On the Fallout 4 Graphics Fallout

Guess I'm just not seeing it. It's not software based top down isometrics. Who cares? Deus Ex:HR wasn't the prettiest game on Earth when it launched. Didn't change it from being an excellent game.
 
Well, from a marketing standpoint, it can be useful to lower expectations. The public lately is ready to pounce when they sense over promising/under delivering.
Bethesda tossed out concepts that have gotten many (though far from all) salivating: Featuring Boston, MIT, cyberpunk streets, and with some nods to Bioshock, and film noir in general.
Later on they can release more trailers, etc,. with incremental improvements in quality. I'll be thinking "Take my money!". No, I don't say that, I usually look for bargains, but IIRC I payed full freight, or close to it, for the last two in the series.
Good times, good times. :)
 
What it comes down to is, it doesn't really seem to represent the graphics of a AAA title being released in 2015. We have at least half a dozen (probably more) games that have come out in the last year or two that look FAR better.

People seem to be under the impression that they are understating the graphics to not cause disappointment later (as happened with Watch_Dogs and Witcher 3). I'm all for that, except if what we see now is what we get in the final version, I'm honestly going to be disappointed. I'm sure it will still be an awesome game but I can't deny that the disappointment will be there. If they amp up the graphics between now and release, cool, I sincerely hope that happens. And of course we will inevitably get mods, but mods can only do so much. Starting with a basis of tessellation, ambient occlusion, etc. is the better way to go.

I think it has more to do with their insistence on using the Gamebryo engine time and time again. Maybe it's time to move on?
 
They are probably using wip footage. Which I think is better than a pre-render or pumped up e3 footage. You get a more honest look at the game. And as someone said before, as the game is closer to being finished, they will hopefully release new footage showing the improvements.
To me, story, game play and control are most important. Tw3 looks great to me and I like the story but I'm having a hard time getting over the clunky controls. So I've barely touched it. I just finished the Anna bit...
 
tetris42 said:
News Flash, about 95% of AAA games are done this way. The real question is are they downgrading it to make it easier, or in the case of Ubisoft, intentionally downgrading an already-good-looking PC version so that it doesn't look TOO much better than the console copies due to industry pressure.
Click to expand...

And 95% of AAA games have between zero to mediocre graphic improvements over consoles (despite huge differences in hardware power), poor gameplay, poor optimization, and unreasonable levels of bugs/stability issues at launch. Unfortunately, as time passes, "AAA" increasingly means "overpriced low-quality games."

But anyway, in the case of FO4, these trailer graphics do not even look as good as other 2015 AAA open-world titles, all of which have been developed primarily for consoles too. I would not be the slightest bit surprised if they are still using Gamebryo, which was an engine originally released in 1997 (and obviously began development before 1997), and Bethesda first began using it in 1998 when they switched to it during development of Morrowind. A game engine coming close to being two decades old now, and probably already two decades old if you count when development first began on it.

There is only so much you can do to an engine before its foundation becomes so out-dated that a new one needs to be created from scratch based on modern techniques / software / hardware (all three of which have drastically changed over twenty years). But Bethesda keeps milking this ancient tech.

It's the same issue with Bohemia Interactive and the Arma series. Arma 2 should have been the last Arma game released on their Real Virtuality engine, yet another engine that has been in development at least since 1997. Once they finished optimizing RV and Arma2, they had gotten everything they could out of that engine. For the complexity of the simulations involved in the Arma series, it was time to start from scratch again after that. Instead, Arma 3 is still a mess 1.5 years after release, and still not up to the same level as Arma 2 (unmodded at that) is now. And there is no indication whatsoever that the engine has any ability to be optimized noticeably further. It's a 32-bit single-threaded engine at its core, not to mention who knows how many other technological weaknesses left over from the late 90s. They just pasted new graphics over Arma 2 and killed performance in the process.

But yeah, maybe a bit off topic now...
 
Graphics looked fine too me, now the only question is PC or PS4?

Just kidding, I buy everything on PC if I can.
 
It's the animations that were the most disappointing to me.

I don't know why BEthseda has such terrible animations in their games, it's like they are incapable of making fluid/human like animation, everyone moves all stiff and robotic like in their games.
 
Stiler said:
It's the animations that were the most disappointing to me.

