On the Fallout 4 Graphics Fallout

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I guess I was so excited about the Fallout 4 announcement that I didn't notice there was controversy over the graphics in the launch trailer. :rolleyes:

Three minutes and four seconds later, however, the mood had changed. No longer was there unanimous enthusiasm. Instead, comments generally fell into three categories: Those whose exhilaration reached an all-caps climax, those who complained about the graphics, and those who complained about those whom complained.
Click to expand...
 
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
 
It's a fucking Bethesda open world game, what did people honestly expect? The series was never known for graphics anyway.
 
Having never played the series the graphics looked pretty good to me. At least on par with GTA V or any COD title. If it's a large open world game it seems about right. The only thing that seemed a tad lackluster in the trailer was the dog, but I just took that mostly as the art style of the game. *shrug*
 
Steve, if your wife likes the tight look then why should you complain? Hell, she just might enjoy seeing you running around in a tight Vault uniform (bra outline excluded, of course). :p :D

People will complain about anything that isn't 'perfect' in their gaming world. Expectations elevate to a level where everything about a incoming game just outright sucks. What's confounding is their opinion is formed from a trailer. A freaking trailer!
FacePalm.gif
 
ViperGrendal said:
Having never played the series the graphics looked pretty good to me. At least on par with GTA V or any COD title. If it's a large open world game it seems about right. The only thing that seemed a tad lackluster in the trailer was the dog, but I just took that mostly as the art style of the game. *shrug*
Click to expand...

ok, maybe Advanced Warfare is better graphically (just rewatched a couple trailers). Before someone jumps all over me for having some sort of left wing political agenda or some shit. ;)
 
I'm not very picky about the graphics, but in general the trailer looked just what we've already seen. In other words: "If you've played Fallout 3, you've seen 95% of what this game has to offer + flashbacks!"

Not saying that's the case, but that's the impression the trailer gave me.
 
ViperGrendal said:
ok, maybe Advanced Warfare is better graphically (just rewatched a couple trailers). Before someone jumps all over me for having some sort of left wing political agenda or some shit. ;)
Click to expand...

You tree-hugging commie-pinko librul bastard.
 
Steve said:
Should Bethesda have went all Watch Dogs on us with a trailer power by quad TITAN X cards and then under delivered?
Click to expand...

/Thread

Game will look just fine. So far doesn't seem like much of an upgrade over F3/NV, but that's OK.

They should really just make sure it's bug free on all 3 platforms at launch, later on they can release an HD Texture pack for those of us on PC that have the power to spare :D
 
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.
 
Nolan7689 said:
It's a fucking Bethesda open world game, what did people honestly expect? The series was never known for graphics anyway.
Click to expand...
That was my first thought right after I realized that the graphics weren't awesome. I think that there's a large group of people that don't understand the inner workings of games and game development studios, those people need to come to understand that certain studios use certain software or game engines that shape the final result and that when they release a game a certain level of fidelity should be expected. I'll be happy as long as the quality is at least as good as Skyrim's.

Bethesda did the right thing, set expectations in the complete opposite direction that Ubisoft did with Watch Dogs and in the end I bet people will be plenty satisfied.
 
A huge, sprawling world that allows the player to freely roam and explore, a storyline that's engaging and interesting, a multitude of things to do that allow for years of replayability, and a product that's released with minimal bugs. All that stuff is immensely more important than eyeball candy graphics. If you wanna be impressed by stunning visual quality, turn off your stupid computer and look around outside. You don't even need to waste money on a GPU to get some really impressive scenery. :)
 
The graphics are acceptable to me. There's better out there, but after re-playing FO3 in March, this is clearly better looking. Besides, I really just want another 100+ hour open-world Fallout game. You can only re-play the old ones so many times.

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...

Right? I'm not surprised when people start arguing graphics quality for new games, but why would people be upset by a new game being similar to the rest of the series? Of course it's going to be a post-apocalyptic pulp sci-fi wasteland. Are we supposed to transition to a Victorian world in the clouds like Bioshock Infinite or something?

Then again, the author of the article is the only one I've heard complaining of this so far.
 
It's a Fallout/TES game. The modders will fix it. Wait for the GOTY to get the complete game, and by the time that drops, there will be a ton of mods to fix just about any issue one might have with the game, including graphics. Especially graphics.
 
The things I noticed about the graphics is the shadows are bad (really bad) but the bump/parallax mapping seems improved. The 3D models also seem no better than in F3NV.

As others have said, who cares... If you really need it to look good there will be ENB injectors, HD textures and a ton of other mods eventually.
 
hopefully they focused on making most of the quests fun and interesting versus making every texture look amazing
 
polonyc2 said:
hopefully they focused on making most of the quests fun and interesting versus making every texture look amazing
Click to expand...

Yes.

Hopefully we'll see less of "Bugthesda" on this thing in every sense when it hits.
 
Looks Kick butt to me! GFX looked awesome as well. Some color added.

I can't wait!
 
Lighting and vegetation looks a lot better. Textures might not be state of the art, but they look a lot better on the environment. Art direction adds a lot of color to. But the characters looked like garbage.

I have a feeling there is some editing going on in the environment scenes given the discrepancy between character and environment quality. Or its just WIP. <--- Probably the case. Or, maybe the game will feature nice environments but garbage looking characters.
 
Looks just like 3 and NV with the graphics. Got burnt out by the end of NV so hopefully there is something fresh with this installment. The story was great in 3 so I hope it's just as good or better.
 
I am still playing NV and i have to say the trailer makes it look amazing i cant wait...
 
It's always been about the game play with Fallout,as long as they've cleared up the glaring bugs with the engine I'm happy. Better that than waiting even longer for them to develop another engine,there aren't enough games of this type as it is. Gamebryo may not be perfect,but it fits the feel of the games,the way the Xray engine fits the STALKER games.
 
Well at $46 at GMG this is the ONLY game I will buy without knowing all the details. After playing pretty much every Fallout 3, expansions, and NV, there is no way I wont play this. Didnt particularly like NV that much, the whole casino scene is boring to me personally.

I am glad they showcased so many different areas and scenes in the trailer, there a is a TON of variation unlike the previous games. Previous games were pretty much all wasteland which had its positives and negatives.
 
As a previous poster said, Fallout games have awlays been about the open world and the story line. Not the graphics.

I thought Fallout New Vegas was the best single player game Ive ever played. Ever. Especially the story line. Fallout games aren't for kids who focus solely on the graphics and don't even read the dialogue and press the space bar to skip every plot cutscene..... They are for adult gamers.

Years after its release, there are mods, including a 4GB HD texture pack that improve the graphics significantly. I recently installed that and some other mods and began a replay. While the game looked much better than its OEM release, and the story was just as good as I remember it, I ran out of time (The Witcher 3 came out) and didn't finish a full replay.

I wouldn't get too focused on the graphics in the Fallout 4 trailer. Im sure they will be slightly better by launch date. Again, if you are the kind of gamer who is all up in arms over character animations etc you probably aren't really the target audience for any of the Fallout games....
 
This has been said more than once in this thread: It is an open world RPG. Graphics take a BACK SEAT to story and experience. Like the Final Fantasy Games before the script fest that started with X. Open world. Spend tons of time figuring out what the hell you need to do next, get side tracked on 36 other things before realizing that there was a main story, and go back to figuring that out.

I cannot wait for this one, "outdated" graphics and all. Nuking the town in FO3 still brings me a smile to this day.
 
The thing that annoys me is that people seem to think that gameplay and graphics are mutually exclusive.

You can't have a game that is both fun to play and looks good, you have to someone pick one... makes no sense.
 
Got tired of reading the same damn argument about the graphics on the Steam forum (looks like at least some of the older ones got pruned). That, and the fact that pre-ordering on Steam was a thing "based on just a trailer". :rolleyes:
 
I'd play a game on the quake 2 engine today if it is as entertaining in gameplay as Fallout 3 was. The latest greatest graphics is nice, but it does not make for any part of fun.
 
For gods sake, since when was a Bethesda game judged on graphics?? They could release Fallout 5 with the Minecraft engine and as long as it delivered on gameplay it'd still sell.
 
Ducman69 said:
The thing that annoys me is that people seem to think that gameplay and graphics are mutually exclusive.

You can't have a game that is both fun to play and looks good, you have to someone pick one... makes no sense.
Click to expand...

No one is really saying that here. At most you're seeing a lot of, "I want good gameplay and I don't care either way about graphics," which is different than your claim that people are saying, "If you want good gameplay, you have to deal with lame graphics."

Maybe that thing you're thinking is happening elsewhere, but certainly not in this thread among people who aren't upset or discouraged over eye candy. In fact, I'm really glad to see some less visually-oriented people here. It's refreshing and surprising to find people who value other things besides how good the game will end up looking.
 
I could care less if graphics are sacrificed as a necessity due to rerouting that computing power to hardware-intensive calculations and simulations concerning gameplay.

However, I DO care if graphics are sacrificed on the PC version of the game to make it easier/cheaper (NOTE: not just to make it possible) to port to consoles, or port from consoles to PC (which should never be done in the first place).

Normally, when graphics look as dated as they do in FO4's trailer, it is the case of the later, which is unacceptable. But people should not be making permanent judgments right now - it is just an announcement trailer. State your concern and then wait to see what they do - don't go completely ape about a mere announcement trailer.
 
My problem with the Fallout games has always been the piss-poor animation, not the graphics. Bad animation does more to distract me and break the immersion than subpar graphics.
 
If the game is good, and relatively bug-free, then I don't see what all the hoopla is over. I mean shit - by now, they should have mastered Gamebryo right? :)
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
No one is really saying that here. At most you're seeing a lot of, "I want good gameplay and I don't care either way about graphics," which is different than your claim that people are saying, "If you want good gameplay, you have to deal with lame graphics."

Maybe that thing you're thinking is happening elsewhere, but certainly not in this thread among people who aren't upset or discouraged over eye candy. In fact, I'm really glad to see some less visually-oriented people here. It's refreshing and surprising to find people who value other things besides how good the game will end up looking.
Click to expand...
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.
 
GearChoices said:
I could care less if graphics are sacrificed as a necessity due to rerouting that computing power to hardware-intensive calculations and simulations concerning gameplay.

However, I DO care if graphics are sacrificed on the PC version of the game to make it easier/cheaper (NOTE: not just to make it possible) to port to consoles, or port from consoles to PC (which should never be done in the first place).

Normally, when graphics look as dated as they do in FO4's trailer, it is the case of the later, which is unacceptable. But people should not be making permanent judgments right now - it is just an announcement trailer. State your concern and then wait to see what they do - don't go completely ape about a mere announcement trailer.
Click to expand...
Damn, replied to the wrong thread, meant to reply to this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top