They redid the third person mode.

People put way to much emphasis on graphics. I would rather they focus on content than graphics at this point.

But you do understand why it won't have better graphics right?
Because that's been explained a couple of times.

Well, since I don't play games at all for the graphics, and least of all Fallout, this doesn't really bother me. And if it does I'll just download a texture replacement.

I don't think it's expecting that much. 2 years and you reuse basically everything? That's fairly disappointing, my biggest grudge is the same wasteland textures. My only hope is that the story and quests will make up for that.

In my opinion the graphics are'nt that bad,they look good enough to me.

To the OP...can you give me a good example of a game with graphics you like, & the type of game it is?

I've said this many times before....RPG's usually have way more content & information than any other game type.Fallout 3 & NV especially,has way more information to deal with than....COD,Gears of war & those type of games etc. Those type of games don't have a massive open world map to deal with,they have small areas/maps,they don't have to deal with in-depth stats that effect your character ,in-depth text & other information thats in fallout 3 & NV.
If you truely look at fallout 3,you'll know why it does'nt look as good as COD etc. You also have to take into account all the clutter in fallout...bottles,trolleys,tins,ammo boxes etc...there are things scattered everywhere,even things like that make a difference & add to more information in a game,but they need to be there for the feel of the game.
Eventually they will need to upgrade the graphics,but its not the be all & end all of games.


If i'm not mistaken oblivion uses the same engine...now let me tell you that game in certain areas of the map still blow me away graphically,maybe the setting & scenary play apart in that,but in all i think that game looks good even now 4 years on...in my opinion. Also in my opinion ,using the same engine can help devs get to know that engine better too,maybe pushing more out of it & to help understand the bugs in it etc...just my view.

I can understand that games need to improve & that includes graphics,but given they have had 2 years to make NV,what did you expect in that time frame. I ,like most people, am happy with what they have tried to add to the game,looks good to me so far.You also said you are still buying the game....so it cant be that bad in your eyes. But i do agree the animations could be better.

I could rant on & on,but i think i'll leave it there.....but when you buy new vegas...look very deep at whats in the game.

Also look on youtube at the wonderful world of oblivion & what modders have done with it,with that engine & then tell me it looks dated.
That game in my eye's is still one of the best graphically i've seen,considering how big it is & what it has in it.
I just wish i could afford a good PC, to get even more out of that game...some of these modders are really clever people with great creation.

I read in an IGN preview that the graphics and animations were noticeably improved and that they would share more about that in the future.

"
The first thing we noticed was simply the leap in graphical quality that Fallout: New Vegas has made over Fallout 3."

graphics aren't up to par? mod it. can't mod it? you're the reason it looks so bad in the first place.

seriously how many times does this thread have to be made before people go OH WELL and whine about something new

it's like we've really entered an endless recursion of time

Well it might be 2010 but while the graphics in games may be much more realistic and flashier these days, the gameplay and game content has nosedived to truly abysmal proportions. More often than not the gameplay is simplified and the complexity is toned way down from the way games used to be.

I would say that it should be Gameplay > Game complexity > Graphics and not as too many games do these days Graphics > Graphics > Graphics (yes I am being deliberatly over the top with that to try and emphasis the point). The way that the gameplay in most games seem to be going I wouldn't be surprised if at some point you will see games where as soon as you do anything ingame after starting it you complete the game, I suppose you could have the character stood in front of a humungous red button emblazoned with the legend "I Win" instead but with they way things appear to be going I again wouldn't be surprised if some people complain that it was too 'hard' to figure out they had to press the button to win the game. (Yes, I'm again using an excessive extreme example).

Graphics should not be the be all and end all of what makes a game good, all too often I've seen games with overly gorgeous graphics wrapped round gameplay that is decidedly broken and in those cases the games are worse than bad. Also as has already been stated RPG's tend by their very nature be more complex (or at least should be) than most other game types and as such they don't really need overly pretty graphics as the graphics can use up a lot of the computers/consoles processing power which then means that it detracts from the gameplay which you should be enjoying.

