[QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"][QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"] [QUOTE="Tristam22"][QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"]Yeah, I know there are a million topics saying "Oh noez! Teh downgradez!"...but it's true. Mass Effect looks to have been downgraded significantly if those pics posted a few days ago are any indication. Oh well, I wasn't expecting great graphics from Bioware because of their track record, but the graphics barely look better than the 1st Xbox. :?swaginator
You've seen the million downgrade topics, but have you seen the millions of lemmings citing the developer's explanation for the aforementioned screenshots?I have seen those topics....I also saw the same thing from developers of Killzone for PS3 trying to defend the graphics...and it is the consensus from most people that Killzone will be downgraded when it arrives. So, when I read a developer quickly defending his title, a red flag goes up for me and I get very skeptical...because videogame developers in the past have lied time and time again about a game's graphics and/or a game's length, or what will be included in the game *cough* Fable *cough*.
When a developer says a game is 70 hours long...it ends up being 25 to 30. Developers of Kameo said that the graphics quality is that of a Pixar movie during their presentation....now Kameo looks great, and may even have the best Xbox 360 textures around, but Pixar quality?? No, just no.
So, yeah, I will not believe a word out of a devs mouth until I actually play the game myself...because a response as quickly as Bioware's with the hint of "irritation" in the way it sounded seems like it might just very well be damage control. After all, devs will say anything to get people to buy their games....
The E3 and X06 demos looked like the optimized screen shots and were running real time gameplay on the hardware:? How much more do you need to see.So the devs say...Devs said the same thing about Killzone for PS3. Remember how good Warhawk looked at E306? Now look at it...Even Resistence: Fall of Man looked better when it was called I-8 or whatever the heck the original title was. Devs said that I-8 was running on a demo kit...Look, I hope you're right and that I'm completely and totally owned when the game comes out and that the graphics are as good as they were at E306. I'm just saying devs in the past have lied a lot about games...why should this be any different??
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/rpg/masseffect/video_player.html?id=JyNinzKq5bgJvzHaI saw some bad framerate hiccups in that vid...and framerate does pertain to graphics. The graphics still aren't as good as the E306 video shown...go back and look at the E306 video...it blows the current one away and has a better framerate...Also, another example of a game getting severely downgraded is Red Steel for Wii. There was a "gameplay" video of that a couple of months b4 release that made it look very good graphically....and sheep know what the final product looked like. Sometimes I think devs make higher pixel, higher res "gameplay" footage to show off to people to give the illusion that that is what the final product will look like...Even Nintendo did this. Remember some of the gameplay footage from E304 and 05 for TP? The enemies, lighting, and textures were much more crisp in a lot of the scenes from the "gameplay" footage.
Log in to comment