Are the graphics supposed to be that bad? [Archive]

Farlong

01-31-2010, 04:45 PM

the game looks gorgeous, if you think the graphics are bad then you need to have your eyes checked, also there are more graphics options in the configuration utility that are not available in game

ME2 is the same as ME1. Look at non-crew NPC clothing. Its so jagged it looks like it was made out of lego blocks.
The crew is mostly done well, but the regular NPC clothing textures looks like poo.

Kroz

01-31-2010, 05:04 PM

This game looks absolutely stunning like it does on mine :http://img.waffleimages.com/db11494ff45d8456bb00a6b22de4c2c836b0e611/lolwat.jpg Might be a SPOILER btw

Atomic Hamster

01-31-2010, 05:15 PM

I have the same system as you except i have a 4890 and the graphics look amazing in this game.

maul_inc

01-31-2010, 05:35 PM

I think Omni_san is just here to brag about his big rig (if it's even that big because with a pc like that he would have tried out Crysis just to see what it's capable of).
Anyway, I think this game is beautiful but of course it can't beat Crysis in that department.

No matter! The graphics can be even more beautiful with AA an Anisotropic filtering turned all the way up. Besides this game has a 1000 times better gameplay than Crysis (not that I don't like Crysis) and gameplay for me is the primary factor when I buy games (who would honestly enjoy spending their money on a glorified tech demo that only lasts 5-6 hours?)

Omi_san

01-31-2010, 07:46 PM

I think Omni_san is just here to brag about his big rig (if it's even that big because with a pc like that he would have tried out Crysis just to see what it's capable of).

Why would I brag? My PC is average. It's the strict minimum anyone should get if they are building a gaming pc nowadays.

Saskuatch

01-31-2010, 07:56 PM

ME2 is the same as ME1. Look at non-crew NPC clothing. Its so jagged it looks like it was made out of lego blocks.
The crew is mostly done well, but the regular NPC clothing textures looks like poo.

its the same? as me1? are you serious? is this a serious response? If you think the graphics of me2 are the same as me1 then there is something seriously wrong with you. The settings are amazing, the art style is amazing, I mean when I am in omega it almost feels like I am in bladerunner.

Marsbergen

01-31-2010, 08:07 PM

Post some screenshots of your ME2 in-game, Omi_san.

deadlybydesign

01-31-2010, 08:14 PM

Yeah - post some screens. Your PC should be more than fast enough to run this game well. Maybe your textures aren't popping in at their highest or something, because it's a gorgeous game.

SeLeXeL

01-31-2010, 08:15 PM

ME2 has a more polished look than ME1 in my opinion, but it also has plenty more 'jaggies'.
Have you left the film grain filter enabled ?? If so, try disabling it and see.

I'd go with what Alastayr suggested and try to take a few screen shots, preferably outdoor and indoor scenarios.
If you want to know how, try using Fraps !!

BTW, have you played ME1, and if so, what did you think of it's graphics ??

avidwriter

01-31-2010, 08:18 PM

A) Troll.
B) Terrible settings for the game.
C) Some other crap that makes his game not look good.
D) Any or all of the above.

Take your pick.

Yvese

01-31-2010, 08:19 PM

It's an obvious troll, or a 12 year old kid going around forums trying to make himself feel good by saying he has an i7 rig.

Move along.

GoDMiN

01-31-2010, 08:26 PM

Why would I brag? My PC is average. It's the strict minimum anyone should get if they are building a gaming pc nowadays.

Lol i7 is minimum? Tbh the i7 isn't really that much better in games than most other CPUs. total waste of money if you ask me.

http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=794&page=1

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-4770,2281-12.html?xtmc=i7_vs_7850&xtcr=1

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=296&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=11

In gaming the GPU is what matters by far.

Also I think the game looks pretty good.

Alastayr

01-31-2010, 08:37 PM

It's the strict minimum anyone should get if they are building a gaming pc nowadays.
Haha. No.

10trolls

BenKYS

01-31-2010, 08:37 PM

The textures of the main squad are crisp and detailed, but most other NPC's have low res textures and you will notice this while talking to them. Even Shepard has fairly low res textures for the casual wear.

Examples, these are all on maximum possible settings:

The clothing: http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/5299/masseffect2201001290816.jpg

This one is especially bad: http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/1605/masseffect2201001290734.jpg

All squadmates seem to have much higher quality textures than this. One strange texture oddity is on the Terminus armor, the helmet is crisp and clear while the armor itself is low res and looks bad.

Protokiller

01-31-2010, 08:39 PM

its the same? as me1? are you serious? is this a serious response? If you think the graphics of me2 are the same as me1 then there is something seriously wrong with you. The settings are amazing, the art style is amazing, I mean when I am in omega it almost feels like I am in bladerunner.

Mass Effect 2 looks very similar to 1. ME2 seemed to lack giant environments like Virmire when your in the Mako, that scene was large, had beautiful water and had you fighting lots of enemies to boot.

ME2 has lots of little firefights.

RamonSterns

01-31-2010, 08:54 PM

Clothing has always looked like ♥♥♥♥, since ME1.

Want to blame someone? Blame the clothing texturer/modeler.

The rest (http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a51/RamonSterns/Shepard2.png) of the game looks awesome, even without AA.

Malcufious

01-31-2010, 09:04 PM

MyLittleBirdy

01-31-2010, 10:09 PM

Looks amazing to me. Dunno what ur doing wrong. Got ur AA set?

Stelly

02-01-2010, 12:26 AM

The clothing: http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/5299/masseffect2201001290816.jpg

This one is especially bad: http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/1605/masseffect2201001290734.jpg

If these graphics aren't enough to immerse someone, their parenting was at fault. They would benefit more from seeing reality instead of wanting a fake reality.

Maczie

02-01-2010, 12:48 AM

Why would I brag? My PC is average. It's the strict minimum anyone should get if they are building a gaming pc nowadays.

Spoiled kid is spoiled.

Mouseraider

02-01-2010, 01:06 AM

I have to agree that the graphics in ME2 are quite nice, but I would have liked something along the line or above crysis =) but then again, better graphics mean worse gameplay... and we would have to wait so much longer.

Stelly

02-01-2010, 01:30 AM

UE3 just can't do Crysis and if they used CryEngine you'd have millions of whiners that their pc can't run it. This is a Bioware, you don't need awesome graphics to love it but they give it anyway (http://relm.exophase.com/ME2/SSAA/MassEffect2-2010-01-29-23-00-57-20.jpg).

Protokiller

02-01-2010, 02:14 AM

but then again, better graphics mean worse gameplay...

Not at all, it just happens to be that games with god like graphics seem to lack in gameplay.

But you stated it as if it were a fact.

According to you Pong has the best gameplay of all time.

Kosh800

02-01-2010, 02:24 AM

Most of the graphics are nice enough. Animations are normally very fluid. The facial animations are a little lacking but they aren't too bad. I know they said they spent a lot of detail on the eyes and I can kind of tell ... kind of. Unfortunately they seem to have neglected the forehead muscles and the facial expressions that require your lips and cheeks to move (like smiles or smirks). They tried with Jack but weren't too successful. Not that I fault them for it. It's hard as hell to get life-like animation of any kind, especially the face. There are so many muscles attached to other muscles ect. that it would require several hundred, if not thousands of bones to animate correctly.

But you do have a point about bad graphics to a point on two issues that have already been touched on a bit.

Clothing/Armor textures. Some are alright. None are amazing. Many are downright awful. For a game developer that is known to have a lot of game time focused on the upper torso and up of a character in dialogs you'd think they would give a little more resources to the poor texture guys. Shepard's armor is probably the best. That's only because of the variety and, more importantly, the depth of his gear. All the other textures seem like flat models with a simple texture slapped on top. Very 2D looking with no depth at all. The exceptions to this are Grunt and Arch Angel. Grunt looks amazing in his standard armor. Even better than his reputation armor (mostly because of the depth, again). Arch Angel looks good because of the depth and detail to the armor and especially the damage. Worst armor of all would probably go to ... forgot his name. The black fella. I never played with him (not because he's black but because I like playing with women .... giggidy!) so I can't remember his name.

This is to be expected, though, what with the game being geared towards consoles. It would be awesome if they could develop the PC version along side the console version and make use of the better PC hardware but oh well ... way too time consuming and far too expensive.

Alastayr

02-01-2010, 02:45 AM

This is to be expected, though, what with the game being geared towards consoles. It would be awesome if they could develop the PC version along side the console version and make use of the better PC hardware but oh well ... way too time consuming and far too expensive.
That's the kind of fan service you may get once from a developer. Then they see the console version outsell the PC 3:1 and cost effectiveness rears its ugly head again.

I'm replaying Mass Effect for the Xth time now. It's the strong art direction and designer's vision that makes me come back. For all the rough spots it has, when it shines, it shines brightly.

Kosh800

02-01-2010, 02:50 AM

That's the kind of fan service you may get once from a developer. Then they see the console version outsell the PC 3:1 and cost effectiveness rears its ugly head again.

I'm replaying Mass Effect for the Xth time now. It's the strong art direction and designer's vision that makes me come back. For all the rough spots it has, when it shines, it shines brightly.

That's why I play, too. The industry has, for a long time, focused on graphics. Crysis was a big example of that. It was an alright game but nothing spectacular as far as gaming goes. Then the industry went from "OMG, look I can make it life like!" to "OMG, lets make cheap and easy console games that are using antiquated hardware!" I'm not sure which is worse at this point ...

Mouseraider

02-01-2010, 03:10 AM

Not at all, it just happens to be that games with god like graphics seem to lack in gameplay.

But you stated it as if it were a fact.

According to you Pong has the best gameplay of all time.

Creating better graphics takes time, developers usually have a timelimit. I have never stated that old games should be compared to new games.

The reason why I said that better graphics lead to worse gameplay is because developers dont have enough time these days. Better graphics will always lead to worse gameplay, be it shorter gameplay, worse acting, terrible quests etc.

Protokiller

02-01-2010, 03:20 AM

Creating better graphics takes time, developers usually have a timelimit. I have never stated that old games should be compared to new games.

The reason why I said that better graphics lead to worse gameplay is because developers dont have enough time these days. Better graphics will always lead to worse gameplay, be it shorter gameplay, worse acting, terrible quests etc.

It happens that some games have groundbreaking graphics and excellent gameplay. Developers can take their time and make a quality product all the way around.

Gears of War 2006- excellent gameplay and reviewers said it was the best looking game at the time, pc or console. (no other ue3 games had came out)

I'm even going to bring up Mass Effect, it's one of the best looking 360 games yet has excellent gameplay and graphics.

Farlong

02-01-2010, 03:48 AM

its the same? as me1? are you serious? is this a serious response? If you think the graphics of me2 are the same as me1 then there is something seriously wrong with you. The settings are amazing, the art style is amazing, I mean when I am in omega it almost feels like I am in bladerunner.

Was talking about the low-res texture for normal clothing. ME2 is the same as ME1. (as in: textures are bad)

Nalle

02-01-2010, 03:52 AM

Protokiller

02-01-2010, 04:19 AM

UE3 can do a lot more than this, it's just that the Xbox 360 can't do it.

Even Epics pc centric shooters don't look much better (if any) than this. UE4 is also under development, I think this engine's pretty much had it's run.

Draek

02-01-2010, 04:22 AM

And so the original poster dissapeared after somebody asked him for screenshots. I think we can safely dismiss him as a troll and forget about this thread now.

sparks454alive

02-01-2010, 04:34 AM

It's interesting how the "$%^T disturber", shows off "its", rig only to not return.
And in the process, creates a storm in here.
At 1680 X 1050 and all things maxed, it's well put together.
probably didn't go through the config launcher.

50CALBR

02-01-2010, 05:28 AM

I have a core i19 with 800gigs of RAM, octo-crossfire HD6890's and a 59,000rpm raptor HDD.

Mass Effect 2 is the lamest looking game ever, it looks like something running on a NES.

For shame, Superman 64 was waaay better.

Saskuatch

02-01-2010, 05:43 AM

gorgeous imo, most of the character textures especially on NPCs are optimized for a third person view obviously since that is the camera setup of the game

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/9462/masseffect2201001311257.jpg

amitava82

02-01-2010, 05:48 AM

2.2 Dual Core GHz
Geforce 9400 GTS
2 GB RAM
32 bit Vista

All my specs on the game are at 'default' and I'm still impressed with the graphics. No AA though, I never turn AA on, I like jagged edges in graphics for some reason.
Could you please post couple of screenshots? I just finished ME1 on my laptop (9700mGT) and it ran pretty poor (below 25fps. even down to 17) with low/medium settings (all eye-candies off. looked pretty crap though) at 1680*1050. I'm afraid to get ME2 now. I don't know if ME1 is very unoptimized game or it's my system. I could Crysis or Batman AA at high and get above 30fps. :confused:

nascent

02-01-2010, 06:32 AM

For shame, Superman 64 was waaay better.

I know, all that flying through rings, lifting cars and flying through more rings. Who the heck wants an RPG / tactical shooter, yeesh.

Xantalith

02-01-2010, 06:45 AM

Graphics on ME2 are run by UT3 engine, since that engine doesn't even support anti-aliasing I'd argue that it's out dated. On the other hand, it's easy to run high resolution textures on that engine without requiring a computer from the second space odysee. Which probably explains why Bioware went for UT3 engine as it allowed them to make a gorgeous XBOX game.
To enable AA in ME2 for your PC and make it look like it should in this day and age you'll need to force it through your drivers, I'm not going to walk you through it, just google for a good detailed guide :)

pyrorave

02-01-2010, 07:49 AM

I'm not sure what you're looking at but the game I'm playing looks amazing. Especially the environments, like Illium and Omega.

