238 réponses à ce sujet

[ZeCollectorDestroya]

I hate model clipping and this game does it a bit.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

While these attacks do make me feel  very alone, it also proves my point. Textures are always the first and sometimes only thing to be modded in games, because they are simple. There's nothing technically impressive about them at all, they are artistically impressive however (Jean-Luc and CDAMJC 's work). Depth mapping techniques are another story, but is unreated to size, which amounts to painting on a very large canvas and not shrinking it down.

All the other features I listed will NEVER be implemented by modders, apart from possibly mesh swapping, which seems to be on its way in limited form. and yes Mister Hammer I'm familiar with texmod. Another great about smaller textures are the fast loading times.

Whethet it's "technically impressive" or "artistically impressive" is besides the point. The point I was trying to make is that when it comes to graphics, the textures ca make or break the game. They are one of the most important things to get right in a video-game these days. High-quality textures can make an old game like Deus Ex look fantastic, while poor-quality textures can make a modern game like Mass Effect 3 look horrible. 

Good textures are far more important than stuff like real-time shadow mapping, ambient occlusion, high-poly meshes, bloom, sun-rays or any other fancy stuff. All that is just extra fancy window dressing really. It can make a good looking game look even better, but all that stuff is not nearly as important as quality textures.

And when I talk about quality textures, I'm not just talking about painting on a large canvas. I'm talking about good-looking diffuse maps, with proper specular maps (<- VERY IMPORTANT) and high-res normal maps.


Edit: And for all the record, I didn't "attack" you. I merely stated that you don't know what you're talking about.

AH ok, how friendly of you, you too, clearly don't know what you're talking about. Enjoy your high-resolution legos

[Deihjan]

One of my issues with ME3 graphics (other than the lowres texture models and stuff mentioned in the OP) is the ridiculous over-use on the LENS FLARE.
Just because it's bright, doesn't mean it's better.
I purposely avoid talking to Liara more than need be because of her Shadow Broker™ screens.

Also, when it comes to NPC graphics and their models, I cringe every time I see the male NPC body, especially Kaidan when he's strapped to the hospital..'bed'. That ribcage isn't natural. And put some clothes on the Virmire survivor, for goodness sake!
FemShep's body has also gained a few pounds (on her chest) from ME1 to ME3, which no woman would experience in her life unless she either; were pregnant, other hormonal changes or got implants.
That's my second big issue with the graphics and the changes from ME2 to ME3; the bodies of human NPCs (and then Liara who used to be a cute pettanko but became some bishoujo nightmare)

Thanks, Bioware.

[Ghost]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

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)!

[Endurium]

voteDC wrote...

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).

I run 1920x1200 with a GeForce GTX680 and the game looks great. When you disable all the blur that hides things, you should add some anti-aliasing to remove jaggies. I suppose if you're used to looking at blurrified games, disabling the blurs can be rather shocking.

I should add that I also tweaked system settings in Coalesced.ini, which further contributed to a better picture.

Modifié par Endurium, 10 janvier 2013 - 01:59 .

[FellishBeast]

imo ME3 is one of the best looking games on Xbox. That might not be saying much, but that's what I'm comparing it to.

[Vaub]

The thing this game need (at least on PC I guess) is a HD texture pack (official one). I mean, background planet are just ugly pixelated thing and things like Anderson uniform are just... But, otherwise, I think the game looks fine.

But, textures, textures... even ME1 had an option for "higher" quality texture (PC)

[Fredvdp]

Vaub wrote...

The thing this game need (at least on PC I guess) is a HD texture pack (official one). I mean, background planet are just ugly pixelated thing and things like Anderson uniform are just... But, otherwise, I think the game looks fine.

But, textures, textures... even ME1 had an option for "higher" quality texture (PC)

The high quality textures in ME1 were low-res as well.

To get the best possible textures, you have to do a console tweak increasing the minimal LOD quality. This fixes Garrus' face but also improves the quality of some other characters.

Modifié par Fredvdp, 10 janvier 2013 - 04:27 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Ghost1017 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

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)!

You're saying Assassin's Creed 3 on PC, running in DX11, maximum settings with an Nvidea card for the extra features such as TXAA and tessalation, doesn't look very very good?
Or are you saying the gameplay in Assassin's Creed 3 isn't good?
Or maybe you're saying the story of Connor Kenway and his father isn't really awesome?

AC3 is better than ME3 in all 3 of those departments. AC3 has way better graphics than ME3. AC3 has better gameplay than ME3 and AC3 has a better story than ME3 (even though the ending of AC3 is just as bad as the ME3 ending).

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 10 janvier 2013 - 06:49 .

[The Heretic of Time]

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb wrote...

While these attacks do make me feel  very alone, it also proves my point. Textures are always the first and sometimes only thing to be modded in games, because they are simple. There's nothing technically impressive about them at all, they are artistically impressive however (Jean-Luc and CDAMJC 's work). Depth mapping techniques are another story, but is unreated to size, which amounts to painting on a very large canvas and not shrinking it down.

All the other features I listed will NEVER be implemented by modders, apart from possibly mesh swapping, which seems to be on its way in limited form. and yes Mister Hammer I'm familiar with texmod. Another great about smaller textures are the fast loading times.

Whethet it's "technically impressive" or "artistically impressive" is besides the point. The point I was trying to make is that when it comes to graphics, the textures ca make or break the game. They are one of the most important things to get right in a video-game these days. High-quality textures can make an old game like Deus Ex look fantastic, while poor-quality textures can make a modern game like Mass Effect 3 look horrible. 

Good textures are far more important than stuff like real-time shadow mapping, ambient occlusion, high-poly meshes, bloom, sun-rays or any other fancy stuff. All that is just extra fancy window dressing really. It can make a good looking game look even better, but all that stuff is not nearly as important as quality textures.

And when I talk about quality textures, I'm not just talking about painting on a large canvas. I'm talking about good-looking diffuse maps, with proper specular maps (<- VERY IMPORTANT) and high-res normal maps.


Edit: And for all the record, I didn't "attack" you. I merely stated that you don't know what you're talking about.

AH ok, how friendly of you, you too, clearly don't know what you're talking about. Enjoy your high-resolution legos

High resolution legos can look pretty damn awesome actually.

[The Heretic of Time]

FellishBeast wrote...

imo ME3 is one of the best looking games on Xbox. That might not be saying much, but that's what I'm comparing it to.

Far Cry 3 and The Witcher 2 still look far better than Mass Effect 3, even on the Xbox360.

ME3 might be good looking for a console game, but on PC it looks like crap. ME3 is clearly a console game ported to the PC, a very lazy port I might add.

I guess BioWare doesn't give a damn about the PC gamers. With ME3, their target audience clearly was the average 17 years old console gamer with a passion for shooters, and it shows...

[gw2005]

they're fine. really. If you don't like it you can spend a day downloading all the HD graphic mods, and spend 15min waiting for them to load.

and they don't fix the ugly shadows.

but aside from that they're fine.

[Reorte]

They're OK. In general they look better than ME2. The low resolution textures are a disappointment but not as much as the iffy animations.

For a game like Mass Effect the story aspects should be a higher priority than the graphics, although of course the best game possible does the best in all areas.

The hazard version of the Firebase Ghost map in multiplayer looks nice, it's a pity that there's nothing quite like it in single player.

[Mazebook]

I think they look good...

[The Heretic of Time]

Endurium wrote...

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.

Since your monitor is a flat surface, there is no DoF going on in your eyes. Therefor adding DoF in a game is not unnecessary. DoF adds a certain touch of realism.

DoF is not even supposed to mimic your eyes, as your eyes work differently than the DoF we see in games. The DoF added in games is supposed to mimic the DoF we see in movies and photographs. The DoF in games mimics the DoF from a photo/video camera.

