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?

Are. You. Really?

God, people these days.

You obviously have an eye for these things because I hardly notice much difference in graphical quality between FO3 and NV.

The 2D renders look absolutely hellish, but other than that it looks the same as Fallout 3 to me.

Funny, Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas look pretty much the same to me.

I mean, I went to school for years learning 3D animation... I would think that I would notice something like that.

Huh. I don't notice that much of a difference between New Vegas and Fallout 3 when it comes to graphics. Hell, I think the graphics are better.

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

I think they look the same and I think both games look fine. Graphics are a style.. Just like paintings they can look like whatever they want to. Not all games have to look like the same or have the same graphic performance to be good games. Realistic graphics don't make the game. Also be thankful.. more people can play this game without having to upgrade their darn computer.

If it has worse graphics then Crysis, it has horrible graphics.

Word of the internet, my friends.

Crysis, hmmm. Isn't that the PC game that requires 2 supercomputers and dedicated hubs to run?

And even then, I've seen better.

It looks the same as FO3 to me. A few things even seem a bit better. :unsure:

You must think FO3 looked terrible since New Vegas an FO3 are on equal ground, graphics wise.


bigcrazewolf

You should probably apply with Obsidian so you can set them straight.

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

I have to admit I found a lot more "mesh hole" in NV compare to FO3; I found lots of them because I sneak a lot......rocks on the side of slope isn't tuck under the ground but flowing on it......there is event time creature spawn inside the rocks/invisible boxes and freak every single NPC out....

Otherwise, it is the same.

Increase your graphics settings.

The bright lighting used in NV causes it to look worse than FO3. Many, many textures from FO3 have been reused in NV and their normals mapping are underutilized without moody light effects.

I agree with OP. Game looks five years old.

New Vegas does have some graphics improvements when compared to Fallout 3 but not too obvious until you play them one after the other. The engine does show its age every now and then but nothing to break the experience too much(the small dark bushes still keep popping out of nowhere even at full settings)

You speak the truth, the funny because it's true (and sad) truth.

It's not going to win any awards (other than a 'best game to use the oldest engine' award, if such a thing existed) but it's not a bad looking game. Those desolate landscapes still look good when the sun dips over the horizon and does it's funky HDR thang.

Character models, animation and facial animation/textures look comically bad, but TBH they did in Fallout 3 and Oblivion.

Hopefully with the next Fallout game, Bethesda/Obsidian will take the time to upgrade the engine. Id's shiny new Rage engine would make obvious sense since they're both owned by the same company now. It's not a neccessity to upgrade purely for graphic's sake, but Gamebryo is showing it's age in many other ways.

Heck, get the colour mod, it takes away that dark shade. Colourfullness + Bloom = Prettyful. Honestly, it makes the game look so much better. And less Depressing.

Now that tweaked my config and pushed the view distance back it looks pretty good. Check out these shots. http://www.flickr.com/photos/15539352@N02/sets/72157625073566353/

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.

How about some screenshot comparisons.

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.