Fallout 4

Stiletto said:
I have just under your hours in FNV, and yes, crashes do occur. However, hasn't that really become something to expect in PC gaming, for all kinds of reasons? That's why good games have ample save functions. STALKER, KOTOR 2, ARMA, Dead Island...unfortunately, many of the best open-world games are created in engines that are buggy. That seems to be the inevitable con of any truly open-world engine. Apart from MMOs, how many games with wide-open areas to explore aren't usually buggy? Only one that comes to mind for me is the Borderlands titles, and those are still fairly linear.
Click to expand...
My point was that it crashes more often and has more bugs than other games I've played. I understand that PC games do and will crash. But FNV just crashes more often than other PC games. That's the issue many people have with FNV.
 
The problem though is if you compare to other games and simply attribute this to the engine without taking into account what the differing requirements of each game are. Just in terms of scripting requirements for quests/missions for an open persistent world game like Fallout 3/NV would be considerably more complex than a linear level by level shooter.

Someone brought up Metro: The Last Light earlier. This game is far more closed and linear than Fallout with completely different requirements. Do people really think that the only difference, both on the development side and end user side, with making Fallout 3/NV on Metro's 4A engine versus the Gamebyro they used would be the visuals? There are a considerable amount of considerations and complications beyond that.
 
Stiletto said:
Okay. What 2011 games just totally blew away Skyrim such that it "looked like shit" in comparison?
Click to expand...

BF3, Batman Arkham City, Homefront, Crysis 2.

The real thing that was annoying was people saying Skyrim looked amazing even at stock, and then I get it summer of 2012, crank all the settings to max and it looked like complete "meh". It was mainly too high expectations that made me think it looked like shit.

The fact that they used such low-res textures didn't make it any better. The engine obviously has potential, but at stock it doesn't look great.
 
xIronCrossx said:
BF3, Batman Arkham City, Homefront, Crysis 2.

The real thing that was annoying was people saying Skyrim looked amazing even at stock, and then I get it summer of 2012, crank all the settings to max and it looked like complete "meh". It was mainly too high expectations that made me think it looked like shit.

The fact that they used such low-res textures didn't make it any better. The engine obviously has potential, but at stock it doesn't look great.
Click to expand...

BF3 is a multiplayer game with limited-size maps that render comparisons moot. Crysis 2 was pretty but it was a linear shooter which also makes comparisons moot. Homefront...you're joking, right?

Arkham City I will grant you is better looking than Skyrim, and it's a fair comparison. However, not by a difference that would come close to making Skyrim "look like shit". Your characterization is exaggerated to the point of absurdity. Neither look anything even approaching "shit", complete or otherwise.

Batman-Arkham-City-Screen07.jpg

Skyrim-AF-on-geforce-nvidia.jpg
 
Skyrim looks fine for a 2011 title. Graphics aren't really an issue for me. Though, The Witcher 2 did make it look a bit dull in comparison. Still, not something I'm complaining about.
 
piscian18 said:
You can call me full of shit but mark my words 24 months from now when the next title looks like the COD version of an RPG.
Click to expand...

Lol, great analogy, COD games are so wack now, COD4 was the last good one. I really hope you're not right.

But anyway...

I think Skyrim looks amazing for the type of game engine it is and it looks even better when modded. One of the things that make it look so great I think is the terrain, the world, the changes in the night sky, and really just all the different things you see when traveling around. It's also IMO one of the best video games ever made, period.

If FO4 graphics >= Skyrim graphics. Me = very happy.. Assuming it's at least as fun to play as FO3 and FONV.
 
xIronCrossx said:
Have you even ever played Oblivion stock? Because if you have you would have never said that. While Skyrim doesn't look great, saying it's comparable to Oblivion is just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

Ha yeah, Ive put probably 400+ hours in both games, I think I have a pretty good idea on what the textures look like in comparison.
 
dremic said:
the point being you can assume all you want. but unless you took apart the source code and have proof to say it was gamebyro just with a new name dont say shit that isnt true.
Click to expand...


What other game engine can you use the exact same console commands to edit variables?

By doing so in Oblivion, Fallout 3 , Fallout : New Vegas & Skyrim, it leads me to believe its the same engine.
An example would be "Player.additem 0000000f 100". Also all of the games listed above use the exact same file structure and exact same coding methods in there .ini files.
 
dremic said:
the point being you can assume all you want. but unless you took apart the source code and have proof to say it was gamebyro just with a new name dont say shit that isnt true.
Click to expand...

