The engine looks so outdated it's not even funny anymore. Especially for a game that constantly gets praised for it's awesome graphics. I installed the game and thought they were kidding me.
Something to think about. A few words about Fallout 3 .
- Thread starter Neuron
- Start date
chaosapiant
It Wandered In From the Wastes
The argument that Fallout 3 has less moral ambiguity is nonsense. Both the original Fallout games had the same amount. Especiallly the second one. The master and mutants from the first Fallout game are basic evil. You can argue that they had good intentions, but most evil probably does. And then you have the Enclave and vault experiment from Fallout 2. It doesn't get more blatantly evil than that. If you want real moral ambiguity, then try Witcher or Planescape. None of the Fallouts really have it.
TheLastOutlaw
It Wandered In From the Wastes
As far as the graphics go I keep seeing comparisons to Mass Effect. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Mass Effect and for the most part the graphics were good. However it really is comparing apples and oranges. Mass Effect placed a huge premium on the characters themselves. The backgrounds didn't look bad but you have to admit they were pretty stark and barren. FO3 sacrifices some character quality (yes they are not as pretty looking as they could be) however you get a game world that is full of item you can interact with which to me makes the play more immersive.
I can live with a slight graphical tradeoff because the feeling of accomplishment you get from moving an upside crate and finding some ammo and bottle of Nuka quantum you would have otherwise missed is pretty cool. It adds to the feeling of having the scrounge for your resources. Which is why I'll probably never take the perks that make it easier to find ammo and caps but that's just my personal preference.
And the only other game I've played that had a similar draw distance to FO3 is Far Cry. I think it's a matter of having to give up some graphical shine for the more cluttered (and believable) environments and extended draw distance. The game doesn't hurt me eyes to look at so I can't complain too much.
If I was going to complain about graphics it wouldn't be the quality so much as the clipping errors and stiff animations.
I can live with a slight graphical tradeoff because the feeling of accomplishment you get from moving an upside crate and finding some ammo and bottle of Nuka quantum you would have otherwise missed is pretty cool. It adds to the feeling of having the scrounge for your resources. Which is why I'll probably never take the perks that make it easier to find ammo and caps but that's just my personal preference.
And the only other game I've played that had a similar draw distance to FO3 is Far Cry. I think it's a matter of having to give up some graphical shine for the more cluttered (and believable) environments and extended draw distance. The game doesn't hurt me eyes to look at so I can't complain too much.
If I was going to complain about graphics it wouldn't be the quality so much as the clipping errors and stiff animations.
krtecek007
First time out of the vault
Ihniwid said:
I think that Buxbaum666 answer will be that MassEffect looked great !!
But in fact, ME was just one big corridor run (except for the mako boring side missions missions ) so that they could tweak very well the graphics.
Witcher has also nice one, but it still lacks the scope of F3
Or you want to end as in Crysis case, when you need some beefed machine to have some decent performance ?
Yeah I'm a bit confused wrt this graphics criticism. Far Cry 2 is being given as an example frequently, its just got the AA and the bloom turned way up. Handy effects to have to blur and hide whats underneath. Its physics engine is arguably more impressive with leaves blowing and branches snapping but thats arguably irrelevant when discussing screenshot appearence. Far Cry 2 is incredibly linear in terms of free roaming compared to Fallout 3 too. When you restrict the gameplay like this you can generally afford to up the appearence some what.
Of course graphics can't hide either games mediocre gameplay.
Neither game is in the same league as Crysis or Warhead in terms of graphics or gameplay imo. I doubt we'll see a game that is for another year or two.
edit: Regarding Mass Effect, the textures were pretty impressive but the lack of detail and interaction with the environment was shocking. It was basically KOTOR all over again, good game, pretty unimpressive visuals.
Of course graphics can't hide either games mediocre gameplay.
Neither game is in the same league as Crysis or Warhead in terms of graphics or gameplay imo. I doubt we'll see a game that is for another year or two.
edit: Regarding Mass Effect, the textures were pretty impressive but the lack of detail and interaction with the environment was shocking. It was basically KOTOR all over again, good game, pretty unimpressive visuals.
Half-Life 2.Ihniwid said:
Crysis was one of the most boring games I ever played.popej said:
krtecek007 said:
Exactly. The real feat is the draw distance of this game. Its pretty cool wandering the wasteland and seeing all the broken down highways and monuments in the distance.
To say it has bad graphics is beyond me. Considering the age of the engine you have got to think that Bethesda is at least decent at getting as much out of it as possible.
chaosapiant
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I think Half Life 2 might be an unfair comparison. It's a much smaller game with much tighter scripting. It is an on-rails shooter. The character animations are great, but that's about it. I think Fallout 3 looks great. It doesn't have a technical wiz-bang engine like Crysis, but it does what it does extremely well. Then again, I still think Morrowind looks great to this day. The amount of detail in their worlds far exceeds the occassional stiff animation and fuzzy texture.
krtecek007
First time out of the vault
Bioshock was another eye-candy but also another corridor run
Even Far Cry had some "disgusting" mountains that prevented your free-roaming...
And Far Cry 2 has some more serious issues than you are picking on F3
So for now, F3 rulez in overall comparison!
Even Far Cry had some "disgusting" mountains that prevented your free-roaming...
And Far Cry 2 has some more serious issues than you are picking on F3
So for now, F3 rulez in overall comparison!
Buxbaum666 said:
Half Life two looks great, as does its episodes, especially the second one. And Portal too. There is no doubt that Valve can make a good game. I agree. BUT they are different beasts entirely. I'd argue this "dated" engine in Fallout 3 can draw farther and look better than Half Life 2 episode 2. ... You're nitpicking, I think.
There are things to argue when it comes to Fallout 3, for sure. But you can't say it looks ugly... I just can't see that at all.
chaosapiant
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Another thing to note, is that technically Fallout 3 is not just using Oblivion's engine, but using Morrowind's. They keep updating the gamebryo engine to support the latest bells and whistles, and are doing quite a good job. And when modders come along and release a high res texture pack like they did with Morrowind and Oblivion, Fallout will make me weep.
Screenshot comparison as soon as I get home.
FeelTheRads
Vault Senior Citizen
Ahahahahaha.... ahahaha
I assume you've seen the retina-burning bloom in Oblivion and (to a lesser degree, though) in Fallout 3?
Technically it uses the Gamebryo engine, which technically isn't Morrowind's or Oblivion's engine, but the engine that was used and not created by Bethesda.
FeelTheRads said:
Oblivion had blooming, yeah but I'd argue it also fit the unrealistic world of Oblivion too. Just like there was a large amount of soft focus in the Lord of the Rings movies.
Fallout 3 has no where near as much... but they use it in areas where it fits... They dont go overbaord like they do in Far Cry 2. Its freaking everywhere.
Assassin's Creed looked a shitton better, too. As did Mass Effect if you're not disturbed by most environments looking exactly the same.
Fallout 3 is graphically not on par with modern contemporary games.
Fallout 3 is graphically not on par with modern contemporary games.
Sander said:
Ehhh... so you name two games...and then say its not on par, pretty weak sander...
Also, Assassins Creed looked great but it had invisible walls that outlined each region, so sure you could go everywhere but you had to load to do it... Where as Fallout 3 you don't... you see it, you can walk there in real time...
And Mass Effect looked the same...everywhere... also, on the console version every fight involved slowdown... so it had a serious issue... PC worked better but Bioware had a lot more time to tinker with that version.
Why do you keep distracting from the graphics?Ihniwid said:
Ehm, why is that weak? I didn't even name games that outright smoke Fallout 3 like Crysis or Far Cry 2.Ihniwid said:
Also, this games is being hailed as really, really good looking. While it obviously isn't, since there are a lot of games out there that look better.
Those 'invisible walls' are not there inside the cities once you unlock each chapter and are largely a gameplay mechanic. And given the fact that you won't spend much time outside of the cities, this isn't exactly a problem.Ihniwid said:
Also, what do you think Fallout 3 is doing? Do you really think they load the *entire* Wasteland? No, they do the loading in the background.
Oh, unless of course you're going into *any building* then obviously they need to load. Making your point about loading areas rather moot (and yes there was plenty indoors room in Assassin's Creed).
Or, let's try this: the fact that they chose a different technical approach does not detract from or add to the graphical quality of the game. Fact is: Assassin's Creed looks much better than Fallout 3. So does Mass Effect. So does Far Cry 2. So does Crysis. Yet Fallout 3 is still seen as some great graphical accomplishment. How does that make sense?
I'm comparing PC version here. I don't know nor care about console versions. Especially not when the console versions are a lot older.Ihniwid said:
You're also pretending as if Bethesda was forced to put this game out there way too quickly and didn't have much time to develop.
Hello? They're their own publisher, added to that they've been developing this game for what, 5 years now? It ought to be polished.
chaosapiant
It Wandered In From the Wastes
IMO, Fallout 3 is an amazing looking game. The engine IS dated and it doesn't have the technical bells and whistles that newer game engines do. However, that doens't detract from the fact that Fallout 3 looks great. World Of Warcraft is another example of a great looking game, without a powerhouse engine behind it. I'd argue that even if Fallout 3 had better animations, DX10 support, and higher resolution textures, it wouldn't look much better, due to the nature of the material present in the game. You can only make rock and rubble look so good. Also, the engine seems spitshined since I last experienced it in Oblivion. I don't get any load times at all when outside, and then game starts and loads indoors/outdoors areas extremely fast. And I do not even have a top of the line computer. I am able to run the game with every graphic setting to it's maximum sans AA, and it looks and feels phenomenal.