So i have noticed this game has a few bugs and stuff. Nothing game breaking though. It is usually character glitches in first person, it got choppy once, and i get game freezes here and there, and they are already working on a patch for all systems. Which is good, but honestly i think some more beta testing could gone on but alas it is still a very fun game, maybe my game of the year. I dont know, need more time.

But why is is everyone complaining about the graphics? They look great. Yeah it isn't Red Dead Redemption but then again it probably didnt have a $100,000,000 budget either. The lighting is good, the environment is compelling and immersive i actually feel like i am in the Mojave desert. But believe me there are worse graphics out there. Anyway, great job Obsidian and Bethesda. I am 20 hours in and having a great time, barely scratched the surface.


PS Collectors edition is awesome too.

People just like to [censored]. I think they look great, we're playing an open world rpg here, not a 4 hour scripted FPS, graphics will be sacrificed for gameplay and if people care more about graphics they really shouldn't be playing games like this.

Heh... maybe because the engine is ancient by software standards and the animations are a joke?

This is still the Oblivion engine from 6 years ago.

After all the recent games with updated graphics these are certainly aged, not terrible but aged. Combine that with the bugs lots of people have and the frustration grows... old engines should at least work if not be top end.

I like the graphics too. The character models are similar to FO3, but now the females aren't so homely looking. RDR looks nice in stills, but it pretty choppy in action - 24fpsish. NV is the opposite - kinda plain-looking in stills but beautiful in action. Well in my opinion at least

Since around noon yesterday I've put in just over 15 hours of gameplay, and that is just doing around 3 side quests and pretty much just going through the main quest. Honestly, I was impressed with the graphics. Maybe because I knew it was going to be very simmilar to Fallout 3, but nonetheless, I thought they were very good. One moment that especially jumped out of me was my walk into freeside. Just all the unoccupied land around Vegas and the way it all looked was stunning.

Graphics aren't to be ignored; they are very important, but at the same time they don't completely make the game. There are many elements of proper game development that, when done just right, bring a considerable boost of quality to the game.

The graphics here aren't cutting edge, but, IMO, they are sufficient. The engine obviously has limitations handling the current model/graphical load as it is; so taxing it more would result in poor performance.

Personally, I like the graphics and I don't mind the engine but what I don't like is that they used the same exact textures and artwork to such a large extent. Had they made an effort simply to retexture small things like the prewar books or packs of cigarettes which look exactly the same in Fallout 3 that would have given New Vegas its own personality.

I got medal of honour the other day, great graphics and all that [censored], finished it in one day, have not played it since and I'am not really one for mUltipLaYaz, so won't be doing that either. I will proberbly end up giving it to my nephew, he likes FPS multiplayer online(because he's 8). FONV on the other hand, the graphics, engine etc is a little old, but I will play the hell out of it proberbly for the next two years. :fallout:

A few opinions

It is an older engine, but that doesn't mean graphics can't be updated without being done at the expense of gameplay. Half Life 2's graphics vs L4D2's big difference same engine. That being said, I am a believer in gameplay over graphics. I'm willing to play a great/good game even if it has dated/mediocre/plain bad graphics. But for a big name game, which Fallout has become with TV advertisemants and such, more could have been done. I like the change of color palette from FO3 to NV, but something 'more' was possible.

The quality of a games graphics are not always limited by the game's engine. For example, STALKER's engine was able to do alot more than the developer's got out of it. Also, not wanting to push the minimum requirements makes the game more accessible.

I think the graphics for this game are incredible! I mean, I'm not one to compare... I just thoroughly appreciate gaming graphics and how far they have come... I usually am staring in enlightenment every time I play Fallout, or any game nowadays.

Main problem is that it is the same kind of terrain as most other future games... I'd love to see a forest or something, even if it has high graphic reqs. I'm tired of the same thing in FO3, Borderlands, NV, etc.

And why can't I see my [censored] face? :-p

Though Valve uses the "Source" engine, there have been major build differences in order to support the games played on it. HL2 was on the base build; with games like TF2 and (I believe) L4D2, the games are using the Source 2007 build.

Most of the time, due to how fast tech moves, an engine can only go so long before it simply isn't capable of putting out "next gen" tech. This is when you have to either invest in making a new build or using someone else's latest engine (like how Epic licenses their Unreal Engine for a lot of games)

To me, the graphics in NV are adequate. Nothing to write home about, but not showing it's age that badly either.

Graphics are least important thing to evaluate a game on imo. Gamplay matters the most, and I loved FO3s gameplay. FNV takes that an improves it (somewhat). No need to make radically changes. If they changed it too much, all the people whining about it being too similar to FO3 would be here whining it is too different. No matter what, the devs would be wrong. It's a lose-lose situation. Look at Civ 5. They remove noob mode (stack of doom) and all of the sudden the game is "dumbed down." Even though Civ 4 is just as easy if not easier to win in.

Some of the animations are awful, but that's been a problem since Oblivion. That said, the artwork is great just as it was with Fallout 3, and that's a lot more important to me than the technology behind it. Do I have some niggles with animation and textures? Sure. Are they worth complaining about? No. Do I think they should have spent 2+ more years getting a new engine ready for New Vegas? Hell no. Do I think they should use a new engine for Fallout 4? Sure.

Hold down the middle mouse button and move the mouse right or left.

its cause the graphics are awful. haha. They do well with the tools that they are given, but Bethesda and developers working for Bethesda need to really bring their graphics up to date. Gamebryo (i think thats the name of the engine) looked good in 2006 when Oblivion came out, but in 2010 it's pretty bad. It was pretty bad in 2008 as well. I wish they used the Unreal engine, but sadly to make a game this big on it would take 5-6 years