• Fallout 4 announced by bethesda
    544 replies, posted
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;47873488]No they're right, everything that isn't graphically as good as TW3 or Crysis is shit. Galaga is shit DK Country is total shit Fuck Half Life 1 that pos wtf is super mario 64? a piece of fucking shit[/QUOTE] A game shouldn't look like its 2011 equivalent in 2015. It doesn't need to be Witcher 3 but it needs to at least be improved.
[QUOTE=J Paul;47871711]I understand why bethesda made that design choice, every story in their games revolves around a very basic good versus evil plotline, but I do agree that everyone with high technology should be cocksuckers. The Enclave of course, but the brotherhood should be shitty as well. They have no reason to help anyone. The thing that makes the lore appealing for these kinds of groups is that it seems like through their knowledge and technology, they have a direct connection with the past, and that makes them almost alien because everyone else including the player character exists outside of that in the wasteland, with very little connection to the past. It's like a game where you and your wasteland reject companions take on the 1% and try to steal their tech. None of them should be helping me, I'm probably gonna be raiding their base for loot.[/QUOTE] In a sense the Eastern Brotherhood are still cocksuckers. They regularly kill ghouls and refuse to patrol certain ares of the wastes. The Outcasts are even worse cause they'll willingly raid wasteland settlements because someone their has a working toaster or something.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47873528]A game shouldn't look like its 2011 equivalent in 2015. It doesn't need to be Witcher 3 but it needs to at least be improved.[/QUOTE] It's vastly improved unless you're fucking blind
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47873528]A game shouldn't look like its 2011 equivalent in 2015. It doesn't need to be Witcher 3 but it needs to at least be improved.[/QUOTE] It doesn't, though? did you even watch the trailer? It doesn't look even remotely like Skyrim's graphical quality.
The only reason they don't immediately try to kill Fawkes or Charon is because they're with you. If you weren't there they'd happily kill them. [editline]3rd June 2015[/editline] automergeeee [editline]3rd June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47873528]A game shouldn't look like its 2011 equivalent in 2015. It doesn't need to be Witcher 3 but it needs to at least be improved.[/QUOTE] Who gives a rat's hat how it looks if it plays good. Who gives two rats' hats if it plays good [B]AND[/B] I can mod it to look better.
oh so I guess the year it came out matters now. that must mean pillars of eternity is the worst fucking game ever because it came out in 2015 and looks like this [IMG]http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/15/mrr/pil4.jpg[/IMG] what a crappy game it doesn't even look as good as diablo 3 [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/TmP5D1W.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47873528]A game shouldn't look like its 2011 equivalent in 2015. It doesn't need to be Witcher 3 but it needs to at least be improved.[/QUOTE] [IMG_thumb]http://yachtclubgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/screen_20.png[/IMG_thumb] 2014 release. [IMG]http://i.gyazo.com/5747ab9821767cf1ef2ec834f9d9d7a5.png[/IMG] It's funny how people still think graphics matter.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;47873588]tbh graphics do matter when the studio making the game has an ungodly huge budget and are making a game that will be played for years on end its future proofing the game essentially though yeah a lot of people are really blowing it out of proportion it looks fine[/QUOTE] eh, I don't see why the fact that it's a big company means they have to beef it up to ultra graphics. I can see where you're coming from but at the same time I think they can do whatever the fuck they want the same way a small time dev can
Regardless of where you stand on the announcement, there's one good thing we can all agree on. We'll get more of these videos when the game comes out: [video=youtube;ZmWrgwde7O8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmWrgwde7O8&index=2&list=PL2465908B613C746B[/video]
My gripe with Beth's use of Gamebryo isn't so much the graphics as it's the poor performance, floaty movement and bad combat. Especially the combat. But like said earlier, that probably has more to do with BethSoft than with Gamebryo
Serious spoilers in the link below potentially. But looks like the leak was credible a year ago [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/28v2dn/i_played_fallout_4"]https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/28v2dn/i_played_fallout_4[/URL] Sorry if late.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47873578] It's funny how people still think graphics matter.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RichyZ;47873588]tbh graphics do matter when the studio making the game has an ungodly huge budget and are making a game that will be played for years on end its future proofing the game essentially though yeah a lot of people are really blowing it out of proportion it looks fine[/QUOTE] Videogame visuals or graphics are more complicated than this though, at least in my opinion. Shovel Knight is graphically amazing for an 8 bit game, being 8 bit doesn't diminish the fact that the team behind it had a solid art style they were going with and were able to construct a world and story to go with it. Being able to put everything together made the game visually appealing, thus the grahics are "good". GTA 5 is graphically amazing as well because you can see a lot of minor details all over the world that you wouldn't get in many other sandbox games. However, that doesn't mean there aren't bad graphics in GTA worth mentioning, like how the lines and textures on roads float above the surface so your characters feet go through them. Presentation, execution, and style are all important parts of a games overall graphics, but if everyone looks like they're covered in vaseline and saran wrap and they shouldn't, those are bad visuals.
uhh whats up with the cartoony look of the characters? the environment itself looks MUCH more colorful and detailed which is nice but it also looks more like a MMO-Cartoon artstyle..
I'm just going to quote somebody on Reddit who is a lot better at putting his opinion into words than me. [QUOTE]Bingo. The question in the OP is chasing a foregone conclusion: that everyone is bitching about the graphics because they expect new games to push the envelope. I'm very much a "gameplay over graphics" person - I can't even *begin* to imagine how many hundreds of hours I have into Minecraft - but there's no excuse for Fallout 4 not to at least look like a game *from this decade*. Except there is - and that excuse is that Bethesda is still using the same godawful engine. *That* is my problem with the graphics, because it already tells me that Fallout 4 will almost certainly be plagued by all the same issues that made vanilla Oblivion, Fallout 3 and New Vegas (I haven't played Morrowind extensively enough to comment on that title) such unsatisfying experiences, assuming you managed to get them to run without crashing in the first place. I can hate on the graphics because they are *simple proof* that Bethesda isn't interested in innovating, isn't interested in learning from their past mistakes, isn't interested in making the effort to craft a truly superior product - in short, Fallout 4 looks like it's going to be just another formulaic sequel that Bethesda will expect modders to polish into something worthy of acclaim (except this time maybe we'll have to pay for the privelege). Whether or not it was *expected* that Fallout 4 would use Gamebryo, considering it's been five years since the last game, I think everyone was hoping for something that looked and played (as far as we can tell from the trailer, anyway) a little better than a lightly-modded New Vegas. All in all, *huge* disappointment. I'm not even going to bother to *pirate* Fallout 4 until the modding community has had a few months to fire up and release some fixes/tweaks to what I'm sure will be another grand experiment by Bethesda into just how half-finished a product they can sell to starving fanboys for sixty bucks. [/QUOTE]
I don't understand how the graphics not looking as good as they could matters as long as the art direction's in the right place. The graphics won't make or break the game, if you think it would have been a better game 5 years ago or it won't be as good 5 years down the line because of how graphics age then you're stupid. As long as it's not ass ugly then it won't impair your enjoyment.
[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;47873667]I don't understand how the graphics not looking as good as they could matters as long as the art direction's in the right place. The graphics won't make or break the game, if you think it would have been a better game 5 years ago or it won't be as good 5 years down the line because of how graphics age then you're stupid. As long as it's not ass ugly then it won't impair your enjoyment.[/QUOTE] Because it shows a lack of effort and that they're using the same terrible engine as always.
[QUOTE=Altimor;47873191]Can someone point me towards the poor graphics? I'm not seeing them. There aren't any noticeable low res textures, there aren't any noticeable polygon edges, the lighting looks good, the terrain blends together well and the shadows are high resolution and look good even up close between two moving objects. Look at when the vault guy puts his hand on the dog and casts a shadow on the dog's neck. There are no artifacts and no visible blurring/pixelation there and that's pretty impressive. The only thing I can really pick out is the 2d background scenery not being quite high res enough but that's minor and took me a while to notice.[/QUOTE] The dog textures look terrible imo. Thats pretty much all i can see.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47873693]Because it shows a lack of effort and that they're using the same terrible engine as always.[/QUOTE] This might get me some flak but I don't have a problem with the engine tbh. [editline]3rd June 2015[/editline] I mean the movement is floaty, the physics are weird, animations are choppy. But so what? It's an RPG. The focal point is story, developing your character and then interacting with the world. That's why even Oblivion was more enjoyable than Skyrim. Skyrim looked nice and ran better but in terms of character development, story and world interaction it fucked up really bad.
The engine Bethesda uses doesn't bother me right up until something goes glaringly wrong as a result of it, and i have to load a save from 4 hours ago because a door in whatever title im playing decides it wont open, or an important npc wont talk to me, attacks me for no reason or simply doesn't show up where they were supposed to at all. I seriously never get bugs like this in any game that isnt a Bethesda title.
On a note that isn't about the graphics, what is it about Fallout that really makes the game an enjoyable experience for you guys? To me, it's the use of one of my favorite time periods (the 50s, when we had the nicest looking cars and fashion and music imo) and the way it seemed to combine it into the future that the late 50's Americans dreamed of (very neat-o technology and gadgets). Of course the ghostly remains of this awesome period of time is another beauty of the game. Fuck, I need to go explore New Vegas again...
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;47873716]This might get me some flak but I don't have a problem with the engine tbh. [editline]3rd June 2015[/editline] I mean the movement is floaty, the physics are weird, animations are choppy. But so what? It's an RPG. The focal point is story, developing your character and then interacting with the world. That's why even Oblivion was more enjoyable than Skyrim. Skyrim looked nice and ran better but in terms of character development, story and world interaction it fucked up really bad.[/QUOTE] Well yeah, but why expect that to change? They made bank with Skyrim, everyone is already preordering happily and they clearly have made no effort to update their engine or their graphics so we already know they probably don't care all that much. Their engine is exceptionally buggy, makes everything look and feel off and the RPG aspects just aren't good enough to compensate.
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;47873716] But so what? It's an RPG. The focal point is story, developing your character and then interacting with the world. That's why even Oblivion was more enjoyable than Skyrim. Skyrim looked nice and ran better but in terms of character development, story and world interaction it fucked up really bad.[/QUOTE] Yeah because as we all know, this game is more likely to be closer to Morrowind in the narrative department than Skyrim, right?
[QUOTE=Sector 7;47873293]yeah personally I did not notice them being bad at all the environments had a lot of strong art direction, they were colorful, and there are apparently actual crowds of people, which is a new one for bethesda[/QUOTE] Not colorful, art direction was alright, but as Fallout 3's main environment problem was just the "wasteland thempark" it's really the best way to describe it. The entire gameworld was a featureless and unexplained facade that was completely lacking in narrative depth and general believably. Just looking good is only half the job in building a rich gameworld. Like you can really tell they took a fantasy mindset into their sci-fi venture. You had towns with no running water and no food and yet they were inhabited by people who don't seem to do anything but complain, and/or do weird stuff on a day to day basis instead of, you know... trying to survive. In Fallout 1/2 and New Vegas, almost every settlement you stumble into has a big farming and irrigation system and an actual labor community, and if they don't, it's otherwise explained as to how they get by. It may seem like a trivial detail but I don't think it's too much to ask to have a living, breathing well thought out game world instead of a disney-world ridealong set-piece with almost no semblance of a working economy or agricultural infrastructure. So, while fallout 3 had a solid art direction, a lot of the environment design was ultimately lackluster because it was just an empty themepark with perma-hostile raiders, super mutants and deranged robot "inhabitants"
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47873793]Well yeah, but why expect that to change? They made bank with Skyrim, everyone is already preordering happily and they clearly have made no effort to update their engine or their graphics so we already know they probably don't care all that much. Their engine is exceptionally buggy, makes everything look and feel off and the RPG aspects just aren't good enough to compensate.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;47873802]Yeah because as we all know, this game is more likely to be closer to Morrowind in the narrative department than Skyrim, right?[/QUOTE] Alright, you two are putting words into my mouth. I have not voiced my opinion on this new Fallout game at all. All I said was graphics aren't everything and I didn't think gamebryo was a bad engine. But I guess just so we're clear I thought Fallout 3 was good, I liked Fallout 3. I think Fallout 3's RPG elements did hold up nicely. I played Fallout 3 more than I played Fallout NV. Based on how I felt about Fallout 3 and the Fallout series, not taking TES into account, I think Fallout 4 might be a good game but I'm gunna wait until I play it to actually form a solid opinion that I would argue.
Its likely just my bias, cause I love fallout 3/New Vegas, but I'm really excited for Fallout 4.
fucking bethesda and their aus tax. 80 bucks here.
I think you're an idiot if you suggest they aren't putting work into this. In the trailer, there are no reused assets. They reimagined and redesigned literally every object in the game. Even super simple shit like bridges gained a space age touch with rocket fin looking support structures. I really don't understand these complaints about the "theme park" aesthetic. That was always in Fallout to some extent. It's inspired by the 50s' silly vision of the future - it's just more present now, and I think that's a good thing, because they clearly put a lot of work into the aesthetic. It means attention to detail, and that means, even if the graphics are outdated, that the game itself will have heart. And on the engine; as much as I hate Bethbryo it's kind of charmingly awful at times with the goofy physics and silly glitches. If they buckle down and fix the save corrupting bugs I think it'll be fine. It is, at least, very easy to mod.
Am I the only one who doesnt really have much of a problem with how it looks, or how fallout games have been in the past?
[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;47874016]fucking bethesda and their aus tax. 80 bucks here.[/QUOTE] The £50 tag makes it 75 bucks in the UK, and it's a little over 80 dollarydoos in Brazil. Russia gets it for 40 something for some reason.
Since it seems that they're using the same engine I hope they at least did a shit ton of bug fixes. And I won't buy it till there's a lot of mods and community bug fixes available. That way the visuals will be amazing (hoping for an HD texture pack like Skyrim and a model fixing pack). Playing fallout 3 with a texture pack was great if it didn't crash lol.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.