Halororor Posted June 5, 2010 Share Posted June 5, 2010 I really don't get it. I found nothing wrong with that video. It looks the same as Fallout 3, yes. But it's not unbearably ugly. Hell, it's not even ugly. What is it, do you want to see wrinkles on their faces? This obsession with graphics is what's limiting game development. Bethesday focuses on gameplay, then get shunted for having crap graphics. Crysis focuses on graphics, has terrible gamepay and gets hailed as an awesome game. I really, really, really wish people would just realise how silly this is. Look at Mass Effect 2. Probably the most fun game I've played to date, and you get some people complaining and saying 'oh, the graphics are so dated that we can't experience the awesome game just waiting for us'. Look at Prototype, a really, really fun game to play. 'Graphics are outdated' says the horde. Look at Dragon Age. A game with an exceptional story and the first to ever have me get emotionally involved in the story. 'Graphics not pretty as we'd like'' says the horde. I can list a whole list of stuff, but in the end it comes down to people expect games to be all about the graphics and nothing about the game. Do you know why we get games of 6 hours as the norm nowadays? Because developers have to spend ages getting the graphics all dollied up for the masses, instead of focusing on proper content in the game. I have no problem with you people loving good graphics in a game. Hell, I also want to see something pretty, but labelling a game as a failure because of the graphics alone, even before the release, is, and forgive me if this comes across as rude, just simply retarded and/or ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboUK Posted June 5, 2010 Share Posted June 5, 2010 I didn't expect Crysis, I didn't expect to see the same awful lighting, textures and animations either. I wanted to see an improvement, it looks like mod and I'm not willing to pay full price for a mod. Something else to think about, a mixture of the flaky Gamebryo engine and company who have never heard of quality control isn't going to be pretty, I expect a few patches before the thing is playable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
en4cer Posted June 5, 2010 Share Posted June 5, 2010 jim_uk i have been saying this all along, give fallout rights to BIOWARE AND WATCH WHAT THAT GAME MEANT TO LOOK AND PLAY LIKE !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted June 6, 2010 Share Posted June 6, 2010 Have they actually confirmed whether there'll be an SDK for the game or not yet? I can't seem to find any info about it at all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpellAndShield Posted June 6, 2010 Share Posted June 6, 2010 Have they actually confirmed whether there'll be an SDK for the game or not yet? I can't seem to find any info about it at all! What is an SDK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboUK Posted June 6, 2010 Share Posted June 6, 2010 jim_uk i have been saying this all along, give fallout rights to BIOWARE AND WATCH WHAT THAT GAME MEANT TO LOOK AND PLAY LIKE !! Now that would be worth buying. Have they actually confirmed whether there'll be an SDK for the game or not yet? I can't seem to find any info about it at all! People on Beths boards are just assuming there will be and no one is correcting them, also Project Director Josh Sawyer may have let the cat out of the bag here.... http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/news-5316-Interview--Josh-Sawyer-Talks-Fallout--New-Vegas.html If you thought Fallout 3 was difficult, you will probably find Hardcore Mode to be appropriately-named. For me, Hardcore Mode is just the way I play the game. I'm sure that PC modders will very quickly add even more levels of challenge on top of Hardcore Mode as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpellAndShield Posted June 6, 2010 Share Posted June 6, 2010 I really don't get it. I found nothing wrong with that video. It looks the same as Fallout 3, yes. But it's not unbearably ugly. Hell, it's not even ugly. What is it, do you want to see wrinkles on their faces? This obsession with graphics is what's limiting game development. Bethesday focuses on gameplay, then get shunted for having crap graphics. Crysis focuses on graphics, has terrible gamepay and gets hailed as an awesome game. I really, really, really wish people would just realise how silly this is. Look at Mass Effect 2. Probably the most fun game I've played to date, and you get some people complaining and saying 'oh, the graphics are so dated that we can't experience the awesome game just waiting for us'. Look at Prototype, a really, really fun game to play. 'Graphics are outdated' says the horde. Look at Dragon Age. A game with an exceptional story and the first to ever have me get emotionally involved in the story. 'Graphics not pretty as we'd like'' says the horde. I can list a whole list of stuff, but in the end it comes down to people expect games to be all about the graphics and nothing about the game. Do you know why we get games of 6 hours as the norm nowadays? Because developers have to spend ages getting the graphics all dollied up for the masses, instead of focusing on proper content in the game. I have no problem with you people loving good graphics in a game. Hell, I also want to see something pretty, but labelling a game as a failure because of the graphics alone, even before the release, is, and forgive me if this comes across as rude, just simply retarded and/or ignorant. Are you referring to the darkspawn horde? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkser Posted June 6, 2010 Share Posted June 6, 2010 I just wonder, do people play games FOR FUN or actually how does the game look like ? - _ - " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halororor Posted June 6, 2010 Share Posted June 6, 2010 I just wonder, do people play games FOR FUN or actually how does the game look like ? - _ - " Apparently, they expect to buy graphics with a bit og game thrown in. As for giving the game to Bioware, no thanks. Fallout has always been more about the gritty combat than the story, and Bioware amkes games with exceptional stories and character interaction. Leave it at Bethesda, they've already proven that they're quite capable with Fallout 3. 'Tis folly to give a game to another studio because you expect better graphics. There is no solid rule that says a sequel should have better graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
en4cer Posted June 6, 2010 Share Posted June 6, 2010 I have never complained about the graphics man NOT ONCE ....but i did complain about the story, the lack of any immersion, the vastness and the boringness of landscapes, the horrid performance on even the best video cards ,the constant crashing and on and on and on i could go on all friggin day. Bottom line is this, if this game was made by Bioware or Black Isle (which is not possible ) You would see and experience fallout the way it should have been made .With characters, immersion, no crashes,phenomenal story line ,awesome voice overs and last but not least lack of that crappy engine Bethisda used in Oblivion. Edit: I forgot to add the frame skipping, constant micro stutter (which thousands complained about) which was eliminated by forcing the player to use Vsync making the game laggy in turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now