47 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragon Age1103]

addiction21 wrote...

Dragon Age1103 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Other then both being made by BW that is all they have in common. Different teams using different engines going for different looks, but yes I do agree the DAO models looks horrible.

   I can't agree, I think the models look great but the environment is rather lacking(very actually). ME may look good but it is one of the dullest games I have ever played. I prefer gameplay with solid core mechanics that entertain for hours over shiny stuff with slow meaningless gameplay.

Thats the great thing... We do not have to agree
We all will pick up on some different things. I do agree with the textures felt rather dull but it was the models and animations that stood out most for me. Shiny is nice but it does not top the fun factor for me.  Heck I am playing thru Final Fantasy 6 (I think ti was FF3 when released in the states) while taking a break from DAO.
The big advantage ME had was it used a well deveolped and tweaked engine where DAO is using a new inhouse one. That does not mean the DAO engine will stay the same.

     yeah. lol. I just like DA:O more due to the setting & the smooth animations. ME looks like a cheaply made game animation wise, I mean the movements are so far from natural. It doesn't look good when you run or melee with your gun. All the movements seem forced instead of fluent. Even with the great story & graphics gameplay still soem first to me & ME is very lacking to me. Both have a lot of pros & few cons but Da:O wins my heart! It is by far my favorite RPG or game of all time...well maybe, I stil play gears every single week with friends since it launched like 3 years ago. lol.

[Stanley Woo]

Mass Effect models vs. Dragon Age models. Different projects, different teams, different art direction. It's as simple as that.

[Abriael_CG]

Actually Mass Effect Models look very good at a distance, but when saw from nearby, expecially humans, they show quite a lot of flaws. Just look at Ash's face from close-up, she looks really bad expecially in the eyes area. Looks like the Mass Effect team concentrated a lot on the character design of the aliens, but cut some corners with their human models.

In comparison the facial expressiveness and detail of the models of DA:O is better. The developer chose to dedicate less polygons to the bodies, armor, and weapons, and concentrate their "allowance" on the faces, which is IMHO a good choice, given that dialogue is one of the main focuses of the game.

Also, Mass effect dedicates much less polygons to the environment, which is much more flat than the lush environment shown on DA:O, those polygons have to be taken somewhere.

In the end, though, the games are different in nature. Bioware can use more polygons per character for Mass Effect because the fights in that game are smaller in scale, there are less characters on screen and as such more resources can be allocated to each of them. DA:O is more epic in scale and features several quite massive fights with several models on screen. If each of those models had the same detail as the Mass Effect ones the hardware requisites would be prohibitive for most.

To help you understand the comparison, you can look at racing games like Forza 3 or Gran Turismo 5. The detail you see on the cars is almost life-like. Each of them is made with several times more polygons than each character in Mass Effect or DA:O. Though, there are only 8 (or 16 for GT5) of them on screen maximum at the same time, and the environments are pretty lackluster in comparison. They simply concentrated almost all the processing power of the machine in rendering the cars, keeping only a small amount for the rest.

Depending on the nature of the project, one has to strike a balance, and I would say such balance in DA:O (lots of resources used for the faces and the environments, less for bodies and equipment), is appropriate to the game.

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 21 janvier 2010 - 07:52 .

[Dubidox]

The only real gripe I have about the character models in DAO is the neck-body boundary and the way certain head positions cause the texture to stretch in weird ways at the base of the neck.



Other than that I'd say the DAO models are some of the most photo-realistic I've seen in a game where eye-candy takes a back seat. Granted I'm playing on a PC with the graphics maxed, so your mileage may vary.

[atheelogos]

The character models aren't terrible. With that said they could use some improvements.

[Yargol]

I love both games. I have a pretty top notch PC and run both of them full out, max settings. However I am a little dissatisfied with the detail of the graphics compared to a game like Fall Out 3 and the like. I think for me the differences are tied to these games are not using DirectX 10 since the X-Box doesn't use it. (X-Box still on DirectX 9? I think?)



I actually upgraded from Windows XP to Vista primarily because of DirectX 10 while playing LoTRO. Of course I very quickly upgraded to Windows 7 when it came out.

[Noviere]

I wish the Mass Effect player looked as good as the DAO models. If you choose the pre-made male Shepard he looks great... But if you play a female Shepard or a custom male Shepard, they look worse than the DAO models. I also wish ME had as much freedom over character creation as DAO does.

[MedioMorto]

I love DAO as a game. Actually, for RPGs i can live with mediocre graphics. But we have to admit that textures and characters specially, have way better graphics on a 2008 game than on a late 2009 one.



Something fails. And by the way, this has been commented in many "neutral" reviews. Anyone could say that ME is the "modern" game and DAO the "old" one.

[Darth Obvious]

Actually, Mass Effect was late 2007.

[Abriael_CG]

MedioMorto wrote...

I love DAO as a game. Actually, for RPGs i can live with mediocre graphics. But we have to admit that textures and characters specially, have way better graphics on a 2008 game than on a late 2009 one.

Something fails. And by the way, this has been commented in many "neutral" reviews. Anyone could say that ME is the "modern" game and DAO the "old" one.

And it's actually a good way to pick out ignorant self-elected gaming journalists that should really not write about what they don't know. Yes, single models are less detailed (in some areas) than in mass effetc, simply because the engine is made to support several models on screen, instead than just a few like in mass-effect.

DA:O is a game of epic battles, Mass Effect is not. If DA:O had the same number of polygons per character, yourcomputer would explode in the Battle for Denerim, for instance

[Darth Obvious]

Sounds like somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

So what if ME characters look a hell of a lot better than DA ones? Is it worth getting all worked up over?

Modifié par Darth Obvious, 21 janvier 2010 - 10:32 .

[Riddley313]

I think part of it is the different engines and art direction. Mass Effect looks gorgeous cranked all the way up running on the unreal 3 engine, whereas DA looks very mediocre in comparison running on eclipse. The models and associated animations (especially for females) also look quite bad in DA.

Abriael_CG wrote...
Also, Mass effect dedicates much less
polygons to the environment, which is much more flat than the lush
environment shown on DA:O, those polygons have to be taken somewhere.

That may very well be true, but I'm not really seeing all of these lush environments in DA. Most of the sections, especially places like the brecilian forest, felt and looked blocky and restrictive. Missions like Ilos in ME were absolutely gorgeous, with a great attention to detail.

Also, I have to disagree with DA having better facial expressions. ME looks better in this department as well. Look up a some videos or boot up ME for fun. By comparison, the lip syncing and animation in DA does not look as natural.

Modifié par Riddley313, 21 janvier 2010 - 11:13 .

[Enigm4tic W4rrior]

my honest opinion on this, and its just an opinion. think about how much more massive da:o is compared to mass effect. they are both wonderful games. da:o is to this day biowares biggest game or so they say. da:o is also much more complex in the choices you make, hence the reason why they had to push back rto and the title update. the title update had some bugs in it the team didnt anticipate, which they said da:o is so complex in its design, the title went through with the bugs unnoticed. so i believe that bioware focused on the storyline and gameplay rather than the graphics. although i do agree, da:o would have been beautiful looking with more as you say "realistic" graphics.

[BooPi]

I'm going to go into speculative mode here for a minute.



I think it's just that ME focused more on a tighter, cinematic type of story. So, they could spend more time on the character models and graphics because that was more rewarding to the type of game that ME is.



DA:O on the other hand has a much wider scope. I don't think it was ever meant to be as pretty as ME (though ME is a beautiful game, it would be hard for ANY game to match it, even now). They devoted their resources on DA:O more to the fantasy setting, a much wider world to interact in, etcetera, and the engine and art needed to accomodate that. If they spent a whole lot of time and resources on character models with the type of game DA:O is, I think other areas would have suffered that are, honestly, what differentiates DA:O from ME.



I mean, don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with more ME, but that's what ME2 is for. I want my variety.



Also, I think DA:O is an in-house engine, right? Whereas ME is on the Unreal engine or something. So maybe part of it is that doing DA:O on an in-house engine let Bioware do what they needed to do for DA:O, so it was necessary, but the side effect is that pretty engines may not really be one of Bioware's major strengths. (Who picks up a Bioware game for the graphics anyway? It's the story we care about.)



On the other hand, maybe Bioware blew their budget on voice acting, and didn't have any left to license a good engine, so they had to develop it themselves (though I wonder whether that would really be cheaper, I have no idea). Even if that was the case, I say good decision, the voice acting etcetera made this game what it was.



All that being said, this speculation is kind of worthless. I don't think Bioware will explain it, nor should they. It would be bad form. I think that ME and DA:O are both excellent games, and I wouldn't be able to choose one over the other. That ME is so much prettier just seems right for the type of game that it is, and that DA:O maybe sacrificed some surface shine to tell a different type of story in a different style, well that feels right too. I hate to sound like a fan with the blinders on, but I honestly have no complaints about either, and I'm a really picky PC gamer (at least, no complaints that weren't fixed by tinkering with some config files (ME) and installing some simple mods (DA:O)),

[VampOrchid]

Torious wrote...
Why does ME look better then DA?

Simple answer, Mass Effect was developed using the Unreal 3 Engine from Epic Games, with development tools provided by Epic Games. Now I don't want to put Bioware down or anything, but they just don't have the capability to develope an engine as good as the UT3 engine in house, it's as simple as that. That's not an insult really. Epic Games' engine developers are just, well, epic.

Why no Voice for the Warden?

Because it would mean having the same VO for a Dwarf and an Elf? Seriously? Who would want that.

Thanks, that makes sense.

[VampOrchid]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Actually Mass Effect Models look very good at a distance, but when saw from nearby, expecially humans, they show quite a lot of flaws. Just look at Ash's face from close-up, she looks really bad expecially in the eyes area. Looks like the Mass Effect team concentrated a lot on the character design of the aliens, but cut some corners with their human models.

In comparison the facial expressiveness and detail of the models of DA:O is better. The developer chose to dedicate less polygons to the bodies, armor, and weapons, and concentrate their "allowance" on the faces, which is IMHO a good choice, given that dialogue is one of the main focuses of the game.

Also, Mass effect dedicates much less polygons to the environment, which is much more flat than the lush environment shown on DA:O, those polygons have to be taken somewhere.

In the end, though, the games are different in nature. Bioware can use more polygons per character for Mass Effect because the fights in that game are smaller in scale, there are less characters on screen and as such more resources can be allocated to each of them. DA:O is more epic in scale and features several quite massive fights with several models on screen. If each of those models had the same detail as the Mass Effect ones the hardware requisites would be prohibitive for most.

To help you understand the comparison, you can look at racing games like Forza 3 or Gran Turismo 5. The detail you see on the cars is almost life-like. Each of them is made with several times more polygons than each character in Mass Effect or DA:O. Though, there are only 8 (or 16 for GT5) of them on screen maximum at the same time, and the environments are pretty lackluster in comparison. They simply concentrated almost all the processing power of the machine in rendering the cars, keeping only a small amount for the rest.

Depending on the nature of the project, one has to strike a balance, and I would say such balance in DA:O (lots of resources used for the faces and the environments, less for bodies and equipment), is appropriate to the game.

OK. Now I get it!! You have no idea how much you made me understand. I totally get it now!!

[Valcutio]

I loved Mass Effect but in general I prefer a silent main character. Also, the tools to make a Shepard character were horrible... all the male noses were gross. DA:O did a MUCH better job with their character creation utility.



Hopefuly the team that did ME2 will have learned.

[Abriael_CG]

Riddley313 wrote...
That may very well be true, but I'm not really seeing all of these lush environments in DA. Most of the sections, especially places like the brecilian forest, felt and looked blocky and restrictive. Missions like Ilos in ME were absolutely gorgeous, with a great attention to detail.

Ilos is the perfect example of what I mean. The environment is very flat, artfully arranged to have such flatness less noticeable, but it's actually quite low in polygon count. Also, there are very few buildings, and the number of objects on the screen is low (the architecture is always very flat and undetailed). On the other hand, DA:O has environment like this that are so rich and lush that they seem to come straight from a painting or an illustration. There's no real comparison, I'd say.

mass effect also looses a lot in variation, the same assets are used a million times, each base is the same as 100 others, with just a few crates rearranged each planet is a flat wasteland with just a different texture on it, they almost seem procedurally generated instead of hand-designed.

Finally, the engine of Mass Effect 2 is quite strained, expecially on the 360, there are a lot of very evident and nasty looking pop-in effects with the textures (when a texture initially appears blurry, and then loads a couple seconds after), that show that the memory optimization was far from top notch.

Some things are so rough around the edges that bioware implemented a grainy filter to hide the flaws, mind you (if you thought it was an "artistic" choice, try deactivating it and see how crappy the game starts to look).

I have high hopes for Mass Effect 2, but the first chapter wasn't that strong, technically. I'm afraid that many speak super highly of it more out of sentimental attachment than out of actual technical appreciation.

Also, I have to disagree with DA having better facial expressions. ME looks better in this department as well. Look up a some videos or boot up ME for fun. By comparison, the lip syncing and animation in DA does not look as natural.

Ahem, are you serious? You're telling me that this wig-wearing monster is more expressive than this? or this? Mind you, you can easily see the superiority of the DA:O facial technology when you compare the second picture with this (same situation, slightly different options), as subtle as the differences are, the feelings conveyed are just perfect.
In comparison the faces of the characters in ME are made of clay.

