Mass Effect 2 PC: Next Generation Comparison?

  • 61 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for GTSaiyanjin2
GTSaiyanjin2

6018

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#51 GTSaiyanjin2
Member since 2005 • 6018 Posts

its just a high res port... with no high res textures :P Still looks good on the PC though.

Avatar image for demonic_85
demonic_85

1395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#52 demonic_85
Member since 2009 • 1395 Posts

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.

Avatar image for lx_theo
lx_theo

6211

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#53 lx_theo
Member since 2010 • 6211 Posts

Owner of the PC and PS3 version. Its not a huge difference. The console version isn't as sharp, but beyond that its not really noticable.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab

17476

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#54 deactivated-5cf4b2c19c4ab
Member since 2008 • 17476 Posts

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
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.
Avatar image for padaporra
padaporra

3508

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55 padaporra
Member since 2005 • 3508 Posts

[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.

Avatar image for Ravenchrome
Ravenchrome

1776

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56 Ravenchrome
Member since 2010 • 1776 Posts

[QUOTE="Ravenchrome"]

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

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.

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.

Avatar image for dreman999
dreman999

11514

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57 dreman999
Member since 2004 • 11514 Posts
[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.

[deleted]
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.
Avatar image for deactivated-5ef52b89b6fd0
deactivated-5ef52b89b6fd0

4928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#58 deactivated-5ef52b89b6fd0
Member since 2009 • 4928 Posts

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.

Avatar image for Tessellation
Tessellation

9297

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 Tessellation
Member since 2009 • 9297 Posts
well u playing the ps3 version the version that came months later and it didn't beat the 360 version.
Avatar image for supdotcom
supdotcom

1121

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 supdotcom
Member since 2010 • 1121 Posts

by tweaking some config files, you can also get slightly better shadows, textures etc.

Avatar image for flashn00b
flashn00b

3961

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#61 flashn00b
Member since 2006 • 3961 Posts

Not everyone has a big-ass monitor.

The real difference people will see is that on most current generation mid-end PCs, players will notice that the game would play in a smooth 60fps, although some hardware-intense cutscenes will play at 30fps.