[timj2011]

I hate the fact that the game was coded in such a way (or just UE3) that textures cant be replaced manually. Instead we have to use the terribad tex mod program that slows everything and has to be initiated every single time. Why cant I just download some files and insert them where they need to go and click yes when windows asks to override...

[twirpdk]

The game could have looked better on PC yes.
But these days i'm really just happy that they still bother porting games to PC, considering the much lower sales vs consoles and piracy issues.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

The crushed blacks on the Xbox version make it nearly unplayable.

[Endurium]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Endurium wrote...

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.

Since your monitor is a flat surface, there is no DoF going on in your eyes. Therefor adding DoF in a game is not unnecessary. DoF adds a certain touch of realism.

DoF is not even supposed to mimic your eyes, as your eyes work differently than the DoF we see in games. The DoF added in games is supposed to mimic the DoF we see in movies and photographs. The DoF in games mimics the DoF from a photo/video camera.

The mind is tied to the eyes, so when I focus on something in the real world, my mind tends to not notice other things around me, though my eyes technically see everything. This is what I meant. In a game DoF is chosen for me, so if I happen to look elsewhere, oops, blur. That detracts for me, thus is not very "realistic".

I was having an odd effect in ME2 the other night, where at certain camera angles curing a cutscene, the screen went blue with a black circle around the speaker's head. That was trippy. Hasn't happened since so I'm chalking it up to a fluke. Maybe a gamma ray passed through my video card that night.

[puppy maclove]

The animations were horrible / the graphics were ok... but these issues are last in line of the many other problems this game had.

[The Heretic of Time]

Endurium wrote...

The mind is tied to the eyes, so when I focus on something in the real world, my mind tends to not notice other things around me, though my eyes technically see everything. This is what I meant. In a game DoF is chosen for me, so if I happen to look elsewhere, oops, blur. That detracts for me, thus is not very "realistic".

Like I said, the DoF in games is not supposed to mimic your eyes, it's supposed to mimic a film-camera. It's a tool that the artists can use to draw your attention to a specific location or area on the screen, like directors do in movies and photographers do in photographs.

You aren't complaining when there id DoF in a movie or photograph now are you? Then why do you complain about it in a game?

[Zezer1]

Everyone can just make a game and throw some high resolution textures at it. That's nothing special.

There is so much more about making good graphics: Lighting, Shaders, Models, Animations, Post Processing effects such as DoF or Motion Blur, artistic direction, atmosphere and level design.

Perhaps you are beeing greatly disturbed by the resolution of the textures. That's your good right and I don't mean to attack you because of that. I'm sure there's someone who doesn't really like the DoF effects or the way the colors are chosen in a particular scene.

But I think the majority of gamers and critics liked the graphics, because it supported the atmosphere well.

I would say that graphics are a tool to create atmosphere, which is needed to tell a tense and immersive story in a believable world.

And Mass Effect 3 has done this exceptionally well.

Modifié par Zezer1, 11 janvier 2013 - 12:29 .

[Han Shot First]

I'm curious if those who hate ME3's graphics also hate the graphics in ME1 and ME2.

Because ME3 is clearly superior to both.

I'm just curious if this is a case of people being so bitter about the ending of ME3 that anything and everything in the game must be described as 'bad,' or people who legitimately did just not like the graphics in the entire series.

[Rotacioskapa]

Han Shot First wrote...

I'm curious if those who hate ME3's graphics also hate the graphics in ME1 and ME2.

Because ME3 is clearly superior to both.

I'm just curious if this is a case of people being so bitter about the ending of ME3 that anything and everything in the game must be described as 'bad,' or people who legitimately did just not like the graphics in the entire series.

Check the sky texture on the Citadel in ME1 then in ME3. ME1 wins.

[Falaxe]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

High resolution legos can look pretty damn awesome actually.

My friends computer can crash with minecraft, but not with ME3. Sonic Ethers, Opti Fine and Hd texture pack (cant remember the name) all set to max. Also there was this one explosion mod...

Only thing that bugged me in ME3 graphics was model twitching and stiff movement.