I would say that the graphics are horrendous, they don't even compare to Mass Effect and Dragon age graphics. For example, when you are wandering the wasteland these poorly executed details just speak for themselves. This was O.K. for Fallout 3 but not New Vegas.

I think you may be playing the game wrong. It's not about the graphics, is about how you experience the game itself. It's like saying that Borderlands was a bad game because it had little to no story.

While the games you mentioned are more noted for good story and writing, graphics has never been the focus in Fallout games.

Besides, both games you mentioned are BioWare games. That's just one gaming house out of hundreds, and two games out of thousands.

Don't really know what to tell you, Obsidian worked with what they were given and they were given a outdated unstable piece of crap engine that they'd never worked with before. Honestly the graphics don't really bother me that much anyway, New Vegas is about the story, deep rpg mechanics, better graphics would be nice but its not something it has to have to be a great game.

Hold on GUY, when did i say the game was bad, i was simply saying that the graphics are terrible not the game play. Fallout is my favorite RPG series.

Dragon Age? You have to be kidding me. That crap they called graphics looks dated from 5 years ago.

Games are about pretty eye candy its about the story, the characters and the quests.

Um, no the graphics are not horrendous. You're horribly mistaken. I think the graphics are superb, the color is delightful. I don't know what's up with graphic hounds these days just be happy with what you have. Note what New Vegas has is great it's not as bad as you make it out to be. And comparing Fallout to Dragon Age? What? I'd say Fallout is better than both of those franchises.

If Bethesda has been around since 1986 and been awarded for their games like Fallout 3 why cant they step up their game and compete in all of the different types of category's like graphics, I know that would bring in lots of cash from people of different points of view.

Well for one thing New Vegas is a spin off which Obsidian developed. Basiclly there was only two choices: either they use gambryo to make New Vegas, or they don't use gambryo and New Vegas never exists, they weren't going to design a new engine for the game, you'll have to wait for Fallout 4 for that.

I don't know what planet your on, tuchanka probably, but Mass effect is top dog in graphics bro.

Fix'd.

Why does this matter? IMO it would only be of issue if the graphics were actually failing to impart the important events of the game... Which I have never seen to be the case.

*It wasn't even the case with Fallout 2; as part of the graphics were descriptive text that at times went into even more detail than you usually find in FO3. :shrug:
(Which is a shame... because they could have trivially incorporated the same thing into Fallout 3 )

Is it? (Or do you just mean FO3 & NV?)

I don't play Fallout for great graphics, I play Fallout because it is a great game. End of Story.

So why is it okay for Fallout 3 to have horrendous graphics, but not New Vegas. It is built on the very same engine, designed for the very same consoles, use mostly the same assets that Fallout 3 used, and yet it isn't okay for it to have the same kind of graphics? Just what exactly makes them so different from one another that warrants one to have better graphics than the other.

So its okay for Fallout 3 to have crappy graphics, but not New Vegas.

biased much?

Fallout 3 had bad graphics? hmy:

Well go enjoy yourself (in every sense of the word)to crisis 2 and let us enjoy this horrendus graphical game. :fallout: .

I'm not sticking up for this "individual" but think he's getting at the fact that fonv has the exact same graphics as fo3 a 3 year old game hence the it's ok fo3.

...Again, New Vegas is built upon the same engine as that 3 year old FO3, designed for consoles that are now nearly 6 years old, and also use most of the same assets that Fallout 3 used. I understand that you aren't trying take sides, but that argument doesn't seem to make sense considering everything I have pointed out regarding both games, which is why I would like to hear it directly from OP.

Aghhh i know what your saying but it's because it still uses the same assets years later that the op is pointing it out or so i think :tongue: .

I honestly think fallout 3/N.V. Are pieces of art. Some things look sketchy at times but, what game doesn't?

Mass effect 1 was great but a sad excuse for an RPG, Mass effect 2 was beautiful but every mission was the exact same thing... Go here kill them and leave the exact same way you entered... Your spaceship. Weapons were a poor excuse for customization and same with your armor. IMO mass effect 2 only cared about graphics and cinemas.

Dragon age was the biggest disappointment bioware put out if your going off of graphics alone... Look at a npc's beard during a conversation. Notice how it looks like it was layered using smackdown vs. Raw's char. Editor from their first release on ps2?

new vegas deffenitly had better but its not all about graphics, i still play diablo 1 and 2 and the graphikcs arnt great in those either and i still love them

Haha I love d2.

Crysis 2? Ugh. They cut so many corners to keep the framerates down, the cars and vehicles all look like shiny plastic blowup dummies, utterly lacking in detail. In my opinion, it's a step backwards in graphics realism. But I'm sure it is the shiznit on consoles.

Fallout 3 had came out 2 years earlier.

On graphics, well Battlefield 3 looks incredible.