The game was scrapped and they had to rebuild from the beginning (far too close to release time) and it was mostly SEGA that fucked it up.Patrick_and_the_ricks said:
Obsidian are good. KOTOR 2 wasn't too bad either.
Am i the only one who cares that New Vegas looks EXACTLY like Fallout 3?
- Thread starter NewYork_Comedian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Obsidian are good. KOTOR 2 wasn't too bad either.
Yeah, this is very true. Not just of this game, but of a lot of the older games. The style of them often looked very similar from one edition to the next.MiracleOfSound said:
I don't really see a problem with using the same graphics engine for New Vegas. The videos I've seen of it look fantastic. The city of New Vegas is gorgeous looking.
As far as the wastes go, they would all look the same. If you blow up the world, most everything is going to look like burnt out sludge.
Now if they moved Fallout to some location that actually still had green life, central America perhaps, I would expect them to change things up a bit. But Vegas is in a desert. There ain't shit around there except sand.
As for why it isn't DLC, that's because you are a brand new protagonist. You aren't a vault dweller, it's a new story. It can't just be tacked onto Fallout.
And of course Yahtzee is going to bash it. That's kind of what he does.
Bethesda isn't making it and some of the people involved with the original two games are?
Sounds like a win/win to me. Who gives a shit what the game looks like as long as you can tell what's going on?
Sounds like a win/win to me. Who gives a shit what the game looks like as long as you can tell what's going on?
By the looks of it you're not the only one who cares, but I don't give a rat's ass about how it looks. Fallout 3 was a fun game, and New Vegas looks like it'll be good craic too.
There's no sense in working yourself up about it, because your opinions are not going to change the game. If you don't like it, just move on.
There's no sense in working yourself up about it, because your opinions are not going to change the game. If you don't like it, just move on.
He did enjoy Fallout 3 though if I recall correctly... and the OP doesn't seem to realise that Yahtzee bashing something doesn't make it bad. He bashes everything.meganmeave said:
for me seeing New Vegas looking just like Fallout 3 is a good thing
no one will ever be able to convince me that their has been a better game made this generation then Fallout 3 (for me it is just a perfect game)
no one will ever be able to convince me that their has been a better game made this generation then Fallout 3 (for me it is just a perfect game)
If that's how you feel, why do you play games then? If it's all about graphics and looking pretty, you can do much better with paintings, CGI and film. I hear the graphics on most TV shows blow the Unreal Engine out of the water. And whatever the name of the Fallout 3 engine is.NewYork_Comedian said:
The point is an interactive experience. It's about talking to people, finishing quests, killing mutants, earning points, and, most importantly, having a virtual pet dog that will jump in front of you just when you're pulling the trigger and die. That's the point of Fallout. It's exploring how people survived a nuclear Armageddon, not looking at pretty graphics.
Show me where Yahtzee has complained about graphics instead of pointing out other faults in a game? He complains about gameplay, poor writing, crappy acting, and games not being fun, but he doesn't seem to concern himself too much with the window dressing.NewYork_Comedian said:
I personally think he enjoys a lot more than he lets on. But when you're paid to be cantankerous, you gotta give em their money's worth, eh?MiracleOfSound said:
It has the same graphics, but who cares? The graphics in FO3 were fine, and without bothering about them they've had more time to improve stuff that matters, like the gameplay, atmosphere, story and dialogue etc. Basically, it's a remake of Fallout 3 that's better in every way except the graphics, which are the same. I'd say that's a good result.
No one seems to be wholly concerned that Fall Out 1 and 2 used the exact same graphics either, and the opinions on those almost vary entirely to the person. I myself loved Fall Out 2 more then 1 but some people like 1 more. No one liked either more due to graphics though.
I whole heartly agree. Personally, I can understand where you people are coming from. You want to play F:NV for new weapons, maps, etc. But I won't. I'm not going to shell out sixty bucks for a reboot of something I already own, except with a new face.
Let's all remember this is being made by Obsidian. Remember Alpha Protocol? You got all hyped up for it, then you played it and got very disappointed. Not saying don't buy New Vegas, but be more of a cynic.
