238 réponses à ce sujet

[Endurium]

Cuttlebone wrote...

Endurium wrote...

While I think any company making a game for both console and PC should release a hi-res texture pack for PC owners (who typically have superior video systems), my ME3 looks great. Of course, I disable all motion blur/depth of field effects so everything on my screen is sharp and detailed.

How did you disable DoF? and more important, there is DoF in ME3? I never really noticed.

Also, I would use Texmode, but no matter what I do the game just crashes on start when I try to use it.

Go to My Documents > BioWare > Mass Effect 3 > BIOGame > Config > GamerSettings.ini

In that file I set DepthOfField=False.

For more tweaks (for PC version): http://www.geforce.c...3-tweak-guide#1

The game enables/disables various settings based on detected video hardware; for mine DoF was on by default. My eyes work just fine, thanks, so DoF is unnecessary. Not sure why devs insist on putting in a feature our eyes/brain can do naturally.

Modifié par Endurium, 09 janvier 2013 - 05:41 .

[Ghost]

Cuttlebone wrote...

animedreamer wrote...

 It's nott he year a game is relased that should set the standard on what hardware was used to create it but when it actually went into development. I'm not saying this as a excuse, but don't know what Bioware had access to at the time ME3 went into development, what we got might have been the best they had to offer at the time. The programmers might have only had knowledge on that paticular engine at the time, combined with the limitations of the home consoles its probably the best they could do with what they had and what was expected of them.

However ME3 is still a visually stunning game when compared to the previous installments.

ME3 had barely 2 years of development, your argument backfired.

Endurium wrote...

While I think any company making a game for both console and PC should release a hi-res texture pack for PC owners (who typically have superior video systems), my ME3 looks great. Of course, I disable all motion blur/depth of field effects so everything on my screen is sharp and detailed.

How did you disable DoF? and more important, there is DoF in ME3? I never really noticed.

Also, I would use Texmode, but no matter what I do the game just crashes on start when I try to use it.

False. ME3 had more than two years development time.

[Splinter Cell 108]

Refara wrote...

Splinter Cell 108 wrote...

One thing that bothers me a lot are the textures. Why are they so crappy for PC? Why doesn't BioWare spend more time refining that for PC, we already have to get a ported version, is it too hard to fix the textures?

Because they don't have to. Most of the sales for the game will be on consoles, so they focus the most on that. PC is more of an afterthought with most triple A titles.

Yeah I get it, we're second rate customers I guess. I still think they should fix that, or at least some high resolution texture pack or something. 

simfamSP wrote...

Because they write a **** ton of dialogue? Compromises must be met, be thankful the quality isn't close to CoD's. It baffles me how someone could say those games have 'good graphics.' I saw Black Ops being played on a high-def screen and I thought I was seeing mud being splattered onto the wall. Those games are not only short, but look awful too.

I've always seen games and gaming this way: the more you have of one thing, the less you have on another. As for graphics? Well, I think it depends on the engine. I'm no expert, but the Unreal Engine is not Frostbite of RedEngine. It still looks a hell of a lot better than most other games. Hell even Mass Effect One looks a **** load better than Red Dead Redeption. But does it matter? Because in my books, both are brilliant games.

Lots of games release a high resolution texture packs, if they can't do it in the game itself then why not just release one later. I really don't give much of a damn about a game's graphical component but being on PC and having to look at things that look like they were made by a 3 year old is upsetting, especially when you know that your machine could run better detail with no issue. At least modders always figure out a way, still things aren't as extensive as they would be if BioWare released an HQ texture pack.

Modifié par Splinter Cell 108, 09 janvier 2013 - 05:45 .

[EvoSigma]

Yes... Everything should have crysis level graphics and that's all that matters... The content of the game itself was what makes a game. Crysis 2 for example was such a bore compared to its predecessor. The graphics were better but the game overall was worse.

Graphics do not define a game. The content defines the game and Mass Effect does not lack in the visual department what so ever.

Of all the things to complain about, I find this to be ridiculous but this is BSN where logic just goes out the window.

[Ghost]

EvoSigma wrote...

Yes... Everything should have crysis level graphics and that's all that matters... The content of the game itself was what makes a game. Crysis 2 for example was such a bore compared to its predecessor. The graphics were better but the game overall was worse.

Graphics do not define a game. The content defines the game and Mass Effect does not lack in the visual department what so ever.

Of all the things to complain about, I find this to be ridiculous but this is BSN where logic just goes out the window.

[JamesFaith]

EvoSigma wrote...

Yes... Everything should have crysis level graphics and that's all that matters... The content of the game itself was what makes a game. Crysis 2 for example was such a bore compared to its predecessor. The graphics were better but the game overall was worse.

Graphics do not define a game. The content defines the game and Mass Effect does not lack in the visual department what so ever.

Of all the things to complain about, I find this to be ridiculous but this is BSN where logic just goes out the window.

Agreed.

I still remember how focus on graphic killed Gothic series. They so much focus on graphic in fourth volume that they killed practically everything other what definied this series (great story, open world, factions, interesting companions and quests...).  Result was nice looking, but extremly boring and embarrassing game.

[Grubas]

This might be relevant to this topic.

https://twitter.com/...206103521595392

Modifié par Grubas, 09 janvier 2013 - 06:57 .

[Fixers0]

EvoSigma wrote...

Yes... Everything should have crysis level graphics and that's all that matters... The content of the game itself was what makes a game. Crysis 2 for example was such a bore compared to its predecessor. The graphics were better but the game overall was worse.

Graphics do not define a game. The content defines the game and Mass Effect does not lack in the visual department what so ever.

Of all the things to complain about, I find this to be ridiculous but this is BSN where logic just goes out the window.

In certain aspects, Cryengine 2 (Crysis) visuals can actually be considered superior to Cryengine 3 (Crysis 2) visuals.

But that doesn't change the fact that the game remains technically highly unimpressive.

[zsom]

I personally found the graphics in ME3 (PC) to be ok. Much better than ME2. Sure it wasn't as fantastic as Skyrim, but then at least it had a story and wasn't sending me into generic dungeon nr. 1000 after the tenth hour.
Actually I can't remember a single Bioware game having state of the art grahics at the time of its release.

[Endurium]

I wasn't complaining if that came across. With AF16, no DoF, no Motion Blur, and some AA the game looks great to my eyes. Spend more time shooting/looting stuff anyway, but at least I can appreciate the details while doing so.

[Fredvdp]

EvoSigma wrote...

Yes... Everything should have crysis level graphics and that's all that matters...

This is an audiovisual medium, so visuals are important. Like the OP said, that doesn't mean it's the only important aspect of the game, but just because most of the game is great doesn't mean we can't express criticism about the aspects that were poorly executed.

What bothers me the most is that the graphics are inconsistent. Faces look detailed enough, but some of the clothing has horribly stretched textures that look awful in a game with as many close-ups and cinematic camra angles as this one.

What's worse is that pre-launch, someone from BioWare said the PC version would come with high resolution textures. This was damage control after we got to play the demo which featured hideous textures that wouldn't be acceptable in a last-gen game. Unfortunately, this Tweet was dishonest and BioWare never bothered releasing a high-res texture pack like they did for Dragon Age II.

Modifié par Fredvdp, 09 janvier 2013 - 10:42 .

[SimonTheFrog]

Graphics are the one thing that a customer can evaluate before buying.

That doesn't mean it's not worth criticising, of course, but it's not like it is an unpleasant surprise.

[AlexMBrennan]

Graphics are the one thing that a customer can evaluate before buying.

Yeah, there aren't any ultra-high quality "not actual gameplay" trailers out there...

Because they write a **** ton of dialogue?

Well, Bioware assigning all graphics designers to writing duties would explain some things...

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 09 janvier 2013 - 11:34 .

[voteDC]

Endurium wrote...

Go to My Documents > BioWare > Mass Effect 3 > BIOGame > Config > GamerSettings.ini

In that file I set DepthOfField=False.

For more tweaks (for PC version): http://www.geforce.c...3-tweak-guide#1

The game enables/disables various settings based on detected video hardware; for mine DoF was on by default. My eyes work just fine, thanks, so DoF is unnecessary. Not sure why devs insist on putting in a feature our eyes/brain can do naturally.

I just tried disabling the option in my copy and it made the game look terrible. Things looked far more jagged and the lighting seemed harsher.

I'm running at 1680x1050 with a GeForce GT 640 (2GB).

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Jonathan Sud wrote...

...do you understand just how much content is needed to be squeezed on those two discs?

It's a smaller game than ME2 overall, including multiplayer.


OP, I guess there's limited subjectivity but I think ME3 looks a lot better. Texture sizes are ultimately quite trivial, they are not a technical feature and there's nothing innovative or exiciting about it since there have been textures. 

Things like the colours and lighting (the volumetric sun rays can look extremely beautiful), more detailed meshes, draw distances and size and scale of everything are what makes the difference. and the just the transition from cutscenes to gameplay already made it that much better.
I very seldomly defend Bioware so I really suggest you re-evaluate your judgement.

Modifié par fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb, 09 janvier 2013 - 11:39 .

[Yuqi]

EvoSigma wrote...

Yes... Everything should have crysis level graphics and that's all that matters... The content of the game itself was what makes a game. Crysis 2 for example was such a bore compared to its predecessor. The graphics were better but the game overall was worse.

Graphics do not define a game. The content defines the game and Mass Effect does not lack in the visual department what so ever.

Of all the things to complain about, I find this to be ridiculous but this is BSN where logic just goes out the window.

[Rotacioskapa]

Grubas wrote...

This might be relevant to this topic.

https://twitter.com/...206103521595392

Yes, that's it. 

"Mass Effect ‏@masseffect@ryand86 When the full game releases, hi-res textures will be built into the game!"
12 Feb 16

Liars.

Modifié par Rotacioskapa, 09 janvier 2013 - 12:14 .

[The Heretic of Time]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

OP, I guess there's limited subjectivity but I think ME3 looks a lot better. Texture sizes are ultimately quite trivial, they are not a technical feature and there's nothing innovative or exiciting about it since there have been textures. 

Things like the colours and lighting (the volumetric sun rays can look extremely beautiful), more detailed meshes, draw distances and size and scale of everything are what makes the difference. and the just the transition from cutscenes to gameplay already made it that much better.
I very seldomly defend Bioware so I really suggest you re-evaluate your judgement.

Texture sizes are ultimately quite trivial? WHAT!? Do you even know what you're talking about? You clearly don't.

The textures are the most important thing in video-game graphics these days. High quality texture mods can make an old game look extremely nice, even to todays standards, while low quality textures can make a modern game look extremely ugly and dull.

Have you ever seen one of those HD texture mods for old games like Deus Ex (original release: 2000)? I swear to god, those texture mods make that extremely old game look extremely good!


So forget high poly-counts, complex meshes, and other extremely resourceful stuff, it's all about the textures! With proper and high-quality diffuse maps, normal maps and specular maps, any game can truly be brought to life.


The reason why ME3 looks so damn ugly is mostly because of the extremely horribly bad-quality textures and the extremely cheap and fake animations.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 09 janvier 2013 - 12:52 .

[PSUHammer]

EvoSigma wrote...
Of all the things to complain about, I find this to be ridiculous but this is BSN where logic just goes out the window.

Sorry, there are much more "ridiculous" arguments on this forum.  This is a subjective opinion and I don't think it is bad to discuss graphics quality for a game.  You can't just discount this discussion by saying "graphics don't make a good game" as that isn't the argument.  I haven't heard anyone say that they hate ME3 because of low res texture armors.  It is just a head scratcher when it is so easy to include them.

I own consoles and a high end PC and I enjoy envelope pushing graphics capabilities of the PC.  Sorry.  That is something I enjoy.  And, it is something I will point out.  But, I still enjoyed the games.

I also thought the lipsyncing tech Bioware uses is bad and immersion breaking and I hope they look into the tech that Bondi put in LA Noire for their next game.  That is animation/graphics and it has a direct affect on the story.  Since these are cinematic games, I think the visual quality helps with the immersion.  Especially when you have close up cinematic conversations.

Just because it isn't something you, specifically, are concerned about, doesn't mean it is "ridiculous" to discuss.

[The Heretic of Time]

JamesFaith wrote...

EvoSigma wrote...

Yes... Everything should have crysis level graphics and that's all that matters... The content of the game itself was what makes a game. Crysis 2 for example was such a bore compared to its predecessor. The graphics were better but the game overall was worse.

Graphics do not define a game. The content defines the game and Mass Effect does not lack in the visual department what so ever.

Of all the things to complain about, I find this to be ridiculous but this is BSN where logic just goes out the window.

Agreed.

I still remember how focus on graphic killed Gothic series. They so much focus on graphic in fourth volume that they killed practically everything other what definied this series (great story, open world, factions, interesting companions and quests...).  Result was nice looking, but extremly boring and embarrassing game.

As if a developer has to choose between focus on graphics or focus on gameplay or focus on story. That's ridiculous. Why can't a game have good graphics AND good gameplay AND a good story?

...Oh wait, it can! The Witcher 2, Far Cry 3 and Assassin's Creed 3 all has proven that a game can easily shine in all 3 departments (graphics, gameplay and story)!

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 09 janvier 2013 - 12:59 .

[Ameno Xiel]

Didn't I read about a possible High-Res Texture Pack (at least for PC) since the beginning? I thought that a few extra lines of code addressing High-Res Graphics were already in the game...

[Gamer790]

What exactly has the OP done to incite such contempt? I suppose he could be a little more cordial in his/her initial post, but all the OP is ultimately doing is offering a criticism. Aren't these forums the place to do it. For my part I do agree that Mass Effect 3 is the "ugliest" is the series, but I blame that on the artistic aspect of the visuals not the technical. I still consider Mass Effect 1 to be the best looking of all three games.

Modifié par Gamer790, 09 janvier 2013 - 01:06 .

[PSUHammer]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...
OP, I guess there's limited subjectivity but I think ME3 looks a lot better. Texture sizes are ultimately quite trivial, they are not a technical feature and there's nothing innovative or exiciting about it since there have been textures. 

All due respect but I completely disagree with you here.  Clearly, you have never seen the Texmod "mods" for ME2 and ME3.  I suggest you look at some of the youtube videos or screenshot comparisons online (in this very forum).

If you are familiar with iPhones and iPads, I compare it to going from an older pre 3rd gen iPhone to a 4 or 5 with a Retina display.  It is drastically different and you can't go back.

Again, some people don't care about these things, but I think most PC users who spend the money on the higher end GPUs would expect them to add them as a toggle option.