Fallout 4 - Launch Trailer - General

I don't see why the comparison to the Witcher 3 isn't fair. It's not apples to apples, but I think it's still reasonable considering they're both open world RPGS. I understand that they aren't only stylistically different but also take place in different environments; however there is a gap in quality between the two that is jarring. Fallout 4 is a pretty bad looking game to be coming out of a AAA developer in 2015. It runs on a dated engine, and despite the updates made to it, it shows. The lip sync is terrible, the lighting is questionable depending on the time of day and the animation quality has shown to be sub par. This doesn't mean it's going to be a bad game, in fact a lot of the leaked game play looks fun, but it's surprising how lacking in a middle ground there is in this thread. I mean seriously, you got a guy complaining about the roof quality, down to the shingles: [QUOTE=aydin690;49059687]In 2004 maybe. Those roofs are just perfectly flat surfaces with some shitty textures. They don't even have normal mapping for fucks sake. This is how you do a roof: [t]http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/witcher/images/c/c2/Downwarren.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150515210606[/t] [t]http://cdn.akamai.steamstatic.com/steam/apps/292030/ss_ed23139c916fdb9f6dd23b2a6a01d0fbd2dd1a4f.1920x1080.jpg?t=1444689672[/t] You see those perfectly flat roofs? /s [/QUOTE] And people responding as if the Witcher 3 killed their families or something: [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;49059710]Oh boy look at that, more fucking comparisons to The Witcher 3. As if we need another game that needed to be compared to the gift from god that is The Witcher 3 apparently.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;49059713]Did you know that Witcher 3 is a different game from Fallout 4, and that the "Just Fallout 3!" thing is demonstrably bullshit?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;49061096]Oh god, the Witcher 3 is better than anything. We fucking get it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=doctordarken;49063307]And people responding as if the Witcher 3 killed their families or something:[/QUOTE] Maybe people are responding negatively because it's a guy who's nitpicking at such minor details such as rooftops and using a completely irrelevant comparison in an attempt to backup his argument.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49062862]No amount of post processing is going to add dynamic shadows to the game though.[/QUOTE] Dynamic shadows were added to Oblivion though through OBGE (or whatever it's called now), and were even added to Morrowind through MGE. Considering that the Creation Engine is basically just the same engine that Bethesda has been using since Oblivion, only with a more powerful scripting language and better multi-core/thread support, it's not far fetched to assume that the same can be done for Fallout 4. Shit like that will take time, yes, but I don't see how it wouldn't be possible.

I'd just like to point out for the record that I never said Witcher 3 was a bad game before anyone gets the funny idea of putting those words in my mouth. I'm just fuckin sick and tired of every single fuckin game being compared to Witcher 3. Literally every single big game that has come out after it has and is being compared to Witcher 3 and it's bloody stupid imo. [editline]6th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=doctordarken;49063307] I mean seriously, you got a guy complaining about the roof quality, down to the shingles: [/QUOTE] That says more about him then it does the game imo.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49062862]No amount of post processing is going to add dynamic shadows to the game though.[/QUOTE] Later releases of ENB for Skyrim can entirely replace the game's shadows with their own, better version. ENB is not just post processing anymore, you can add stuff like godrays, subsurface scattering, reflections and a bunch of other shit with it.

[QUOTE=doctordarken;49063307]I don't see why the comparison to the Witcher 3 isn't fair. It's not apples to apples, but I think it's still reasonable considering they're both open world RPGS. I understand that they aren't only stylistically different but also take place in different environments; however there is a gap in quality between the two that is jarring. Fallout 4 is a pretty bad looking game to be coming out of a AAA developer in 2015. It runs on a dated engine, and despite the updates made to it, it shows. The lip sync is terrible, the lighting is questionable depending on the time of day and the animation quality has shown to be sub par. This doesn't mean it's going to be a bad game, in fact a lot of the leaked game play looks fun, but it's surprising how lacking in a middle ground there is in this thread. I mean seriously, you got a guy complaining about the roof quality, down to the shingles: And people responding as if the Witcher 3 killed their families or something:[/QUOTE] no one is implying Witcher is bad. shit, Witcher 3 is one of my favorite games of this year. Just its stupid comparing Witcher 3 to fallout in terms of graphics when its two totally different engines and developers. [editline]6th November 2015[/editline] especially over fucking roof tiles.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;49063390]I'd just like to point out for the record that I never said Witcher 3 was a bad game before anyone gets the funny idea of putting those words in my mouth. I'm just fuckin sick and tired of every single fuckin game being compared to Witcher 3. Literally every single big game that has come out after it has and is being compared to Witcher 3 and it's bloody stupid imo.[/QUOTE] Well, to be fair, when a game becomes a new standard for most people, do you not expect them to compare future games to their new standard if they're in the same genre? People naturally want to know if something new is better than or comparable to what stood out in their minds beforehand, and until something is, it will always be compared to it. Even though I don't really agree with comparing the visuals of Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 (different settings, themes, etc), I get why people would want to compare the two in general.

Not really fair comparison? Witcher doesnt have dismemberment like FO4, no 1st person, no guns and very big crafting ranging from foods, drinks, drugs to power armors and settlements eventually. The graphics ain't bad either. The animations are smoother, shadows are slightly better. All I can think of is coming across some ugly textures in some areas/buildings, dunno. Perhaps some cheaper architecture can be found like that "rooftop example" up there. That and, the dialogue system. But I've heard people complain about being pissed off at games with similar dialogue system, like Witchers/Mass Effect, so FO4 can easily impress in that area as well.

I don't think anything should be compared to TW3 yet because it's the only game that looks this good so far, it's an exception, not the average. It's like looking at a car, any car, and going "WELL IT'S NOT A TESLA", come on. And "bad looking"? I'm usually the first person to complain if a modern game looks like shit, but FO4 just... doesn't Like [t]https://bethesda.net/data/images/event/45/Fallout4_graph01.jpg[/t][t]https://bethesda.net/data/images/event/45/Fallout4_graph07.jpg[/t][t]https://bethesda.net/data/images/event/45/Fallout4_graph02.jpg[/t] There's absolutely nothing wrong with these graphics, it looks fine

[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;49063529]I don't think anything should be compared to TW3 yet because it's the only game that looks this good so far, it's an exception, not the average. It's like looking at a car, any car, and going "WELL IT'S NOT A TESLA", come on. And "bad looking"? I'm usually the first person to complain if a modern game looks like shit, but FO4 just... doesn't Like [t]https://bethesda.net/data/images/event/45/Fallout4_graph01.jpg[/t][t]https://bethesda.net/data/images/event/45/Fallout4_graph07.jpg[/t][t]https://bethesda.net/data/images/event/45/Fallout4_graph02.jpg[/t] There's absolutely nothing wrong with these graphics, it looks fine[/QUOTE] While I agree that it doesn't look bad, please refrain from using what are essentially "glamour shots." The screenshots you posted are basically taken in ideal conditions, maybe even with some post-processing added. Instead, post the leak images that aren't horribly compressed. [URL="http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/screenshots-of-fallout-4-for-pc-on-ultra-settings/"]Like these[/URL]. Those are from the PC version on "Ultra" settings. They honestly don't look half bad.

[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;49063529]I don't think anything should be compared to TW3 yet because it's the only game that looks this good so far, it's an exception, not the average. It's like looking at a car, any car, and going "WELL IT'S NOT A TESLA", come on. And "bad looking"? I'm usually the first person to complain if a modern game looks like shit, but FO4 just... doesn't Like [t]https://bethesda.net/data/images/event/45/Fallout4_graph01.jpg[/t][t]https://bethesda.net/data/images/event/45/Fallout4_graph07.jpg[/t][t]https://bethesda.net/data/images/event/45/Fallout4_graph02.jpg[/t] There's absolutely nothing wrong with these graphics, it looks fine[/QUOTE] The only thing that has ever bugged me about Beth graphics, more than anything, is meshes clipping each other. Like in that second image towards the bottom where the sidewalk goes through the ground. I understand not much can be done about it, but there are ways of hiding that stuff. That said, the game looks perfectly fine overall and even seems like a lot of fun to just play, if nothing else. And at the end of the day, that's most of what I want from a Beth RPG.

[QUOTE=Rahu X;49063571]While I agree that it doesn't look bad, please refrain from using what are essentially "glamour shots." The screenshots you posted are basically taken in ideal conditions, maybe even with some post-processing added. Instead, post the leak images that aren't horribly compressed. [URL="http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/screenshots-of-fallout-4-for-pc-on-ultra-settings/"]Like these[/URL]. Those are from the PC version on "Ultra" settings. They honestly don't look half bad.[/QUOTE] I'm looking at the leaked screenshots now and they don't look that much different, the most visible differences are the aliasing and somewhat blurry textures. I'd imagine the screens I posted were just regular shots of the game downsampled from 4K, which would fix both of those issues, other than that I don't think they were edited any further.

[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;49063648]I'm looking at the leaked screenshots now and they don't look that much different, the most visible differences are the aliasing and somewhat blurry textures. I'd imagine the screens I posted were just regular shots of the game downsampled from 4K, which would fix both of those issues, other than that I don't think they were edited.[/QUOTE] I'm not exactly saying they were edited, I'm saying they might have been. It's possible that they weren't at all. I'd rather trust non-shitty leaked images than images posted on the official site at this point for any game. Not to mention the leaked images give you more of a sense of what the game will look like most of the time, instead of in cherry picked conditions by the developer/publisher.

[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;49063529]I don't think anything should be compared to TW3 yet because it's the only game that looks this good so far, it's an exception, not the average. It's like looking at a car, any car, and going "WELL IT'S NOT A TESLA", come on. And "bad looking"? I'm usually the first person to complain if a modern game looks like shit, but FO4 just... doesn't Like -pics- There's absolutely nothing wrong with these graphics, it looks fine[/QUOTE] Comparing to FO3/NV. They defiantly look a hell of a lot better [t]http://vgfaq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/fallout-3-3.jpg[/t] VS [t]https://bethesda.net/data/images/event/45/Fallout4_graph01.jpg[/t]

I think Fallout 4 looks good

[QUOTE=Rahu X;49063457]Well, to be fair, when a game becomes a new standard for most people, do you not expect them to compare future games to their new standard if they're in the same genre? .[/QUOTE] Why the FUCK would the best looking open world RPG be the fucking standard? Do you even know what a standard is for if you're demanding every game one up the preceding game graphically?

I would be more worried about the "less is more" than graphics when it comes to Fallout 4.

[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;49063529] [t]https://bethesda.net/data/images/event/45/Fallout4_graph01.jpg[/t] There's absolutely nothing wrong with these graphics, it looks fine[/QUOTE] There are a few things I see that are bothersome, for one there's a set of buildings that's completely flat. The water doesn't reflect anything. There's also a lovingly zbrushed brick on the ground, and then another low res brick to the right in a pile of low-res trash. Asset consistency would be nice. It doesn't look like they have any cubemap system put in place, none of the unshattered windows have any reflections, the whole game suffers from not having any cubemaps to reference. It looks like they only have light entity based specular, ambient term, and direct lighting. This is on top of the already annoying issue of their materials, it's 2015 and studios should start using procedural texture modifiers, Dice and a number of other studios (Mainly on Unreal, since the material editor lends itself to it) already do this, having macrotextures and microtextures that fade in and break repitition or add detail as you get too close. Especially on Unreal smaller teams do this, but look at most AAA developers and they're using some variation of this, Guerrilla Games, Naughty Dog, Dice, Bungie, 343i, etc. I don't want to hate on Fallout 4, I've preordered it and am counting down to it's release date, I'll probably stay up 24 hours to beat the main story and sidequests in one go. But I see the potential in it, I want FO4 to be a better looking game, because it's steps away from being AAA 10/10 graphics.

I don't want it to be a better looking game because I already won't be able to run it on anything except low :v:

I like Fallout 4's art style and I'm not expecting a tech demo. I'm just tired of themselves acting like godrays are somehow new fangled tech and the like. If they just stuck to what Beth games strengths usually are and hyped those up, I'd be fine. But they're hyping [I]everything[/I] up which they did with Skyrim which came crashing down for a lot of friends.

I don't want photorealism, if I wanted that I could go outside. It doesn't look like a step backwards for the franchise nor subpar for the "current standard" which is all I care about graphics-wise.

[QUOTE=Cows Rule;49066832]I don't want photorealism, if I wanted that I could go outside. It doesn't look like a step backwards for the franchise nor subpar for the "current standard" which is all I care about graphics-wise.[/QUOTE] Photorealism has its place, just not in Fallout imo.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;49059856]You can't see the CND on your weapon because there is no longer any CND to take care of. Not gonna complain, condition/weapon degradation is the worst feature of any RPG ever and it only serves the purpose of pissing everyone off.[/QUOTE] Whaaat, nah I'd love the degradation system if it weren't so easy to deal with and quite poorly implemented. All it means is having ~30 repair and collecting weapons after every fight, which you'll be doing anyway to sell. Anyway I'll never get the opposition to things like that. I love it in System Shock 2 and STALKER, it means you have to quite literally stick to your guns. You can't trust one just lying on the ground to work fine, and if you want to get it out of shit-state you have to invest in its restoration. Guns don't function correctly 100% of the time, especially after a nuclear exchange and decades of degradation. At the end of the day, as well as a hint of authenticity (not realism per se, but emulating reality), it's additional depth to resource management and economy which are important aspects to RPGs.

[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;49074969]Whaaat, nah I'd love the degradation system if it weren't so easy to deal with and quite poorly implemented. All it means is having ~30 repair and collecting weapons after every fight, which you'll be doing anyway to sell. Anyway I'll never get the opposition to things like that. I love it in System Shock 2 and STALKER, it means you have to quite literally stick to your guns. You can't trust one just lying on the ground to work fine, and if you want to get it out of shit-state you have to invest in its restoration. Guns don't function correctly 100% of the time, especially after a nuclear exchange and decades of degradation. At the end of the day, as well as a hint of authenticity (not realism per se, but emulating reality), it's additional depth to resource management and economy which are important aspects to RPGs.[/QUOTE] I don't agree. The Metro series did a good job of having a very swell post-apocalyptic atmosphere and it didn't have weapon degradation. The difference came in that the bolted make-shift weapons were less accurate and such than the military grade ones. And the weapon degradation in System Shock 2 was beyond annoying. You're telling me that in the future, we've got psychic powers and coffee mugs that rotate themselves to stay upright, but our guns degrade in something like 3-4 magazines? STALKER's one was pretty dumb as well. Yes, it makes sense that an M4 dredged out from underneath a dead pig or whatever would be worse for wear, but the only choice you have in repairing stuff is to pay a repairman to do it for you.

About other games and weapon decay: The worst I've seen is in Dying Light. You find a rare weapon, add some rare mods to it, hit an enemy a few times and it breaks. You can repair it three to four times but then it's gone forever. It would have ruined the game for me if I didn't mod it so it doesn't take any damage. While I think Fallout managed it way better, I'm still glad it's gone. I don't like limited use items in games (even if you can repair them) so I always try to keep them for a more demanding situation (if there are alternatives to the items) which never comes.

[QUOTE=DasMatze;49075278]About other games and weapon decay: The worst I've seen is in Dying Light.[/QUOTE] Oh my fucking god, you're so right, I almost never modded my weapons because it just wasn't worth it. Most of the time it made no sense either, how can you "break" a crowbar or a metal pipe by hitting a [I]person[/I]??? The modded ones I can understand, your hastily put together welding and wiring comes loose and breaks, but you can't break a fucking crowbar by hitting flesh like 10 times

Beyond the T51B in Fallout 3 I can't recall ever really having trouble with the repair system. It makes sense that weapons break, and it was far from gamebreaking since weapons were generally abundant.

For me repairing just became a chore, because I literally had stashes of weapons, and an abundance of caps. However, it did add some immersive factors, especially in an overhauled/modded game. The animations for when a weapon jammed due to its degrading quality was a nice touch. Just wish it wasn't as jerky (sometimes the animation skipped frames, had a strange delay). I'd like to see it modded into the game later.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;49075049]I don't agree. The Metro series did a good job of having a very swell post-apocalyptic atmosphere and it didn't have weapon degradation. The difference came in that the bolted make-shift weapons were less accurate and such than the military grade ones. [/quote] Metro isn't exactly non-linear enough to support it though, and takes place over the course of a couple of days. It did have the bastard-gun overheat but it doesn't really count. [quote] And the weapon degradation in System Shock 2 was beyond annoying. You're telling me that in the future, we've got psychic powers and coffee mugs that rotate themselves to stay upright, but our guns degrade in something like 3-4 magazines? [/QUOTE] There was an [url=http://irrationalgames.com/insider/five-cut-features/]unused audio log[/url] in SS2 that effectively hand-waved this. Besides that, it serves the gameplay perfectly for the reasons I stated above. I somewhat agree with you about STALKER, but most mods to allow you to carry repair equipment around. Fallout's implementation however is the "worst" imo. The only time your weapon would jam is upon reloading, otherwise it just reduces the damage output of a given weapon which I find kinda stupid. They don't actually become unusable until their bar reaches 0 which is almost harder to prevent than not.

There is no immersion to be gained here. Your enemies will, largely, be wielding perfectly functional weapons. Why? Because they aren't going to enter into combat with a gun that is in such poor condition that it jams every other round. Guns are not horribly complicated and will often go for well in excess of ten thousand rounds before needing an armorer or replacement parts. The rest of it is basic maintenance.