152 réponses à ce sujet

[katamuro]

Yeah all three games use the same derivative of the Unreal 3 engine. They modified it in between the games but its still the same one. 

[Tonymac]

So why did the ME2 graphics look way better than ME3?

[Vazgen]

So why did the ME2 graphics look way better than ME3?

They didn't?

[katamuro]

So why did the ME2 graphics look way better than ME3?

 

Yeah, maybe you need to play around with your graphics options. What are you playing it on anyway? xbox?ps3? pc?

[Fandalorian]

Unprepared people can easily take this art for another Halo concept.

 

I liked the armour from ME1 most of all the three games. It looked form fitting, yet solid and protective, without being bulky. It actually looked like ablative armour from the future.

 

This concept art looks like two steps back. You want less bulk, not more.

[katamuro]

I liked the armour from ME1 most of all the three games. It looked form fitting, yet solid and protective, without being bulky. It actually looked like ablative armour from the future.

 

This concept art looks like two steps back. You want less bulk, not more.

 

This does seem to be less comfortable to wear. and less functional as armour. It has a lot of angles, a lot of unnecessary bits and the huge glass visor seems to be a step back. Helmets in ME1 and ME2(the harsh environment version) are quite functional. Cover nearly the whole face with the appopriate eye level slits. Cerberus armour and inferno armour with their full face visors wouldnt be my choice to go into combat. The basic N7 helmet and the recon hood seem to be the most functional ones. 

[Vazgen]

Relevant: Link

 

I like the armor material. I too think that the armor looks too bulky, like Kaidan's and James's alternate outfits or Cerberus armors. I would prefer more slim, lighter armor. Of course, this is a very early concept of one armor. For all we know, it can be simply a version of Heavy Armor like in ME1. 

[katamuro]

Relevant: Link

 

I like the armor material. I too think that the armor looks too bulky, like Kaidan's and James's alternate outfits or Cerberus armors. I would prefer more slim, lighter armor. Of course, this is a very early concept of one armor. For all we know, it can be simply a version of Heavy Armor like in ME1. 

 

that is an awesome link. And I hope they bring back the whole light/medium/heavy armour thing. Made the different classes be distinctive. 

[Tonymac]

Yeah, maybe you need to play around with your graphics options. What are you playing it on anyway? xbox?ps3? pc?

PC.  And I really do think that ME2 graphics looked way better than 3.  I had all the graphics options up all the way on both games.  ME3 looked 'plasticy' to me, if that makes any sense.

[katamuro]

That is weird. I thought that the fidelity of images was improved, the edges and some textures were uprated. It was a bit more shiny, the surfaces and armours had a brighter sheen to them. ME2 did seem a bit more grimy and a lot of the main areas were in enclosed spaces like Omega and the collector ship and base, the tonal palette was also more muted. 

[The Arbiter]

I only use film grain in LF4D2 makes it look like a horro movie. In mass effect? Not sure

[Lunch Box1912]

I know this video is about the ending but if you bear with it around 2 minutes he begins to discuss talkie techy sci fi's and around 6 minutes he explains why they used the grainy visual in the first Mass Effect.

 

[Larry-3]

I like Mass Effect one and two's graphics more than Mass Effect 3.

[ImaginaryMatter]

So why did the ME2 graphics look way better than ME3?

 

The graphics got better, the art direction got worse.

[SwobyJ]

The graphics got better, the art direction got worse.

 

To me, ME3 art direction was a mix of much better, and sloppyness.

 

I'd like to keep the much better part, but have the direction ME1-ME2 kept.

 

ME3 was kinda all over the place in a not-as-nice way. But many parts of it were awesome, and I enjoyed them more than the general ME1 look or the grittydarkgritty of ME2.

[Han Shot First]

I thought most of ME3 looked great.

 

The only area where I really didn't like the art direction was in London. Granted...I suppose it is hard to make a rubble pile look interesting. But I thought London's ruins looked too 21st Century than 23rd. I'd have rather it had a more Sci Fi vibe.

[katamuro]

What I mostly notice now playing it again with a critical eye is that there are a whole lot of things that are simply not worked out. textures that are not where they are supposed to be, edges and lines that shimmer and break in convos or cutscenes. Camera that sometimes makes stuff disappear for no reason. Basically technical stuff that is mostly unfinished or not tested out properly. 

[Lee T]

So why did the ME2 graphics look way better than ME3?

Experience working on the same engine game after game. The game done with an engine at the end of it's shelf life generally look way better than the first game done with it even on the same speced platform (console games are a gery good exemple here).

[KotorEffect3]

I thought most of ME3 looked great.

 

The only area where I really didn't like the art direction was in London. Granted...I suppose it is hard to make a rubble pile look interesting. But I thought London's ruins looked too 21st Century than 23rd. I'd have rather it had a more Sci Fi vibe.

I think with London they were trying to go with something familiar,  London is one of the world's most well known cities,  players would see something they are familiar with getting reaped.  Also London is a city that is known for taking a few war time beatings in it's time.

[Outspokenbeef]

I liked the armour from ME1 most of all the three games. It looked form fitting, yet solid and protective, without being bulky. It actually looked like ablative armour from the future.

 

This concept art looks like two steps back. You want less bulk, not more.

Something we have to remember is that it is just concept art so it will probably change

[goishen]

I thought London was fine.  

 

Here in America we say, "Gee, that building's a hundred years old.  Good for them for being able to keep it standing for that long."

 

In Europe they say, "Gee, that building's a hundred years old.  Guess it has a few more centuries to go before it hits the age of the church that was built in 1294."

[Outspokenbeef]

yeah but it still sucked

it looked too similiar and in general the level was poorly designed

 

clearly a rushed job especially compared to the rest of the game

the tuchanka mission where you see how the krogan were before was great for an example

I agree with everything you said though again how good can you make a destroyed london warzone look though i agree i didn't really feel like a ground war we hardly saw any of the other species fighting other thanjust alliance soldiers in gameplay  i guess some people were expecting a fight like the take earth back trailer but with all the species fighting together against the reapers on the ground

[KaiserShep]

I thought London was fine.  

 

Here in America we say, "Gee, that building's a hundred years old.  Good for them for being able to keep it standing for that long."

 

In Europe they say, "Gee, that building's a hundred years old.  Guess it has a few more centuries to go before it hits the age of the church that was built in 1294."

 

Hah, I know right? 2180-something is a long ways away, but it's not that far off. Pending any major disasters that claim a lot of the old buildings in Europe, a lot of them will probably still be there by then, which is a wide departure from my neighborhood in Brooklyn, where crappy erector set condominiums can pop up at any time over a previously dug hole in the ground.

[katamuro]

Hah, I know right? 2180-something is a long ways away, but it's not that far off. Pending any major disasters that claim a lot of the old buildings in Europe, a lot of them will probably still be there by then, which is a wide departure from my neighborhood in Brooklyn, where crappy erector set condominiums can pop up at any time over a previously dug hole in the ground.

 

One thing you need to know about London and UK in general is that while that church or cathedral was built in the 13th century it was built out of stone most of the time. The buildings especially the ones built in the last 50 or so years are built out of much cheaper and much less durable materials. And a lot of them already show strain just being upright. After WW2 a lot of buildings were thrown together quickly and cheaply which meant that the quality has suffered quite a lot. I would not be surprised that by 2050 or so none of them would be standing apart from the ones specifically preserved as some kind of "cultural" thing.