Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2011]

[Arwin]

Personally I haven't played much of ME2 yet. What I've seen so far from the game in the PS3 demo and on PC didn't stand out to me in any way whatsoever graphically. I can't remember that many people have given it thumbs down though. Just not thumbs up, which is different unless you live in a binary world with a very low-res analog to digital conversion (which is a major and common problem).

Perhaps PS3 exclusive owners (not me) have a different view on multi-platform games because multi-platform games are typically least impressive on PS3, as many Digital Foundry comparisons have pointed out? /sarcasm.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Many, and I mean really many, like ME2 because of the superior art style and execution. Technically it might just be UE3 but what they do with it is the stuff that elevates it above most other games.

 

[Arwin]

Many, and I mean really many, like ME2 because of the superior art style and execution. Technically it might just be UE3 but what they do with it is the stuff that elevates it above most other games.

Certainly possible, but personally I have a sneaking suspicion that ME2 is a really good space opera RPG with a good story and production values. What competition does it have in that category, really? I have noticed that this genre of Western RPGs scores very highly in general, including the Fallouts, Oblivions and such. I can't remember very many that don't do very well? They seem to have taken over a large part of where the Japanese RPGs were previously.

 

[L. Scofield]

You really don't know what a game is doing under the hood unless the developers explain it themselves, and in the end it does not matter.

1) They publish papers and sometimes talk about the tech.
2) To some, it DOES matter.

What matters is how the end product looks, because that's how it's judged by the masses, who don't know anything about basic stuff like resolution and framerate, let alone concepts like GI, MLAA, etc. The masses have judged KZ2 to be superior looking to C2 in this case, and since KZ3 looks even better than KZ2, there's no contest.

I'm sorry, I don't suscribe to such a basic logical fallacy.

Who cares if a game has GI, if it's not really using all of GI's advantages, than the developers made a bad trade-off. In the console graphics industry, you win by taking shortcuts unless the more intensive method has benefits that you're fully going to take advantage of.

So, you played the whole game and you know exactly when and how the tech is applied, right?

And actually muddy look with heavy post-processing effect make it more CG like than other games, because it hid many imperfections.

"Make a virtue out of a flaw"

 

[ct03]

Mass Effect 2 is one of the best looking games I've played. The textures hold up well at high resolutions, except for some awful clothing textures. What really makes this game (and Mass Effect 1) shine, literally, is the gorgeous high contrast lighting.

I recommend checking out DeadEndThrill's Mass Effect 2 screenshot gallery.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/duncanjharris/4348011198/sizes/o/in/set-72157623170004181/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/duncanjharris/4347299599/sizes/o/in/set-72157623170004181/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/duncanjharris/4348002526/sizes/o/in/set-72157623170004181/

 

[KKRT]

@L.Scofield
So are You disagreeing with my statement? Did You even read the earlier post? And the most important question, have You even played KZ 2?

 

[corduroygt]

I agree with Arwin and no one said ME2 graphics were bad in any way. The biggest problem with that game for me was the tank-like sluggish controls similar to Gears. However, graphics isn't just about textures, it's about how the art and the technology all comes together, and the general consensus is that KZ2 did that better than the MP beta of Crysis 2.

 

[Neb]

I agree with Arwin and no one said ME2 graphics were bad in any way.

Mind you I was explicitly talking about textures if you've read the post.

The biggest problem with that game for me was the tank-like sluggish controls similar to Gears.

I guess this might have some part in tech discussion. Could aswell add KZ2 controls to that list.

 

[Neb]

Many, and I mean really many, like ME2 because of the superior art style and execution. Technically it might just be UE3 but what they do with it is the stuff that elevates it above most other games.

I'll argue that it is more than just UE3. It's UE3 with tweaks and additions like object motionblur and new lensflare system together with better DOF shaders than basic UE3 engine would give you. There is more to.

 

[Neb]

Personally I haven't played much of ME2 yet. What I've seen so far from the game in the PS3 demo and on PC didn't stand out to me in any way whatsoever graphically. I can't remember that many people have given it thumbs down though. Just not thumbs up, which is different unless you live in a binary world with a very low-res analog to digital conversion (which is a major and common problem).

Like I said to the other person I state clearly in my post that I am talking about textures. The rest of the package is another story factoring in tech and art aswell as design.

