Borderlands Graphics - Do you like?

[Bicketybam]

The radioactive fallout and dust storms from dozens of high yield nuclear weapons would have destroyed virtually all vegetation in open areas, particularly around major targets like cities and towns, and the lingering radiation would have ensured it would be a very long time before plants would grow there again.

Not to mention that in the Fallout3 universe, their whole society was based around nuclear devices. All their vehicles etc create mini nukes and ever since man crawled out of their hiding places after the great war (which I would say was more then dozens and closer to hundreds of nukes - to further push how ludicrous it would be) they have been constantly fighting each other and creating more debris and more radiation over and over.

Of course no one has ever seen the results of a global nuclear war and the nuclear winter that would follow and can only go one what scientists think will happen. Add to that some creative flair and you get a world like Fallout3.

As for Pandora in borderlands, it is an alien planet in the first place and unlike its big screen namesake not a lush jungle. Basically it looks like a planet where people got their wish and strip mined it to the junkpile that you see in the game. Add to that a multitude of different creatures that can create shock/fire and acid elements from their bodies, I am of the opinion that would not have a good effect on the environment either.

[Zombywolf]

ive got the graphics maxed and when i play for a few hours my eyes get all blurry like they are concentrating on something too much. i can play bf2 or other games no problem, without feeling im strainign my eyes.
i LIKE the game, but it does make me have to concentrate harder for some reason.

this is due mostly, i think, to the fact it's a console port.
wait, you're playing this on PC, right? if not, then lol at what im about to say.

But yea, if you play Borderlands on PC, i recommend a nice large resolution....BUT, sit as far from your screen as is comfortable. the graphics have been designed to be comfortable for someone playing it on a console ie, sitting on a couch a metre or so away from the screen


Also, LOVE borderlands, it's terrain can be a little...meh...but it's still fun to look at occasionally...
for example, i love the cliffscapes in the Arid Badlands with just the rakk hives and the fans all the way out to the distance, and a mysterious pillar of billowing smoke even further out.

correct me if i'm wrong, but i think Pandora is supposed to be some sort of penal planet...i think it gets alluded to in some quest about the bandits.

[Mythor]

But not by twentyfold, especially since not many nukes landed on the Capital Wasteland itself judging from the number of intact buildings.

Locations don't need to be inside a blast radius to be affected by fallout. And the site you linked only detailed the effects for a single detonation, not the many detonations of various yields scattered across the globe that occured in Fallout.

You're also leaving out that in the Fallout universe atomic energy quickly overtook more conventional means such that by the time of the Great War even cars were nuclear-powered. A million extra sources of radiation littered all over the landscape...

[tycn]

...Not to mention that in the Fallout3 universe, their whole society was based around nuclear devices. All their vehicles etc create mini nukes and ever since man crawled out of their hiding places after the great war (which I would say was more then dozens and closer to hundreds of nukes - to further push how ludicrous it would be) they have been constantly fighting each other and creating more debris and more radiation over and over.

You're also leaving out that in the Fallout universe atomic energy quickly overtook more conventional means such that by the time of the Great War even cars were nuclear-powered. A million extra sources of radiation littered all over the landscape...

There's no reason why shooting a fusion cell would cause it to explode, much less in the manner of a fission bomb. It's just like why Bethesda implemented gratuitous amounts of unscavenged supplies, edible 200 year old food and a handheld nuke mortar - compromising verisimilitude in the name of 'AWSUM'. Every first person shooter needs exploding barrels, and Bethesda isn't one to let setting get in the way of explosions and shiny things.

At any rate if society revolved around nuclear Pintos I don't think bombs would have been needed to cause the apocalypse.

Locations don't need to be inside a blast radius to be affected by fallout. And the site you linked only detailed the effects for a single detonation, not the many detonations of various yields scattered across the globe that occured in Fallout.

Nuclear fallout is more prominent closer to the blast radius so I was just using it as a rather generous example. Even with multiple detonations, the fact remains that 200 years after the war the fallout would not account for 1% of its original radioactivity, and if people are able to grow crops less than 100 years after the bombs dropped, the wasteland should at least be somewhat green after 200. Still, it's a trivial matter and I don't want to derail the thread further so I'll leave it at that.

[MrMoilT]

As a guess, you haven't completed the game, have you?

Yep I'm on the second play-through

No matter what is said its still not going to change my mind, I was disappointed with Borderlands its not what I was expecting and stand very firm that it looks very bleak compared to other games like Fallout 3.

I have made vids on both games, the Fallout ones are pretty old but the Borderlands one obviously is a bit newer.

