Am i the only one who cares that New Vegas looks EXACTLY like Fallout 3?
- Thread starter NewYork_Comedian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well first of all, how did yo expect different locations after a Nuclear Fallout of 200 years? Did you expect one location to look destroyed and another where the ground is made of rubber and sunshine? Of course it will look the same in most cases, it will look like a desolate wasteland. Even if it is the same I am still getting it as I love the Fallout series.
Well you get gun mods, factions, a new area (which is too big to be fitted into a DLC), new enemys, new guns and a load of new 'quests'. I don't care much that it looks like fallout 3 just that it isn't fallout 3.
true story: I thought it was just another fallout 3 DLC until I saw E3 video saying it wasn't
still dont see it tho
still dont see it tho
noone makes that complaint because those 2 games were absolutely phenomenal in gameplay. To the point where you can't mention those 2 games and the new 3rd one in the same breath or same sentence. they are in completely different tiers of gameplay quality.MiracleOfSound said:
Graphics aren't spoiling it for me, as much as the immersiveness of being on your own. In FO3 I felt really alone in a destroyed world, now with all these factions and stuff I don't think it'll be as liked by me.
My favourite game of all time, Battlefield 2142, used the same graphics engine as Battlefield Vietnam, but with a few tweaks. Red Alert was a colour swatch swap of Tiberian Dawn with a few new buildings and units.drdamo said:
At this rate people could say that New Super Mario Brothers looks like Old Super Mario Brothers, because it simply looks the same.
Well, mabye not to such extremes.
http://www.gametrailers.com/game/fallout-new-vegas/11183BiscuitTrouser said:
Scroll down a little, there's a developer walkthrough from E3 2010. From the gameplay I've seen, it doesn't look all that different. I didn't like the combat from Fallout 3, VATS just seemed like a poor way to cover up the awful shooting mechanics, and I didn't appreciate the game playing itself for me. I wanted to shoot shit, I didn't want to click "tactical" parts of their body and watch a shitty little cutscene for every enemy encounter. It was an immersion breaker, from what I've seen they've done little to address this in New Vegas other than adding iron sights, the non VATS gameplay looks exactly the same; broken. What I enjoyed most about Fallout 3 was roaming the Wasteland and exploring various places, but with combat being such a big part of the game, I was constantly forced to go through the monotony of F3's combat. An FPS where enemy encounters are dreaded and I find myself not wanting to shoot the gun because it handles like a floppy dick? Yeah.. I got bored of F3 pretty quick. As for characters and story, I skipped the dialogue for every NPC because it was boring. I wouldn't be buying New Vegas for the characters, and I assume by "stuff" you mean story, background, quests etc, for which the same rule applies.
What's this about COD? You assume that because I dislike Fallout 3 and I'm not buying New Vegas I'm some kind of COD fanboy? I don't even like COD so please shut the fuck up.. if I didn't like F3, I'm not gonna buy a glorified expansion of it that fails to address the problems I had with the first, am I?
Well, I offer this. First off, Obsidian is making it, which is comprised mostly of former interplay/black isle team
Secondly...The reason why we didnt see an interplay F3 was because they were extremely behind the curve (look at the van buren tech demo) and have remained so and a game that behind the curve would have lost out on sales because of it.
Thirdly.. Its resemblence to F3 is a good thing. It takes what the original team really botched and got bogged down on, and gives them a working graphical engine with existing resources, textures, tools, basically everything they need, and allows them to focus on what they were clearly better at, which was the writing, story, char development, ect.
I feel this will be a more accurate representation of a fallout 3 sequel than fallout 3 was, because it restores the heart of the game. I might be wrong, or it might be wishful thinking, but I think this will be a superior effort than F3 was. And yes its ok, if they reuse the same assets. Graphics really dont mean much in gaming. They do mean something, but not as much as people like to think.
And the real question is.if you dont like the graphics, how on earth are you going to tart up a post apocalyptic nuclear wasteland? Everythings supposed to be brown, grey and ruined looking.
Secondly...The reason why we didnt see an interplay F3 was because they were extremely behind the curve (look at the van buren tech demo) and have remained so and a game that behind the curve would have lost out on sales because of it.
Thirdly.. Its resemblence to F3 is a good thing. It takes what the original team really botched and got bogged down on, and gives them a working graphical engine with existing resources, textures, tools, basically everything they need, and allows them to focus on what they were clearly better at, which was the writing, story, char development, ect.
I feel this will be a more accurate representation of a fallout 3 sequel than fallout 3 was, because it restores the heart of the game. I might be wrong, or it might be wishful thinking, but I think this will be a superior effort than F3 was. And yes its ok, if they reuse the same assets. Graphics really dont mean much in gaming. They do mean something, but not as much as people like to think.
And the real question is.if you dont like the graphics, how on earth are you going to tart up a post apocalyptic nuclear wasteland? Everythings supposed to be brown, grey and ruined looking.
Obsidians making it, the last game they made was Alpha Protocol. That was a bucket of fail...... I would just rent it when it comes out, and keep your fingers crossed we don't get another mess up like what they did with KOTOR2..NewYork_Comedian said: