Fallout 4 - PC Graphics Settings Menu Revealed

[Jbo1234]

What a load of crap lol.

You could play a game with just boxes that were modeled with millions of polys and 8K textures, doesn't mean it's good..

Yet that compared to other games would be naff.....like what I said. Also what about wireframe models? That makes a huge difference. The thing is you can't just reject that graphics is purely technical and has some really gnarly maths behind it which you can use as a metric. Aesthetics are subjective as that brings in style, but graphics are not.

 

[shambles1980]

Yet that compared to other games would be naff.....like what I said. Also what about wireframe models? That makes a huge difference. The thing is you can't just reject that graphics is purely technical and has some really gnarly maths behind it which you can use as a metric. Aesthetics are subjective as that brings in style, but graphics are not.

there's a lot of factors to "graphics" you have lighting, shading, textures, colour pallet, as well as mip maping , bump maping, polygons then AA quality or which it uses and all that other stuff..
you could have the exact same everything but change any one of those and people would debate whether graphics were good. just using colours that some deem too vibrant would cause a debate.
And people can use the same engine with the same tech doing the same amount of work but that does not mean that it will look the same.

So im not quite sure which part of graphics you are saying is not subjective.
Some parts are measurable no doubt, but the overall out come will never be the same even if the measurable parts are equal "resolution, polygons, aa, etc"; the outcome will be subjective, and the outcome is "graphics"

now if we compare this:

to this:

and we debate which looks better it will end up being a subjective debate.. one uses some blurring smudging the textures up a bit and adds some fogging effect. but for the most part uses a better pallet.

the other one has a much more crisp look not blurring things, but also suffers a bit because of that. and color vibrancy is a bit high. the fogging effect is more uniformed and so obscures less of the area, and atleast from a distance trees seem to look better. (or do they?)

the games aren't any where near the same age at all.. but people can and will pick and chose parts that are more palatable.
they can also for the most part describe what part of each is displeasing. But what is not pleasing to me may be pleasing to you..
and that is without entering in to the art style debate where you have games like borderlands.

Im not saying fallout looks as good as it could. im not saying it looks as good as some other games that probably spent the same money. All im saying is the games that look better for the same money are lacking in other departments, its a balance all game devs have to address. and in the case of fallout. im sorry but they are right to prioritize graphics lower than core game features, and i think others should do the same.

 

[SPS]

Yet that compared to other games would be naff.....like what I said. Also what about wireframe models? That makes a huge difference. The thing is you can't just reject that graphics is purely technical and has some really gnarly maths behind it which you can use as a metric. Aesthetics are subjective as that brings in style, but graphics are not.

You don't make sense.
What are you mentioning wireframes for?

Thing is, I can reject that statement and I will reject it, you can't compare poly count to measure quality of graphics. You could develop a heuristic to take into account technical data as a ratio of how good it looks, but determining if something looks good is subjective.

 

[Jbo1234]

there's a lot of factors to "graphics" you have lighting, shading, textures, colour pallet, as well as mip maping , bump maping, polygons then AA quality or which it uses and all that other stuff..
you could have the exact same everything but change any one of those and people would debate whether graphics were good. just using colours that some deem too vibrant would cause a debate.
And people can use the same engine with the same tech doing the same amount of work but that does not mean that it will look the same.

So im not quite sure which part of graphics you are saying is not subjective.
Some parts are measurable no doubt, but the overall out come will never be the same even if the measurable parts are equal "resolution, polygons, aa, etc"; the outcome will be subjective, and the outcome is "graphics"

now if we compare this:

to this:

and we debate which looks better it will end up being a subjective debate.. one uses some blurring smudging the textures up a bit and adds some fogging effect. but for the most part uses a better pallet.

the other one has a much more crisp look not blurring things, but also suffers a bit because of that. and color vibrancy is a bit high. the fogging effect is more uniformed and so obscures less of the area, and atleast from a distance trees seem to look better. (or do they?)

the games aren't any where near the same age at all.. but people can and will pick and chose parts that are more palatable.
they can also for the most part describe what part of each is displeasing. But what is not pleasing to me may be pleasing to you..
and that is without entering in to the art style debate where you have games like borderlands.

Im not saying fallout looks as good as it could. im not saying it looks as good as some other games that probably spent the same money. All im saying is the games that look better for the same money are lacking in other departments, its a balance all game devs have to address. and in the case of fallout. im sorry but they are right to prioritize graphics lower than core game features, and i think others should do the same.

I see your point, but what is subjective is their approach to generating what they think looks the best. What is debatable as you point out is the palette, contrast (however palette and contract could be chosen due to aesthetics - think of WoW and how vibrant it is), what the devs want to put more time into etc. It is the same as saying "what makes the best sports car?". No one will claim a slow heap that breaks down is the best as you have metrics e.g. must go fast - fast being based on what is possible. The same goes for graphics e.g. must have good textures, clear objects, and so on.
But if we compared both screenshots to say, Minecraft , it would be impossible to argue that MC had better graphics and that proves my point. Graphics do have metrics. Aesthetics however do not.

You don't make sense.
What are you mentioning wireframes for?

Thing is, I can reject that statement and I will reject it, you can't compare poly count to measure quality of graphics. You could develop a heuristic to take into account technical data as a ratio of how good it looks, but determining if something looks good is subjective.

It makes perfect sense and I was just showing why your analogy was wrong. Sure, you can reject it like rejecting the world is round. Doesn't mean you are right though.
And you can quite easily determine if something looks good (technically)- compare it to actual life or the best cgi possible and go from there. That isn't exactly rocket science.
But if you are talking about the "I think this painting looks good", then you are talking about aesthetics as I've mentioned before.

 

[SPS]

It makes perfect sense and I was just showing why your analogy was wrong. Sure, you can reject it like rejecting the world is round. Doesn't mean you are right though.
And you can quite easily determine if something looks good (technically)- compare it to actual life or the best cgi possible and go from there. That isn't exactly rocket science.
But if you are talking about the "I think this painting looks good", then you are talking about aesthetics as I've mentioned before.

Umm, no. You're saying that for something to be technically impressive then it must look photo-realistc.

 

[Jbo1234]

Umm, no. You're saying that for something to be technically impressive then it must look photo-realistc.

Well they aim to be photo realistic. This is why so many ingame techniques are just simplified attempts at things like ray shading. Anything else is aesthetics rather than just graphics..as I've said numerous times now. Both can be separate - take Limbo. Dire graphics (but it is only a side scroller) but great aesthetics.

 

[SPS]

Well they aim to be photo realistic. This is why so many ingame techniques are just simplified attempts at things like ray shading. Anything else is aesthetics rather than just graphics..as I've said numerous times now. Both can be separate - take Limbo. Dire graphics (but it is only a side scroller) but great aesthetics.

Ray shading?

 

[shambles1980]

the sports car analogy is reasonably good. you can make a really fast car "best possible gfx" but it's only any good in a straight line.

you can make a slower car but is decent at going round corners too..

or you can make a hot hatch. which is fast enough, but wont win any competitions. corners really well, and can take the kids to school, and bring your shopping home all at the same time..
Hot hatch's sell really well and are all round better.

its all about balance.
And there aren't that many people who just want to go fast in a straight line.

 

[Jbo1234]

Ray shading?

*Ray tracing.

the sports car analogy is reasonably good. you can make a really fast car "best possible gfx" but it's only any good in a straight line.

you can make a slower car but is decent at going round corners too..

or you can make a hot hatch. which is fast enough, but wont win any competitions. corners really well, and can take the kids to school, and bring your shopping home all at the same time..
Hot hatch's sell really well and are all round better.

its all about balance.
And there aren't that many people who just want to go fast in a straight line.

Very true and good examples. Though I want my games to be the Bentley/Rolls Royces as they can do everything but just come with a big price tag

 

[shambles1980]

*Ray tracing.



Very true and good examples. Though I want my games to be the Bentley/Rolls Royces as they can do everything but just come with a big price tag

with fear of taking it OT..
those dont corner well. and arent that fast, and suprizingly little space for shopping lol.

 

[BluD]

Im confused, does Fallout4 corner well?

 

[shambles1980]

yes it just does not go that fast in a straight line

 

[BluD]

shambles did you used to run a sli setup? I just saw your sig with the huge case and all them rads, thats screaming sli to me, or you like a very quiet pc

 

[shambles1980]

just the quiet oc for me. i cant justify sli.