It's true. Skyrim is not using a brand new engine from the ground up. Everyone knows this. Except you apparently.
 
Q-BZ said:
It's true. Skyrim is not using a brand new engine from the ground up. Everyone knows this. Except you apparently.
Click to expand...

Yup. But, like I said, it has enough new code to be considered a different engine. I don't think they have to pay engine licensing fees at this point.
 
Throwing this out there...
An engine that supports an open world, complex AI, questing and rpg elements can't also have AAA FPS level graphics under the hardware limitations of the current generation of consoles. Since everything is a port now, that means essentially every game. The PC versions of Skyrim and NV got better textures and are open to modding but that's it. Both are basically dx9 level games.
The new consoles probably won't change this dynamic much.
 
Ruiner said:
Throwing this out there...
An engine that supports an open world, complex AI, questing and rpg elements can't also have AAA FPS level graphics under the hardware limitations of the current generation of consoles. Since everything is a port now, that means essentially every game. The PC versions of Skyrim and NV got better textures and are open to modding but that's it. Both are basically dx9 level games.
The new consoles probably won't change this dynamic much.
Click to expand...

The lowest common denominator bar will finally be raised and it's a year or two overdue.

In recent times I feel like I've been seeing the PC get a lot more general "love and respect" and I can only hope it stays that way.
 
Ruiner said:
Throwing this out there...
An engine that supports an open world, complex AI, questing and rpg elements can't also have AAA FPS level graphics under the hardware limitations of the current generation of consoles. Since everything is a port now, that means essentially every game. The PC versions of Skyrim and NV got better textures and are open to modding but that's it. Both are basically dx9 level games.
The new consoles probably won't change this dynamic much.
Click to expand...

Witcher 3.
 
Well, we know Dishonored 2 is definitely happening. Hopefully a new Fallout is in the cards. I don't even need a "next gen" engine - just give me a sprawling new locale and the Skyrim engine.
I'm admittedly biased, but I've always felt Colorado would be a location. You have the goofiness with the Denver Airport, NORAD/Cheyenne Mountain, multiple military bases, lots of federal building and agencies, lots of different terrains, etc.
 
Domingo said:
Well, we know Dishonored 2 is definitely happening. Hopefully a new Fallout is in the cards. I don't even need a "next gen" engine - just give me a sprawling new locale and the Skyrim engine.
I'm admittedly biased, but I've always felt Colorado would be a location. You have the goofiness with the Denver Airport, NORAD/Cheyenne Mountain, multiple military bases, lots of federal building and agencies, lots of different terrains, etc.
Click to expand...

No please no to the same engine as Skyrim. If FO4 uses Gamebryo i'm not going to even bother.

They need to use a modern engine like Frostbite or UE. I would love if they used UE4 or even cryengine.
 
fdiaz78 said:
No please no to the same engine as Skyrim. If FO4 uses Gamebryo i'm not going to even bother.

They need to use a modern engine like Frostbite or UE. I would love if they used UE4 or even cryengine.
Click to expand...

If I hadn't seen how well Frostbite 3 works for DA:Inquisition I might think that idea was crazy, but Inquisition is gorgeous!
 
Last edited:
fdiaz78 said:
No please no to the same engine as Skyrim. If FO4 uses Gamebryo i'm not going to even bother.

They need to use a modern engine like Frostbite or UE. I would love if they used UE4 or even cryengine.
Click to expand...

Yes!
 
fdiaz78 said:
No please no to the same engine as Skyrim. If FO4 uses Gamebryo i'm not going to even bother.

They need to use a modern engine like Frostbite or UE. I would love if they used UE4 or even cryengine.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Gamebyro is turrible. Skyrim is only even remotely a good game because of the modding community. The vanilla experience is garbage and it looks like shit.
 
Domingo said:
Well, we know Dishonored 2 is definitely happening. Hopefully a new Fallout is in the cards. I don't even need a "next gen" engine - just give me a sprawling new locale and the Skyrim engine.
I'm admittedly biased, but I've always felt Colorado would be a location. You have the goofiness with the Denver Airport, NORAD/Cheyenne Mountain, multiple military bases, lots of federal building and agencies, lots of different terrains, etc.
Click to expand...

Definitely. Factoring that Dishonored 2, Wolfenstein 2 and DOOM4 are already known quantities, it would be odd if they used the occasion of their first ever E3 press conference to merely reiterate games they've already promised or hinted at. Undoubtedly they're aware of the expectations that they are raising with this occasion, which is why they haven't wanted to raise that flag until they were ready.