And NPCs look great too.

I have my gfx turned up on highest possible settings though, so maybe turn yours up?

Spektro

02-01-2010, 08:29 AM

I personally don't have ME2, but I think that the game is developed for 360 first, PC second, which means it was made for 4 year old hardware.

I don't completely agree with you here, I think Bioware spends a good deal of time making their games feel look and play their best on each console.

A perfect example is the fact that Dragon age plays better on PC and also looks better, also Mass effect was better for the PC.

It all comes down to the power of the console ME2 is played on and its capabilities, I'm sure the developers are well aware of that.

lordfrikk

02-01-2010, 09:37 AM

Even Epics pc centric shooters don't look much better (if any) than this. UE4 is also under development, I think this engine's pretty much had it's run.

Epic Games don't have any PC-centric games built on UE3.

Andreus

02-01-2010, 09:38 AM

The graphics are fine. Miranda Lawson, however, is still really, really ugly.

deadlybydesign

02-01-2010, 09:43 AM

The graphics are fine. Miranda Lawson, however, is still really, really ugly.

I think her in-game profile pic is a bad angle, really. Just check out her actual model (same as her voice actress): http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2088803/

/ontopic
Looks like the OP bugged out.

Bishop7

02-01-2010, 10:22 AM

I'm diagnosing this guy with "Crysisyndrome".

Agreed, game does not look bad at all.

Nekomancer

02-01-2010, 10:44 AM

Graphics on ME2 are run by UT3 engine, since that engine doesn't even support anti-aliasing I'd argue that it's out dated.

That is absolutely wrong. Unreal engine 3 supports Anti-Aliasing. But it was originally only intended for the DX10 renderpath. nVidia worked with Epic to create a workaround to enable AA in the DX9 renderpath for the nVidia videocards. ATI decided against creating a workaround because the customer doesn't need it.

LethalNiMiTz

02-01-2010, 10:48 AM

I personally don't have ME2, but I think that the game is developed for 360 first, PC second, which means it was made for 4 year old hardware.

WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH HOLD YOUR HORSES

A.You dont have ME2 so your opinion is ALREADY void.
B.I have it on PC It runs VERY smoothly and the textures look stunning,OP must just have a ♥♥♥♥ty computer
C.You wanna see a mass effect game that was developed for 360 first PC Second? Try mass effect 1,The controls are horrible the button layout is ♥♥♥♥ and the textures...oh dear god its like playing an old PS1 Game

RoboCop

02-01-2010, 11:02 AM

The game itself looks great.

Some of the loading screens/cutscenes look meh.

Piez

02-01-2010, 11:06 AM

C.You wanna see a mass effect game that was developed for 360 first PC Second? Try mass effect 1,The controls are horrible the button layout is ♥♥♥♥ and the textures...oh dear god its like playing an old PS1 Game

I disagree with this point totally,other than the fact it's a port obviously,but it's a damn good port.

And PS1 graphics?,you sure you were playing ME1?

LethalNiMiTz

02-01-2010, 11:08 AM

I disagree with this point totally,other than the fact it's a port obviously,but it's a damn good port.

And PS1 graphics?,you sure you were playing ME1?

Yes I was playing ME1 holy ♥♥♥♥ dude on the 360 the textures looked GREAT on the PC they look HORRIBLE up close

RoboCop

02-01-2010, 11:08 AM

WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH WOAH HOLD YOUR HORSES

A.You dont have ME2 so your opinion is ALREADY void.
B.I have it on PC It runs VERY smoothly and the textures look stunning,OP must just have a ♥♥♥♥ty computer
C.You wanna see a mass effect game that was developed for 360 first PC Second? Try mass effect 1,The controls are horrible the button layout is ♥♥♥♥ and the textures...oh dear god its like playing an old PS1 Game

I'm sorry, but you lost credibiloity when you insulted me controls when hyping me2

Piez

02-01-2010, 11:10 AM

Yes I was playing ME1 holy ♥♥♥♥ dude on the 360 the textures looked GREAT on the PC they look HORRIBLE up close

LOL? no they dont,in fact the graphics on pc in ME 1 are far superior to the 360 version

RoboCop

02-01-2010, 11:12 AM

LOL? no they dont,in fact the graphics on pc in ME 1 are far superior to the 360 version

I don't tnhink he's played me. Or probably loaded red faction by mistake.

Liar liar

Piez

02-01-2010, 11:14 AM

Just to clear things up. (http://www.videogamer.com/features/article/28-05-2008-425-11.html)

LethalNiMiTz

02-01-2010, 11:43 AM

Just to clear things up. (http://www.videogamer.com/features/article/28-05-2008-425-11.html)
Just to clear things up

These just SCREAM good looking

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/proof-3UxKt.jpg

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/proof_2-LSGfS.jpg

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/proof_3-b5MLr.jpg

Saskuatch

02-01-2010, 11:49 AM

underwoodr

02-01-2010, 11:51 AM

LethalNiMiTz

02-01-2010, 11:54 AM

Look he has wow loaded!
Man the rage cannons!

xD lol.:D yup

Piez

02-01-2010, 12:00 PM

Just to clear things up

These just SCREAM good looking

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/proof-3UxKt.jpg

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/proof_2-LSGfS.jpg

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/proof_3-b5MLr.jpg

Starting the game up and setting everything on low does not really count,besides your original comment was that it looked better on the 360 than the PC wich is just plain wrong.

LethalNiMiTz

02-01-2010, 12:04 PM

Starting the game up and setting everything on low does not really count,besides your original comment was that it looked better on the 360 than the PC wich is just plain wrong.

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/asdf-FeCwt.jpg

Excuse me?

Nekomancer

02-01-2010, 12:08 PM

Just to clear things up

These just SCREAM good looking

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/proof-3UxKt.jpg

How did you get it that ugly? Not even my 6 year old PC is able to get ME1 that ugly.

Woefully_Inept

02-01-2010, 12:14 PM

I personally think the graphics in this game are absolutely fantASStic (http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/7708/130439d1264266310massef.jpg) but to each their own I suppose.

lordfrikk

02-01-2010, 12:14 PM

I'm afraid you can't prove your gfx settings since you can take those two screens separately/after you changed them.

Also, ME1 controls are ♥♥♥♥in thousand light years better than those in ME2 (lol, what controls, we're talking about wsad + spacebar).

LethalNiMiTz

02-01-2010, 12:15 PM

How did you get it that ugly? Not even my 6 year old PC is able to get ME1 that ugly.

Like im supposed to know? I can play crysis at just about max graphics but mass effect 1 is ugly as ♥♥♥♥

Saskuatch

02-01-2010, 12:24 PM

Like im supposed to know? I can play crysis at just about max graphics but mass effect 1 is ugly as ♥♥♥♥

uhh I am pretty sure something is wrong with your system.....because when I play me1 it certainly does not look like that

Piez

02-01-2010, 12:34 PM

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/asdf-FeCwt.jpg

Excuse me?

Well i have no clue why they're so bad on your pc,but it looks nothing like that on mine.

LethalNiMiTz

02-01-2010, 12:35 PM

Well i have no clue why they're so bad on your pc,but it looks nothing like that on mine.

Because what ever company made and textured the PC version sucks lol

Piez

02-01-2010, 12:37 PM

Because what ever company made and textured the PC version sucks lol

Now i feel like i'm getting trolled,or you really are just ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

LethalNiMiTz

02-01-2010, 12:39 PM

Now i feel like i'm getting trolled,or you really are just ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

You DO know that bioware MADE the game but the PC version WASNT ported by them? but another studio right?

PopeRatzo

02-01-2010, 12:39 PM

My specs:

Windows 7
Core i7 920
GeForce 275 GTX
6 gigs of RAM

I don't think the game looks amazing. I never played Crysis.

Of course the game doesn't "look amazing". It's dim and the character movements are clumsy and the controls are horrible.

I'm running a Core i5 system with a Radeon 5870, and I'm shocked at how bad this game looks and feels.

I can't remember how long it's been since I've played a game where you can't turn while you're sprinting. That's right, you can only sprint in a perfectly straight line. The same key is used to jump or to take cover, causing a lot of unnecessary deaths. The characters move like wooden puppets.

I made the mistake of thinking this game would be as polished as Dragon Age: Origins. Or at least, I thought the game would have made some advancements since Mass Effect 1. In fact, it is harder to control the characters in ME2 than in ME1.

I would recommend that anyone interested in buying this game to find someone else who has it and try it out first. You're really going to be surprised and disappointed.

Piez

02-01-2010, 12:42 PM

You DO know that bioware MADE the game but the PC version WASNT ported by them? but another studio right?

Thats completely irrelevant,the fact it was ported by demiurge does'nt change that fact your screenshots suck balls and are not representative of the game at all.

RoboCop

02-01-2010, 12:43 PM

I has a suggestion: next time don't plug your moncable to the onboard graphics

deadlybydesign

02-01-2010, 12:50 PM

Of course the game doesn't "look amazing". It's dim and the character movements are clumsy and the controls are horrible.

I'm running a Core i5 system with a Radeon 5870, and I'm shocked at how bad this game looks and feels.

I can't remember how long it's been since I've played a game where you can't turn while you're sprinting. That's right, you can only sprint in a perfectly straight line. The same key is used to jump or to take cover, causing a lot of unnecessary deaths. The characters move like wooden puppets.

I made the mistake of thinking this game would be as polished as Dragon Age: Origins. Or at least, I thought the game would have made some advancements since Mass Effect 1. In fact, it is harder to control the characters in ME2 than in ME1.

I would recommend that anyone interested in buying this game to find someone else who has it and try it out first. You're really going to be surprised and disappointed.

/littlebittasarcasm

ALERT! ALERT! Someone's not making the transition from shooter RPG to Third Person Shooter with RPG elements! Abort!

I finished ME for the first time Saturday and dove directly into ME2. Yes, the gameplay transition is a bit jarring. Is it worse? No. It's ultimately the best decision, IMO, because it's no longer tiptoeing the line between stat-based damage/accuracy and actual, real-time combat. Now we have real-time + other RPG goodness, but less nerdy.

Maybe it's because I didn't play through the first game multiple times, pouring over every detail and element, but I'm loving ME2 so far. I think it would've been harder to let go, if that had been my case. As it stands, I think my viewpoint is a bit more objective than that of most long time fans.

Maczie

02-01-2010, 02:13 PM

Just to clear things up

These just SCREAM good looking

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/proof-3UxKt.jpg

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/proof_2-LSGfS.jpg

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/proof_3-b5MLr.jpg

I made a run through ME1 just before ME2 launch, with all settings maxed, it looks way better than that.
So you've either turned down your settings, or it doesn't load properly. Or, your gc is ♥♥♥♥ing with you.

Omi_san

02-01-2010, 02:24 PM

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/asdf-FeCwt.jpg

Excuse me?

I don't even see those settings in my video options. All I have is screen resolution and 4 things that can be turned on or off.

?

nascent

02-01-2010, 02:57 PM

I don't even see those settings in my video options. All I have is screen resolution and 4 things that can be turned on or off.

?

Those are the ME1 graphics options ;)

Foulplay

02-01-2010, 03:40 PM

This game looks great. OK some of the uniforms textures are really basic on some unimportant NPCs, but most of the stuff that really matters looks pretty much perfect. It looks slightly more polished that ME1 and almost as good as any other UE3 game I've played (except for Gears of War 2 on the 360 which had insanely good graphics).

Play a game from 5 years ago and you will realise just how spoiled we are all now. Try Halflife 2 as an example...

Matshelge

02-01-2010, 04:09 PM

Just to clear things up

These just SCREAM good looking

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/proof-3UxKt.jpg

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/proof_2-LSGfS.jpg

http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/proof_3-b5MLr.jpg

You are running it with the default 4AA and no AF.

Jump into your profile and up AF to 16x, AA to 16xQ, buff up some texturefiltures, trippel buffering, and it will not look like a Xbox game anymore.

Might also turn off WoW while you are running Mass Effect, having 2 games taking up GPU and CPU might deter quality, but good try.

Protokiller

02-01-2010, 04:33 PM

My specs:

GeForce 275 GTX

I don't think the game looks amazing. I never played Crysis.

Judging from your screenshots....

My 8800GS>your GTX 275

lol nice try but I have personally played ME1 on this PC and the textures were much better than that.

noodlesoup

02-01-2010, 05:28 PM

I just played this on xbox 2nite and it made me cringe, it was so jagged.... PC with forced AA looks so much better.

Omi_san

02-02-2010, 02:06 AM

Judging from your screenshots....

My 8800GS>your GTX 275

lol nice try but I have personally played ME1 on this PC and the textures were much better than that.

I haven't posted any screenshots. Wrong quote.

Kanikuman

02-02-2010, 03:45 AM

I don't feel comfortable trying to force AA through the Catalyst Control Centre, incase I fudge up my games. I think the game still looks good with every setting (from the launcher, not in-game) maxed out, regardless of AA. It's a minor cosmetic enhancement that doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the game, and it shouldn't do for others. After all, it's the gameplay that counts, right?

Piez

02-02-2010, 03:56 AM

After all, it's the gameplay that counts, right?

For most people yes,for some a game is only good if they can run it at 200 fps more than the everage gamer with twice the detail level.

BenKYS

02-02-2010, 08:26 AM

If these graphics aren't enough to immerse someone, their parenting was at fault. They would benefit more from seeing reality instead of wanting a fake reality.

I never said the game wasn't immersive because of some crappy textures, this is honestly a very minor complaint. ME1 was much worse with the low res textures, hell Garrus' face was completely low res for a long time until Bioware released a patch to fix it.

The only few problems I have with this game are the somewhat low res NPC textures and a few control problems, seeing that those are my biggest complaints I'd say this game has quite a bit going on for it.

I would be fine if they never addressed either problem because I feel that this game is so good that while playing it I don't even notice the small faults I listed. It is one of the highest quality games to come out this generation, tbqh.

archurban

03-24-2010, 02:35 PM

My specs:

Windows 7
Core i7 920
GeForce 275 GTX
6 gigs of RAM

I don't think the game looks amazing. I never played Crysis.

well, you got all recent high end gear over there. but you don't think graphic is awesome? well, you need to try 3D version (it will be coming someday). then how you PC will be suffered from performance. you are the first person that graphic is bad as I hear. graphic is beautiful. I think that you never play RPG. RPG is different from shooting(FPS) or racing. so you think that WOW or starcraft graphic is awesome?

RyuGuitarFreak

03-24-2010, 08:30 PM

Check your standards of what a good looking game is, I recommend going for art direction. If it doesn't work, try some glasses.

JKflipflop

03-24-2010, 09:15 PM

Because what ever company made and textured the PC version sucks lol

Probably because you have your texture filtering set to "trilinear", thereby making all textures look like mush. I would suggest you sell your PC and buy an Xbox 360. It's more your speed.

Lastbil

03-24-2010, 10:36 PM

Go to config before starting the game to highen your graphic.

chicklitt

03-25-2010, 10:02 AM

Omi-san, when you launch the game a dialogue box should come up with three choices. The default is to launch the game but one of the other options is ME2 Configurator, or something like that. That's where the real graphics options are. I blew it off when I first launched & had the same reaction you did - as I think the default res is 800x600!

So, in short, you have to change the graphics before the game actually launches. You can't make any real changes in the in game menus. The config file is also tweakable.

GrimCW

03-25-2010, 02:29 PM

I don't even see those settings in my video options. All I have is screen resolution and 4 things that can be turned on or off.

?

heres a tip.
right click the game in your steam options, and select the "Mass Effect 2 Launcher"
now go to configure and max it up.
the in game settings won't get you far at all in either ME1 or 2
and will leave it looking like trash.
the games GFX are far from crap.
sure they aren't the worlds greatest, but they aren't hardly crap.

and to the nut playing WoW WHILE complaining about ME1's GFX... even washed out like that it looks better than WoW, so why complain?

as for your "bare minimum"
yeah, your bragging.
my 9800GTX+ runs anything on the market just fine and within tolerable framerates.
Crysis topped in settings -AA even runs smooth enough it doesn't stutter one bit.
sure its no 60 FPS, but i still think people that think they need that should really worry more about PLAYING the game than mulling over something minutely technical.
30+ is just fine to run a game on folks, your aim isn't going to get better just because you have better FPS than that, and frankly most console titles are restricted to it, so consider us PC gamers lucky to bust past that.

AzureEmmanuel

03-25-2010, 05:06 PM

I think whoever says this game has bad graphics has some sort of eye disease

Se7en 1ne

03-27-2010, 03:25 PM

I did feel the graphics looked a bit poor in places, but all in all I thought they were pretty tidy. The characters themselves looked awesome too, some of the most believable ones I've seeen yet.

RaDeus

03-30-2010, 05:07 AM

Im just glad i can max ME2 without it degrading into a slide-show...

I have the following:
Intel QuadCore Q6600 2.40GHz
GeForce 8800 GTX 768 MB
4 gb or ram

And i run with 1920x1200 with maxed out settings, think it looks great...

The_One

03-30-2010, 01:13 PM

GrimCW

03-30-2010, 02:18 PM

This game biggest drawback was the lack of AA/DX10/11 support. Gears of War had DX10/AA support and it was released in 2007. It is 2010, Bioware must have been sleep after 2007 and didnt notice that graphics can improve.

did you play GoW PC?
the DX10 support in these UE3 games isn't worth a mention at all.
even BioShocks DX10 was so under noticeable i can't believe people made a huge fuss.
now the AA, there i agree.
but TBH with higher and higher resolutions, the need for AA diminishes IMO.
the jaggies are just to small to worry about, and all but impossible to see when moving in action.

The_One

03-31-2010, 01:00 AM

did you play GoW PC?
the DX10 support in these UE3 games isn't worth a mention at all.
even BioShocks DX10 was so under noticeable i can't believe people made a huge fuss.
now the AA, there i agree.
but TBH with higher and higher resolutions, the need for AA diminishes IMO.
the jaggies are just to small to worry about, and all but impossible to see when moving in action.

Yes I have played GoW, and it plays faster in Windows 7 with DX10 mode than in DX9 and looks a bit better too.

It is just strange that so important features as DX10/AA are not in ME2, they were in GoW which was released almost 3 years earlier. Bioware is lazy improving graphics and such.

Nibwoddle

04-01-2010, 12:52 AM

I don't know what any of you people are talking about. Mass Effect 2's graphics are INFINITELY better than that of the first, even in the large landscapes, and they are easily the most realistic looking characters and indoor environments I have ever seen in a computer game. Outdoor environments still look exceptional.

ninjikiran

04-03-2010, 06:10 PM

I initially thought it was too dark(Unrealistically dark). Some darker areas seem over saturated with black crush. It also took me a bit to get used to the illusive man scene where almost everything is black.

@The_One
BFBC2 runs better in DX10 for me as well oddly.

YouKnowMyName87

04-04-2010, 12:12 AM

The major difference between ME1 and ME2 concerning graphics is that ME1 is built with Unreal Engine 3 and ME2 with Unreal Engine 3.5. However, 3.5 is more or less just a "Refresh" with additional effects compared to version 3, so the overall difference indeed isn't that significant. It also is true, that the graphics aren't in fact that good at all if you take a closer look on textures, models, etc. Or what about the fact that AA and AF are missing?

But ME2 also knows how to divert away from all that with nice lighting effects and other stuff. So I'd say the game looks quite good on first view and it has some real highlights like the Afterlife. But you can also clearly see the limits of the engine and that the game originally was designed for consoles with weaker hardware. Just take a look at the vegetation in outside levels, check the rocks, trees, etc. from close distance and you'll find that they don't look that great after all. There also is almost zero physic effects. Only very limited interaction with environment possible. But like I said, ME2 knows how to conceal its weaknesses, mostly with very smart lighting. So, from the technical aspect there's nothing "unseen before" but it's also exaggerated to say that the game looks like it was 4-5 years old because that's definitely not true. I liked the graphics nevertheless and the big advantage is, that you can enjoy it with medium hardware (though this is not relevant for me but to a lot of others).

Nomanor

04-04-2010, 02:03 AM

i just finished ME1 and the graphics are fantastic

you most probably have the wrong resolution set up.

i have a 30" display and in-game options only had 1280x resolution selection (Which looked like $hit). i had to manually edit the settings.ini file to set up my 2560x1600 resolution.

Caiobrz

04-04-2010, 02:37 PM

i have a 30" display and in-game options only had 1280x resolution selection (Which looked like $hit). i had to manually edit the settings.ini file to set up my 2560x1600 resolution.

Scroll the resolutions down -_-

I only found out that the resolution list was scrollable after 2 playthrus =p I think it can go up to 1680x1050

BTW everyone is bashing the guy who took the screen with WoW on but forgot to actually explain to the poor soul why: dude, if the CPU/GPU is too busy it often downgrades quality to keep FPS, thus quality drops are expected if you really want to multi-task with a game.

Also, Those particular scenes are not really the best the game can offer, I for one though the whole Ilos textures were indeed junk...aka it's pointless for those who LIKE the graphics to seek moments and angles where textures/effects are awesome, and those who DONT like the graphis seek the oposite.

It only proves, however, that some parts of the game were rushed -_-;

Now I will paint a target on my head but ... I think NPC art/movement on ME2 (main characters) where better than Crysis >.> Miranda, Aria, Samara all look gorgeous. Liara also did a good job on ME1.

I play ME2 on everything high / 1920x1200. My rig is a core 2 duo 2.8 with a GF8600GT. Crysis, however, I need to scale down to 1024x768 or it start choking (either that or I tune down settings). Alas, Im satisfied with what my machine can do, and I like Bioware's approach better: good graphics on good FPS. Not Awesome graphics on low FPS (unless you keep an updated machine ... man am I going to cry when Crysis 2 come out?)

TempS

04-04-2010, 08:50 PM

the op is a total troll. ME2 graphics look superb.

jmdfla2004

04-04-2010, 10:09 PM

Epic Games don't have any PC-centric games built on UE3.

UT3 is about as PC centric as it gets and it uses the UNreal 3 Engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreal_Tournament_3

Unreal Tournament 3 (UT3) is a first-person shooter and online multiplayer video game by Epic Games and is the latest installment of the Unreal series after Unreal Tournament 2004. It is published by Midway Games and was released for Microsoft Windows on November 19, 2007. UT3 is subsequently part of the third generation, because it runs on the Unreal Engine 3, and does not reuse any content.

Best
JMD