I think that’s a little harsh. Can I ask what you feel is wrong with the graphics as they are?
I’m currently playing Fallout and my only issue is the UI scaling, the graphics themselves I find quite charming.
I don’t really have a problem with the graphics, but going from memory:
-
They were 8-bit and had visible dithering.
-
They had a 1-bit alpha mask. Either a pixel in a sprite was transparent or not.
It was also a 2D game designed for a relatively low-resolution display. It’s gonna be either small or pixelated on a current monitor. That being said, I don’t really have great memories of the graphics of 3D isometric conversions of similar 2D isometric games, like the 3D games in the Jagged Alliance series. Silent Storm – 3D from the get-go – was functional but not pretty.
You could also argue that the game – having hand-drawn graphics – just only had so many frames in things like combat animations:
mpv says that that GIF is 9 FPS.
A typical console game has historically been 30 FPS. A lot now are 60 FPS. I have a 165 Hz monitor, and some people use 240 Hz.
I think that the 2D Fallout games are fine, but – despite being skeptical at first – I think that the move to 3D made a lot of sense. It does add immersiveness, and they did a pretty good job of converting game mechanics.