That last comment about facial expressions reminded me of the old cartoons where they would super-impose a human's mouth over the static cartoon cell

One thing I'd like to add about animations, sandbox RPGs usually have a greater number of animations than FPSs. For starters, compare the number of animations for the main character in an 1st and 3rd person RPG vis a vis the number of animations for the main character in an FPS. NPCs in a FPS have much less animations as well: only those necessary to shoot what they are shooting, running around, and dying, whereas an RPG like FO has animations for everyday actions, as NPCs are coded to do every day stuff like travel to places, walk around, run around, go to bed, etc..

Better than the usual walls of text.

It is much more fun if you imagine Captain Kirk saying it.

Ever play VTM:B? Absolutely awesome facial animations in it.

Sorry to pinpoint just one part of your reply, but this just rubbed me the wrong way. There is a huge difference between 2 and 5 years. If we waited 5 years, then of course there would be an expectation of a new graphics engine to keep up with the times- but this project was probably rushed already trying to fit a massive amount of content into a new release in under 2 years. Also, this is not Fallout 4, this is Fallout New Vegas- it is not meant to be a pure sequel, just fresh, new content using the FO3 engine.

Games like Fallout and TES have high standards when it comes to story quality, massive open worlds, and quantity of content. I wish more companies would follow their example and focus on these elements instead of pure graphics like so many modern games (especially shooters). At the end of the day, if all you care about is insane, cutting-edge graphics, you are going to end up with a polished turd in terms of content and substance.

I can't wait for FONV- I would rather have tons of new content sooner than wait 5 years for something that looks slightly better. I can wait for FO4 for that.

Dude grow up, the graphics have nothing to do with the game, yes they do but look at fallout 1 and 2 they were really good. Gameplay is more important then graphics.

Someone already made this point but I'll spell it out -

This isn't really a philosophical debate about RPGs not needing good graphics (altho if it was, I would agree)
Chances are good this is one more console-user complaining that the game looks like ass on console (which it does)

I played FO3 on a high-end PC and my PS3, and there's no comparison at all.

But I'll still play NV on my PS3 and love it because its my only option! :rock:

Not sure what you thought I meant... My mind went blank half-way through writing my post.
I was actually just saying that I didn't care wether the graphics were good or not. Because I already thought they were amazing. And that I didn't want to wait another five years (Random Number. Has nothing to do with anything.) just for something polished and new. I'm definatly not picky with graphics, and even if I was, New Vegas will be Heaven on a disc.
And I do understand it's not Fallout 4. I've known that since the start. Sorry if you thought I was implying otherwise.

You don't need to apologize. These same people that accept the turdy graphics and praise the story (without even knowing all about it) and praise the dialogue (by just going off mainly what they've been fed by the devs and not actually seeing a lot of it) and praise the gameplay (without actually playing the game) are the same people who will find something to complain about when the game comes out.

Graphics don't make the game but indeed Bethesda has to create a new engine with Fallout 4. Not just for the graphics and animations but to decrease the amount of bugs in their games.

Its too late with New Vegas but I don't mind. Its more Fallout; what else could you ask for?

To me gameplay is the main thing and I have no doubt FNV will deliver on that. Having updated graphics is nice but its not something that decides whether I purchase a game/put hours into it or not. Im content with FNVs graphics quality, they could be better but they will do.

i dont really give a damn about the animations so long as i have fun playing the game. theyre working with a dated engine, and everyone knows this, so why must people still complain about something that cant be fixed at this point and quit fantasizing about something that cant be done until probably the next Fallout game. im just saying

I make the distinction that it's like movies.

If you have an action movie, you need great FX (graphics) and setpieces because that is the focus of the experience that you are selling. Nobody cares if The Expendables doesn't have a great story or fantastic dialogue because that's not what the moviegoer is there to see. They'll spend all the budget on getting the right-looking cast (not the best actors) and the best CGI and won't worry about little details such as whether some little detail is accurate or whether there's no motivation for the bit-parter's dialogue.

Conversely, think back to when M Night Shyamalan was on form - like Signs or The Village. Nobody cared if the special effects weren't up to much because that wasn't why you bought your ticket. To my mind, Shyamalan's films don't even have particularly good stories - the plot twists are generally guessable from the outset - but it's the acting that we're here to watch. So, as long as the acting is great, then everyone goes home happy.

Taking that as an example, a game like Bioshock has to look great because it's that which it's selling itself on - a hyperrealistic visual experience to sell the immediate danger of the situation. It has to have a satisfying mechanic, because it's only doing a small number of things over and over so you have to enjoy doing them (namely: combat). So long as you have fun with the fighting and it's sufficiently visually-detailed to make you feel tense, then it's fulfilled its objective. In Bioshock's case, the emotionally-affecting storyline was a memorable bonus.

RPGs try to be jack-of-all-trades when it comes to game design, but even so there's a physical limit on what can be done so developers take one or two key features and put all their attention into that - normally at the expense of other things. In good games, the non-focus details are acceptable but not exceptional. For example: Fable II does interactivity, but the graphics aren't great. Mass Effect 2 does amazing characterisation and fun combat, but even though they've come a long way, the worldspaces could use more work. Bethesda create unrivalled worlds, but rarely excel in other areas e.g. animation.

Given Obsidian's reputation for characterisation, and that they're using resources from the best worldbuilders, I'm far too excited to see what they come up with to care much about whether the animations are better than those in otherwise-lesser games.

I was playing red dead redemption, shooting, reloading, walking, running, idle, animations were very impressive.

In Mass Effect 2 the talking animations and facial expression during dialogue looked great.

Not that these games are in the same genre, but it is an example of where the bar is.



I definitely understand they are limited by both the engine and time frame for production. But when they are hiring Matthew Perry for a voice acting spot, I'd rather see that money to go to someone working on textures or animations rather than star power voice acting.

Take that beauty mod that came out for FO3. The look of the characters never really bothered me until I saw that mod and saw what potential improvements could have been made. If the mod community can do it then i expect the creators of the game to be able to trump that mod in spades.

Yes, the graphics are good enough. But there’s a difference between good enough and impressive. Not complaining, just an opinion. Guess I'll wait for fallout 4 to see vast improvements.

Why?
Because one is not making meshes and textures for a gaming company, that doesn't mean people who do are better at creating 3D models and textures by default. There are many bona fide digital artists who mod for Morrowind, Oblivion, FO...
.. same goes for C++ coding.

The Mod Community has the Luxury of being able to produce something that only a subset of the customers wants. Most of the folks who play games either do so on a console or on a PC that is just about as powerful. Not many of us PC gamers have a bleeding edge set up. Heck, I started FO3 on an 7800GT and there is no way it would run hi res textures even though the card could handle the game at better than console settings with the stock textures. If you put a graphics heavy mod on a PC that does not have the horsepower, then it slows to a crawl. Forget trying to run those textures on a console.

Because you're doing it 5 days a week 8 hrs a day and getting paid for it.

Working for a Co. gives you more time, resources to dedicate to a project

There are just those who do it professionally. I would assume that those people are the best at what they do.

hobbyist vs. professional.

TECHNICALLY the Gothic series falls under this category, since they're all openworld (pseudo-)sandbox games with really good level design. Gothic 3 looked quite a bit better than Oblivion with regard to world design, graphics, and animations, and supported seamless interior/exterior/underground transitions without loading screens, which was neat because caves got a lot darker the further you went in and you could see the outside world through cracks in the walls of wooden houses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQqGrZW1lSI (i want everyone saying OPENWORLD GAMES CAN'T LOOK PRETTY to watch that video).

but you're right in saying that Bethesda is one of only a very small handful of studios who does this kind of game on a regular basis. actually i think they might be the only studio outside of Northern/Eastern Europe to do this kind of game at all.



are you serious dude

like do you not remember Crysis's launch, and how pretty it looked, and how EVERYBODY WHINED ABOUT IT because they couldn't max it out and it was the only game ever that they couldn't max out

do you really think developers and publishers want to go through that again

IMO the graphics are good enough. Then again, I grew up playing games in 16-colors and ultra-low resolution. Yes, pretty graphics are nice (evidenced by the fact that I do upgrade my PC hardware every once in a while), but they don't make the game. The vast majority of games out there (IMO) are mindless, cookie-cutter rehash of other games with a new coat of paint. I've played waaaay too many games with pretty graphics and boring, repetitive, tedious story and gameplay to put that much emphasis on visuals.

I ask you, did you complain about the graphics in GTA: Vice City or GTA: San Andreas being barely different than those in GTA III?

Honestly, I think the industry has done itself a rather large disservice by conditioning younger gamers to expect major leaps in graphical fidelity with each game release. It puts developers in a position where they have to spend a huge portion of their budget on graphics technology rather than actually making original games with interesting story and gameplay. It really shows, too. It seems like there are only a few games released per year that are worth my time to play...the rest are just the same game I've played a gazillion times with prettier graphics. Blech. Do you have any idea how much those pretty graphics cost? I'll bet it would blow your mind.

I won't even get into the fact that projects have budgets. I'm a software developer, and I generally get to budget a certain number of hours toward a certain task depending on how much money is being put into my project. Once that budget has been decided-upon people get really upset when you go too far over it. Your perspective on how all of this works is incomplete at best.

Different engines make different games.. This is made on the gamebryo engine...and it's an old engine.. You can't do more than the engine can allow for you to do..

Instead of looking at graphics like graphics.. try looking at it like art.. There's all sorts of different art out there.. done in bazillions of different ways. No one art style is better than another.. it's just personal taste as to what you like.
If you look at graphics artistically and take into account the time and effort that was put into it you'll realize that many older games art trumps art in a higher graphics game..

maybe gaming isn't your thing ratt

maybe the art gallery is where you belong

You know, Morrowind lookds dated, Ultima 4 looks dated, hell, even mac daddy Obliviob looks dated now. But that is irrelevant. Because I still have fun playing them. THAT is what is relevant.

Outdated graphics and animations in a Gambryo game? :shocking:

I don't think I could be less surprised

Arguably, the artwork and artists are phenomenal IMO, it's just the technical way they're displayed doesn't offer the art the best resolution or clarity.

I beg to differ!

http://goo.gl/FTsR
http://goo.gl/K13N
http://goo.gl/Q6Qm
http://goo.gl/LvmW
http://goo.gl/Kc7U
http://goo.gl/94jZ