Fallout 4 Looks Great!

[AlienALX]

My biggest issue with the graphics is that the textures look really poor :/

Non the less, I'll probably pick up the game and binge on it when it drops

It's not going to be a world beater graphically. Fallout 3 wasn't, I mean, we had Crysis.

It's not about the graphics though and never was

 

[Wraith]

Community HD texture packs will follow pretty quick, they always do.

 

[mazty]

Ok Are you're referring to engines like UE4/Unity?

Though I don't remember games 10 years ago having the same requirements that AAA titles have today.
However, I do agree that it would be easier to make a 2005 title now with the tech that is available.

Yep UE, Unity and CryEngine. Now while the workload has increased and a lot more is expected, in my opinion the tools to deal with the workload are a lot better then they used to be.

 

[Jbo1234]

What the hell was that author smoking?
Fallout 4 looks dire for an 8th gen game. It actually appears to have zero dx11 graphical features yet somehow people are saying it looks good. This is simply a case of "OMFG Fallout 4! I'll say it looks good regardless of what I see!".
If that video was of a new IP, everyone would be agreeing that it looks last gen. Gaming is on the verge of Pixar level animation with textures beyond super HD and polygon counts only previously seen in films, yet people still tolerate junk.

And anyone who uses the "but its the gameplay" argument just remember this; if the engine and programmers can't make half decent graphics, then how can they possible have the technical ability and knowhow to make good gameplay? New engines are faster and cheaper to use than ever before, but Beth are still using GameBryo due to being cheap. How does that fill anyone with confidence?!

 

[AlienALX]

What the hell was that author smoking?
Fallout 4 looks dire for an 8th gen game. It actually appears to have zero dx11 graphical features yet somehow people are saying it looks good. This is simply a case of "OMFG Fallout 4! I'll say it looks good regardless of what I see!".
If that video was of a new IP, everyone would be agreeing that it looks last gen. Gaming is on the verge of Pixar level animation with textures beyond super HD and polygon counts only previously seen in films, yet people still tolerate junk.

And anyone who uses the "but its the gameplay" argument just remember this; if the engine and programmers can't make half decent graphics, then how can they possible have the technical ability and knowhow to make good gameplay? New engines are faster and cheaper to use than ever before, but Beth are still using GameBryo due to being cheap. How does that fill anyone with confidence?!

Rubbish. Utter,utter rubbish.

 

[barnsley]

What the hell was that author smoking?
Fallout 4 looks dire for an 8th gen game. It actually appears to have zero dx11 graphical features yet somehow people are saying it looks good. This is simply a case of "OMFG Fallout 4! I'll say it looks good regardless of what I see!".
If that video was of a new IP, everyone would be agreeing that it looks last gen. Gaming is on the verge of Pixar level animation with textures beyond super HD and polygon counts only previously seen in films, yet people still tolerate junk.

And anyone who uses the "but its the gameplay" argument just remember this; if the engine and programmers can't make half decent graphics, then how can they possible have the technical ability and knowhow to make good gameplay? New engines are faster and cheaper to use than ever before, but Beth are still using GameBryo due to being cheap. How does that fill anyone with confidence?!

Nice bate buddy!

 

[Jbo1234]

Rubbish. Utter,utter rubbish.

Really? So much rubbish you can't even argue why a single one of my points is wrong then I'm going to say that you would defend this game even if it didn't work on launch and all you did was pay Beth. for a box with "Fallout 4" written on it.

Nice bate buddy!

So giving a legitimate and fair points is bate? You are aware that the majority of people who have seen that video are shocked at how bad it looks and that gamebryo is still clearly being used.

 

[AlienALX]

I won't argue your points because you don't have any.

You're so obsessed by graphics and so shallow that you think a game can't have good gameplay unless it uses the latest engine.

Go away troll.

 

[Jbo1234]

I won't argue your points because you don't have any.

You're so obsessed by graphics and so shallow that you think a game can't have good gameplay unless it uses the latest engine.

Go away troll.

Seriously? You just ignored everything I said and going on some rant ending with the classic "You're a troll ergo I don't need to debate my point".

So to sum it up;
-How does it look good? There are no modern graphic techniques being used.
-What games are you comparing the FO4 trailer too?
-What do you know of Gamebryo compared to major game engines?
-How could gameplay change?

Now who is the troll...(and yes, your username does show how biased you will be).

 

[Moonchild]

I dont care about how realistic the graphics look, I'd rather have them to be good enough so they dont get annoying and to add to the game's feel. All I want is a compelling story and my laptop potato to be able to play this.

 

[Jbo1234]

I dont care about how realistic the graphics look, I'd rather have them to be good enough so they dont get annoying and to add to the game's feel. All I want is a compelling story and my laptop potato to be able to play this.

Fair comment, but graphics and the feel of a game are related. Play vanilla skyrim then run a super modded ENB version - the atmosphere is so much greater. Sadly we humans rely a lot on our sight as a prime sense so graphical fidelity will also dominate the immersion of a game. But don't worry, they are still using Gamebryo for some reason (oh,because its cheap) so the game will most likely be able to run on a new microwave.

 

[Tripp]

Fair comment, but graphics and the feel of a game are related. Play vanilla skyrim then run a super modded ENB version - the atmosphere is so much greater. Sadly we humans rely a lot on our sight as a prime sense so graphical fidelity will also dominate the immersion of a game. But don't worry, they are still using Gamebryo for some reason (oh,because its cheap) so the game will most likely be able to run on a new microwave.

do you work for Bethesda?...i highly doubt it, so how do you know it runs on that engine? did amazing graphics make Hotline Miami a great game?....no. instead of being so pessimistic about the game over a trailer that was a few minutes long, why not just wait for more info on the game. the last two fallout games were not lookers either, there weren't end of.......this game looks a lot more advanced than the last 2 an if it has the replay ability the the last games had then it will sell by the boat load.

 

[barnsley]

So giving a legitimate and fair points is bate? You are aware that the majority of people who have seen that video are shocked at how bad it looks and that gamebryo is still clearly being used.

The majority of people who've seen the video couldn't care because Beth games never look great. Good job.
Its the most stereotypical comment for getting people annoyed that could be done. You might as well put 'my console will look beeter'.


Fun fact I don't think the game looks next gen, but seeing how some 'next gen' looking games are pretty poor in the ol' story department shows that graphical fidelity does not equal good game.

Just because they seem to be using an old engine doesn't mean it'll be a bad game. Look at Ubisoft for example.

 

[AlienALX]

do you work for Bethesda?...i highly doubt it, so how do you know it runs on that engine? did amazing graphics make Hotline Miami a great game?....no. instead of being so pessimistic about the game over a trailer that was a few minutes long, why not just wait for more info on the game. the last two fallout games were not lookers either, there weren't end of.......this game looks a lot more advanced than the last 2 an if it has the replay ability the the last games had then it will sell by the boat load.

The first two Fallout games weren't lookers either.

 

[Tripp]

The first two Fallout games weren't lookers either.

i know fella have the lot of them just trying to make a point while being up to date

 

[AlienALX]

i know fella have the lot of them just trying to make a point while being up to date

Ugh. I really, really didn't want to give the troll my breath but hey, after all we are all Fallout lovers (well apart from "it" who I am most certainly not replying to).

Fallout was never, ever about the graphics. I could have easily torn it to shreds in 1998 because we already had Crysis. Right from the off Fallout was coded using the same engine as the Elder Scrolls game prior to it (which I don't know the name of because I don't do the whole magic and spells thing but you know what I mean). The character animation was laughable, the textures were pretty low rent too.

But as we know the story, world, authentic items (like Nuka Cola for example) and the sheer volume of content was what made it what it was. IE - Bethesda had taken years to make it and that time wasn't spent on the graphics, it was to make an epic single player game with so much content it would take a single player at least 100 hours to do everything. As Todd Howard said the only limitation was time. If you scratched hard enough you could actually find mini quests that were not completable because they just didn't have the time. They had set a release date and thus, time was of the essence. This is also why it took Broken Steel to fix it, because if you completed it you lost your save game and had to use an older one.

I know there are fans out there that prefer New Vegas and I will admit I loved treading the desert. However, New Vegas had about 10% of the overall detail and content that FO3 had. The reason was simple, they had barely two years. I see NV as a DLC, not a full game. I know that's harsh but if you tried to enter buildings you found that they weren't explorable and were just literally textures. Fallout 3? you could enter about 90% of the buildings and each one had a quest or some transcripts (mini quest) to make you venture in and spend a few hours in there.

Fallout New Vegas with all of the DLC took me about 20 hours. That's because once the main quests are over and you venture out there's not much to be found. A couple of decent vaults that had me sucked in for a few hours but nothing more.

And that's why Fallout 4 has been shrouded in secrecy. Bethesda learned that time was a critical factor so just "did a Valve" and kept it all hush hush.

I just hope that they have taken enough time to make sure that everything is all working and sorted from the off. Not that I mind, because the amount of time needed for one of these games would leave them plenty of time for fixes.

I'm going to ignore the troll because quite frankly I actually feel sorry for it. How some one could be so shallow and thus, rob themselves of amazing gaming experiences because they are so obsessed with engines and graphics is beyond me.

There are words for people like that but I don't fancy a ban.

 

[Jbo1234]

do you work for Bethesda?...i highly doubt it, so how do you know it runs on that engine? did amazing graphics make Hotline Miami a great game?....no. instead of being so pessimistic about the game over a trailer that was a few minutes long, why not just wait for more info on the game. the last two fallout games were not lookers either, there weren't end of.......this game looks a lot more advanced than the last 2 an if it has the replay ability the the last games had then it will sell by the boat load.

So to understand an engine you have to work for that company...even though that engine is 3rd party. Smooth. However I have used a lot of dk's; what about yourself?

Look at the shaders, palette etc. It is clearly Gamebryo. Also if it was anything else, they would advertise it like mad/be made to advertise it. Is FO an in-depth storytelling rpg and HLM a totally different genre? Yes. Is comparing the two beyond redundant? Yes.

Experience has told me that being a cynic is always right. The entire dev team would need to be retrained to use another engine and no major studio is smart enough to invest the money into doing that, so they will keep using that engine. And that means that the game won't change. The graphics will be poor, but more importantly the gameplay and areas will be terribly dated. You are looking at small towns, lots of loading screens, no destructible areas etc because the engine doesn't support those features. That's a simple fact. You want to be able to break down a door and smash into someone's house? Nope, engine can't do that. PBR? Not a chance. Sparks flying off armour as it is hit by bullets? Sure, if you want to slow the game down to 1 fps, but not the millions of sparks UE4 has. Fully destructible anything 3 clicks away with random seeds? Not possible. The list goes on.
And to boot, the more they add to this engine, the more unstable it becomes. It simply was not built for games of this size and complexity.

The majority of people who've seen the video couldn't care because Beth games never look great. Good job.
Its the most stereotypical comment for getting people annoyed that could be done. You might as well put 'my console will look beeter'.


Fun fact I don't think the game looks next gen, but seeing how some 'next gen' looking games are pretty poor in the ol' story department shows that graphical fidelity does not equal good game.

Just because they seem to be using an old engine doesn't mean it'll be a bad game. Look at Ubisoft for example.

Well looking at the forums most people are expecting a new generation game to you know, look new and not be dated with a £50 price tag smacked on it. People were willing to give slack to Beth as they were building on Obl, which was ofc based on Morrowind and pretty old. Now most devs have moved to new engines with the new consoles, Beth are being stubborn and for some unknown reason (well no, it will be money) are using the same old one.

As shown above, same engine means same gameplay. The towns will be small, npcs limited, physics the same etc. You'll get a new storyline and that is it. Any progression in the actual gameplay will be limited to new weapons and enemies and other basic changes....which is dire considering how many years have passed and how much power they can get from modern hardware.

Devs need to stop using "custom engines" (cheap engines modified to hell) and just pay up for the training to move to core engines e.g. Unity 5 or UE4. Doing so would decrease dev time and actually allow for new mechanics and gameplay. But since fans will preorder anything due to the name on the box, they will continue to churn out the same product.

Ugh. I really, really didn't want to give the troll my breath but hey, after all we are all Fallout lovers (well apart from "it" who I am most certainly not replying to).

Fallout was never, ever about the graphics. I could have easily torn it to shreds in 1998 because we already had Crysis. Right from the off Fallout was coded using the same engine as the Elder Scrolls game prior to it (which I don't know the name of because I don't do the whole magic and spells thing but you know what I mean). The character animation was laughable, the textures were pretty low rent too.

But as we know the story, world, authentic items (like Nuka Cola for example) and the sheer volume of content was what made it what it was. IE - Bethesda had taken years to make it and that time wasn't spent on the graphics, it was to make an epic single player game with so much content it would take a single player at least 100 hours to do everything. As Todd Howard said the only limitation was time. If you scratched hard enough you could actually find mini quests that were not completable because they just didn't have the time. They had set a release date and thus, time was of the essence. This is also why it took Broken Steel to fix it, because if you completed it you lost your save game and had to use an older one.

I know there are fans out there that prefer New Vegas and I will admit I loved treading the desert. However, New Vegas had about 10% of the overall detail and content that FO3 had. The reason was simple, they had barely two years. I see NV as a DLC, not a full game. I know that's harsh but if you tried to enter buildings you found that they weren't explorable and were just literally textures. Fallout 3? you could enter about 90% of the buildings and each one had a quest or some transcripts (mini quest) to make you venture in and spend a few hours in there.

Fallout New Vegas with all of the DLC took me about 20 hours. That's because once the main quests are over and you venture out there's not much to be found. A couple of decent vaults that had me sucked in for a few hours but nothing more.

And that's why Fallout 4 has been shrouded in secrecy. Bethesda learned that time was a critical factor so just "did a Valve" and kept it all hush hush.

I just hope that they have taken enough time to make sure that everything is all working and sorted from the off. Not that I mind, because the amount of time needed for one of these games would leave them plenty of time for fixes.

I'm going to ignore the troll because quite frankly I actually feel sorry for it. How some one could be so shallow and thus, rob themselves of amazing gaming experiences because they are so obsessed with engines and graphics is beyond me.

There are words for people like that but I don't fancy a ban.

Not lovers, but guys who ignore the evidence and buy a product regardless of the quality and try to force that on others. I also find it hilarious that you have not considered that I own and have played the last 15 years of Bethesda games...but apparently that is not possible because you have to have loyalty to a company rather than judging a product on what it is.

FO3 was great, even though it looked dire...but the fact that the GOTY edition would crash constantly and became unplayable due to the engine being poor apparently not a problem even though they are using the same engine.

Ignoring immersion and coming up with excuses on why you should pay for a poorly done job is trending. If I'm parting with cash for anything, I want to know that i'm getting a high quality product. I don't like paying for half arsed anything, including games.

Same engine? Won't have anything new because it can't. Games nowadays should be able to have you smashing down a door and charging into a building, or hell, leveling the building. Cryengine can. Frostbite can. UE4 can. Gamebryo can't.

So go ahead, pay for your game because of what's printed on the box and for an experience a book could deliver whilst insulting anyone who fairly challenges you, but I'll hold back and only pay for an actual modern gaming experience.

Also if graphics don't matter, then why are you running a Titan Black? Why not just the bare basics? Oh, because clearly they do...BUSTED

 

[Tripp]

Ugh. I really, really didn't want to give the troll my breath but hey, after all we are all Fallout lovers (well apart from "it" who I am most certainly not replying to).

Fallout was never, ever about the graphics. I could have easily torn it to shreds in 1998 because we already had Crysis. Right from the off Fallout was coded using the same engine as the Elder Scrolls game prior to it (which I don't know the name of because I don't do the whole magic and spells thing but you know what I mean). The character animation was laughable, the textures were pretty low rent too.

But as we know the story, world, authentic items (like Nuka Cola for example) and the sheer volume of content was what made it what it was. IE - Bethesda had taken years to make it and that time wasn't spent on the graphics, it was to make an epic single player game with so much content it would take a single player at least 100 hours to do everything. As Todd Howard said the only limitation was time. If you scratched hard enough you could actually find mini quests that were not completable because they just didn't have the time. They had set a release date and thus, time was of the essence. This is also why it took Broken Steel to fix it, because if you completed it you lost your save game and had to use an older one.

I know there are fans out there that prefer New Vegas and I will admit I loved treading the desert. However, New Vegas had about 10% of the overall detail and content that FO3 had. The reason was simple, they had barely two years. I see NV as a DLC, not a full game. I know that's harsh but if you tried to enter buildings you found that they weren't explorable and were just literally textures. Fallout 3? you could enter about 90% of the buildings and each one had a quest or some transcripts (mini quest) to make you venture in and spend a few hours in there.

Fallout New Vegas with all of the DLC took me about 20 hours. That's because once the main quests are over and you venture out there's not much to be found. A couple of decent vaults that had me sucked in for a few hours but nothing more.

And that's why Fallout 4 has been shrouded in secrecy. Bethesda learned that time was a critical factor so just "did a Valve" and kept it all hush hush.

I just hope that they have taken enough time to make sure that everything is all working and sorted from the off. Not that I mind, because the amount of time needed for one of these games would leave them plenty of time for fixes.

I'm going to ignore the troll because quite frankly I actually feel sorry for it. How some one could be so shallow and thus, rob themselves of amazing gaming experiences because they are so obsessed with engines and graphics is beyond me.

There are words for people like that but I don't fancy a ban.

AGREED....AGREED..AGREED...spot on, graphics dont make a game....they dont no matter what stick you shake it the damned game, i love some games that my rig can play at a million fps......does that degrade there quality....no it certainly doesn't. its going to be a great game you know why........suspense......surprise......and because its got a whole lot of story/fiction backing it

 

[Wraith]

TESO! Nuff said, much more optimised and polished engine also the online element would make this a great game.. only time will tell, we should wait for more info and details before we all jump to conclusions on a matter we ALL know little about at this stage.

For arguments sake please lower the rants and raving and keep the debates a touch more civilized.

 

[Tripp]

For arguments sake please lower the rants and raving and keep the debates a touch more civilized.

aye to lower the tone would be advised