Adamguy61 said:umm... do you think the graphics could just be because they haven't added final touches yet? It makes alot of sense due to the sheer size of the world they have to develop, they dont have time to add the "final touches" when they havent even finished the main stuff yet.....
The bumps in the road are only visual. The game engine sees it at normal flat ground, I'm sure.Khan FurSainty said:In the last picture is it just me, or is his foot standing in midair?
verevoof said:Don't give me that "Science!" line.
It helps us forget that everything else in the game will be as bad or even worse... At least for me...Professor Danger! said:What's up with everyone on here bitching about graphics?
That's because Bethesda knows how to go around their engine's limitations. It's relatively easy, if you've ever fired up their CS, but it probably takes a lot of skill and experience to do right (going around a limitation, that is). Obsidian are probably just not used to it, and, in my eyes, the difference is more that obvious. Fallout 3's graphics are just ugly. New Vegas' are atrocious.Paul_cz said:Not to mention that there are character shadows, just like in Oblivion and Fallout 3. It is not dynamic lighting like in amazing Stalker series, but it is enough. When I play FO3 (right now actually, just entered Point Lookout) I never think about some fucking shadows or whatever anyway.
Fallout 3 looks good enough
Well, would someone mind telling me where the components that make the wheel actual work are contained? It just looks like a piece of metal and two bolts connecting the wheel to the rest of the body. And the "fingers" are basically door hinges with no logical source giving them the ability to move. It just doesn't make sense to me; I like the concept of the robots, it just could have been executed better.Brother None said:verevoof said:Don't give me that "Science!" line.
Why not? "Science!" doesn't excuse everything, but it does mean that on balance there's a lot of leeway between actual, practical, modern-day science and the way people perceived the future in the 50s. Mono-wheeled robots with video-screened faces fit that description to a T. It's that you can't really put a person in a suit like that, otherwise they could've come straight from a 50s B-reel film.
EnglishMuffin said:God damnit an m4 and a Garand. Those weapons had better be the rarest rarest guns you can find and not the norm.
verevoof said:Well, would someone mind telling me where the components that make the wheel actual work are contained
Ixyroth said:No shadows whatsoever? Not even a little static lighting or shadow circles under the characters?
What year is this?
Good use of dynamic lighting and shadows can turn an otherwise mediocre-looking game (models/artwork) into something fairly impressive. Take S.T.A.L.K.E.R. for example.
FO1/2 may have been 2D, but at least you could say the artwork and overall design were quality. There is no quality in these screenshots and it's really, really obvious.
and apparently shadows make a game good
no no. I agree with you here on that part. Dont fail in Kharns trolling at you !verevoof said:Robby has radar and scanners.
I enjoy retro 50s "Science!" technology as much as the next person, but with this design it's just not cutting it for me. Guess I'm more left brained or whatever.
UnidentifiedFlyingTard said:PC Version of Fallout 3 has shadows.
and apparently shadows make a game good
verevoof said:Well, would someone mind telling me where the components that make the wheel actual work are contained? It just looks like a piece of metal and two bolts connecting the wheel to the rest of the body.
Brother None said:Science!