Todd Howard has been extremely adamant about not wanting to discuss F4 or Bethesda Game Studios' next big title before they had something 'big' to show. (last june) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRb5opLHTTQ

And after the relative disappointment of ESO (not to mention the fortune they lost on it), I have to believe they're going to do their damnedest to now make sure they don't screw up their next guaranteed smash hit - a title that will pretty much just sell itself unless they went mental and tried making it an MMO. I wouldn't say no to a 2-player Co-Op Fallout 4, though.
 
Last edited:
Yup, it's pretty much all but confirmed at this point.

Why would they bother with purchasing the Fallout license if all they planned to do with it was create 1 game (with another licensed out to an external company) and then drop it? Bethesda Game Studios tends to stick to their IPs. (Just remember, ESO was not developed by Bethesda Game Stuiods, and I'm not talking about the publisher. I'm talking about the developers behind Fallout 3 and Skyrim, Bethesda Game Studios.)
 
Ready for Fallout 4 to consume as much as my time as Skyrim and Fallout 3 before it...
 
Gonna keep my eyes out for this one, Played every fallout RPG's from the start (excluding Tactics and BoS), gonna keep a keen out for this one.
 
Personally, I would like to see Bethesda use the Skyrim engine in Fallout 4 but with the multi-core fix, multi-AI fix, implement true 64 bit support and provide a true SDK for creating new content.

The reasoning being is Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas and Skyrim allowed for heavy modification which spawned new - or enhanced existing - modding sites. I kept playing each of those games due to the widely available mods created by the modding community. If modding is left out in the cold then I probably wouldn't have spent a minimum of 3,000 plus hours into each game.

I vote to keep the modding tradition alive so that the modding community can continue the tradition of introducing new, exciting content without having to overcome the limitations of other game engines. It is a formula that has worked well for many years and I hope it is in Bethesda's view sight to continue the tradition.
 
They started working on Fallout IV in April 2013. They seem to take about 3 or 4 years for each Elder Scrolls and Fallout title, so I wouldn't expect Fallout 4 until late 2016. (I posted this a year ago and I have yet to see anything to change this prediction.)
 
The mods are a major part of what makes the Fallout series so appealing,some were even better than the DLC's. But the really good ones are starting to dwindle,we need Fallout 4 to re-inspire the modding community.
 
Saw the thread and thought I'd shit my pants.. yet.. I've not even let out a squirt:(
 
dremic said:
they shouldnt use any engine other than what theyre using now... metro last light looks great.. but its hard to run and its a closed environment


the engine they used for skyrim is perfect is about 100 ways, it runs insanely well, it looks great even without mods. it has the ability to mod if you want which can make it look even better, did i mention it runs great? ahaha thats a pretty big feet considering its open world and still looks fantastic.
Click to expand...

You know, it really does run great. I was very surprised. I haven't had a single crash in Skyrim, the performance is very good even with things maxed and a few graphical mods. Now if someone would just make a new Ultima game on it. :D
 
It certainly runs much better than previous iterations of Gamebryo, that's for sure. It's probably been re-worked so much that it hardly even resembles the original gamebryo engine at this point.

If they can optimize for more cores, then I have no complaints with using their current engine.
 
I think Skyrim is a still a good looking/running game, especially with some ini tweaks and mods.
As always, I favor performance over still frame eye candy. While new engines are always neat, I hate being a beta tester for optimizations. At best performance is up and down. At worst, we're all left hoping that they'll learn from this and the next sequel will run better. I'd rather have tried and true performance with high framerates, long views distances, and realistic animation.
I don't mind something like Frostbite or an established current-gen engine, but I don't want the next Fallout to be wasted on an unproven engine.
 
Yeah most likely they will announce it at their event.

I just hope that with Fallout 4 they have FINALLY made use of their own mocap studio (They mentioned getting one back when making Skyrim).

Bethseda games have such horrid animation quality, everything looks so stiff/robotic in their games and I hope they are upping ithat for their next game.

Also REALLY hopethey move away from Gamebyro engines, use Unreal 4 or their own new engine with all the new bells and whistles. Where everything doesn't look plastic.
 
Stiler said:
Also REALLY hopethey move away from Gamebyro engines, use Unreal 4 or their own new engine with all the new bells and whistles. Where everything doesn't look plastic.
Click to expand...

yes...new engine please...and not Unreal 4...CryEngine or Frostbite 3 is my dream
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top