Questa discussione ha avuto 38 risposte

[TheEvilMuppet]

Mass Effect 3 has been generally available for months, yet the PC version is yet to receive the attention that is deserved.

The version available is clearly a direct console port, with no effort put into optimising the title for PC gamers.

The textures included are direct copies from the console version - downscaled to accomodate the memory constraints of the XBox 360 and PS3. Even though significant community interest and involvement has shown that there is a want for less downscaled versions of the original assets to be made available, BioWare has done nothing.

The graphical options available to make better use of GPUs are extremely limited, once again a choice demonstrated as inappropriate by way of community involvement (example: fxaa_tool). BioWare have not responded to this fact.

No gamepad support is in place, even though the title was clearly targeted at consoles primarily. This has resulted in paying customers of BioWare needing to leverage solutions such as XPadder due to this oversight.

Menu navigation is horribly inconsistent, with menu items able to be highlighted with keyboard controls but selections not committed - even the main menu is an example of this poor behaviour.

No hotkeys exist for accessing the Journal, Squad or Codex screens for no reason that can be determined. Compensating for these shortcomings is something that is very frequently requested on community forums, with BioWare's silence being the only form of publisher and developer response.

The original Mass Effect 1 port for PC was an example of a much better execution, being called the definitive version of the game by critics. Both Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3 are examples of backward steps for PC gamers for no reason that has been explained.

With all that said, when will BioWare at least be responding to these issues in a meaningful and constructive fashion?

[RaenImrahl]

I play games exclusively on PC, and I cannot disagree with anything you've said. However, if your complaint is that the PC version of the game is being ignored... then how many people do you think will see it in the PC Tech forum? I suggest you re-post this in the general forum, or I can move it there for you, if you wish.  A PM may be the best way tyo reach me over the next few days.

RI

p.s. Probably one of those times I should explicitly mention that I an neither an employee of Bioware nor Electronic Arts; I am just a gamer like you who was asked to help out with forum moderation once upon a time.  So this is in no way a response from anyone official, like a developer.

Modificata da RaenImrahl, 07 ottobre 2012 - 05:44 .

[Sarah_SR2]

I understand where the OP is coming from and the limitations of a ported game can be annoying if you have expensive top end hardware that isn't being fully exploited. Having said that, a port does allow a game to run on a larger number of machines since the technical demands are lower. This means more potential sales of a game which I'm afraid is all really what the execs are interested in.

[Necrochain]

My faith in PC gaming has been diminishing over time. I've been PC gaming for over a decade now, and I have never been so disappointed in all that time until now. Developers target consoles because most gamers own either a 360 or PS3, that being said there are also serious piracy issues that just can not be dealt with. On top of those "concerns", developing for a console can be much simpler with the hardware's limitations already known and they don't need to compensate for things such as 64bit OS' and Crossfire/SLI.

Damn shame to be honest.

[TwwlX]

Never.

If they would only put some effort into fixing a few of the issues that have been plaguing the PC version since release. I really like the co-op but i am disappointed with BioWare and how they've handled the PC version. The equipment store has been buggy for months. People are continuing to lose in game credits as well as BioWare points because of network issues. Just starting up the game takes a ridiculous amount of time. The main menu, co-op lobby and store constantly hang because the game has to communicate with their network every time you switch between menus. This has become increasingly worse over the past few months. Also, the voice chat doesn't work half of the time and they couldn't even bother to implement something as basic as text chat even though it was hinted at in the PC demo. No wonder that so many BioWare developers are jumping ship. Including its founders.

Good game, terrible support and communication. But, hey. That's nothing new for EA.

[Crimson Vanguard]

Since the server down on Friday, I cant connect to Mass Effect 3 server anymore

[PSUHammer]

I think PCs will be better suited to the next gen consoles when they come out next year. Will start seeing games that tax PC capabilities again.

[Lykurgos88]

It really saddens me what kind of compromises big game companies have to consistently make to fit games for xbox and playstation. The small memory sizes (512 MB in xbox and 256 in playstation) are BY FAR the biggest limitations in game development all the way since 2006. So in a way the game industry really hasn't moved forward the same speed it did in the late 1990s or early 2000s. Because of small memory sizes we have seen things like ancient sprite dudes (not even 3d models), limited map sizes and other cheap tricks. Playstation's memory size was a disastrous design error from the start so it affects the development even more than xbox. That's why for example various armor bitmaps and textures in ME3 are of LOWER quality than in ME2 after playstation players were granted access to Mass Effect franchise.

The 2nd most obvious limitation is the laughably old (late 1990s anyone???) optical disc format that xbox uses. This alone cuts content for every game to fit in 6 GB chunks. Having multiple discs per game is possible, but in EACH disc there has to be the exact same engine files, textures etc to make the game work so in a worst case scenario a good portion of disk capacity is already reserved before you can even add new content. Not to mention all the ME3's cinematic files (.bik) take up to 3 GB so they had to cut somewhere to nicely fit it in 2 discs. In this case the final battle of Earth simply couldn't fit if they had massive amount of prerendered cinematics for every outcome of every war asset and multitude of variations in the ending. Of course the limited development time was another reason why ME3 turned out the way it did but the DVD format is an often forgotten issue.

And as if this wasn't enough, even the Extended Cut had to be downsized to fit the ridiculous 2 GB limit in xbox live >

Poor PC ports however are just a result of unacceptable laziness. It doesn't really take that much development time to add pad support or hotkey support (or even mouse scroll support in case of ME2) for pc ports so it baffles my mind why some developers ignore pc altogether even though it results in angry pc purists spamming metacritic with hate reviews. What I hate most with Bioware's PC policy is their complete and utter inablity to make pc only patches to correct some of the most basic mistakes. I understand that it's a pain in the ass to release patches for consoles with all their obligatory ratifications processes and unchangable optical disk content but why bring pc the exact same patches at the same time when some of the issues could be fixed in pc hotfixes in ONE EVENING? In other words, why does PC content have to be synchronized with console content even though ME3 doesn't support cross-platform multiplayer? It doesn't make sense! Why did PC players had to to wait 3 months for a simple line change in Engineering Deck to enable ambient discussion if Kaidan was alive? And why did pc players had to wait 6 months for Ultra-light materials fix in multiplayer?

I would like Bioware to notice that independent pc patches do NOT harm anyone. PC patches are easier and faster to release and they can alter the original content in much more dynamic ways. In addition they would be very good publicity for Bioware. Metro 2033, Deus Ex: Human revolution and Max Payne 3 are some of the best pc ports around and they have all gotten positive feedback because of that.

P.S Hurry up Sony and Microsoft! Release the new consoles asap to end this 6 year long stagnation in game development!

[TheEvilMuppet]

Lykurgos88 wrote...

The small memory sizes (512 MB in xbox and 256 in playstation) are BY FAR the biggest limitations in game development all the way since 2006. So in a way the game industry really hasn't moved forward the same speed it did in the late 1990s or early 2000s. Because of small memory sizes we have seen things like ancient sprite dudes (not even 3d models), limited map sizes and other cheap tricks. Playstation's memory size was a disastrous design error from the start so it affects the development even more than xbox.

Although I agree with your thinking, there's a slight error here. It keeps coming up in various forums, although I've no idea why.

The PS3 and XBox 360 basically have the same amount of memory. The differences are:

• The XBox 360 has a single unified address space of 512MB shared between the GPU, CPU and other support processors. The GPU additionally has access to a 10MB eDRAM region for antialiasing, Z operations and framebuffer storage - this can be a double-edged sword as the memory for framebuffer,Z operations and antialiasing must come from this limited region. Total bandwidth for the unified 512MB region is about 22GB/s.
• The PS3 has 256MB of XDR memory that is accessible by both the Cell CPU, with the RSX (the PS3's GPU) able to access up to 224MB of that memory if required. The RSX also has access to 256MB of dedicated memory for graphics operations. Bandwidth for each bank of 256MB of memory is about 22GB/s (potentially double that of the XBox 360 in total).

The only other advantage the XBox 360 may have memory wise is the size of the OS and Hypervisor. The Xbox 360 only features a Hypervisor, whilst the PS3 has both a Hypervisor and an OS, taking up slightly more memory.

The difference is nowhere near as great as most people report for some reason.

[TheEvilMuppet]

Sarah_SR2 wrote...

I understand where the OP is coming from and the limitations of a ported game can be annoying if you have expensive top end hardware that isn't being fully exploited. Having said that, a port does allow a game to run on a larger number of machines since the technical demands are lower. This means more potential sales of a game which I'm afraid is all really what the execs are interested in.

You make an excellent point. That said, the point only really speaks to the lower resolution textures I've mentioned - addressing the other issues wasn't a problem in Mass Effect 1 for PC and that was released quite a few years ago.

Further, providing higher resolution textures wouldn't increase requirements - look at Crysis 2 as an example of a game that allows you to select high resolution textures if your hardware is up to the challenge.

[MassivlyAfflicted]

Look at GTA IV. Even though that has some of the worst optimization ever, the options exist to play in higher quality than the console versions.

[TheEvilMuppet]

MassivlyAfflicted wrote...

Look at GTA IV. Even though that has some of the worst optimization ever, the options exist to play in higher quality than the console versions.

Utilising an engine that the developer built in-house, to target multiple platforms that had only had a single outing prior (Rockstar Presents: Table Tennis).

Meanwhile, BioWare have utilised the Unreal Engine in all 3 Mass Effect titles, the engine has been tuned, updated and expanded in capability by Epic over that time period and the engine is renowned for it's flexibility.

The Unreal Engine powers Gears of War, Arkham Asylum/City, Borderlands 1 & 2, Spec Ops: The Line and many other games that are nowhere near as limited in being an excellent PC gaming experience as Mass Effect 2 and 3.

[PSUHammer]

Bioware even released higher res texture packs for the PC for their other franchise, DA2. That one thing would have made me happy. I can't STAND looking at that god awful low res armor on my 1080p screen. Texmod is a lifesaver.

[TheEvilMuppet]

Lykurgos88 wrote...
In other words, why does PC content have to be synchronized with console content even though ME3 doesn't support cross-platform multiplayer? It doesn't make sense! Why did PC players had to to wait 3 months for a simple line change in Engineering Deck to enable ambient discussion if Kaidan was alive? And why did pc players had to wait 6 months for Ultra-light materials fix in multiplayer?

I would like Bioware to notice that independent pc patches do NOT harm anyone. PC patches are easier and faster to release and they can alter the original content in much more dynamic ways. In addition they would be very good publicity for Bioware. Metro 2033, Deus Ex: Human revolution and Max Payne 3 are some of the best pc ports around and they have all gotten positive feedback because of that.

I would struggle to put it better myself.

[TheEvilMuppet]

Hammer6767 wrote...

Bioware even released higher res texture packs for the PC for their other franchise, DA2. That one thing would have made me happy. I can't STAND looking at that god awful low res armor on my 1080p screen. Texmod is a lifesaver.

The fact that Texmod is a solution is itself a problem. 

A third party tool gives the ability to replace textures with higher resolution ones, without access to the engine source thus proving it can be done.

Further, the community is the party providing improved textures. This is in spite of the fact that the better art assets do exist within BioWare.

[RaenImrahl]

Moving to General discussion forum.

[Cribbian]

To at least get some high-res textures would be nice

[TheEvilMuppet]

Cribbian wrote...

To at least get some high-res textures would be nice

Exactly. BioWare have done this for other titles in the past....

[Dorryn]

You forgot to mention that while Bioware doesn't seem to want to bother making sharper textures for PC (something modders have done on their spare time for free), they do love to bother creating radial/blur FX like the Krogan Rage or the dreaded Geth Hunter Mode, which not only make no sense because we're not seeing the battlefield through the character's eyes but also make some people sick, literally.

And to make it worse, they don't give us the ability to turn them off.

Modificata da Dorryn, 09 ottobre 2012 - 01:47 .

[Fredvdp]

Dorryn wrote...

You forgot to mention that while Bioware doesn't seem to want to bother making sharper textures for PC (something modders have done on their spare time for free), they do love to bother creating radial/blur FX like the Krogan Rage or the dreaded Geth Hunter Mode, which not only make no sense because we're not seeing the battlefield through the character's eyes but also make some people sick, literally.

And to make it worse, they don't give us the ability to turn them off.

True. I can't play in geth hunter mode because the blurry edges, coupled with the low FOV, gives me massive headaches after playing for a minute.

[TheEvilMuppet]

Dorryn wrote...

You forgot to mention that while Bioware doesn't seem to want to bother making sharper textures for PC (something modders have done on their spare time for free), they do love to bother creating radial/blur FX like the Krogan Rage or the dreaded Geth Hunter Mode, which not only make no sense because we're not seeing the battlefield through the character's eyes but also make some people sick, literally.

And to make it worse, they don't give us the ability to turn them off.

The effects I can understand as being considered part of the art style BioWare has chosen to adopt. That said, the lack of sharper textures is inexcusable.

[Kzak]

I'd be happy to see more server stability (EA Servers, I'm looking at you). Also, it can't really take 40+ seconds to connect to EA servers? The server load cannot possibly be *that* high. That, or the servers are severely misconfigured/underdimensioned in comparison to the incoming requests.

[TwwlX]

Kzak wrote...

I'd be happy to see more server stability (EA Servers, I'm looking at you). Also, it can't really take 40+ seconds to connect to EA servers? The server load cannot possibly be *that* high. That, or the servers are severely misconfigured/underdimensioned in comparison to the incoming requests.

Don't worry. They'll eventually add dedicated server support and faster connectivity in the form of a "Premium" service.

[TheEvilMuppet]

It's delightful to see that BioWare have failed to give any form of response....

[Cribbian]

aaaaaaaaaaaaand still nothing....