Why Do Mass Effect Games Run So Buttery Smooth?

[Akboris]

I cant fathom it, there have been so many visually inferior games that run like wet diahrrea, and this has never, ever dropped below 60 at all.

Not only this but it uses like NO ram and NO memory.

Gotta give some serious credit to bioware for that.

[🍋 Lemonfed 🍋]

older games that where made to run on much slower hardwares then what we have today.

[jpcerutti]

Originally posted by Lemonfed:

older games that where made to run on much slower hardwares then what we have today.

You ever want to see something funny try loading an emulator and running an *old* game (like Space Invaders, Centepede, etc.) that used processor speed to regulate/set game speed.

[TIGER MAFIA]

I hear you.

I recently played the Mass effect trilogy on my ♥♥♥♥♥♥ laptop and all of them ran smooth as silk. 2 and 3 looked gorgeous too.

[KRON]

You do know that the last game from Mass Effect Trilogy was released more than 5 years ago, right? And though it looks pretty it wasn't graphically advanced even then.

[Phoenixflieger]

My PC is about 4-5 years old and I am heavyly modding the ME1-3 titles (A lot/MEUITM texture mods among others) and forcing supersampling or VSR (3200x1800) on them.

Don't encounter many FPS issues despite my visual quality fetish.

i7-2700K
R9 290
24GB ram

After all patches and DLCs are implemented the games run fine (and visuals were improved over all three games considerably).

A fresh released game is something completely different (see Andromeda) or any other just released game.

[Gralzeim]

Unreal Engine 3 (which is what Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 use) is rock-solid, reliable, and very optimized. This was the case even when ME1 came out.

So, yeah. The trilogy runs great even on average systems. Not sure about Andromeda, as that uses Frostbite 3.

[Potato PC]

ME trilogy is old game and well optimized, so most pc can run it smoothly. Even my potato PC can run ME trilogy at 60FPS.

Originally posted by Gralzeim:

Unreal Engine 3 (which is what Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 use) is rock-solid, reliable, and very optimized. This was the case even when ME1 came out.

So, yeah. The trilogy runs great even on average systems. Not sure about Andromeda, as that uses Frostbite 3.

Andromeda is fine, even Core 2 Quad with 4GB ram still can run it at 30 FPS.

[Bloodhawk]

Originally posted by Gralzeim:

Unreal Engine 3 (which is what Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 use) is rock-solid, reliable, and very optimized. This was the case even when ME1 came out.

So, yeah. The trilogy runs great even on average systems. Not sure about Andromeda, as that uses Frostbite 3.

If Battlefront is any indication, Frostbite is a fantastically optimized engine.

[meep_meep]

Compare Mass Effect 2/3 to a game like, say, Far Cry 4. They may not originally look that different if you look at something like the character models or indoor environments. The character models in ME2/3 are really good for the time they were released.

But then consider the things that Far Cry 4 has that ME2/3 don't have, like:

1. Extremely large open spaces with very long draw distances. Most spaces in the original ME trilogy are small and relatively enclosed, significantly curtailing the amount the system has to render and draw (sure you have the planet exploration parts of ME1, but I mean, lol). A game like FC4, with a huge draw distance and vast open spaces, is going to require much more GPU (and CPU) power even if the character and crate that are right in front of the camera only look about as good as they did in ME3.

2. Dynamic lighting and shadows. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of the lighting in ME2/3 is totally static, like most 7th-gen console games. Having the GPU account for light sources dynamically bending around characters and objects is massively resource-intensive, but isn't always obvious in screenshots if you're just looking at, say a static full-light shot of a character's face.

3. Dynamic foliage like trees, grass, etc. A bunch of leaves and grass all moving according to dynamically generated wind patterns is a lot for the GPU to handle. Remember how much the grass quality setting in GTA V kills performance? ME2/3 basically don't have any of this at all. All the outside environments are totally static. Hell, even MEA doesn't have that much foliage.

So yeah, it's easy to make the characters and gun models and interfaces look nice when you've gone out of your way to make the remainder of the scene as simple as possible. That's not to say the OT ME games look bad - they actually look quite nice due IMO to the developers knowing the limitations of the tech they were programming for, and doing a good job prioritizing environment design in order to get the most out of aging hardware.

[Akboris]

Originally posted by Samantha Traynor:

Compare Mass Effect 2/3 to a game like, say, Far Cry 4. They may not originally look that different if you look at something like the character models or indoor environments. The character models in ME2/3 are really good for the time they were released.

But then consider the things that Far Cry 4 has that ME2/3 don't have, like:

1. Extremely large open spaces with very long draw distances. Most spaces in the original ME trilogy are small and relatively enclosed, significantly curtailing the amount the system has to render and draw (sure you have the planet exploration parts of ME1, but I mean, lol). A game like FC4, with a huge draw distance and vast open spaces, is going to require much more GPU (and CPU) power even if the character and crate that are right in front of the camera only look about as good as they did in ME3.

2. Dynamic lighting and shadows. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of the lighting in ME2/3 is totally static, like most 7th-gen console games. Having the GPU account for light sources dynamically bending around characters and objects is massively resource-intensive, but isn't always obvious in screenshots if you're just looking at, say a static full-light shot of a character's face.

3. Dynamic foliage like trees, grass, etc. A bunch of leaves and grass all moving according to dynamically generated wind patterns is a lot for the GPU to handle. Remember how much the grass quality setting in GTA V kills performance? ME2/3 basically don't have any of this at all. All the outside environments are totally static. Hell, even MEA doesn't have that much foliage.

So yeah, it's easy to make the characters and gun models and interfaces look nice when you've gone out of your way to make the remainder of the scene as simple as possible. That's not to say the OT ME games look bad - they actually look quite nice due IMO to the developers knowing the limitations of the tech they were programming for, and doing a good job prioritizing environment design in order to get the most out of aging hardware.

I prefer that. I would rather have a game with good looking basics than some f4ggy flower in the corner of the map having a seizure in the wind dropping my frames

[Kiwii]

Well Akbar, nobody cares what you prefer. Everyone prefers other things and open world games with advanced graphics are what's going on now. So go live in the past and leave the modern humans alone. Kbye

[meep_meep]

Originally posted by Uncle:

Well Akbar, nobody cares what you prefer. Everyone prefers other things and open world games with advanced graphics are what's going on now. So go live in the past and leave the modern humans alone. Kbye

Yay video game communities, where we get unnecessarily hostile about dumb stuff

[Akboris]

Originally posted by Samantha Traynor:

Originally posted by Uncle:

Well Akbar, nobody cares what you prefer. Everyone prefers other things and open world games with advanced graphics are what's going on now. So go live in the past and leave the modern humans alone. Kbye

Yay video game communities, where we get unnecessarily hostile about dumb stuff

lol what a dicc

[Gabi]

Originally posted by Potato PC:

ME trilogy is old game and well optimized, so most pc can run it smoothly. Even my potato PC can run ME trilogy at 60FPS.

Originally posted by Gralzeim:

Unreal Engine 3 (which is what Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 use) is rock-solid, reliable, and very optimized. This was the case even when ME1 came out.

So, yeah. The trilogy runs great even on average systems. Not sure about Andromeda, as that uses Frostbite 3.

Andromeda is fine, even Core 2 Quad with 4GB ram still can run it at 30 FPS.

Andromeda has some performance issues on many systems with stuttering (many reports of people even with 1070's, 1080's with this even when they turn settings down). It runs at a similar frame rate at 1080p to dragon age inquisition at 4k, despite looking worse. I like the game but performance is notably worse then one would expect.

[Akboris]

Originally posted by Gabi:

Originally posted by Potato PC:

ME trilogy is old game and well optimized, so most pc can run it smoothly. Even my potato PC can run ME trilogy at 60FPS.



Andromeda is fine, even Core 2 Quad with 4GB ram still can run it at 30 FPS.

Andromeda has some performance issues on many systems with stuttering (many reports of people even with 1070's, 1080's with this even when they turn settings down). It runs at a similar frame rate at 1080p to dragon age inquisition at 4k, despite looking worse. I like the game but performance is notably worse then one would expect.

It uses the frostbite engine, which isnt as well optimised