Let's all remember this is being made by Obsidian. Remember Alpha Protocol? You got all hyped up for it, then you played it and got very disappointed. Not saying don't buy New Vegas, but be more of a cynic.
Just because the graphics are the same it doesn't mean the rest of the game bad in any way. Once you play the game, then the real ranting will begin.
It did have me a bit worried when I first saw it, I must agree. But I don't understand all of this Fallout 3 hate. It had some minor flaws, but I would say that it's very close to the pinnacle of any gaming experience I've ever had. The intense immersion you feel in it and the ability to interact with so much of the world in so many different ways still astounds me.
1. I like Fallout 3.
2. Saying something is "exactly the same, except for the new weapons, enemies, and locations" makes no sense.
3. From number 2 (giggle) we can derive that New Vegas is not exactly like Fallout 3.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and I am a little concerned for the shitty graphics. I can't get immersed in a game that looks like crap.
2. Saying something is "exactly the same, except for the new weapons, enemies, and locations" makes no sense.
3. From number 2 (giggle) we can derive that New Vegas is not exactly like Fallout 3.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and I am a little concerned for the shitty graphics. I can't get immersed in a game that looks like crap.
last time i checked most sequels to games, even if made by different people tend to look the same. ex. halo series, Gears series, mass effect. so the fact that they didn't change anything isn't a big surprise.
I STILL do not get the hate on Alpha Protocol. I don't know how the console versions played out, but I'm going through it right now on the PC and it's quite fun. I haven't experienced any game breaking bugs and the action is enough to keep me in the character-driven story. It's one of the few games that surprises people without shocking them. It's a good game, not amazing, but good. But then, I'm one of those people that doesn't give a damn how bad the graphics are as long as the gameplay provides immersion.
As for New Vegas, even with Obsidian's track record, I think the lack of common sense in this thread is face-palm worthy. Obsidian's track record is as it is precisely because of their inability to work with engines. They don't have good programmers, but they have great ideas. Alpha Protocol wasn't great at the graphics or sound, and it was a bit buggy, and that's about the only major complaints the game got. All of that is governed by the engine. By keeping the same engine that Fallout 3 used, Obsidian is ensuring that they won't fuck up in that department. So you won't get new graphics, better sound or a bug free game, but people, this isn't what makes a game great. When you play it and see that it's entertaining regardless because of the atmosphere and story, the other points become moot.
And don't even think Obsidian won't deliver on that regard. KOTOR 2 used the same engine as KOTOR 1, but nobody gave a damn because it had a great story (bad ending, but that was a prime example of what happens when a publisher interferes with a developer) and the combat improved greatly (lightsaber forms made the game quite tactical), and while I never played NWN 2, I believe it had a much better story than the original. Alpha Protocol had a good story in it, for what that opinion is worth in these forums. They can make RPGs, and that's why you should get New Vegas. In the end, you shouldn't play for the graphics or the sounds or for how smooth the game is.
As for New Vegas, even with Obsidian's track record, I think the lack of common sense in this thread is face-palm worthy. Obsidian's track record is as it is precisely because of their inability to work with engines. They don't have good programmers, but they have great ideas. Alpha Protocol wasn't great at the graphics or sound, and it was a bit buggy, and that's about the only major complaints the game got. All of that is governed by the engine. By keeping the same engine that Fallout 3 used, Obsidian is ensuring that they won't fuck up in that department. So you won't get new graphics, better sound or a bug free game, but people, this isn't what makes a game great. When you play it and see that it's entertaining regardless because of the atmosphere and story, the other points become moot.
And don't even think Obsidian won't deliver on that regard. KOTOR 2 used the same engine as KOTOR 1, but nobody gave a damn because it had a great story (bad ending, but that was a prime example of what happens when a publisher interferes with a developer) and the combat improved greatly (lightsaber forms made the game quite tactical), and while I never played NWN 2, I believe it had a much better story than the original. Alpha Protocol had a good story in it, for what that opinion is worth in these forums. They can make RPGs, and that's why you should get New Vegas. In the end, you shouldn't play for the graphics or the sounds or for how smooth the game is.