BorderLands (I only did this about 2 weeks ago)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8VH_BNZUTQ


Fallout 3 (this one just shows the vats system really)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRdddIk9ca8

Fallout 3 (this one is better as it goes through the entire game but its just screenshots you might want to mute the tunes if you don't like heavy metal)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He_Inmsb48I

[Bek]

I'm sorry but fallout 3 definitely is more bleak / boring. Hate that game. Yarg!

[Ralph Wiggum]

Reading through this thread, I think people are taking games wayyyy to seriously. Sit back, take 3 deep breaths and look at the game for what it is. I mean really look beyond what you see on the surface.

I like Fallout 3 and Borderlands for what they are. Fallout 3 is a great story-based single player FPS/RPG set in an alternate post-World War II timeline. The key word is alternate people. It doesn't have to be technologically, scientifically or historically correct. Look at the art style...the game design is set in 2277 yet everything looks like it was modeled on 1950's designs. That's the style the developers chose so that it has character. And I like it. The game is brown because the developers went with the theory/idea that the nuclear holocaust pretty much blew things into a dry barren landscape.

Borderlands is set on an alien planet, akin to a Wild West themed game filled with bandits, native wildlife and gunslingers. It's like a post "gold rush" planet where everyone flocked to the planet, extracted all possible resources, then pissed off when there was nothing left, leaving behind a few dedicated inhabitants who either couldn't leave or stayed behind to stake their claim on what little was left. So I appreciate the dry, dusty landscape with scraggy settlements dotted around the area.

Both Fallout 3 and Borderlands have focussed their design on specific themes, and I like it. They don't try to be more than what they're supposed to do. They've set themselves apart from the usual real world design we see in games like Crysis, MW2, Rainbow 6 etc. etc.

[skuzzie]

Hidden: show

You do realize fallout3 had almost the dullest terrain ever conceived, achieving exactly what you described above.
"I find it to be very cheap by that I mean ALL the maps are exactly the same just with models placed differently and the landscape slightly different but still very grey and bleak."
Don't get me wrong, great game!, but yes very dull landscape, no matter how extensive it was.

Borderlands was not meant as a serious game, and the "Concept art level design" was meant to encourage somewhat more of a cartoon style game, which i believe they achieved.
i.e. simply take a look at the way they introduce characters throughout the game. (+ the DLC in particular)

Um you don't have Fallout 3 do you?
or if you do you haven't played it very much lol where on earth did you get Fallout 3 has almost the dullest terrain ever?

You do realise its set in an apocalyptic setting? IE everything has been NUKED bar a few places and following the Fallout series except for the awful ones that where released on console Fallout 3 is exactly what its ment to look like and most certainly isn't dull LOL!!!

In Fallout at least npc interact with you and each other in Borderlands this is not there making the game very lonely then added its same terrian all over the place just with models placed differently and its NOT what it is supposed to be at ALL.

Um what way do they introduce characters may I ask, unless you mean it doing a quick vid short then a still pic with there name and the npc for the missions is just go there. Whats so good about that? is pretty lame actually

As a matter of fact i have finished Fallout3 twice (with all graphical settings at their highest 1920/1200), being both good and bad.
Considering the vast expanse of game world they had created for the game the amount of time you spend stumbling around subway tunnels is far too long!
Adhering to the game settings the terrain should look dull and boring due to its post apocalyptic setting. As i said i loved the game, lots of fun and great story, however apart from a few scattered towns, fuel stations, bridges, and water etc all the terrain is very VERY similar.

In regards to the character introduction (short vids + still pic) I was pointing this out to backup my original statement that Borderlands was not meant to be a serious game.

Additionally i have almost finished the second play-through of Borderlands and completed the DLC (Dr Neds). (1920/1200 maxed settings)

+ S.T.A.L.K.E.R 1 and 2 are some of the best post apocalyptic games ever, eagerly awaiting call of Pripyat.

[Bek]

Stalker is not post apocalyptic.

[Bicketybam]

Admittedly my vid card is only a 4850 and I chose a spot that shows sky and water (as well as the junk piles) but that looks pretty good to me. It's inline with the story and with how Ralph has described it.

It's like a post "gold rush" planet where everyone flocked to the planet, extracted all possible resources, then pissed off when there was nothing left...

[xtc_rush]

i liked it , i liked it so much i played through with every character once , then decided to go through with sniper and soldier a second time .

75% through now with each class and im finding it a lil tedious , still many many hours worth of play , great game.

fun graphics

[skuzzie]

Stalker is not post apocalyptic.

It was an apocalypse specific to Chernobyl Would you of preferred if I had said post explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant? not quite punchy enough.

[Bek]

I think it was more of a Ecological Disaster Zone