In reference to Mass Effect; do you prefer the new commander Shepard, or the old one shown in the original video and batch of photos? In my opinion, the new one not only looks like less of a hero, not only seems more generic and much less inspired, but also just seems much less realistic. I mean judging by the latest batch of screenshots, it would seem like the only faces Bioware hasn' t been able to realistically portray are human ones. What gives? If you had come to me ten months ago and said that the graphics in the original Mass Effect video could not be reproduced ingame I would have agreed, but that is simply no longer the case. Gears of War has changed everything as far as our expectations for what is graphically possible go, and Crysis will push them even further. I think it' s time Bioware got with the program and started releasing some more impressive shots.

PS: Bioshock has been equallyh dissapointing as of late, with seemingly every character model suffering from rubberitis (clothes and skin) syndrome.

I think mass effect is a far more ambitious game than gears, over 40 hours compared to 8. I think it' s alot harder to spread that type of amazing detail over such an enormous game (even though I' m still blown away by all I' ve seen, love the art direction)

I think we can create our own commander Shepard in mass effect ?? Correct me if i m wrong here ...

I think you can, but I was actually referring to the low level of quality in human-like faces in general; not just Shepard' s. And anyway, wouldn' t you expect Bioware' s default model to be better than most player created ones?

Now that u mention it , the human models dont look that detailed ..but as steptechdotnet mentioned the scale of mass effect is huge .. I mean we can travel the whole friggin universe .. Cant wait to play this ..

Although when they say 40hrs of gameplay. It' s not all going to be exploring brand new places for 40hrs. Metroit Prime was a pretty small game, but it went on for ages because they could keep you interested in the same place for ages on end.

I hadn' t noticed much of a difference in the new screen shots. I do think it' s a bit of a copout that so many games use the shaven-headed character to look " tough" but they are really just cheaping out by avoiding putting dynamic hair on the characters. But overall I think the art direction in Mass Effect looks top notch.

Although when they say 40hrs of gameplay. It' s not all going to be exploring brand new places for 40hrs. Metroit Prime was a pretty small game, but it went on for ages because they could keep you interested in the same place for ages on end.

Actually i just read a new interview with Dr ray whatever that crazy last name is & he said the main game is over 40 hours & the side quest will add another 20 hours or so . I' ll try to find that interview, i can' t really remember where I read it.

You mentioned the exploration elements of the game, and how you can go and find all of these uncharted worlds. What’s the breakdown going to be between the core storyline and just exploring the universe?

Ray Muzyka: Yeah, that’s a good question. I mean, it really depends on just how much you want to do on the uncharted worlds. I think it’s going to be about 40 hours or so for the main story, so it’s going to be a good-sized BioWare RPG just for the core part. Off the beaten path, there’s probably another 20 or 30 hours or so of stuff, or more, depending on how much you do and what order you do it in and all of that. It’s this non-linear exploration of uncharted worlds. You’re flying around this vast universe with hundreds of locations, where one’s a derelict spacecraft from which you get this distress call. Another might be an uncharted world with a full backstory, multi-hour storyline that you’ve got to explore and go on the surface and sub-surface and explore and find some new locations that send you off to a new location. You might be flying through space on your primary quest when you get this distress call or you hear some message. The planet’s on sensors, so do you want to explore this now or do you go back later? It’s all non-linear. The gameplay’s there for people who just want to have some fun for a couple hours and go off the beaten path. You know, upgrade the character, get in the rover, explore the world, get out of the rover, go find some quests or some combat, get some new items. Then you can go back to the main game and find a rich, compelling, deep storyline with amazing characters and incredible, beautiful graphics.

it' s from team Xbox, also did i ever mention that one of my best friends, jeremy volette is a sound engineer for the game.

While you have a point that the alien characters seem to have better expressions, how can any sane person feel dissappointed with Mass Effect?

When I first looked at the thread name, I thought this was something about God (the good Lord our Shepard, or something like that). Wow, I was off base. That wouldn' t even make sense in a video game forum. At all. Weird.

Anyway, the new screenshots don' t look that different to me. It' s kinda hard to get humans to look really good because we all know what we' re supposed to look like. That' s probably one of the reasons the aliens look better compared to the humans. Also, the aliens are using different effects than the humans. The aliens have a shine to their skin (they almost look oily, as a matter of fact), making the contours more noticable. The humans have a softer look, which makes it harder to see the contours.

Or were you talking about something else?

There is a theory called " the uncanny valley" which pertains to ' virtual people' and how they look when they are almost but not quite perfectly realistic. It was a theory put forth by a Japanese robotics engineer but it applies to CG and games as well. Basically, there is a common response among people to like anthropomorphic robots like C3PO, or even to see faces in the front ends of cars, things like that. But as these representations of people approach being realistic, suddenly there is a strong negative response because there is something ' uncanny' about them, something that is subtle but just not quite right. When a chart is drawn showing a positive-negative response on a curve that goes from nonrealistic to realistic, there is a ' valley' in the curve into a negative response for most people when these characters approach but don' t quite achieve realism. The cues and identifying features we notice in recognizing people as human are really complex and subtle even if most of us are not consciously aware of all of them. It' s a problem that will continue to be a factor in animation for a long time, and it' s a big reason why Pixar has opted not to try photorealistic human characters in their feature films. If you go back and look at their attempt at a realistic baby in the old short film " Tin Toy" you' ll see just how repulsive these somewhat-close-but-definitely-not-human characters can be!