FONV looks terrible : Fallout: New Vegas

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:44 am

Not that I need graphics to be able to enjoy a game.

Agreed. If the graphics are all you look for, there are other games.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:03 pm

The only difference graphically between the games is that FNV's sky is better, and i'm on the ps3, so there no modding....

You think? I hate the fact you can't see the stars in NV. The night sky was far more beautiful in FO3 in my opinion. NV may be more realistic (?), but I'd trade it all to see a star-filled sky.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:21 am

I was a modder for OB (2D/3D artist) so I'm pretty familiar with how to create/handle/assess GameBryo assets, heightmaps, etc.

Played/modded OB for over (2) years. Finally ventured in FO3 and I have to admit it was fairly pretty graphically with its enhanced LOD, view distances, and bleak low saturation colors. BGS artists did a good job all around. I could knit-pick but I won't. FONV on the other hand looks like it was designed >10 years ago. Whats with the super low-poly models? Can't detect any vertex shading anywhere and no new assets appear to have baked textures/lighting. Seems to be a HUGE step backward. What gives?

Yea I'm noticing a small step backwards in graphics.. The interface also seems a lot more clunky and cludgy to me as well. Maybe its because I've played several phenominal games since FO3.. FONV just seems like it was rushed and doesn't appear very polished. (horrendous PC stability issues aside)

I'm also yawning at the plot and storyline. Another thing that seems half-ass to me is the randomness and limited amount of "world object clutter".. Oh look there is a desk among the building rubble. Let me look inside. You see (pick one of the following randomly) "Turpentine. Wonderglue. Abraxo Cleaner. Conductor. Coffee Mug. Burned Pre-War Book"

FONV just seems typical of a game that didn't have enough money put into R&D.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:34 am

Considering Gamebryo is a produced by Bethesda and has been used since the development of Oblivion 2001. It isnt very strange that bethesda can do better things with it.

Obsidian had about a year to learn everything about it and produce a game, so ofcourse they couldnt do everything right. Still a fine looking game on ultra settings and high res id say.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:22 am

i think it looks the same as fallout 3 just i think a few things look a little bit better then 3.

But the SKY is what i don't get. its 200 YEARS after the great war! and the sky still looks like crap? I think by now it would have looked a little better then what it looks like now. i know ther are MODS to fix this and make it look better but im not on PC so i cant. Im just saying it should look better then what is doses now.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:24 pm

I said before I thought FO3 looked better than NV but basically got heckled down. This is on the PS3 mind you but FO3 had far better draw distances and textures. When you look out over the Mojave in this game it looks live you're looking into 1999. It's a sea of repetitive checkerboard patterns of textures. It looks awful. Doing the same in FO3 looks far better. Some wall and ground textures in NV are just horrendous as well. You can be ten feet away from them and they are pixelated messes. The models for your guns don't look nearly as good either. They are extremely flat and lack more realistic reflections.

Bear in mind, I love this game. 74 hours on my first character and 20 into my second right now but objectively the game does not look great at all.

Thank you. Exactly. The heightmap in FONV looks like a patchwork quilt. They seem to have neglected painting vertex colors/shading into the heightmap around buildings and rocks. Architecture textures are stretched/scaled in weird ways. Normal maps appear to be flat/ineffective. New gun meshes look awful which is specifically bad in 1st person. Couldn't they have spared a few extra polys and decent texture for something 10cm's from the PC camera? What was the art director thinking? :blink:

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:59 am

I still want to see a screenshot, because I see no difference between Fallout 3's Graphics and New Vegas's Graphics.

maybe it was that ugly green tint messing with your eyes.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:44 am

So what you're saying is that this looks more or less exactly like Oblivion, developed (or atleast released), er, well, 4 years ago? Call of duty 2? Just pick up a game from 2005 and compare OR just stop complaining... Sheesh...

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:40 pm

That was the point I was trying to make. FO3 and FONV look radically different on my system (with both at max display settings, comparable INI settings). FO3 isn't an all-out stunner but the terrain and assets are consistant and have good depth. FONV graphics/animations are so distractingly bad I can't stand to play the game. All this is moot. I'm just sorry I dropped money on this one.

Really because that's not how it comes across, your words

"Finally ventured in FO3 and I have to admit it was fairly pretty graphically"

"FONV on the other hand looks like it was designed >10 years ago"

Do you see the contradiction :rolleyes:

Anyway, sorry you don't like NV and regret spending your hard earned money on it. I didn't expect NV to be over the top better graphically than FO3, I do think NPC faces look better in NV than FO3 but all in all they look the same, good not great. I believe we will be blown away with the next FO and TES as long as they use a new engine.

bigcrazewolf

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:04 am

I agree, as soon as I stepped out of the Doc's shack and saw that awful blue rusty truck (that's made from about 5 polygons total), I thought wtf have they done? How come this looks worse than FO3?
Other things look worse than FO3 too. Most of the new guns look absolutely TERRIBLE in first person, the textures look extremely low-res (Just take a look at the Trail Carbine for instance).
I'm also noticing a lot more of the aforementioned "repetitive checkerboard" textures that look awful, both landscape and on buildings (For instance, the outside wall of Prospector Saloon).
If you can't see that FO:NV looks worse than FO3, get your eyes tested.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:35 am

I could say the same thing about people who can't see they look the same.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:53 pm

Really because that's not how it comes across, your words

"Finally ventured in FO3 and I have to admit it was fairly pretty graphically"

"FONV on the other hand looks like it was designed >10 years ago"

Do you see the contradiction :rolleyes:

Apologies but I 'don't' see the contradiction. FO3 graphics were good. FONV graphics are bad. More of a paradox I think.

And to respond to somone's earlier comment, yes, COD2 and even HL2 look better than FONV and thats just sad. Now the gameplay purists can say 'graphics don't matter' and thats entirely true if you don't care how the game looks.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:56 am

I could say the same thing about people who can't see they look the same.

No, you couldn't. If you can't see the difference in 2 things that are different, and I can, then it's pretty obviously you who needs the eye-test.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:42 am

Quick PC comparison! Both have tweaked ultra high settings config files. I can't comment about the console versions though.

Fallout 3-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15539352@N02/5095290173/in/set-72157624761658995/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15539352@N02/5095890262/in/set-72157624761658995/lightbox/

Fallout: New Vegas-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15539352@N02/5112282099/in/set-72157625073566353/lightbox/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15539352@N02/5111166950/in/set-72157625073566353/lightbox/

I think the quality is pretty similar overall and New Vegas looks nice, expect for some textures, once you bump the view distance up on the PC.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:31 pm

Whats with the super low-poly models? Can't detect any vertex shading anywhere and no new assets appear to have baked textures/lighting. Seems to be a HUGE step backward. What gives?

Agree. That is one of my biggest annonyances with NV. Obsidian, for whatever reason, didn't bother to weather
their new art assets to match with Beths, and it just looks, well, amateur.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:41 am

I could say the same thing about people who can't see they look the same.

Except that they don't look the same. There are quite obvious technical differences in the graphics. Glaringly so on the console versions.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:30 pm

My only problem with the graphics is the draw distance. I have everything maxed on the PC and things just look awful in the distance.. if they are even displayed at all.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:39 am

Yeah I miss the constant green haze of FO3 so much, the ground had such a nice green tint to it too, not to mention that beautiful green sky, oh and how bout that green water eh? Man I miss that.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:25 pm

My only problem with the graphics is the draw distance. I have everything maxed on the PC and things just look awful in the distance.. if they are even displayed at all.

Check out my custom config file for greatly expanded draw distance. http://www.flickr.com/photos/15539352@N02/sets/72157625107958711/

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:27 am

Yeah I miss the constant green haze of FO3 so much, the ground had such a nice green tint to it too, not to mention that beautiful green sky, oh and how bout that green water eh? Man I miss that.

Obviously you're being sarcastic, but, y'know what, I actually do. I know, I know, it takes all sorts...

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:04 pm

Obviously you're being sarcastic, but, y'know what, I actually do. I know, I know, it takes all sorts...

To each his own I suppose, I certainly don't miss or prefer the green tint to everything though.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:35 pm

Check out my custom config file for greatly expanded draw distance. http://www.flickr.com/photos/15539352@N02/sets/72157625107958711/

I'll give your config a shot. Now can you reproduce the 'green/grey effect' mentioned above? Is it a shader setting? Anyone know?

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:18 am

I just wanted to chime in as a casual gamer (console). I don't get to play games a lot. But when I got NV, I thought it looked a bit sharper and better than FO3. So did my brother. I admit I don't know much about graphics or what to look for. And I don't know what the hell people on here are saying half the time about graphics, but my guess is there is a lot more of us (casual gamers) then there are of you (sophisticated gamers). So, in that respect, I am happy with NV. And so are a lot of other people I know that have it, they like the way it looks. But, I can understand that it might drive you crazy if you know what to look for.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:32 am

The grass looks pixelated but that's the only problem I see. I'm also not picky on graphics.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:16 pm

Mehhh..

Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 looked the same, I still had fun.
New Vegas looks fine...

The engine does need to be retired though.

If we had had to wait for 4 years for NV...then I might be a little peeved at the graphics.

Fun game...decent graphics.( 19x12, 4 AA,16 AF,Ultra,HDR,V-sync on) worth the money.