Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
Well then I guess it kind of sucks to be you? Especially if you don't appreciate cloth physics. Those little, almost unnecessary things make games so much more fun to play.
What engine SHOULD the Fallout Series run on?
- Thread starter The Suave Gambler
- Start date
Vault Senior Citizen
I have to disagree Gaspard, I always felt more disturbed seeing the kids in FO1/2 getting bloody messed than anything Fallout 3/NV could create. (Though you can't kills kids in those, I know what it would look like, same as the adults)
Gaspard
Kasparov
mobucks said:
Sure, I've no problem with you liking 3D more. I just don't. But I do have to say that knowing what an exploding 3D child looks like and witnessing it - they're slightly different things.
Wintermind said:
I, uh. I don't know what to say to that. I enjoy good writing and game mechanics. Good cloth physics I can see when I go to the movies - plenty of high-end cloth physics there
I never said I liked 3d more. 3d takes me out of the experience if anything, hence my post.
BonusWaffle
Still Mildly Glowing
Lavo said:
I bought shadow of the colossus after seeing how they had individual strands of hair on that horse. Thought it was the coolest thing ever. Not to say the prospect of fighting living mountains wasnt an important factor, but the games aestetic was definitely not a small part.
Makta
The DICKtator
If they would go back to the old days i would like to see how it worked out with the Company of heroes 2's engine or if 3d.. Why not frosbite? :O
I second the guy who said Unity engine. And then specifically the way Project Eternity is using it with fixed camera and painted backdrops. This is about the best thing I've seen graphically since Baldur's Gate 2.
Fallout 1 and 2 had very nice graphics, though the whole construction set tiles/walls/scenery system really brought the aesthetics down for me (however nice for modders). The Baldur's Gate games and Planescape Torment simply looked way better than the Fallouts and Arcanum because of the gorgeous painted backgrounds. Doesn't change the fact that that these latter games were still way better looking than stuff like Neverwinter Nights or any hypothetical Jefferson engine game.
Fallout 1 and 2 had very nice graphics, though the whole construction set tiles/walls/scenery system really brought the aesthetics down for me (however nice for modders). The Baldur's Gate games and Planescape Torment simply looked way better than the Fallouts and Arcanum because of the gorgeous painted backgrounds. Doesn't change the fact that that these latter games were still way better looking than stuff like Neverwinter Nights or any hypothetical Jefferson engine game.
Gaspard
Kasparov
BonusWaffle said:
Shadow of the Colossus has great aesthetics and a cool and simple premise for the game itself. I'm not blindly advocating against cloth physics - SotC delivers the whole package, not just purdy graphix.
Graphics and the look of a game should't be inferior to the game's overall design, but it should never outshine it. I really liked roaming the mountains and outdoors in Skyrim, but the game is shit. It's still cheaper to boot that up than fly to Norway to see the aurora.
Any good game engine is so much more than just a system to organize pixels or polygons...
Looking forward to seeing how this new wave of cRPGs performs
fallout_fan
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I liked the way FO1 and FO2 looked graphically. I noticed a lot of the loading screens looked like comic book artwork, and also there were references to comics in the game. Its obvious the look of the game was geared to this.
I mean Black Isle could have done more, but they didn't. I think the way the game looked graphically and the engine was chosen for a reason. I believe it was so anyone could play the game. I think FO 1 and 2 required a 2MB video card. When these 2 games were made and released 3D video cards had just made their way into PC gaming. I remember reading about 4MB "3d graphics cards" in 1997-1998. I think they might have hard cards with more video memory than that even.
Its not like PC games now that are made to sell you expensive hardware upgrades. I mean that's all the games do now. Also Black isle put a lot into the games, it wasn't just about the graphics. Unlike some games (looking at you FO3 and NV).
As far as the perspectives go? I like the top down view. It worked. I think Diablo 3 even uses a top down isometric view. I have never really played it, but I have seen youtube vids of it. Also I think its clear that Bethesda just used the FP view because the game had guns. It would be easier to sell a FPS in todays world than a game with a good storyline, character development, and requires you to think and use strategy.
I mean Black Isle could have done more, but they didn't. I think the way the game looked graphically and the engine was chosen for a reason. I believe it was so anyone could play the game. I think FO 1 and 2 required a 2MB video card. When these 2 games were made and released 3D video cards had just made their way into PC gaming. I remember reading about 4MB "3d graphics cards" in 1997-1998. I think they might have hard cards with more video memory than that even.
Its not like PC games now that are made to sell you expensive hardware upgrades. I mean that's all the games do now. Also Black isle put a lot into the games, it wasn't just about the graphics. Unlike some games (looking at you FO3 and NV).
As far as the perspectives go? I like the top down view. It worked. I think Diablo 3 even uses a top down isometric view. I have never really played it, but I have seen youtube vids of it. Also I think its clear that Bethesda just used the FP view because the game had guns. It would be easier to sell a FPS in todays world than a game with a good storyline, character development, and requires you to think and use strategy.