 

[Neb]

You really don't know what a game is doing under the hood unless the developers explain it themselves, and in the end it does not matter. What matters is how the end product looks, because that's how it's judged by the masses, who don't know anything about basic stuff like resolution and framerate, let alone concepts like GI, MLAA, etc.

Who cares if a game has GI, if it's not really using all of GI's advantages, than the developers made a bad trade-off. In the console graphics industry, you win by taking shortcuts unless the more intensive method has benefits that you're fully going to take advantage of.

Thats a really bold claim considering how little has been shown and where it has been present it has achieved great realistic look for how the objects and surroundings are lit.


But this is the tech section. We discuss the tech, use of it and implications. Just going by how the end product looks is not really the part of this section and even then it would lead to tech dicussions. It would be like me saying I find ME2 to look more impressive than Reach and KZ2 but then someone might point out it doesn't have SSAO, or doesn't have same particle system etc and thus where back to a technical oriented discussion of what is going on under the hood.

1) They publish papers and sometimes talk about the tech.
2) To some, it DOES matter.

Yeah and since this is tech section even more.

"Make a virtue out of a flaw"

Would have been quite hilarious would C2 on consoles used such blur amounts to hide imperfections with a blur filter.

 

[corduroygt]

Mind you I was explicitly talking about textures if you've read the post.

I still don't know where anyone here said ME2 textures were crap. I certainly didn't have a problem with its textures when I played it.

 

[JB9861]

There are bad textures in every game, even in Uncharted 2. Most KZ 2 textures are good and great, but whole screen is blurred because of QAA and post-processing effects.

Uncharted 2 had a lot of flat and repeating textures too. And texture res appeared lower to me than the first game.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Certainly possible, but personally I have a sneaking suspicion that ME2 is a really good space opera RPG with a good story and production values. What competition does it have in that category, really?

ME2 is the best looking sci fi game this generation, channeling many of the concept art giants like Syd Mead, the art direction is spot on and almost flawless.

Story and gameplay haven't got much to do with why many consider it to be a very pretty game.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

the general consensus is that KZ2 did that better than the MP beta of Crysis 2.

I'd say KZ2 is also better looking than KZ3, that one is a bit messy with all the strangely clipped highlights and low contrast lighting and stuff.

 

[corduroygt]

But this is the tech section. We discuss the tech, use of it and implications. Just going by how the end product looks is not really the part of this section and even then it would lead to tech dicussions. It would be like me saying I find ME2 to look more impressive than Reach and KZ2 but then someone might point out it doesn't have SSAO, or doesn't have same particle system etc and thus where back to a technical oriented discussion of what is going on under the hood.

Determining how effective and successful each of the tricks and techniques has been is certainly a part of the tech discussion. It's not you, me, or someone else, it's the consensus of the masses that judges KZ2 techniques to be more impressive and effective in the end.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I still don't know where anyone here said ME2 textures were crap. I certainly didn't have a problem with its textures when I played it.

Some textures, especially those re-used from the previous game, are both low-res and not as nicely polished as for example the squad members' textures are. One thing I hope for the third game is to rebuild their "generic human components" libraries.

 

[KKRT]

Uncharted 2 had a lot of flat and repeating textures too. And texture res appeared lower to me than the first game.

They have many repeating layers, but they combine them in different textures.

And about U1 i disagree, there are many bad textures in U1 as well and the best textures from U1 are worse than best from U2.

About Mass Effect 2, it has sometimes brilliant textures, mostly ok [or standard for a console game] and sometimes really ugly. The biggest problem of ME 2 is that it has too many good and bad textures in wrong places, that really break the visual consistency.

 

[kagemaru]

Well, in Halo 3 they definitely added MSAA in theater mode because it was way cleaner than gameplay. Reach theatre mode also looks cleaner, I'm pretty sure they run with tiling in theatre mode, it's possible in Reach that they use a combination of TAA with 2x/4xMSAA which is why you're still seeing ghosting

You do realize what you're saying here makes absolutely no sense right?

 

[JB9861]

And about U1 i disagree, there are many bad textures in U1 as well and the best textures from U1 are worse than best from U2.

Hmm...perhaps, but I just don't recall having much of an issue with the first game's texture fidelity as opposed to the second game's campaign. Sections like the jungle early on, the museum, nepal, and that puzzle segment with the mirrors. What I saw was a lot of repeating, flat exterior surfaces, and sometimes a muddy look. Which was a shame really because the models are pretty fantastic...