I'm sure this has already been discussed before, so if that's the case and someone wouldn't mind linking me to the related thread, that would be appreciated, and I apologize for what could be the 100th thread you have on the subject.

Anyway, I just wanted to ask the community; how do you feel about Fallout: New Vegas being on the same engine (albeit with some updates) as Fallout 3?

I was hesitant to get F:NV at first for several reasons, one of them being the fact that it looks and plays exactly the same as FO3. I don't believe it is a bad thing at all, but for me it will probably lessen the experience and I may not enjoy the game as much as I did with the previous instalment. Everything will feel too familiar. I know some new features have been implemented into the game (companion wheel, for example), but the vast majority of stuff looks as if if could have been DLC (if you see my point). It won't be a new game to me; more like an expansion.

My main issue with New Vegas is the environment/graphics. I'm being truthful when I say that I've watched no footage yet where I've seen new textures; not even one. I understand this is the same engine, and the graphics are going to be similar if not the same, but when some of the areas look copy-and-pasted it's quite irritating. The graphics are by no means bad, or ugly (okay, maybe ugly; what do you expect in a post-apocalyptic world?), but seeing the same damn tunnels being included in the game again is just...urgh.

I have faith that the developers have created a top-quality game, which is why I've gone ahead and pre-ordered New Vegas. I could have waited for a GOTY edition to be released but, honestly, I think these type of games are worth the ￡30 I spend. I'm just making a point (or rather, posting my opinion), and was interested in what others had to say.

The Wheres Wally/Waldo books, and Ian Flemmings James Bond novels both use the same engine (Ink and paper). Meh.

Good point (:)), but not really the type of reply I was looking for (nor expecting, lol ).

Im playing it right now.. and it doesnt bother me at all... Its almost exactly FO3 but in a different setting, and thats AWESOME imo... Im totally immersed in it so far

It's the gameplay that makes a game not the engine. Graphics can only do so much. Look at FF14. Great graphics. And that's it. If you are looking for a tech demo, you won't find it here.

Good to know. I hope you continue enjoying it.



Whilst I don't dispute your point, graphics play an important role for me too. Game play > Graphics any day, but sometimes fantastic (or in this case, new) graphics goes a long way to enrich the experience. My point was mainly to do with the feeling of "copy/pasted" though; because I acknowledged the graphics weren't bad.

EDIT:

Off-topic, but seeing as how you mentioned the game; is FF14 not a good game?

I like the same engine. For example Civ V had a new engine. It's ok, but I hated the art style they choose to go with for Wonders of the World and the Advisors. So sometimes keeping things the same is a good idea. Why fix something that is not broken? We don't need change, just for changes sake.

Also this is not a sequal so we don't need a new engine. I am happy with it.

Might wanna check this out: http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1121753-glorified-expansion/

Another good point. Though in all fairness I think the engine is quite buggy at times (though those issues are usually fixed), and I dislike the AI. Pretty much everything else is fine with it, however.



Hmm, wouldn't say I agree. I don't disagree either. To me it doesn't matter if it's a sequel or not.

EDIT:

@Duskey

Thanks mate; I'll have a look through that now.

How many games use the Unreal 3 engine? 30-40? More? The engine used is not important to me (provided it works).

OT: yeah, best review it got was 5.5/10 from ign I think, PCgamer gave it 30/100.

I couldn't tell you mate. I generally don't pay attention to what engine a game is running on. The only reason why I mention it with F:NV is because it's too similar to the previous game.

Obviously there's going to be games using the same engine/graphics but, honestly, I haven't played them. Or at 'least the Unreal 3 games I have played have been more varied.



Fair enough. I'll avoid it and wait for FF13 Versus.

I have no problem at all that is the same engine. Look at games like Halo, Gears of War, Assassins Creed.
They al use the same engine to make their sequals and why change the Fallout engine, I think its great. Adn the gameplay is the thing I look at most. Personally I think Halo looks all the same and boring. But hey graphics is nmot everything.

Like Fallout 1/2, even if they are old the graphic is bad buy hey they are still totaly awesome in story and gameplay.

It's a new experience. It's not FO4, but it's not FO3 either. Personally, it's a better FO3 from what I've seen so far. I can't really comment to the extent though. I'm an explorer so I haven't left the starter area after four hours.

I have to agree with SpiritShard. I was going to forgive the fact that NV uses the same engine as FO3, but NV looks WORSE! The lighting used is bright and sunny which shows off the tiny 512x512 textures and their lack of detail. I'm getting only 5-15fps in many areas of the game with my GTX480, which is pathetic compared to FO3.

I could live with the 'apex of 2004' graphics and the primordial gameplay mechanics if the game was bug free. Unfortunately, Obsidian packed up all the old FO3 bugs, put them in a new box, and is now charging top dollar for it.

Please don't get me wrong, I really want to love the game, and will try to. I realize that I've only played for 2hrs, so this isn't a final review. Merely my two caps.

Doesn't bother me, I'm more interested in the new features and if the game is as good as Fallout 3.

People need to stop expecting a game to be all about the graphics and instead consider the game play. Graphics are only one part of a larger picture, not the entire picture.

Currently installing here down to 7 mins left, personally for me I am glad its on the same engine I can for sure without a doubt not worry about if the game will play on my pc or if it will be a huge resource hog like some game engines can be.

Aside from that I personally think the graphcis are great for what it is and I am hopeful that I will get my $50 worth out of this game. I know I did with the GOTY edition of FO3 where I put over 400 hours on 3 different characters since I got it. Now while sure the graphics could use some improving but only way I would be happy is if a engine like the source engine could be used. Even on a mid grade PC you can play that game at high settings and get a graphically great view that in my view is breath taking (In reference to the view of the mountains and scenery as seen from the mountain) I think it would be great. But I can settle for lower quality graphics if the story and game play is fun. Hell I still enjoy playing Half Life 1 and its expansions Blue shift and Opposing Force.

This is the view I am talking about as taken from my mid range laptop at highest graphical settings. Only thing is it appears the upload has made the image not as crips as it is when in game though.

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s8/Rusty_S85/Personal/ep2_outland_10a0003.jpg

Definitely keep an eye out for drivers/patches/tweaks to fix this, because it's either that or something else about your computer. My computer has a GTX460 and I'm not experiencing any slowdown at all, so I'm sure there's a fix to get your FPS up.

Anyway, what little I've seen of FNV so far has been promising. I know that in screenshots, a lot of the layout may look similar to the Capital Wasteland, but for me, when I'm actually in the game, it feels different. I mean, the landscape actually is different from that of the Capital Wasteland, though perhaps not by much (but then, what do you expect in a post-apocalyptic roleplaying game?), but that doesn't always come across particularly well in screenshots.

Give it a try is what I say. If you liked Fallout 3, there's really every reason to believe you'll like New Vegas as much if not more. Even if you didn't like FO3, why not at least rent FNV and see how you like it?

I will probably reply later today with my view of the comparison between the captial wasteland and the mohave wasteland. Install just finished and I am off to play.

I, personally, am not expecting a game to be all about graphics. Far from it, in fact. Crysis was supposedly an amazing game, but when I played it the only thing that appealed to me was it's appearance. The game itself bored me a lot.

...but sometimes there's room for improvement and, with a game like Fallout, I was expecting something a tad different graphically. Using the same engine is fine to an extent as we all know it's efficient/effective, however when I see copy/pasted environments it's quite irritating. I haven't watched/read into Vegas much as I believe it helps me enjoy the game more, however from what I've seen, the only different part to F:NV is New Vegas itself; everything else I could have associated with an expansion.

Still, I'm not disputing using the same graphics/engine is a good thing. I was simply interested in others thoughts.



That is a very good point, and one which I missed entirely. Using the same engine is beneficial for those of us who can't upgrade our PC's (I'm fine, fortunately).



I'm getting it anyway, so no need to rend. Perhaps it'll feel different in-game but, from what I've seen, it may be a bit too "samey" for me. I'll still enjoy it, no doubt.