Retribution Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 This is the first time I've played Fallout 3 on the PC. I have been playing it on the 360, so I never realized how bad the textures are. They could easily be pulled off on a PS2. Does anyone feel the same way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazakovich Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Well, I never really pay that much attention to the technical side of graphics; all that matters to me is the design and colouring/lightning. This might mean I'm not the right person to say anything in that matter, but... No, I think it's actually quite good. Maybe not exactly Next-Gen but far better than PS2. I've owned one for a long time, so I'm certain about this. It's not next-gen or groundbreaking, but it's not on PS2-level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retribution Posted October 24, 2009 Author Share Posted October 24, 2009 Well, certain graphics couldn't be on the ps2, but things like armor/clothing textures, architecture, etc. could be on the ps2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElijahHouck Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Well, certain graphics couldn't be on the ps2, but things like armor/clothing textures, architecture, etc. could be on the ps2.Not really. Just because the textures aren't ultra hi-res doesn't mean the models themselves don't have a significantly higher poly count than the PS2 could handle.But why should graphics make or break a game? The storyline and gameplay should ;) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagaoka Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 So wait, are you saying the graphics, even as they appear on your 360, are bad enough that the PS2 could handle them, or are you saying that you're looking at the graphics on your computer and seeing that those are bad? In any case, it's a large game, I think they've done pretty amazing with the textures and models given all they had to accomplish. It's hard to get a balance between what the console/average pc can handle and the breadth of the game design and the engine that's being worked with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theLeeHarvey Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 I don't think the texture quality is all that bad. Maybe it's not state of the art, but they are definitely better than what's possible on a PS2. The vanilla textures may not be the highest resolution possible, but when taken along with the lighting and normal maps combined with the basic worldspace and object design, I think Bethesda did a damn good job (aside from the lack of world object shadows :no:) . Besides, there are some really good texture packs available on Fallout 3 Nexus. Find one or two that you like and install them. They will make a noticeable difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spammster Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 personally I have to admit, that the graphics are only okay and i don't expect something like RE5 graphics (which if I might add, are f'in awesome). I do enjoy F3 a lot more than RE5 and thats mainly because F3 has a much better story than RE5 (which basically is a shooter by now). Lets just hope for Fallout 4 they go with HighRes textures (cause if you offer Ultra as a quality preset, you should offer some Highres Textures at least for characters, buildings etc. i don't need highres for every grain of sand or stone but the larger things could have nicer textures). just look at the NPC's faces without mods, they actually do look worse than the faces Fallout 2 had for the important characters (the animated conversations). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kazakovich Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Huh... I actually fired up my old PS2 again today and had a look, and I was actually rather shocked. When did all those games become so... Ugly? It's like someone sneaked into my house and squashed a sardine with the CD-lid. :biggrin: Obviously, I'm just used to much better graphics as a standard, which makes things that looked great and groundbreaking back then look horrifying now. Anyway, now that I look at Fallout 3 again, after my little graphics-related heroic BSOD, it actually looks... Amazing in comparison. This arguement might be a dead horse by now, but... If this game could have been pulled off the way it is on a PS2 to you, then either you are the lucky possessor of some kind of super-PS2 crafted by the Old Ones, or there is something messing up your graphics. :wink: Of course, this is only my opinion, speaking as the person who never noticed any of the mega-graphics in Crysis. :sweat: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csb Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 As was mentioned, Fallout3 Nexus has a lot of high-quality, high-resolution texture replacers for those who have computer and graphics muscle in their PC. The default Fallout3 isn't bad, considering that the devs have to consider a range of acceptability in their customer base and target low- and high-end systems. Credit Bethesda for giving modders the GECK. Artists also have some great tools (and talent to use them), and Fallout3 is flexible enough in its design to accept this great work into the game. Having a high-end graphics card and a (fairly) robust PC, I use the available community retextures and the Wastelands become stunning (but no less deadly!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spammster Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 nobodys complaining about the textures on nexus, i use em myself and the GECK is a real nice one, yet they could have used highres textures and downsample them for lower spec. PC's (which is what the game does, so it wouldn't have been that much of an issue to go with highres textures) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts