238 réponses à ce sujet

[Necrotron]

Well, all I can say is I disagree on that one.  Graphics were definetly not something I found a lack of polish on.

Modifié par Bathaius, 01 février 2013 - 02:38 .

[Allen Spellwaver]

ME3 suffers from a few poor textures. That's it. Some people just prefer to pick the bones from eggs.

[DangerSandler]

ME2 looked better and was less half ass

[ZajoE38]

If you want good graphics, open the window and better yet go out.

[jancz89]

it never bothered be (maybe slow loading of textures in ME1, and low textures on armors in ME2 and ME3) but all in all I don't care, I always thought that it's the consoles' fault, that X-box can't take all the textures or something

EDIT: and well Garrus's face in ME1 FUUUUuuuuu.......

Modifié par jancz89, 01 février 2013 - 08:50 .

[liggy002]

Cuttlebone wrote...

 Ok, I said it. I never thought I would find myself complaining about a game's graphics. I'm particularly inclined to believe that a game's quality lies within its gameplay and detail, not the shiny superficial stuff. But it find it hard to accept when a sequel, one that was made with a bigger budget than its predecesors is a graphical downgrade compared to them. And I'm not talking only about the ridiculous 2d sprites and weird ass animations, it goes far beyond that. Basically everything in this game looks uglier, simpler and duller.

Starting by the low definition textures, specially noticeable on the backgrounds, which used to be stunning in ME2. The reused materials everywhere (this already happened in ME2, I'll admit), the low quality models and terrain, like in Mars or Gellix, the lack of detail to the environments, and if there's any, its made with reused materials. The particle effects couldn't look faker. And lastly the shadows look pretty bad, compared to ME2, where they looked darker and combined better with the scenary, in ME3 they look pale and lacking, and sometimes they overlap with the fake texture shadows of the ground, that looks completely pixelated due to the aforementioned low definition. Couldn't they just make objects project real time shadows? its not like its never been done before, even on games with a lot more stuff happening on the screen at a time.

Of all the complains I've heard about this game almost nobody has brought up the graphics, and the few that do are told to **** off, that they're crazy, that the graphics in ME3 are much better than in the last game. Are those people on drugs or something? its completely deluded. Maybe on the consoles the previous games looked like ****, and that's why people think ME3 looks better.

As I said before it might not be that big of an issue, what really bugs me is that people that really are disappointed with this game because of the plot and whatnot see the graphics as one of the redeeming qualities of this game, which is not right. ME3 was rushed in more ways than just the script.

True, I didn't point it out because the story itself and gameplay is far more important to me in a game than the graphics.  Still, this is correct.

Modifié par liggy002, 01 février 2013 - 09:01 .

[Fredvdp]

jancz89 wrote...

it never bothered be (maybe slow loading of textures in ME1, and low textures on armors in ME2 and ME3) but all in all I don't care, I always thought that it's the consoles' fault, that X-box can't take all the textures or something

EDIT: and well Garrus's face in ME1 FUUUUuuuuu.......

You can fix that with a config tweak. You increase the level of detail of character faces so that it's the same value as the max LOD. It increases the texture quality on some of the volus as well.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/131/index/7738642

Modifié par Fredvdp, 01 février 2013 - 10:17 .

[jancz89]

Fredvdp wrote...

jancz89 wrote...

it never bothered be (maybe slow loading of textures in ME1, and low textures on armors in ME2 and ME3) but all in all I don't care, I always thought that it's the consoles' fault, that X-box can't take all the textures or something

EDIT: and well Garrus's face in ME1 FUUUUuuuuu.......

You can fix that with a config tweak. You increase the level of detail of character faces so that it's the same value as the max LOD. It increases the texture quality on some of the volus as well.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/131/index/7738642

thanks I'll definitely check it out

[Titus Thongger]

ME2 definately looks better than ME3. but at least my buddy with a really old laptop can play it.

[masseffectman123]

Zakuspec089 wrote...

It's not about graphics. It's about Story and character building. If you want graphics play on PC or another game.

What a stupid comment, as if all the PC has to offer is graphics, and no games with great storytelling. Anyway, having played through Mass Effect 2 three times, twice on Xbox 360 and once on PC, i am now playing it through on PS3. I have played Mass Effect 3 through to completion, and there definitely are compromises on the graphical side, in comparison to Mass Effect 2, no matter what this forum says. For example, Miranda's textures and facial animation are noticebly worse in Mass Effect 3, i have no idea why Bioware would decrease the quality on that front. 

As mentioned before, the 2d "sliding" sprites in the beginning and the Citidel are pathetic, in Mass Effect 2 the tiny characters in far off scenery are still fully animated and walking. And guys, come on, Mass Effect 3 is hardly the standard of graphical prowess some of you seem to think it is, maybe you need to play some other games (and yes, there ARE prettier games with gameplay and STORY that matches). Mass Effect 3 is a nice-looking game with some odd compromises graphically over Mass Effect 2, which is baffling, considering they're 2 years apart.

[masseffectman123]

ZajoE38 wrote...

If you want good graphics, open the window and better yet go out.

Another daft and pointless comment. Do you think you're clever by saying this? That's like saying if you want to hear nice sounds, then stop listening to music altogether and go hiking in nature.  

[PSUHammer]

You can fix most of the texture issues on PC with mods. The graphics are not that bad in this game considering it uses a dated engine Unreal 3.5.

[Savber100]

DangerSandler wrote...

ME2 looked better and was less half ass

No. 

Just no. 

[Maeson]

I'm satisfied with the graphics. If anything my gripes are with various character animations and art design choices (as in why did they remove the scope thingy on the Avenger/Vindicator/Mattock? And some others that are more to do with taste)

I mean even crysis 3 has a fair bit of low rex textures and popping (haven't played but I watched all the trailers). Why? Because they can't design a game (that is a product to be sold) to only function properly on a system that is top of the line at the present time. Do you buy a game that your machine can't run?
Very few of us are wealthy enough to maintain a top-tier system at all times.

Modifié par Maeson, 13 mars 2013 - 01:35 .

[Arkevilex]

Savber100 wrote...

DangerSandler wrote...

ME2 looked better and was less half ass

No. 

Just no. 

ME3's graphics are not done by Square-Enix, nor is it trying to be. But ME3 looks great for what genre it is. AND, with the right mods, you can make it look like amazing. But you can't deny that the cinamatography is award winning.


Graphics have improved so much, especially when compared to it's earlier installments.

ME1 had a bland scheme and everything was a kind of greytone. Not alot of contrast.

ME2 was a huge improvment. However, there was a bit of aliasing and the cinamatography, while a huge step up from ME1, still wasn't quite up to par with ME3.

ME3 had a massive visual improvement. There was vitually no aliasing. Cinamatography was amazing. The contrast in the scenes made everything pop and overall, it was one of the more asthetically pleasing games in my video game library.

[astrallite]

You think the graphics were garbage? You didn't play Dragon Age 2

[Ryzaki]

Honestly my Shep looked loads better in ME2. Everything else though improved in ME3. (Though my poor Shep's face just...why BW why?!? Still can't fix him ;_; )

[Fredvdp]

astrallite wrote...

You think the graphics were garbage? You didn't play Dragon Age 2

At least DA2 got a texture patch. The graphics of DA2 bother me much less than those of ME3 because they are more consistent.

[Saiyan1126]

Ryzaki wrote...

Honestly my Shep looked loads better in ME2. Everything else though improved in ME3. (Though my poor Shep's face just...why BW why?!? Still can't fix him ;_; )

This. I wish my ME3 Shepard looked half as good as my ME2 Shepard. I even think Sheploo looks better in ME2. He has a lot more detail on his face in ME3, but I still overall prefer his face in ME2. At least they fixed the random hideous lighting in ME3 (except for Allers). In ME2, Miranda always reminded me of the Two Face girlfriend in Seinfeld.

[Tyson-666]

This is coming from someone that is quite fond of beautiful graphic's.
I play a heavily modified Skyrim, Crysis 3 etc, and I can say that Mass Effect looks beautiful, it might not be the most advanced game graphically, but I think they still manage to make it look great.
The only thing it suffers from is poor low quality textures, fortunately there's quite a dedicated community that have provided high resolution replacements.
If you think this game's graphic's are poor, then you really have no clue what you're talking about, in terms of graphic's quality. You might not like the style, but that is something different entirely.

[katamuro]

For a game running forced to run on a 6 year old console using a 6 year old engine? Its better than most. Apart from weird random missing texture its better than ME2 by far and is one of the better examples of stability and quality.

[Dup3r]

Kulbelbolka wrote...

I'll agree with OP, ME3 sometimes looks horrible, but there is more problems, than textures resolution.
Through walkthrough I felt lack of animation. You can see it in dialogues: very often this is just to 3D-models that just standing and opening their mouthes. No facial expressions, no changing of poses, no gestures. I think this is because the don't have much time for polishing the game.

Also lightning system is worse. You can remember this beatufil illumination that change the atmosphere of the game on different planets at ME1 and you must remember this «dark side» feeling because of this cold and faint lights and lots of shadows in ME2. ME3 has quite «indifferent» illumination that doesn't reflect anything, it's just illumination. I think it should emphasize depression of the ME universe, but there is only traces of it on some locations.

To summarize:
- Low-res textures
- Lack of animation and camera work
- Simple illumination without artistic conception

IIRC, the ME series was built on the UT engine. (slightly older version?) and yeah, the lighting isn't up to say the Cryengine3 . I think that's one reason the mnext Mass Effect game is being done on the Frostbite2 engine. Visually, it's more dynamic. Also, I suspect there are licensing issues to appease.

Camera work and animation was AWESOME in the last 2 DLC. The animation minutia was/is incredable in Citadel. It always seemed that animation started to get a bit jerky if too small of movements were made and I've always chalked that up to engine limitations.

The lower res textures were a bit disappointing in ME3, but as mentioned before, limited disk space is a good argument.  And PS.. us PC players didn't get textures any different than you folks on the consoles.  Aw well, Still enjoy the games Immensely!!

[Chrissycole64]

Cuttlebone wrote...

 Ok, I said it. I never thought I would find myself complaining about a game's graphics. I'm particularly inclined to believe that a game's quality lies within its gameplay and detail, not the shiny superficial stuff. But it find it hard to accept when a sequel, one that was made with a bigger budget than its predecesors is a graphical downgrade compared to them. And I'm not talking only about the ridiculous 2d sprites and weird ass animations, it goes far beyond that. Basically everything in this game looks uglier, simpler and duller.

Starting by the low definition textures, specially noticeable on the backgrounds, which used to be stunning in ME2. The reused materials everywhere (this already happened in ME2, I'll admit), the low quality models and terrain, like in Mars or Gellix, the lack of detail to the environments, and if there's any, its made with reused materials. The particle effects couldn't look faker. And lastly the shadows look pretty bad, compared to ME2, where they looked darker and combined better with the scenary, in ME3 they look pale and lacking, and sometimes they overlap with the fake texture shadows of the ground, that looks completely pixelated due to the aforementioned low definition. Couldn't they just make objects project real time shadows? its not like its never been done before, even on games with a lot more stuff happening on the screen at a time.

Of all the complains I've heard about this game almost nobody has brought up the graphics, and the few that do are told to **** off, that they're crazy, that the graphics in ME3 are much better than in the last game. Are those people on drugs or something? its completely deluded. Maybe on the consoles the previous games looked like ****, and that's why people think ME3 looks better.

As I said before it might not be that big of an issue, what really bugs me is that people that really are disappointed with this game because of the plot and whatnot see the graphics as one of the redeeming qualities of this game, which is not right. ME3 was rushed in more ways than just the script.

I think you need your eyes testing pal, end of.

[zeypher]

though I would have liked high res textures for the pc, ignoring that i was happy game ran smoothly performance wise. But seriously bioware please at least release high res texture pack for pc players as an additional download.

[saracen16]

There were times when I felt the graphics were worse (Earth) and better (Rannoch) than ME2.