What mod is that?

I guess I don't really see the problem?

Yeah, it's got basically the same "graphics" as Fallout 3. I thought that was kind of the point. They're re-using many of the existing assets and building this game on the existing Fallout 3 GECK architecture, rather than try to re-invent the wheel and put out something two years from now instead.

I can see why this appears counter-intuitive to a lot of people, at first glance. The vast majority of games out there, there's a pervading sense in the marketplace that you have to "one up" yourself with each and every new incarnation of your IP. We expect something totally brand new, because that's what we've been taught to expect from most game developers - as soon as they put out one game they have to go back to the drawing board, construct (or appropriate) another entirely new engine (and not only the "engine" engine, but also all of the new workflow and UI considerations that entails) for the next game.

Rather than ask "why does Fallout: New Vegas look so much like Fallout 3 - which was kind of renowned for a certain attention to detail and an impeccable art direction," rather I would ask "why shouldn't companies be able to use perfectly capable programs and engines, even if they've already been used once?" There's a lot of talk about Gamebryo, but we're also missing another point, here - that's the GECK itself (the actual incarnation of all that "engine" stuff.) If Bethesda were anything but a game company, the amount of work that likely went into that asset alone would have been a cost prohibitive enough to seek out other uses, rather than just toss the whole thing into the garbage once the game had come out.

Oh, and on this "modders vs professionals" thing - it's an unfair comparison. A lot of modders probably could get hired as professionals. (More than one likely has that goal - and having existing work to show is, I've heard, a pretty good step in that direction.) But a modder - regardless of the quality of their work - isn't working under the quantity and time restraints of a pro. A modder gets to work on one mesh, one texture, at a time (if they do more at once, it's because they feel like it.) Professional designers have to populate an entire world with this stuff. It's just not an apt comparison.

I'm talking about the original, not what some nerd with too much time on his hands did when he shoulda been out lookin for a job.

Honestly, I wish people would stop [censored]ing about the graphics. Maybe if you didn't watch everything in 180p you'd see how amazing the graphics really are. It seems like everyone saw the RAGE demo and had a major nerdgasm and now they think because not everything looks exactly like that they'll never be pleased again. I see people calling Fo3's graphic engine dated and I want to beat them. Fo3 and Oblivion probably have the best graphics I've ever seen in a game and people call it dated... I just don't get it. Fo3 is the best game... evur IMHO.

And if you want it in another two years then sure... take the time to polish the graphics just a tad more. It's not worth it.

Wow...I don't even know where to begin pointing out all of the things that are wrong with that statement. :blink:

Good post, agreed. :thumbsup:

Oh, and congrats on the promotion.

I hadn't even noticed that.

Congrats, nu_clear_day. They couldn't have found better folk for mod-dom. :foodndrink: I look forward to being warned by you soon.

It's not all about the graphics!!!

And personally I think they look pretty good.

Dern kids and their graphics. I remember when back in the day all we had was 8-bit graphics. And every game was a side scroller!!!!

if you want better graphics bethesda is gonna have to make another game engine, that takes a couple of years then the staff has to learn that engine, and it took just over two years for obsidian to make fallout NV with the help from bethesda, so for bethesda to make a new game enigne and make a new fallout with it, your looking at 4 to 5 years till we get another game. and i really dont care i fine with how it is right now, its all about the world, and the people in it, the story, not flashy graphics, and the graphics are great i think. yes some things look a bit bad , but fallout 3 looks great the detail on things is amazing you dont get that with other games,

with RPGs there graphics are always gonna behind on what is great graphics, because there big games they take longer to finish

I don't see a problem with the graphics, especially since I play on a 360 with a 1080p HD TV so I'm good to go. Animations didn't bother me either.

Hey, people still drool over Final Fantasy 7 and Ocarina of Time (myself included), and they look horrible.

And personally, I'm fine with the graphics the way they are. Entertaining gameplay and an engaging storyline are more important anyhow.

EDIT: And don't forget World of Warcraft. Their next expansion, Cataclysm will be out any month now, and it still looks like it's from 2004.

So 3D modelers and C++ coders only work for gaming companies? All others are just hobbysts who do it for fun?
Are you also discounting innate artistic ability? In any walk of life, you will find people who spend hours working at their craft, and never be as good as one with the innate ability to perform that task.

There's also a difference between doing something because you love it, and doesn't something because you're getting paid for it. There's an even bigger difference between having 4 hours a day for a week to spend on a model, or 16 hours a week to spend on 50 models.

Yes, I think so.



Lol classic? no fallout 1 is classic. :foodndrink:




This^ :whistling:

I like some FPS, but i prefer RPG's any day of the week.
I was just trying to say RPG's have way more depth etc.

Forgive me if i misunderstand here....are you agreeing with me ,or disagreeing?

Wow... so much negativity...
I guess we'll all just have to wait and see what the game looks like when it is released.
That being said, those of you who are claiming open world games always suffer in the graphics department should play Red Dead Redemption.

Yes Red Dead Redemption looks beautiful & it's open world,but it is'nt an RPG. So in my opinion as i've said before it's not as in-depth or will not have the same amount of info etc in it compared to fallout, i may be wrong ,but thats how i see it....& yes i've played Red Dead Redemption.

If u want a good game with good grapichs by bethesta buy BRINK [censored]

And still looks really good, because it has an effective & consistant art style.

This is Spot on. :goodjob:

Many of us spend Alot more time on a single thing than the pro's would ever get time to. To me there is no rush to modding, what I put out I want to be the very best that it can be. And as an amateur, its going to take longer anyway.

I'll still be enjoying the Fo3 and NV graphics for Several years yet to come.

Miax

erm? so will I. It's not all about th eye candy. There, I said it.

I believe there was a preview last week, where the writer stated something along the lines of this:

"The graphics and looks in general of the game are polished and beautiful compared to Fallout 3. It is clear that the developers have made a huge leap in the graphical aswell as the gameplay."

So, what to say to this? Were they telling the truth, playing on a PC with maxed settings, or just poor at formulating their sentences?

I think the graphics are beautiful, however I agree with on the character models and animations, they are like, original xbox/PS2 quality.

I found the ground textures to be pretty low-res...



You do realize that Bethesda Game Studios is not developing BRINK? It's the same thing as New Vegas, being developed by a developer who is not BGS, and being published by Bethesda Softworks.

I thought that was common knowledge by now.

I don't know about you guys, but from the gameplay videos, it looks like everything is a lot more polished off and colorful. It looks great.