Are the graphics better or the same as fallout? : V

» Mon May 14, 2012 11:24 pm

If its better, is it much better or just a little?

» Mon May 14, 2012 6:51 pm

From what I can tell it seems much better. While Fallout was more desolate because of the events in Fallout, Skyrim looks much more lush and "living" comparatively. I'm very excited to see just how different this world will look than Fallout and previous TES games.

» Tue May 15, 2012 2:03 am

Why do people always call Fallout 3 "Fallout"? There were two before it (made by Black Isle) and one after it (made by Obsidian). Bethesda only made Fallout 3.

OT: Yes, much better.

» Mon May 14, 2012 10:28 am

Well texture wise it looks a little bit better on the consoles than Fallout 3 and new vegas did from what we have seen. It looks better because the artistic direction is better for the most part if you ask me. Sure there are also better graphics as well but I think it is the new engine's fault. All in all it 'looks' much better then previous titles.

The difference on the PC I expect to me much better tbh. Especially if they patch it to DX 11 like Crisis 2 did. God that would be amazing once I got my PC up and giong for the GoTY edition. For now I am going 360 route. Tempted to just get the PC version and just play on medium settings. Friggin Video card. Weak sauce Radeon HD 5730...

» Mon May 14, 2012 5:03 pm

Why do people always call Fallout 3 "Fallout"? There were two before it (made by Black Isle) and one after it (made by Obsidian). Bethesda only made Fallout 3.

OT: Yes, much better.

Adding the "3" is unnecessary. The context makes it extremely obvious that we're not talking about 1 or 2, and New Vegas is so technologically similar to 3 that it doesn't really matter at all.

Although, if they want to make a 2D isometric TES game, I'm totally down for that.

» Mon May 14, 2012 12:10 pm

Adding the "3" is unnecessary. The context makes it extremely obvious that we're not talking about 1 or 2, and New Vegas is so technologically similar to 3 that it doesn't really matter at all.

But people completely ignore two AWESOME games from the 90s that cost next to nothing today.

» Mon May 14, 2012 10:02 pm

But people completely ignore two AWESOME games from the 90s that cost next to nothing today.

alright then for your entertainment

yes Skyrim has arguably better graphics then fallout 1, maybe even fallout 2

» Tue May 15, 2012 1:13 am

But people completely ignore two AWESOME games from the 90s that cost next to nothing today.

Hmmm, I just realized that my comment can also apply to Arena and Daggerfall, except they are literally free now.

alright then for your entertainment

yes Skyrim has arguably better graphics then fallout 1, maybe even fallout 2

» Mon May 14, 2012 11:48 pm

Imo graphics are way better than FO3. Animations too.

» Tue May 15, 2012 12:27 am

Be your own judge:

Skyrim (360) (don't forget to switch to 720p)): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xwboyafbwc&feature=channel_video_title

Fallout 3 (360 vs PS3): http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/exclusive_fallout-3_ps3360-comparison-video

» Mon May 14, 2012 2:27 pm

If its better, is it much better or just a little?

MUCH better from the looks.

» Mon May 14, 2012 12:13 pm

You need to divide your question in two parts:

1) The Artistic Part
- 127% Improved! It's amazing, immersive and believable!

2) The Technical Part
- 65% Improved. It's a very welcome improvement, but nothing Edge-Cut.

Here is a screenshot for comparison: http://i.imgur.com/EMPR7.jpg

» Mon May 14, 2012 7:53 pm

But people completely ignore two AWESOME games from the 90s that cost next to nothing today.

svcks for them

» Mon May 14, 2012 12:45 pm

But people completely ignore two AWESOME games from the 90s that cost next to nothing today.

Those games have nothing to do with the conversation.