VampOrchid wrote...
OK. Now I get it!! You have no idea how much you made me understand. I totally get it now!!

Glad to be of service

Modifié par Abriael_CG, 22 janvier 2010 - 04:10 .

[Yargol]

I really liked that the main character in Mass Effect had spoken dialogue. That was one thing I felt was lacking in DA:O right off. But I still like DA:O a lot.



Another really big Bioware project that is including spoken dialogue for the player character is Knights of the Old Republic online. It's one of the features that they are really focusing on. I think it adds a great deal to the game.

[Darth Obvious]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Some things are so rough around the edges that bioware implemented a grainy filter to hide the flaws, mind you (if you thought it was an "artistic" choice, try deactivating it and see how crappy the game starts to look).

While I somewhat agree with a few of your other points - little things here and there - I have to say that I don't know anyone who used the "film grain" effect or whatever it was called. I play mostly on a large hd monitor and most of ME looked absolutely fantastic in that regard, with no need whatsoever to hide the sweet graphics.

Ahem, are you serious? You're telling me that this wig-wearing monster is more expressive than this? or this?

About the same, really. Mainly the difference is that Morrigan has more of a archetypal attractive face, whereas Ashley had flaws of beauty that were clearly intended (e.g. her mouth). Why not look at how amazing Wrex's face and eyes looked? ...and other characters like Garrus and Liara looked pretty awesome as well. Compare those to my favorite DA characters (Leliana, Oghren), and the DA characters look almost primitive in comparison.

I think both games are great, and regardless none of these differences are enough to really worry about, IMO.

[Abriael_CG]

Darth Obvious wrote...

About the same, really. Mainly the difference is that Morrigan has more of a archetypal attractive face, whereas Ashley had flaws of beauty that were clearly intended (e.g. her mouth). Why not look at how amazing Wrex's face and eyes looked? ...and other characters like Garrus and Liara looked pretty awesome as well. Compare those to my favorite DA characters (Leliana, Oghren), and the DA characters look almost primitive in comparison.

A friend of mine that works as a character designer and 3D artist told me once something that I find very true. Given the creative idea it's much easier to create a "good looking" alien or monstrous character than an human one. The fact that aliens have features we're unfamiliar with makes it much harder to make an evidently bad job with them.  Also, they have overexxaggerated features, and that makes conveying expressions easier.
On the other hand, we're familiar with humans, so if something is weird we notice much easier. Whoever tried to design his own character in any RPG that offered advanced options (Oblivion for example, but even DA:O has enough options) can notice that. Making a good looking human character isnot easy. Making a decent one in Mass Effect is almost an impossible task.

Most of ashley's flaws were never intended, they just cut a lot of corners while designing her, and the facial engine isn't advanced enough to simulate advanced human expressions correctly. And it shows quite a lot, not only on Ash, Kaidan as well as a poker face made of clay, and that's not just because he's a taciturn guy

[Darth Obvious]

Abriael_CG wrote...

A friend of mine that works as a character designer and 3D artist told me once something that I find very true. Given the creative idea it's much easier to create a "good looking" alien or monstrous character than an human one. The fact that aliens have features we're unfamiliar with makes it much harder to make an evidently bad job with them.  Also, they have overexxaggerated features, and that makes conveying expressions easier.

I don't disagree, since we are imprinted from birth to recognize human-like faces, but that doesn't change the fact that the DA characters of Leliana, Oghren, Zevran, Wynne, etc. are still absolutely no better looking than the human (or human-like) ME characters such as Kaiden, Ashley, or Liara.

In fact, Morrigan notwithstanding I would definitely have to give the edge to the ME characters.

Like I said, though, these small differences are not really with worrying about. I like Leliana the best in DA, and because I am immersed in the story I don't really think about how her facial animations are pretty much universally worse than any of the ME guys. Oh well...

[BooPi]

ME looked great, much better than DA:O (though not to hate on DA:O, i like DA:O for other reasons), but you had to play it on a PC, and you had to tweak the Unreal engine .ini files. First, you had to change the shadow threshhold to get rid of the dotty shadowing. You had to mess with Depth of Field to get rid of the buggy lights. And you had to get rid of the textures bumping in. If you had certain Mobo audio, you would have to trial and error to get the sound channels to work right, and there was something else you had to mess with to get a periodic popping noise to go away. Some other things I can't remember.



But once you did all that, man was it a nice looking game. Only eyesores were some of the more featureless exploration planets, but those were optional anyway.