I don't know why BEthseda has such terrible animations in their games, it's like they are incapable of making fluid/human like animation, everyone moves all stiff and robotic like in their games.
Click to expand...
Back 2013 Bethesda installed a new motion capture stage at their studios. Hopefully that translates to vastly improved animations this go-around.
 
I'm happy with similar graphics as long as they can fix the damn stuttering issues.
 
Graphics matter people, plain & simple.If they didnt, then this game would run on the sega saturn. The moment any attempt is made at high quality graphics then as a developer you have just admitted that you place importance on them. This isnt like some indie game on steam that uses lower end graphics as an artistic tool. FO4 took a stab at some nice visual and failed, therefore they need to hit the drawing board and fix it. If they didnt care about graphics then dont waste any more time improving them and just focus on your gameplay and we'll see how it turns out.
 
Negative Decibel said:
Omg, do we really need this much speculation and complaining about a product before it comes out?
Click to expand...

Yes, its called feedback, it can help developers who aren't full of themselves make better choices.

That being said, I think the game is not built on bleeding edge graphics. I'm more interested how this isn't more of the same, though. I think despite the fact it was not a bleeding edge graphics type of game, it would have been an awesome world to be in VR.
 
Id agree graphics matter.... TO A POINT.

Examples:

You go back and try to play Fallout 1 or Fallout 2 now, the year 2015. Well, they look like shit. Both of them. Their game play and stories could be amazing / fantastic / interesting / gripping whatever (I honestly loved both of them, but I played them decades ago when they were originally released and of course I was much younger then). However that wouldn't matter because 99% of players nowdays wouldn't even get to any of that; they'd simply delete the game before even getting out of the 1st few rooms because the graphics looked so bad in 2015.

But.... Try playing Fallout 3 and especially Fallout New Vegas now. They actually look pretty good. And their stories, gameplay, etc were great (especially New Vegas if you ask me, thats the best Fallout game ever made). Their graphics are good enough that most players will give the games a fair test, and likely fall in love with the open world, the mini stories, etc and have a good game play experience.

I play on a really high end machine (see sig) so Im used to playing my games on Ultra with every slider maxed out at 3440 x 1440 and even I thought the Fallout 4 trailer looked decent enough graphics wise. No, it's not Far Cry 4 or Star Citizen when it comes to graphics, but who cares, it looked pretty good. And I think we can only expect it to look better before release date.

The gameplay and the story are what sell Fallout games.
 
For those who haven't played New Vegas, GET IT. Its fantastic.

And before you get into it, mod it with high res texture pack (3GB total size)
http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/m...ds.com/newvegas/ajax/modfiles/?id=43135&pUp=1

Also add More Perks and Perk Every Level:
http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/top/?

And "real weapon" mods by Millenia. The guy makes some great shit:
http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/users/431125/?tb=mods&pUp=1

uRFTnUn.jpg


You are in for an epic role play gaming experience that looks fantastic even in 2015. Note, if you are 21:9 3440 x 1440 wide screen guy like me, Fallout New Vegas is one of those games that requires a simple *.ini edit (found easily on google) for seamless support.
 
Kinsaras said:
Francis understands about Fallout 4's graphics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjaoxw9VupE
Click to expand...
The Francis character understands Mountain Dew, not the concept of how gameplay and graphics both matter, aren't mutually exclusive, and that we shouldn't tolerate either lacking.

Its like a beta male that says that personality matters more than looks of a girl, and picks a land cow with zits that makes funny jokes. You don't have to be such a bottom feeder, and look for BOTH. Its not one or the other, bro! ;)
 
skypine27 said:
You go back and try to play Fallout 1 or Fallout 2 now, the year 2015. Well, they look like shit. Both of them. Their game play and stories could be amazing / fantastic / interesting / gripping whatever (I honestly loved both of them, but I played them decades ago when they were originally released and of course I was much younger then). However that wouldn't matter because 99% of players nowdays wouldn't even get to any of that; they'd simply delete the game before even getting out of the 1st few rooms because the graphics looked so bad in 2015.
Click to expand...
Because there are more games than the average person with a life even has time to play, and so you have to pick the best of the best to spend your time on.

Why spend time getting to know this girl who may have a really fun personality:
38503d1386956357t-2014-changes-haiiii-ugly-women-girls.jpg


If you have say Mila Kunis tugging on your arm begging you to go get high and have sex with her at her beach house, while fighting a disappointed Jennifer Lawrence that is juggling sex toys trying to entice you to play with her first. ;)
 
VIC-20 said:
If they tried to change it up much, everyone would have lost their minds. Rightfully so. To throw away anything that makes these games great to join the likes of every other game would be a disaster and massive disappointment. We don't need yet another ESO, Destiny, COD, mmo sandbox, etc. We need unmolested Fallout.
Click to expand...

Unmolested isometric Fallout 1/2, or unmolested first-person Fallout 3? Yeah, they shouldn't ever change it up.

Anyway, the original Witcher wasn't known for being a graphical showcase, but some people still lost their shit over the "downgrade" nonsense. Of course this gets a pass on its distinctly mediocre trailer because it's "Fallout 4: Not about the graphics™", and "it already looks outdated, but, hey, at least it's a realistic target and won't be downgraded".
 
Ducman69 said:
The Francis character understands Mountain Dew, not the concept of how gameplay and graphics both matter, aren't mutually exclusive, and that we shouldn't tolerate either lacking.

Its like a beta male that says that personality matters more than looks of a girl, and picks a land cow with zits that makes funny jokes. You don't have to be such a bottom feeder, and look for BOTH. Its not one or the other, bro! ;)
Click to expand...

Except there are essentially four classes of gamers:

Graphics at all costs - maximum graphics are all that matter, if it looks pretty and the game is functional then story/gameplay is irrelevant (a fair amount of your shooter class fall into this group)

Gameplay at all costs - the game and story is everything ... as long as the graphics don't detract from gameplay they are less important (the Bioshock and System Shock crowd)

Balance at all costs - both gameplay/story and graphics must be adequate (although neither need to be cutting edge) (alot of your achievement gamers fall into this group ... I would put a lot of the Fallout gamers here)

Cutting edge at all costs - both gameplay/story and graphics must be world class (an extremely small class of gamers ... if you aren't gaming in 4K or higher you are not in this class)

I agree that you have to be careful about what you compromise but you need to be true to the gamer class you are in :cool:
 
Bioshock was a beautiful game why is it in the gameplay only category? Also most COD type shooters look like shit, I wouldn't put those in the graphics category.
 
kbrickley said:
Except there are essentially four classes of gamers:

Graphics at all costs - maximum graphics are all that matter, if it looks pretty and the game is functional then story/gameplay is irrelevant (a fair amount of your shooter class fall into this group)

Gameplay at all costs - the game and story is everything ... as long as the graphics don't detract from gameplay they are less important (the Bioshock and System Shock crowd)

Balance at all costs - both gameplay/story and graphics must be adequate (although neither need to be cutting edge) (alot of your achievement gamers fall into this group ... I would put a lot of the Fallout gamers here)

Cutting edge at all costs - both gameplay/story and graphics must be world class (an extremely small class of gamers ... if you aren't gaming in 4K or higher you are not in this class)

I agree that you have to be careful about what you compromise but you need to be true to the gamer class you are in :cool:
Click to expand...

How about this class?

1. Graphics and gameplay and not separate parts of a game but interetwined?


Animations? Those are part of graphics, and very much make up a large part of how a game "feels" to play. A game with poor animations can pull you out of the experience.

Take WoW for example, many people love it because they have such fluid feeling animations and everything moves how you want it to, nothing feels stiff, delayed, etc.

In a game like Fallout 4, where the world is meant to be built up to explore, where the driving force is the characters, their stories/quests, the emotional impact of the writing and characters the graphics matter. The way the npc's move, the way they portray that emotion matters.

Having an npc that looks robotic (when they are meant to be a human), one that has an emotional storyline, with great voice acting, can REALLY pull you out of the game when you visually see the npc "trying" to replicate that detail the voice acting and the writer put into the character but coming up woefully short when the face animations and general body animations are stiff and the uncanny valley rears its head.

The Witcher 3 is a prime example, they spent so much time on characters faces that when the story calls for emotional elements you don't get pulled out of the game because of wonky looking npc animations/graphics.

I see this whole movement from some gamers to completely and utterly dismiss "graphics" are some un-needed part of games, and if that were in the least bit true at all we'd all still be playing text-based games and things where graphics REALLY don't matter at all.
 
Stiler said:
How about this class?

1. Graphics and gameplay and not separate parts of a game but interetwined?


Animations? Those are part of graphics, and very much make up a large part of how a game "feels" to play. A game with poor animations can pull you out of the experience.

Take WoW for example, many people love it because they have such fluid feeling animations and everything moves how you want it to, nothing feels stiff, delayed, etc.

In a game like Fallout 4, where the world is meant to be built up to explore, where the driving force is the characters, their stories/quests, the emotional impact of the writing and characters the graphics matter. The way the npc's move, the way they portray that emotion matters.

Having an npc that looks robotic (when they are meant to be a human), one that has an emotional storyline, with great voice acting, can REALLY pull you out of the game when you visually see the npc "trying" to replicate that detail the voice acting and the writer put into the character but coming up woefully short when the face animations and general body animations are stiff and the uncanny valley rears its head.

The Witcher 3 is a prime example, they spent so much time on characters faces that when the story calls for emotional elements you don't get pulled out of the game because of wonky looking npc animations/graphics.

I see this whole movement from some gamers to completely and utterly dismiss "graphics" are some un-needed part of games, and if that were in the least bit true at all we'd all still be playing text-based games and things where graphics REALLY don't matter at all.
Click to expand...

It is more of a fatalistic pragmatism ... the best graphics used to break systems (Crysis, Doom 3) ... we will not see those days again unfortunately due to the economics of supporting the widest range of PC users and the cross platform titles ... I would love to see the return of games that had such advanced graphics that no one could play them (but it is just not economical for companies to support that) ...

also most of the users have dropped the ball as well ... I used to upgrade my video card every 12-18 months ... now I am still running a Core processor and using a GTX 670 ... I hope this year to upgrade my computer again but it has just become more and more difficult to continually upgrade my system for new games
 
skypine27 said:
For those who haven't played New Vegas, GET IT. Its fantastic.

And before you get into it, mod it with high res texture pack (3GB total size)
http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/m...ds.com/newvegas/ajax/modfiles/?id=43135&pUp=1

Also add More Perks and Perk Every Level:
http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/top/?

And "real weapon" mods by Millenia. The guy makes some great shit:
http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/users/431125/?tb=mods&pUp=1

You are in for an epic role play gaming experience that looks fantastic even in 2015. Note, if you are 21:9 3440 x 1440 wide screen guy like me, Fallout New Vegas is one of those games that requires a simple *.ini edit (found easily on google) for seamless support.
Click to expand...

I believe you meant to post that on the FO4 topic over on [C]asual|Forum's site. The correct answer for this site is (from reddit new vegas):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aKHLNQUpK4qL6xxGDPj_KTbvzuG_7mYNu9_IF37bmLI/pubhtml
 
Steve said:
Should Bethesda have went all Watch Dogs on us with a trailer power by quad TITAN X cards and then under delivered?

That said, let's talk about what is really disturbing in that trailer....dude's jumpsuit is way too tight. :D
Click to expand...

No, they should release games that utilize current GPU power; Not cater to the plebeian consoles.
 
Streiw said:
No, they should release games that utilize current GPU power; Not cater to the plebeian consoles.
Click to expand...

Actually, I miss the days of Crysis and Doom 3 where no one had a system that could run the game at max settings ... only those who were willing to upgrade as soon as the next generation cards and CPUs were available could run at max settings (those are the days I miss) :cool:
 
kbrickley said:
Actually, I miss the days of Crysis and Doom 3 where no one had a system that could run the game at max settings ... only those who were willing to upgrade as soon as the next generation cards and CPUs were available could run at max settings (those are the days I miss) :cool:
Click to expand...

Those days will never happen again. Certain companies have indoctrinated gamers into believing the word describing the graphics is more important than the graphics themselves. Thus, if a game runs on Ultra @ 60 fps, it must be better than a game with similar graphics on Medium @ 60 fps whereas Ultra runs @ 1 fps.

We've all become back seat graphics developers who know that, sure, while this game is the best looking game on the market, it must be unoptimized if it runs @ 20 fps on bleeding edge hardware @ 1080p. Yeah, I don't know a lick about Direct3D, OpenGL, or even basic linear algebra, but I make mods man! With lua? What's lua? Isn't C a letter in the alphabet? Oh, programming? I'm a l33t programmer as I know HTML and can pop up a message box in VB!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top