The bar hasn't been raised in the slightest when it comes to open world sandbox games. This is the only game producers/publishers that put out huge sandbox games where nearly everything can be interacted with. I don't know of any game with comparable scope and magnitude similar to Fallout or TES that has been released that "Raised the bar" in terms of graphics.

Bethesda games are huge. Obsidian is making a huge game for Bethesda. I'm fine with "dated" graphics if the magnitude of epic awesomeness is kept at the highest level. IMO Bethesda has set the bar for Hugeness and Playability so high that nobody has matched it since 08. I'm tired of corny 20 hour games on rails. I've been spoiled by 100+ hour games now that really give you your monies worth. Graphics be hanged.

This.

Why does everyone

write every sentence

in separate paragraphs?

in this thread?

It's annoying

to read!

I agree. The graphics are VERY good for a game with such depth and storyline devotion. If you dont like it, go play a generic shooter. besides. Contemporary is a trend. Fallout is Immortal.

stop complaining.... this is the hundredth thread about this...... if you don't like it so much don't buy it...... whats truly disappointing is that Bethesda's new game is using the same engine....

Want to know why Shooters have such pretty graphics? Because they need something to distract from the reality that the story is the same and the game play is the same as every other shooter out there. Enter a cell, shoot things, enter another cell, shoot things, rinse repeat. The only thing a shooter can do to be different from another shooter is to have prettier graphics.

RPGs are driven by story and content, not by pretty sprites.

Having said that, Fallout 3 was a beautiful game, even today. F:NV will be too.

Flamebaiting from a moderator...can't recall the last time that happened.

And yes, coming into a thread just to state that first person shooters are shallow and dull is flamebaiting.

But in a gruff way, he's right.

How, exactly? There's no lie in there. That's what most shooters are compared to (well made) RPGs.

He's right. Majority of FPS games in the last 5 years have been dull. You can't even tell half of them apart.

The graphics are fine, but please, PLEASE, add new talking animations ffs. It's like talking to robots.

He wasn't flamebaiting at all, he was saying it just like it is. Most shooters have next to nothing for a story, or have a pre-fab story line that you have few choices in. Even the upcoming Rage will suffer from a static story line with very few choices outside of the maze built for us. Granted Rage will have incredible graphics and probably unbelievable gameplay, but I would give all that up in a half-second in exchange for the open-world RPG we are getting with Fo3 and NV.

So yes, most FPS ARE shallow and devoid of the freedoms and depth of story that we have grown accustomed to. For me I think the graphics for NV are more than fine, I don't need the #1 super-clear extra-neat graphics to make the game for me - the story, the RPG, the openness, the modability are all SO much more important.

Personally I find these "NV Graphics svcks, OMG I'm so dissapointed!" threads very pathetic. If people are that upset, don't waste our time here by whining about it, go play the latest FPS and leave the rest of us to enjoy New Vegas. Whining about the graphics is not going to change anything.

Miax

I do agree the animations can be tweaked to look better. Then again, I have not seen a game where I have thought they got it right. Even Pixar can not get this right. There is a new game coming out, LA Noir that may get this right as they moion captured real people to provide the animations, at least for facial expressions, but hopefully for other movement too.

graphics arent necessary for a great game, i still play old snes and play station games because theyre awesome.

Well, according to FNV pre-orders, the mass gaming public likes story and game content better than shiny things.
Ever seen a yacht with glitter finish?

I've always found the graphics great. I mean, it's not like I sit around just looking at a wall for details and such. I'm ussually playing.

But anyway.. I'm just complaining now. Point is, Is that if I was willing to wait another 2-5 years for the game, then I would Expect better graphics.. But I know the graphics will be fine anyway. Another thing I had read in an article was that the game was probably only going to appeal to fans of the older games, and the more I think about, the more I agree with the author of the article completely.