To be honest I don't really think there's a lot wrong with the graphics - they're passable, and it's an open world game, so hopefully they'll make up for it in content. I'm more concerned about facial animations and overall "clunkiness". The excuse "it's an RPG, play it for the story" is totally irrelevant when immersion is broken at every corner. Also Skyrim had pretty bad questlines in general.
We, or rather I, can't ignore previous Bethesda games when talking about FO4. Still, I'll probably buy it and enjoy it a lot.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;47875622]Just realized they're running a greatly upgraded dishonored engine. This might be interesting, but I feel like it may be a lot smaller than fo3 or skyrim[/QUOTE]
No, they aren't.. Dishonored was UE3 and I can promise you with absolute 100% certainty this is Creation. Why do people keep going on about stuff like this when they're completely wrong?
[editline]4th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=glitchvid;47875688]I doubt it's Unreal Engine.
Also, top left by the sign, I think that's a floating decal (Well, actually a quad, since gambryo) :v:
[t]http://s.gvid.me/s/2015/06/04/zMV623.png[/t][/QUOTE]
Are most decals not quads? That's how I've seen them implemented in most engines.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;47875663]Anyways, I think their should be more empty space between locations in Fallout 4. New Vegas was kind of lame in the sense that their was a randomly useless location every five feet. I want lots to explore, but feel like I actually made a trip to reach someplace.[/QUOTE]
this, that's what i feel like people mean by the whole "theme park" world design
it seems like more work is put into there being ~wow zany~ set pieces every 500 feet than building a fluid structured world
This looks weirdly cartoony and I don't like it one bit
[QUOTE=srobins;47875854]Are most decals not quads? That's how I've seen them implemented in most engines.[/QUOTE]
Rendered, yes. at least in Source decals are "projected" onto a surface, there's also overlays, neither can float without being projected onto something. Gamebryo and a number of other engines actually have you place geometry on top of other geo as a suitable replacement, in Fo3 at least you can see this easily since they're always alpha tested (all those harsh edges), and I assume we'll see the same stuff in Fo4, as evidence by the unrotated plane in the picture.
[editline]4th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=damnatus;47875951]This looks weirdly cartoony and I don't like it one bit[/QUOTE]
I think it fits with the original two games style much better, they had a sort of phong-y early CGI look that this seems to emulate; Though I think much of the reason is in the apparent move to a PBR system.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;47875045]After a fake teaser site that fooled all of us.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about you, but I wasn't dumb enough to fall for a hoax.
I don't understand why people complain about the graphics. For me bethesda's games, what they lack in graphics they make up in gameplay.
In any game, Gameplay > Graphics
[QUOTE=-n3o-;47869695]No, its 2015. We can manage both, just look at GTA V.[/QUOTE]
Look at GTA V's budget though.
[QUOTE=srobins;47874979]Man you REALLY don't like Bethesda huh
[editline]4th June 2015[/editline]
Did Todd Howard disrespect you personally or something? Jesus Christ[/QUOTE]
I said they're using a bad engine and that it shows a lack of effort, nothing I said is at all extreme.
Just because the trailer didn't have me giving a standing ovation to its glory doesn't mean that I act like I have a death grudge with Tod
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;47876257]I said they're using a bad engine and that it shows a lack of effort, nothing I said is at all extreme.
Just because the trailer didn't have me giving a standing ovation to its glory doesn't mean that I act like I have a death grudge with Tod[/QUOTE]
Bethesda generally is a pretty shitty video game company
that's the main issue here, the graphics are just a sign of their incompetence and laziness
Boy sure did miss those janky animations and bad textures. Can't wait for those anti-climactic battle scenes with 4-6 NPCs at most. But hey, that's what the people want so there's no reason they [I]need[/I] to improve there, they just want more. I'd honestly rather play a post-apocalyptic independent game a few dudes put their heart and souls into because I know at least they gave it their all.
Bethesda as a whole has been pretty underwhelming since Oblivion. Can anyone even tell me what has changed since that was released? I'm not saying it needs fantastic graphics, it doesn't. I played the first two after Fallout 3 and was drawn in, that shit is dripping with atmosphere, the new series is like a bad fan fiction. Not even the teaser has changed since fallout 3, it's the same slow zoom out to show the destruction as if you're suppose to feel the weight of nuclear war for the third time. Not to mention the Mad Max reference which was subtle in the first two, only to be absorbed into the actual canon.
It's lame man, it's just lame. I enjoy game development and people who are passionate about it, and this just isn't it. It wouldn't be so bad if it didn't have such gorgeous roots.
[editline]4th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=HWECQI;47875258]No but it does mean that the general opinion on the game is that it's good
doesn't mean everyone is gonna like it but you can get a good gauge on what most people are gonna be okay with via how successful the game was
[editline]4th June 2015[/editline]
Like most people I've talked to in real life tend to prefer Fallout 3 over New Vegas, and that pretty much lines up with how it was reviewed. New Vegas overall scored less in reviews and most people I talk to in real life didn't enjoy it as much.
Success doesn't mean it's objectively good but it usually means most people are gonna think it's a good game
I mean Skyrim didn't sell as much as it did for absolutely no reason, a lot of people really liked it so there has to be something of value there don't you think? It might not be the kinda game you or other people enjoy but there was something in there that was good for a lot of people[/QUOTE]
hitler had a pretty solid general opinion in the beginning. it isn't his fault the guy went insane, and ya'know what? At least he had passion for what he was doing, he went all or nothing. Good general opinion doesn't mean anything. since when has the general public been known to make sweeping fantastic decisions.
hitler had more passion for a new germany than bethesda does for their bastardized game series. Now if you put Adolf in charge of Bethesda, there's some fucking Fallout games i'd play, he would maximize that potential.
[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;47875622]Just realized they're running a greatly upgraded dishonored engine. This might be interesting, but I feel like it may be a lot smaller than fo3 or skyrim[/QUOTE]
It says under the "About This Game" section of Fallout 4 on Steam that it is "their most ambitious game ever", but I don't know if Bethesda has anything to do with what is said there or if it is just steam. If it was Bethesda however I am kinda excited as to what they mean by that, hopefully that they made the game huge because to say it was their most ambitious is a bit hard to believe because of the quantum leap between FO2 and FO3.
[QUOTE=Parakon;47876457]
hitler had more passion for a new germany than bethesda does for their bastardized game series. Now if you put Adolf in charge of Bethesda, there's some fucking Fallout games i'd play, he would maximize that potential.[/QUOTE]
This is my new favourite Godwin of all time.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;47872638]Go play new vegas, look at the [I]wonderful[/I] terrain, and then you come back and tell me they haven't improved in every way.
And everyone knows good art style > "good" graphics[/QUOTE]
I hate it when people use this argument because new vegas is well over [I]5 years old[/I] and it was just a spin off title using the same exact engine/asset quality from Fallout 3 which is [I]7 years old.[/I]
Saying that because it has some improvement over a 7 year old game therefore passable is incredibly low standards. Then to dismiss people who have slightly higher standards because of this fact is just bad reasoning.
The graphics are not good. I don't know why people are trying to pretend they are and defend them. This is by far their "oldest generation" looking game they've released since Morrowind. Oblivion, FO3, and Skyrim all looked pretty damn good the times they came out (even if they weren't the best on the market). FO4 looks like it should have come out in 2010.
Of course, will the graphics matter? Not really, especially since the art style looks nice enough to make up for it. Being Fallout 3 but with a much better art style and a few more effects isn't a bad thing. But please stop pretending it is good and then excusing Bethesda for it.
In my eyes, its not the graphics themselves that worry me (looks good enough TBH). Its the fact that they are still very clearly using their same POS last generation engine they've been using since Morrowind, and what that is going to mean for the scope of the game as a whole.
[editline]4th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Npc_Hydra3;47876828]It says under the "About This Game" section of Fallout 4 on Steam that it is "their most ambitious game ever", but I don't know if Bethesda has anything to do with what is said there or if it is just steam. If it was Bethesda however I am kinda excited as to what they mean by that, hopefully that they made the game huge because to say it was their most ambitious is a bit hard to believe because of the quantum leap between FO2 and FO3.[/QUOTE]
Every game they make has that spiel going for it
Todd Howard is almost as bad as peter molyneux when it comes to making promises and touting grand vision
[QUOTE=Cookie;47874699]Honestly one of the main worries I have is about Fallout 4 not being x64. That's one of biggest problems with Bethesda games, go over 4 gb of ram and it loses its shit.[/QUOTE]
That would be absurd, it would have to be x64 to take advantage of the newer consoles memory which is a must to get the performance they need. Whereas before they never had a reason to cause the previous installments were on shitbox 360 and ps3 both of which are 32 bit.
As a matter of fact I think Xbone and PS4 are 64 bit only
Mostly because Space Engineers had to be 64 bit to work on Xbone, so they upgraded and the feature made its way back to PC.
Honestly the graphics aren't even much of an issue and I don't know why people are getting so bitchy. The real problem with the engine is that we'll likely encounter the usual fuckups found in Bethesda's use of Gamebyro, like stiff animations and objects that go flying when you nudge them. Even though we've had a glimpse of both in the trailer it's really too early to tell so reserve your tears for E3.
[QUOTE=Npc_Hydra3;47876828]It says under the "About This Game" section of Fallout 4 on Steam that it is "their most ambitious game ever", but I don't know if Bethesda has anything to do with what is said there or if it is just steam. If it was Bethesda however I am kinda excited as to what they mean by that, hopefully that they made the game huge because to say it was their most ambitious is a bit hard to believe because of the quantum leap between FO2 and FO3.[/QUOTE]
Every sequel pretty much has 'their most ambitious game ever' written about it.
I thought it was creation and not gamebryo??
Both are the same engine. Creation is just an improved version of Gamebryo. Hope you're not joking with me young man.
Its just Gamebyro with some upgrades and they called it something new.
They'll probably say the same thing about Fallout 4's engine, call it a new engine etc but its the same thing.
I don't get it how has all this dumb graphics flack gone on for so long? Have the people complaining even looked at higher quality screenshots? Or realized that there's not a single uncompressed image yet? I kinda feel like once it's been seen at raw quality, especially at 2k+ resolutions a lot of people are gonna have to reevaluate the game.
Personally I think the art direction and lighting are lovely and these aren't even very high quality images.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/zEVwJDP.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/MrUghKz.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/dl5XOoL.jpg[/img]
Technically there's a number of changes that are pretty safe to infer from what's been shown so far:
modern PBR shaders, filmic HDR tonemapping, depth of field, atmospherics, global illumination, and some subtle form of ssao. I'd say all that plus the increased fidelity and supurb set design/dressing was actually more than people were expecting out of Bethesda.
Artistically I think it it stands alone from, and far above anything they've put out before.
So long as it runs well and has fun gameplay, I don't care if it's not "visually adequate" for a 2015+ game, I'm going to enjoy the hell out of this.
I'm really surprised the graphics discussion is still going. I can honestly say that I find Fallout 4's look to be appealing and pleasant; but yeah I get it, it's not winning any awards. If you want games that push the envelope, go play those games then.
I do get the frustration of it being on Creation engine, but I've made peace with this long before the reveal trailer. It was pretty much expected too by anyone who know's Bethesda.
Also; preordered the game today, cause why not?
Whoever expected 'last of us' tier graphics in a fallout game is fucking delusional to be frank.
[editline]4th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Inspector Jones;47877328]
Also; preordered the game today, cause why not?[/QUOTE]
Even though I'm a huge fan of the fallout series, I still won't pre-order anything. Even Half life 3. It's just a mindset I guess.
People like to discuss stuff why are people acting like it's a bad thing.
(this is a discussion board)
although its pretty neat seeing peoples defensive mechanisms in play. "I will like this game no matter what you say. This is my decision. There are many like it but this one is mine. My decision is my best friend. It is my life."
cool you're free to like it as are people are free to critique it.
You can't judge the graphics of a game based on the first teaser or trailer.
Especially considering they're probably using an early build that has less polish, the shadow quality and texture quality are likely to improve.
I'm mostly worried about facial animation and just animation in general. And I just hope they don't remove certain skills or RPG elements to make the game more accessible.
I guess we'll see what lies Todd Howard will say when he presents the game, it's easy to tell usually it's a really innovative AI game mechanic that gets cut from the final product.
[QUOTE=Parakon;47877475]People like to discuss stuff why are people acting like it's a bad thing.
(this is a discussion board)
although its pretty neat seeing peoples defensive mechanisms in play. "I will like this game no matter what you say. This is my decision. There are many like it but this one is mine. My decision is my best friend. It is my life."
cool you're free to like it as are people are free to critique it.[/QUOTE]
I think people are more surprised at the extent of how much people are saying they think the graphics are bad, rather than the fact that people have a different opinion of the game at all.
are people still complaining about graphics
no ones judging purely the graphics, and people can make whatever assumptions they like based on the history of the company and any other factor.
I think its good to critique stuff but a lot of people get way out of hand when all we've seen is a trailer
Its like some people lost all the joy from gaming and wanna make others miserable who aren't at that point in recent years. Its gotten so bad I've just considered quitting this forum cause all it does is ruin my good mood these days.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.