Why are the graphics so bad?

  • 106 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by Geno (6477 posts) -

I was really looking forward to DAO because I'm a hardcore RPG fan. However, I'm also a hardcore PC fanboy which means graphics are a big thing for me. Normally if the gameplay and the profile of the game matches the graphics, I'm fine. For instance, I really liked Mount and Blade even though the graphics weren't the greatest, because the gameplay was really good and it came from a small indie studio. However, DAO is coming from Bioware after several years in development, and as of yet the gameplay hasn't excited me from what I've seen, so one of the things that is immediately noticeable to me is the poor quality of the graphics. The game looks like it's from 2004, and I think a lot of the environment and character elements would probably be hurt due to this. Does anyone else agree with me, or am I the only one who thinks the quality of the graphics is a big issue with this game?  
 
Judge for yourself (all pictures taken from Steam store): 
  
The  Witcher:

 
  Fallout 3:
Mass Effect:
 
 

 The Last Remnant:
 
Oblivion:

Overlord II:
Dragon Age: Origins: 


 
I think at best you can say it matches 2-3 year old games. It doesn't have to look like Crysis, 

but it could look a lot better I think. 
#2 Posted by kitsune_conundrum (1202 posts) -

graphics are okay, the sprays of blood is a bit gimmicky and everything looks abit too drab. More LOTR movies than Baldur's Gate. But I'll say that the animations and lighting is abit off. Still, will be grabbing this for the years end.

#3 Posted by c1337us (5751 posts) -

It wont be available for me to buy for a few more weeks yet so I don't know. But for this game I think I can live without bleeding edge graphics, still looking forward to playing it.

#4 Posted by Micke (31 posts) -

Yeah, the graphics look pretty bad. Mass Effect for example looks way better and it's older.

#5 Posted by RIDEBIRD (1233 posts) -

Looks pretty bad. Nothing gamebreaking, however. 

#6 Posted by ArbitraryWater (12101 posts) -

In order to give a slightly serious answer to your questionable topic, Dragon Age has been in development for a long time. Bioware started making it before Mass Effect and the only reason it's coming out after ME is because it has been delayed so many times.

#7 Posted by kitsune_conundrum (1202 posts) -

besides, your supposed to zoom out.

#8 Posted by Evilsbane (4735 posts) -

It looks a little stiff animation isn't going to win any awards but the game itself looks fine.

#9 Posted by Bane (451 posts) -

I'm not impressed by what I've seen of the graphics so far either.  Being the graphics whore that I am it's a bit disappointing for sure.  Unlike some graphics whores though I also value the other aspects of a game like gameplay, character development and narrative.   I believe it's these things that will make DA a great game despite the average graphics.

#10 Posted by wefwefasdf (6729 posts) -

I'm really interested in the game but I have to agree that the graphics aren't that great from what I've seen. I'm probably only interested because it has the word dragon in the title... I'm a sucker for dragons.

#11 Posted by Nexas (638 posts) -

Its a Bioware game. They've never been known for their high end graphics. And considering how this is supposed to be their biggest game yet, its understandable that the graphics would take a hit.
#12 Edited by THE_END (466 posts) -

Yeah the graphics really blows chunks in this game but I think the gameplay will more than make up for this (atleast I hope.....the quick look made the gameplay appear promising).   
 
From a graphics standpoint Oblivion came out 2-3 years ago (depending on the platform) and that game looks WAY better than Dragon's Age does.  However graphics are not everything (unless you first started playing video games when FFVII was released......LOL).

#13 Edited by VWGTI (1919 posts) -

I think the graphics look fucking incredible. We're talking about the PC version here, right? I don't get how anyone can say it looks bad.

#14 Posted by endaround (2147 posts) -

The graphics aren't bleeding edge but on the PC they are fine.  New gametrailers vidoes: 
 
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/deathbed-gameplay-dragon-age/58072#     
 
Lighting effects are much better on the PC then what has been seen on consoles.

#15 Posted by Computerplayer1 (991 posts) -
@MAN_FLANNEL said:
" @Micke said:
" Yeah, the graphics look pretty bad. Mass Effect for example looks way better and it's older. "
no "
Yes. He's right, they are bad compared to what they probably could be. Graphics aren't everything but I think a lot of people weren't imagining a step backward from Mass Effect considering it's 2 years old. 
 
The game will probably still be pretty awesome because let's face it, it's Bioware. However, I too am kind of disappointed with the graphics.
#16 Posted by Vendetta (434 posts) -

I wasn't very impressed by the visuals, but at the same time, I don't really care. I'm buying the game anyway.

#17 Posted by endaround (2147 posts) -

ME's engine couldn't handle the amount of characters present in DA:O.  Doesn't everyone remember the amount of texture pop in?  The huge slow down during the climb up the tower? 

#18 Edited by skrutop (3615 posts) -

I think it looks pretty good.  The graphics didn't  blow me away at all, but they didn't stand out as being bad when I was watching the quick look.

#19 Posted by crazyleaves (648 posts) -

 
If your gonna make a 400 hr. game that's fully voiced and have the awesomest graphics on the planet, I might play it. If Bioware makes a 400 hr. fully voiced game that looks really good, I'll definitely play it. Plus MW2 has a small penis. So that's what i think... 

#20 Posted by Grilledcheez (3957 posts) -
@VWGTI said:
" I think the graphics look fucking incredible. We're talking about the PC version here, right? I don't get how anyone can say it looks bad. "
I guess, they played through a dungeon on the 360 version in a newer quick look and it looked like balls.
#21 Posted by dbz1995 (4790 posts) -
@Bane said:
" @MAN_FLANNEL said:
no "
@MAN_FLANNEL said:
no "
@MAN_FLANNEL said:
negative "
I find your contributions to this topic intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.  Seriously though, nice job with the one word replies that add absolutely zero to the topic. "
Its quiet ironic that of all people, it is Bane who is telling people to say more relevant things within posts. Anyway, I think it does look good enough to not hinder the game.
#22 Posted by lebkin (331 posts) -

The reason Dragon Age: Origins does not have the cutting edge cinematic of Mass Effect is two-fold.  
 
One is the simple amount of content in the game.  Mass Effect was a 15 hour core game, with 10 hours or so of recycled side quests.  Dragon Age is a 30 hour core game, with a good 70 more hours of side quests.   It is simply not economical to attempt to create perfect photo realism to that large of a game.
 
The second is the nature of building an entire game such that it works with a public toolset.  Much like Neverwinter Nights before it, Dragon Age will have a toolset that allows users to create their own content.  This necessitates a modular system.  You are crafting pieces that can be used in a multitude of functions outside the core game.  Because of this, Bioware worked to make all of the content equally good.  This is the opposite of Mass Effect, where some pieces exceptional, but to the determent of others. 

#23 Posted by THE_END (466 posts) -

 
^ This.  Game looks like crap.  
 
Does the dude on the right have some kind of skin disease?  Or is that a sad attempt to make it look like blood splatter?
#24 Edited by eroticfishcake (7789 posts) -

If it plays well then I don't really have much concern for the graphics. Even though it's meant to a gritty, dirty and rough place your inhabiting, I sorta wished they extended the palette of colours a little more. More brown and grey and terribly aren't exciting. To reiterate what I said earlier, good gamplay, story and audio is what I really want in a game these days.

#25 Posted by Bane (451 posts) -
@dbz1995: what is that supposed to mean?  Nevermind, no need to clutter the topic further.  Apologies.
 
@lebkin: good point about the toolset.  I hadn't thought about that.  Still, the graphics aren't as good as you'd expect from their new, preeminent IP in my opinion.
#26 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -
@THE_END said:
"
  ^ This.  Game looks like crap.    Does the dude on the right have some kind of skin disease?  Or is that a sad attempt to make it look like blood splatter? "
Yeah, when I was watching the quick look it almost reminded me of a first gen 360 game or something. 
#27 Posted by Blair (2531 posts) -

I agree, the graphics look pretty shoddy. 
 
That's all I was thinking about during the Quick Looks. 
 
I found it really detracting from the experience. 

#28 Edited by Delta_Ass (3282 posts) -

OP's right, the game does look bad. I mean ok, the character models look pretty detailed. They're okay. Decent, even. But that level looked terrible. The uh, the caverns? Looked like something out of Half-Life or Red Faction 1. Maybe not, but it looked pretty dated. And Oblivion and Mass Effect came out 2 years ago. Those RPGs looked great. Seriously, it's just subpar. 

And yea, there's the excuse that it was supposed to be released before Mass Effect. But guess what, it wasn't. It's coming out quite a while after it. None of us asked for the game to be released in late 2009. They put that on themselves. So yea, it's perfectly fair to note that the graphics aren't quite up to snuff. They don't measure up. Is the gameplay going to make up for the poor visuals? Hell if I know.

#29 Posted by Lowbrow (840 posts) -

You guys are basing the graphics of a game off of a screenshot of the the xbox 360 version of said game that was recorded with a video recorder, then uploaded to the internet and not in the actual resolution that the game would be displayed in in real life.
 
Ohrly?

#30 Posted by Ubiquitous (571 posts) -

Honestly I don't see much of a problem with the graphics. There are some subpar animations and possibly a few drab textures but really, this game looks a lot better than many other recent titles. I don't really understand where everyone is coming from with all the hate on DA's graphics.

#31 Posted by Ubiquitous (571 posts) -
@Lowbrow: 
 
Yes i did find it interesting that THAT was the image that someone decided to post as evidence.
#32 Posted by Phished0ne (2539 posts) -
@Lowbrow said:
" You guys are basing the graphics of a game off of a screenshot of the the xbox 360 version of said game that was recorded with a video recorder, then uploaded to the internet and not in the actual resolution that the game would be displayed in in real life.  Ohrly? "
 If this site had some sort of Kudos system i would +1 you sir. 
 
This game will be amazing, and not because of the graphics, because of the sheer amount of content.
#33 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -
@Phished0ne said:
" @Lowbrow said:
" You guys are basing the graphics of a game off of a screenshot of the the xbox 360 version of said game that was recorded with a video recorder, then uploaded to the internet and not in the actual resolution that the game would be displayed in in real life.  Ohrly? "
 If this site had some sort of Kudos system i would +1 you sir.  This game will be amazing, and not because of the graphics, because of the sheer amount of content. "

That's the thing though, the graphics wouldn't that big of an issue if the gameplay was engaging. So far from what I've seen of it, it's basically just a team of guys swinging at each other for 5 minutes (with clipping and poor hit detection at that). Titan quest MP sounds better than that.
#34 Edited by Kazona (3094 posts) -
@THE_END said:

"

  ^ This.  Game looks like crap.    Does the dude on the right have some kind of skin disease?  Or is that a sad attempt to make it look like blood splatter? "
I see your low quality png, and raise you wiith, 
 


Edit: Why the hell can't I get it to display the image in actual size?
#35 Posted by AuthenticM (3800 posts) -

The game does look like crap. The character faces is what turns me off. But I'll still play it.

#36 Posted by TheHBK (5561 posts) -

japanese games are not the way to judge graphics, seriously, effects and textures in the Last Remnant are blurry or pixelated.  But can see your point.  I think it also has to do with the way the game was programmed, seems like the landscapes are bigger.  In oblivion, the world is big but it has to load a new area every minute of walking.  But with the way the graphics look, i think the requirements are ridiculous.

#37 Posted by Nomin (983 posts) -

Because it is based on the  four year plus old engine used in the original NWN. Aurora, I think it was called. Ironically, the engine used in the Witcher is based on the same engine. Even the NWN engine had more varied animations such as tumble and evasion; here it seems all they do is stand toe to toe and swing away like meatheads. Aside from the graphics, they really did take a lot of stuff out of the main basis of its system, which is supposed to be your standard D&D fare, like how there are only three classes, and no commoner origin story for humans since it may have been perceived as being too boring. I have tried its character creation tool and it also falls short of customization offered in Fallout 3. Maybe for the amount of time that the game sat around while the console versions were being ported, the developer could have added a shader or two, instead of all the marketing blitz that completely misrepresents the game.

#38 Posted by Damien (1384 posts) -
@Nomin said:
" Maybe for the amount of time that the game sat around while the console versions were being ported, the developer could have added a shader or two, instead of all the marketing blitz that completely misrepresents the game. "
I doubt the developers were in charge of marketing and vice versa.
#39 Posted by Nomin (983 posts) -
@Damien: you are right. With its DLC announcement before the game release and available on its release, I tend to lump marketing decisions on the part of EA now with any aspect of Bioware developer announcements. But the Marilyn Manson ditty just is so far out in the left field that I can see how the marketing tried to wrest its image.
#40 Posted by demonbear (1877 posts) -

The graphics are quite alright, but i'll take gameplay and story before graphics in an rpg, WAY before.

#41 Posted by thecleric (793 posts) -

i'll take dragon age animations over oblivion animations any day of the week

#42 Posted by ArchScabby (5809 posts) -
@MAN_FLANNEL said:
" @Bane said:
" @MAN_FLANNEL said:
no "
@MAN_FLANNEL said:
no "
@MAN_FLANNEL said:
negative "
I find your contributions to this topic intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.  Seriously though, nice job with the one word replies that add absolutely zero to the topic. "
never "
Don't worry Flannel you're just misunderstood, I realize what a genius you are.
#43 Edited by Zabant (1268 posts) -

i loved mass effect and both kotors (i know Bioware didn't do 2) But the graphics on top of the so-so gameplay are a killer for me.
 
If the console version of DAO played like the console version of baldurs gate where button press = spell shot or sword swung then i would consider it.

#44 Posted by Lowbrow (840 posts) -
@Geno said:
" @Phished0ne said:
" @Lowbrow said:
" You guys are basing the graphics of a game off of a screenshot of the the xbox 360 version of said game that was recorded with a video recorder, then uploaded to the internet and not in the actual resolution that the game would be displayed in in real life.  Ohrly? "
 If this site had some sort of Kudos system i would +1 you sir.  This game will be amazing, and not because of the graphics, because of the sheer amount of content. "
That's the thing though, the graphics wouldn't that big of an issue if the gameplay was engaging. So far from what I've seen of it, it's basically just a team of guys swinging at each other for 5 minutes (with clipping and poor hit detection at that). Titan quest MP sounds better than that. "
Have you played the game to know that the gameplay isn't engaging?
 
I'm not saying that you're point is invalid, I'm just saying that what you saw was Vinny playing the game super early in, with a party that was 75% warrior classes with  access to two skills max apiece with no reference to what the story is like at all. Couple that with the fact that they showed 15 minutes of what is supposed to be a 100 hour game.
 
Just sayin'.
#45 Posted by jakob187 (21755 posts) -

Screenshots are not the best judgment IMO.  Give us footage of the game in action.

#46 Posted by turbomonkey138 (4950 posts) -
@Bane said:
" @MAN_FLANNEL said:
no "
@MAN_FLANNEL said:
no "
@MAN_FLANNEL said:
negative "
I find your contributions to this topic intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.  Seriously though, nice job with the one word replies that add absolutely zero to the topic. "
Hmm don't bother mate . If you make a topic that requires thought on GB you get about 30 users who only come on the topic and post shit . Mainly becuase they want extra post count . Its what the influx from others sites to GB did . It brought idiots
#47 Posted by Geno (6477 posts) -
@Lowbrow said:
" @Geno said:
" @Phished0ne said:
" @Lowbrow said:
" You guys are basing the graphics of a game off of a screenshot of the the xbox 360 version of said game that was recorded with a video recorder, then uploaded to the internet and not in the actual resolution that the game would be displayed in in real life.  Ohrly? "
 If this site had some sort of Kudos system i would +1 you sir.  This game will be amazing, and not because of the graphics, because of the sheer amount of content. "
That's the thing though, the graphics wouldn't that big of an issue if the gameplay was engaging. So far from what I've seen of it, it's basically just a team of guys swinging at each other for 5 minutes (with clipping and poor hit detection at that). Titan quest MP sounds better than that. "
Have you played the game to know that the gameplay isn't engaging?  I'm not saying that you're point is invalid, I'm just saying that what you saw was Vinny playing the game super early in, with a party that was 75% warrior classes with  access to two skills max apiece with no reference to what the story is like at all. Couple that with the fact that they showed 15 minutes of what is supposed to be a 100 hour game.  Just sayin'. "
I"ve seen all of what's on gametrailer's too. I think that counts for a fair bit. 
#48 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2462 posts) -
@turbomonkey138 said:
" @Bane said:
" @MAN_FLANNEL said:
no "
@MAN_FLANNEL said:
no "
@MAN_FLANNEL said:
negative "
I find your contributions to this topic intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.  Seriously though, nice job with the one word replies that add absolutely zero to the topic. "
Hmm don't bother mate . If you make a topic that requires thought on GB you get about 30 users who only come on the topic and post shit . Mainly becuase they want extra post count . Its what the influx from others sites to GB did . It brought idiots "
Yeah and that's why I average 2 posts a day.  Good job.
#49 Posted by nrain (1274 posts) -

Game really does look bad.
#50 Posted by BrontoThunder (29 posts) -

I've downloaded the character creator and it looks gorgeous running at 1920 x 1080 resolution on my high-end PC.  
I say wait until you're actually playing the game to judge what it looks like..

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.