its just a high res port... with no high res textures :P Still looks good on the PC though.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I actually have ME2 for PC and while you can play it at a higher resolution it doesnt natively support AA or any kind of graphics modding (yes you can force AA through drivers). Not exactly a huge leap above the console versions IMO. Overall I would say PC gaming is a generation ahead and working on becoming another generation behind once DX11 really takes hold which will probably be in the next year or two. Technology evolves fast and waiting 8+ yrs to bring up new consoles is a huge mistake for console manufacturers.
ME2 had dynamic lighting at points. And do you know what specular maps are? Of course ME2 had those. Neither game has "true hdr" just a more convincing way of faking it in SC2. And ME2 ran aloooooot better than SC2. But i agree overall it wasn't very graphically impressive.Mass Effect 2 relies on wide-ranged color scheme to look good, but technically the graphics are worse than RTS such as Dawn Of War 2 and Starcraft 2.
I don't recall Me2 having SSAO, dynamic lighting, POM, Global Illumination (I might be wrong on that), true HDR.
Don't get me wrong but even Starcraft 2 has Parrallax Occlusion Mapping, Specular Maps, SSAO, true HDR and it runs just as good as ME2.
Both don't have native AA though. However, AA is far less important in an RTS than it is in a third-person perspective game like ME2.
For a PC game, ME2 is graphically disappointing. It was my 2010 GOTY though.
Ravenchrome
[QUOTE="padaporra"]
ME2 in my 360 looks good enough. And I rather play it with a controller than with a mouse/keyboard because it just feels better.
flipdc5
Stupid excuse not to play the better version. As i recall, you cant use xbox controller for ME2 but theres always xpadder or any software that mimics keyboard/mouse to a controller.
.
Excuse? Do I have to give excuses now for prefering to play a game on a videogame rather than in PC? Other than RTS and a time ago CS, I prefer to play games on my 360. I just have to put the game there and enjoy it, and that is what I like the most.
[QUOTE="Ravenchrome"]ME2 had dynamic lighting at points. And do you know what specular maps are? Of course ME2 had those. Neither game has "true hdr" just a more convincing way of faking it in SC2. And ME2 ran aloooooot better than SC2. But i agree overall it wasn't very graphically impressive. At points, not something that is prominent throughout the game. SSAO is lacking in Me2. In Starcraft 2, even physics debris cast shadows while being in motion. Dawn of War 2 has better particle effects (the last thing that an RTS needs) than Me2.Mass Effect 2 relies on wide-ranged color scheme to look good, but technically the graphics are worse than RTS such as Dawn Of War 2 and Starcraft 2.
I don't recall Me2 having SSAO, dynamic lighting, POM, Global Illumination (I might be wrong on that), true HDR.
Don't get me wrong but even Starcraft 2 has Parrallax Occlusion Mapping, Specular Maps, SSAO, true HDR and it runs just as good as ME2.
Both don't have native AA though. However, AA is far less important in an RTS than it is in a third-person perspective game like ME2.
For a PC game, ME2 is graphically disappointing. It was my 2010 GOTY though.
ferret-gamer
As for Me2 runs way better than Sc2, I agree after running both games with Forced AA again. Alas, in Sc2, the engine has to render plethora of crazy graphical effects not available in Me2 while rendering the interaction between units.
Unreal 3 engine will halt in the same situation.
[QUOTE="padaporra"]I really don't care about graphics even though i play in maxed settings but Mass Effect is just one of those games that feels clunky with a controller also every time you want to use your powers have to open up the power wheel but while using kb/mouse the keys can be mapped. Biggest bane for the caster classes.ME2 in my 360 looks good enough. And I rather play it with a controller than with a mouse/keyboard because it just feels better.
[deleted]
I actually have ME2 for PC and while you can play it at a higher resolution it doesnt natively support AA or any kind of graphics modding (yes you can force AA through drivers). Not exactly a huge leap above the console versions IMO. Overall I would say PC gaming is a generation ahead and working on becoming another generation behind once DX11 really takes hold which will probably be in the next year or two. Technology evolves fast and waiting 8+ yrs to bring up new consoles is a huge mistake for console manufacturers.
demonic_85
You post as if console manufactures actually care about this BS console/pc wars. There are not trying to compete with the pc, its not cost efective.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment