Fallout: New Vegas unimpressive at E3 2010 Best Of lists
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
It looks pretty impressive…but my PC would explode if it tried to play this. 
The Crysis series' main selling point is the graphics, there's no doubting this. I only ever hear about Crysis when graphics are mentioned, other than that I imagine it (haven't played it so don't quote me on this) to be a generic Halo-like FPS.
Fallout: New Vegas is pretty much superior to Fallout 3 in every way from what I've seen, and there's no way it will turn out worse than Fallout 3. They've already shown iron-sights, the companion wheel, and other stuff.
On this, I think Fallout: New Vegas will be quite like a modded Fallout 3 out of the box, but with a better story and more character development.
Fallout: New Vegas is pretty much superior to Fallout 3 in every way from what I've seen, and there's no way it will turn out worse than Fallout 3. They've already shown iron-sights, the companion wheel, and other stuff.
On this, I think Fallout: New Vegas will be quite like a modded Fallout 3 out of the box, but with a better story and more character development.
I think it's good to have a franchise like Crysis which focus on graphics. It's what drives the market to create even more powerful hardware, taking away most of the stupid restrictions we had in the past decade.
Also, more powerful GPUs + CUDA(C-like language which runs on the GPU) make the most powerful CPUs pussies when it comes to number-crunching, database, etc.
In fact, Crytek's mission must be to deliver each sequel with even more advanced graphics, not to improve the gameplay. If their tech is powerful enough, they can sell it to other companies for some good $$$.
Also, more powerful GPUs + CUDA(C-like language which runs on the GPU) make the most powerful CPUs pussies when it comes to number-crunching, database, etc.
In fact, Crytek's mission must be to deliver each sequel with even more advanced graphics, not to improve the gameplay. If their tech is powerful enough, they can sell it to other companies for some good $$$.
Meh, Crysis 2's may look amazing but consider how much time they'd spend on the actual game if they tried that level of graphics 
Not surprising that it isn't that high on the list. The gameplay demo was short and full of just minigames, something a lot of people actually seem to hate. Also, the Nintendo line up's probably going to flood the top 10 lists anyways.
Not surprising that it isn't that high on the list. The gameplay demo was short and full of just minigames, something a lot of people actually seem to hate. Also, the Nintendo line up's probably going to flood the top 10 lists anyways.
Reconite said:
yes and no, i dont really care about graphics in most games but game engine are MUCH more than just graphics.
its not just textures, you can set predefined profiles and cut the time to make scene in half, additional features and options make it easier to create immersive environments using less resources in over all better tools and easier engine mean less development time and cost.
its also include resources, optimization and better support for newer hardware (its will be nice to know that my second core doing something) more power means you can add more lets say sophisticated AI scripts...
obviously its also include everything from path finding to advanced AI behaviors etc etc, living the developer more time for polish instead of reinventing the wheel...
Dario ff said:
If you believe that MOAR is always better…than sure, but the best gaming experiences are rarely based purely on the graphics – game play – storyline – characters – music - those factors are just some of many contributing elements in the mix, but the balance is a fine one, focus too much on one and neglect the others and the game suffers. Crysis might look brilliant, but does is it play brilliantly. Fallout NV will certainly be an improvement on Fallout 3, but the irony is that the kiddies have moved on, and therefore NV will be seen as a disappointment to many of the kiddies that were frothing at the mouth about Fallout 3 only a couple years ago. The kiddies that play games now days just can’t wait for the latest game releases – (game pirating is to blame to some degree – once upon a time you had to save your pennies to buy a game, but bit-torrents has killed that), so games have become deposable. The reason for playing has probably changed as well…
This is the future -
What I say is, let them waste their time developing the engine for new graphics. Other companies just buy a license to it, develop a game in little time, and meet the standards of the "graphic whores".
A lot of companies use the Unreal Engine, and then focus on other style of gameplay. Look at Mirror's Edge, they just bought the engine, and tried a nice type of game, the parkour with FPS view was fun to me.
So? This is exactly what we wanted! We don't need any more morons in the Fallout fanbase than we already have. The less this game appeals to the graphic whores and console-addicts, possibly the better for us! Who wants to continue dealing with the trolls who always come here and spout in the F3 board that we're all wrong, and then we have to prove them otherwise. It's become something boring and repetitive.
And the more we will be teached about what a real Fallout is. :>
It'd be funny if Bethesda got rid of all of Obsidian's improvements in Fallout 4.
"Yeah, Damage Threshold is gone, some people were complaining that you couldn't punch a robot to death with broken arms, that's not cool".
"Yeah, Damage Threshold is gone, some people were complaining that you couldn't punch a robot to death with broken arms, that's not cool".
aenemic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Reconite said:
not really. sure, it's a pretty generic FPS, but it at least offers some variety in gameplay and lets you decide what kind of approach you will take on most objectives. as the maps are pretty huge, at least in the early parts of the game, you can usually decide from where to attack, and you can do it either in a stealthy way or with guns blazing. besides that, it's pretty good as far as combat/gunplay goes. and I'm a sucker for these kind of stories, no matter how cheesy and unoriginal they may be.
anyways, to stay on topic... the old bitter Fallout fan in me takes some satisfaction in F:NV not creating the same hype as FO3 did, but Ausir is right in that if the game doesn't sell well, chances are Obsidian won't get to create another Fallout game. this may very well be out of the question either way, but I'd rather see Obsidian getting another shot at the franchise in the future than Bethesda keeping it completely to themselves. if F:NV turns out alright, maybe even great, I still have no faith in Bethesda keeping the good parts and learning from their mistakes for FO4. my dream scenario (that is, the realistic one) is that Obsidian will keep developing Fallout spin-offs as sort of a separate series, while Bethesda cater to the bigger audience with the core series.
Reconite said:
err, i'm quoting you on this because you should really just play the game. it was really fun as well as being really good looking. the game is like 4 or 5 years old too, so if you can't run at least the first one by now then you should maybe consider upgrading your pc. i run it on the max settings and my gfx card is almost 2 years old. it's definitely a shooter, but comparing it to halo because it's a shooter is like comparing every rpg to final fantasy because they have character sheets.
Kordanor
First time out of the vault
Just came via facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/fallout
So....^^
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/fallout
So....^^
Khan FurSainty
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Kordanor said:
But it wins only because it's Fallout 3 2: The New Generation.
It has won best RPG of E3... now tell me what and how many RPGs have been at the E3. :>
Jubal Quintus
Nacho Friend
Those lists were pretty bland. I'm shocked that Rage got snubbed as much as it did.