The Mass Effect 2 build at the GamesCom is unfortunately the one from E3. Still, our amazing journalists got us this nice video showing the view from the city and its activity.
I Saw the stage demo at GameCom, the alien character looked really good, but the human(female and men) look horrible, the Alien females looked better then the human female, they need to work a bit on the environment because its very very low poly with blurred texture.
It runs smoother, but I still notice (minor) screen tearing. More polishing please. To me 'a piece of art' should be free of slowdown and screen tearing (unlike ME1 which had both..).
Maybe that's why MS is lowering the resolution requirements for future games.. practically no developer is able to deliver a smooth, framedrop and screen tearing free (native) 720p game on "next gen" consoles. Let alone on 1080p.
The standard for hidef gaming should have been 720p60, but who cares these days? Studio Liverpool's not so perfect (not native) 1080p60 Wipeout HD/Fury sets the so called bar, but that bar is victim to framedrops and tearing.
There is obviously a lot of smoke and mirrors (2D objects etc.) to that cityscape, but it still looks great and it's the most important thing. It reminds me more of Star Wars' Coruscant than Blade Runner tbh.
Game looks amazing, but I"m still very worried if they really have got the game locked at 30fps. If so and less pop in then this game will be as technically good as it should be fun.
Commented on 2009-08-20 18:49:31 In reply to szaromir
Posted by szaromir
There is obviously a lot of smoke and mirrors (2D objects etc.) to that cityscape, but it still looks great and it's the most important thing. It reminds me more of Star Wars' Coruscant than Blade Runner tbh.
Obviously. It was what disappointed me in ME1 aswell: When I got to the Citadel for the first time, I was really in awe at the sheer scope of the place. Unfortunately, that was all smoke and mirrors as well, as 99% of what you saw, was unaccessible.
Ofcourse, something of that scope couldn't all be completely exporationable...but they could've done a better job at maintaining the illusion...
Commented on 2009-08-20 22:52:30 In reply to hiscore
Posted by hiscore
It runs smoother, but I still notice (minor) screen tearing. More polishing please. To me 'a piece of art' should be free of slowdown and screen tearing (unlike ME1 which had both..).
Maybe that's why MS is lowering the resolution requirements for future games.. practically no developer is able to deliver a smooth, framedrop and screen tearing free (native) 720p game on "next gen" consoles. Let alone on 1080p.
The standard for hidef gaming should have been 720p60, but who cares these days? Studio Liverpool's not so perfect (not native) 1080p60 Wipeout HD/Fury sets the so called bar, but that bar is victim to framedrops and tearing.
Good post, completely agree.
The consoles are great value for money but those cutting-edge visuals clearly come at cost. I completed Mass Effect on the 360 and loved it despite all the visual issues such as tearing and texture pop in. I'm currently near the end of the PC version, which is the definitive version IMO thanks to HUD tweaks and a gorgeous engine, and intend buying the sequel for the PC too as the engine runs better on my system than it does on the 360.
It would explain why Microsoft have now dropped the 720p minimum requirement for Xbox 360 games. Clearly dropping the resolution to sub-720p aids performance and helps the game run better at the expense of visual fidelity. Definitely sticking with the PC version for 1920x1200 goodness! :)
oh.. you mean confirmed as in some random guy on a random internet thread said so? Nice.
The majority of the titles that hit the 360 are 720p native. Much more so than the PS3 ports which usually end up sub-HD (gta4, ghostbusters ect). Those ME2 shots that this guys commenting on and claiming as proof that the games sub-HD were actually taken at 1600X900 and downscaled to 720p...not 576 as the random guy on the random forum claims.
Much of the eye candy you see in movies is smoke and mirrors.
Frankly, if what you're seeing give the illusion of grandeur, you really should have nothing to worry about. Not all games require free roaming fully built environments down to the bolt and nail to impress. Nor do they need to be fully realistic.
Commented on 2009-08-21 01:16:55 In reply to squarejawhero
Posted by squarejawhero
Much of the eye candy you see in movies is smoke and mirrors.
Frankly, if what you're seeing give the illusion of grandeur, you really should have nothing to worry about. Not all games require free roaming fully built environments down to the bolt and nail to impress. Nor do they need to be fully realistic.
Agree completely.
I think would be absolutely ridiculous to complain that the background is "smoke and mirrors" and "2D." If it looks good, then I don't see a problem. Halo 3 had matte paintings for some of its backgrounds, and they looked great. I'll take "faked," massive scale that looks awesome over limited, 3D backgrounds any day.
Commented on 2009-08-21 12:29:55 In reply to Ronsauce
Posted by Ronsauce
I think would be absolutely ridiculous to complain that the background is "smoke and mirrors" and "2D."
I didn't complain really, I am happy about that as long as the results are awesome. I think it just explains why it looks good and isn't choppy like ME1, which didn't really "fake" its backgrounds.
It looked AWESOME, but it just shows that either Bioware isn't getting into the software of the 360 or that the 360 isn't very powerful at all. I only say that because if you compare that to Ratchet and Clank's cityscape, which not only have much more going on in terms of animations, light, particle effects, and interactivity, but you can move freely within the environment; Ratchet and Clank really blows it out of the water. Comparing those two in that respect is great, but it shows that 360 exclusive games really need to step it up a notch.
Loakum
@Driftwood Awesome! I’m loving it! It does show a much crisper picture and the frame rate looks good! I was playing Stella Blade and Dragonball Soarkling Blast! :) (2 Weeks ago)
Driftwood
@Loakum: enjoy, the one Sony sent us will be there on launch day. Coverage will follow asap. (2 Weeks ago)
Loakum
*takes a large sip of victorious grape juice* ok….my PS5 pro arrived early! So much winning! :) (2 Weeks ago)
Driftwood
@reneyvane: non ils l'ont publié le 1er octobre et je crois que tu l'avais déjà linkée. ;) (5 Weeks ago)
reneyvane
Factornews à joué à KingdomComeDeliverance2 au Gamescom 2024 mais ne publie sa preview que maintenant ? [url] (7 Weeks ago)
CraCra
Y a un souci sur les forums ? (8 Weeks ago)
nostradamus
very few with religious beliefs are naive or zealots, but for sure don't find amusing their beliefs being thrown in for clout. maybe STFU with that discourse? (11 Weeks ago)
Driftwood
Download is now functional again on Gamersyde. Sorry for the past 53 days or so when it wasn't. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Another (French) livestream today at 2:30 CEST but you're welcome to drop by and speak English. I will gladly answer in English when I get a chance to catch a breath. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
GSY is getting some nice content at 3 pm CEST with our July podcast and some videos of the Deus Ex Mankind Divided preview build. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
For once we'll be live at 4:30 pm CEST. Blim should not even be tired! (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
More Quantum Break coverage coming in a few hours, 9:00 a.m CEST. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
We'll have a full review up for Firewatch at 7 pm CET. Videos will only be tomorrow though. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Tonight's livestream will be at 9:15 GMT+1, not GMT+2 as first stated. (> 3 Months ago)
Patreon
All comments (25)
Commented on 2009-08-20 14:48:24beautiful
Commented on 2009-08-20 15:03:18Anyways, Bioware really stepped up, very very nice!
Commented on 2009-08-20 15:13:24 In reply to bleachedsmilesbeautiful
The Citadel in the first looked so good, but run very poorly. This is way better, almost jaw droping... the best is that and runs so smooth.
looks like the same level shown in E3 Build, but someone took the time to stop and enjoy the pretty visuals.
Commented on 2009-08-20 15:22:08 In reply to bleachedsmilesbeautiful
Commented on 2009-08-20 15:24:26
Commented on 2009-08-20 15:29:54
Commented on 2009-08-20 15:43:20Maybe that's why MS is lowering the resolution requirements for future games.. practically no developer is able to deliver a smooth, framedrop and screen tearing free (native) 720p game on "next gen" consoles. Let alone on 1080p.
The standard for hidef gaming should have been 720p60, but who cares these days? Studio Liverpool's not so perfect (not native) 1080p60 Wipeout HD/Fury sets the so called bar, but that bar is victim to framedrops and tearing.
Commented on 2009-08-20 16:22:57
Commented on 2009-08-20 17:15:47
Commented on 2009-08-20 17:56:19
Commented on 2009-08-20 18:49:31 In reply to szaromirOfcourse, something of that scope couldn't all be completely exporationable...but they could've done a better job at maintaining the illusion...
Commented on 2009-08-20 20:14:25
Commented on 2009-08-20 21:28:34
Commented on 2009-08-20 21:51:16
Commented on 2009-08-20 22:52:30 In reply to hiscoreMaybe that's why MS is lowering the resolution requirements for future games.. practically no developer is able to deliver a smooth, framedrop and screen tearing free (native) 720p game on "next gen" consoles. Let alone on 1080p.
The standard for hidef gaming should have been 720p60, but who cares these days? Studio Liverpool's not so perfect (not native) 1080p60 Wipeout HD/Fury sets the so called bar, but that bar is victim to framedrops and tearing.
The consoles are great value for money but those cutting-edge visuals clearly come at cost. I completed Mass Effect on the 360 and loved it despite all the visual issues such as tearing and texture pop in. I'm currently near the end of the PC version, which is the definitive version IMO thanks to HUD tweaks and a gorgeous engine, and intend buying the sequel for the PC too as the engine runs better on my system than it does on the 360.
Can't wait for the sequel though.
Commented on 2009-08-20 23:00:47http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=50676&p...
It would explain why Microsoft have now dropped the 720p minimum requirement for Xbox 360 games. Clearly dropping the resolution to sub-720p aids performance and helps the game run better at the expense of visual fidelity. Definitely sticking with the PC version for 1920x1200 goodness! :)
Commented on 2009-08-21 00:27:12The majority of the titles that hit the 360 are 720p native. Much more so than the PS3 ports which usually end up sub-HD (gta4, ghostbusters ect). Those ME2 shots that this guys commenting on and claiming as proof that the games sub-HD were actually taken at 1600X900 and downscaled to 720p...not 576 as the random guy on the random forum claims.
Commented on 2009-08-21 00:55:15Frankly, if what you're seeing give the illusion of grandeur, you really should have nothing to worry about. Not all games require free roaming fully built environments down to the bolt and nail to impress. Nor do they need to be fully realistic.
Commented on 2009-08-21 01:16:55 In reply to squarejawheroFrankly, if what you're seeing give the illusion of grandeur, you really should have nothing to worry about. Not all games require free roaming fully built environments down to the bolt and nail to impress. Nor do they need to be fully realistic.
I think would be absolutely ridiculous to complain that the background is "smoke and mirrors" and "2D." If it looks good, then I don't see a problem. Halo 3 had matte paintings for some of its backgrounds, and they looked great. I'll take "faked," massive scale that looks awesome over limited, 3D backgrounds any day.
Commented on 2009-08-21 12:29:55 In reply to Ronsauce
Commented on 2009-08-21 13:02:45 In reply to szaromir
Commented on 2009-08-21 17:25:10
Commented on 2009-08-23 00:49:40
Commented on 2009-08-23 01:22:41 In reply to pixelsword
Commented on 2009-08-23 02:36:37 In reply to pixelswordYour post is just boggling.