Am i the only one who cares that New Vegas looks EXACTLY like Fallout 3?
- Thread starter NewYork_Comedian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's why I'm not getting my hopes up. Obsidian is not known (of late) to try and raise the bar on productions for other companies (see KOTOR2). However, FO3's visuals were pretty damn good, so I'd say there isn't a big issue here.
Edit: I do think that the screens show a bit more emptiness than I would like. The shots of the strip and the interiors of the buildings look a bit too empty for my taste.
Edit: I do think that the screens show a bit more emptiness than I would like. The shots of the strip and the interiors of the buildings look a bit too empty for my taste.
Considering Fallout 3 was poorly written shit with awful gameplay and a terrible graphics engine? Yes, I'm worried.
Yeah, I think it is starting to get a little overused now, although I'm really looking forward to Rage which looks fuckin awesome.Sephychu said:
You obviously haven't read up on it much.kingcom said:
Obsidian have changed a whole lot of stuff from F3, most importantly they are focusing on story, character development and humour. After all, these are the people who made Fallout 1 and 2.
Sure, the videos show the new gunplay but there are a lot more changes than that.
I personally loved Fallout and had only minor qualms with it. I think I'll like the sequel enough, but we shall see.
No you are not the only one, as always. In fact, you are about the 20th "only one" I've seen on here recently, concerning all sorts of things.NewYork_Comedian said:
And oh no, Yahtzee, who is paid to make fun of any discrepancy he can, otherwise the fans will get angry with him, might rip on it! What a shame.
Graphics do not make the game, as the first two Fallouts proved amply. The fact Bethesda has been replaced by Obsidian, which has an excellent writing and gameplay team, and contains old Black Isle members, should surely be the thing to focus on, rather than the fact the graphics look the same. If that's how you buy games you'd miss out.
To be honest, I'd prefer more games did something similar to this. AAA titles are frickin expensive, and these days publishers seem to be more and more willing to cut costs where they can, understandably so in many cases.
Whether this is achieved by passing increased costs onto the player, adding costly DLC, skimping on story, lessening quality of gameplay, being lazy with level design or even just making what would have been a 12 hour game ten years ago into a 7 hour game today, somewhere along the line cuts are almost inevitable.
Except with graphics. When a sequel comes out, it better have improved graphics, cause if it doesn't look several shades better than its predecessor, you can bet it will come up as a sticking point in early reviews of the game.
And once, this made sense, if Metal Gear Solid 2 had come out with the same blocky animations and indeterminate facial expressions of Metal Gear Solid it would be understandable to have a go at Kojima for not improving his graphics.
But with something like Fallout 3, you're getting pretty damn near to as far as you can push it. Would you really prefer to have everything else that makes a game great suffer, just so the decaying flesh on Gob the Ghoul looks one iota more photorealistic than it did in Fallout 3?
No.
When a sequel comes out, it's meant to improve and build upon the previous release. If you could improve upon any aspect of Fallout 3, would it really be the graphics engine?
If a metric fuck-tonne of time, money and resources can be saved by using the same engine, and if said fuck-tonne of time, money and resources is invested into tweaking VATS, fixing up the skills and perks system and adding brand new characters, story, area, terrain, themes, motifs, enemies, factions, backstory and situation; then I am all for having it look like Fallout 3, safe in the knowledge that it doesn't need to look any different, because in everything else it will be new.
Of course, if they've just used the same engine and spent that saved time and money on booze and hookers instead, then I will be slightly less pleased.
Whether this is achieved by passing increased costs onto the player, adding costly DLC, skimping on story, lessening quality of gameplay, being lazy with level design or even just making what would have been a 12 hour game ten years ago into a 7 hour game today, somewhere along the line cuts are almost inevitable.
Except with graphics. When a sequel comes out, it better have improved graphics, cause if it doesn't look several shades better than its predecessor, you can bet it will come up as a sticking point in early reviews of the game.
And once, this made sense, if Metal Gear Solid 2 had come out with the same blocky animations and indeterminate facial expressions of Metal Gear Solid it would be understandable to have a go at Kojima for not improving his graphics.
But with something like Fallout 3, you're getting pretty damn near to as far as you can push it. Would you really prefer to have everything else that makes a game great suffer, just so the decaying flesh on Gob the Ghoul looks one iota more photorealistic than it did in Fallout 3?
No.
When a sequel comes out, it's meant to improve and build upon the previous release. If you could improve upon any aspect of Fallout 3, would it really be the graphics engine?
If a metric fuck-tonne of time, money and resources can be saved by using the same engine, and if said fuck-tonne of time, money and resources is invested into tweaking VATS, fixing up the skills and perks system and adding brand new characters, story, area, terrain, themes, motifs, enemies, factions, backstory and situation; then I am all for having it look like Fallout 3, safe in the knowledge that it doesn't need to look any different, because in everything else it will be new.
Of course, if they've just used the same engine and spent that saved time and money on booze and hookers instead, then I will be slightly less pleased.
Considering that Fallout 3 is just so visually busy that my beast of a PC runs it at "Medium," I'm not going to complain that Obsidian didn't really want to up the ante on that area. They're improving other areas, which the game actually needed.
Besides, why hate this sequel for no graphics improvement? I'm pretty sure a game like Gears of War 2 looked exactly like Gears of War, but nobody seemed to care about that one. Hell, a roommate of mine accidentally put the first game disc into his Xbox and spent nearly 15 minutes playing before he realized he wasn't playing the sequel.
Besides, why hate this sequel for no graphics improvement? I'm pretty sure a game like Gears of War 2 looked exactly like Gears of War, but nobody seemed to care about that one. Hell, a roommate of mine accidentally put the first game disc into his Xbox and spent nearly 15 minutes playing before he realized he wasn't playing the sequel.
If you've ever been on That Guy With The Glasses you might've seen Spoony One, he was sent to E3 by the site along with a few other reviewers, he actually had the exact same thoughts as you after his preview. It's not as big as oh say G4 or Gamespot, but hopefully he'll instill similiar views, by the way I agree, I don't think an M16 is worth extra bucks, considering Bethesda spoiled me with the amazing Oblivion add on that was Shivering Isles, I expected the same from Obsidian.
Dude, it's a sequel! Sequels are supposed to look the same, look at most shooter sequels these days. I don't see why this is any different. I'm getting a little sick of people hating New Vegas because it looks the same has Fallout 3, don't judge before you're fucking played it!
Firstly, no. They are the peoepl who made fallout 2 not fallout 1. Secondly, they have said they are changing these things in one interview but i would like to actually have proof of these changes. When Obsidian say they are doing something i need physical evidence of that nowadays. Their reputation for unfinished products is overwhelming.MiracleOfSound said:
Except DLC like the pitt had 3 hours of gameplay, while the main game had over 60, so I would gladly pay full retail price for a DLC pack to the best game of this generation, that gave you a whole new huge map with lots of stuff to do, new characters to meet and a new story to discover, new items to acquire and new mutants to demolish.
Just because it looks the same doesn't mean it is the same.
Have you played the original Fallout games, by the way?
Merely curious.
Have you played the original Fallout games, by the way?
Merely curious.