Fallout 4

By +Frank B.
in Gamers' Hangout

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

That trailer was terrible. What's with the PS3 / X360 era graphics? The flat texturing on the dog and wooden animations are just embarrassing. Not impressed at all.

 

I'm sure the game will be enjoyable but those graphics are inexcusable.

Proficient

Jarrichvdv

Posted
Posted

That trailer was terrible. What's with the PS3 / X360 era graphics? The flat texturing on the dog and wooden animations are just embarrassing. Not impressed at all.

 

I'm sure the game will be enjoyable but those graphics are inexcusable.

Graphics first for you? Guess they don't want to experience these irritating "downgrade" debacles by pixelfreaks.

  • Hedon and Psyco359
  • Like 2
Mentor

gohpep

Posted
Posted

That trailer was terrible. What's with the PS3 / X360 era graphics? The flat texturing on the dog and wooden animations are just embarrassing. Not impressed at all.

 

I'm sure the game will be enjoyable but those graphics are inexcusable.

Fallout isn't really a graphics game. And the graphics are fine. They're not horrible.

Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

Graphics first for you? Guess they don't want to experience these irritating "downgrade" debacles by pixelfreaks.

I never said 'graphics first'. I was simply commenting on the very weak graphics, as it's not like we have anything else to go on. Fallout 3 was also dated for its era and that hurt the game for me, even though overall I enjoyed it a lot. It's not just the engine either, as I've always preferred the art direction of the Elder Scrolls franchise.

 

Fallout isn't really a graphics game. And the graphics are fine. They're not horrible.

If the best they can be called is "fine" then that's pretty poor. When we have games like The Witcher 3, Assassin's Creed: Unity and Far Cry 4 pushing graphics I don't see any excuse for a major franchise like Fallout 4 to have such weak graphics.

 

Are graphics the be-all-and-end-all of gaming? Absolutely not, but they are certainly a factor. This is a next-gen title yet the graphics looked decidedly last-gen. There are plenty of games that achieve great things with relatively simple engines (Team Fortress 2, Dishonored, Alien: Isolation, Bioshock Infinite, etc), so it's not all about polygon counts or tessellation. Considering it has been so long I was hoping for something better, something more competitive with other open-world titles.

Veteran

Louisifer

Posted
Posted

I don't think Fallout has ever been known to push the boundaries of graphics, they give you a great adventure where people change depending on your style of play.

 

I thought it looked great, cant wait to see actual gameplay, I was late to the Fallout franchise (started with NV) and I'm really looking forward to starting with everyone else in a place that hasn't been wiki'd to death. :D 

Grand Master

compl3x

Posted
Posted

Saying that you want sexy graphics isn't suggesting that is the only thing you care about. It doesn't need to always be photorealism, but it should always be within its generation of power. It's not and either-or proposition either. Since when does great gameplay or story suggest it can't look great too?

 

This might be an aesthetic choice or something.

 

 

Wow, that looked AWESOME! There is no question this will be a day one game.

 

No way. As much as I love these games, day one is bug city. In the case of Fallout, it is post-apocalyptic, radroach city.

  • theyarecomingforyou
  • Like 1
Mentor

gohpep

Posted
Posted

I never said 'graphics first'. I was simply commenting on the very weak graphics, as it's not like we have anything else to go on. Fallout 3 was also dated for its era and that hurt the game for me, even though overall I enjoyed it a lot. It's not just the engine either, as I've always preferred the art direction of the Elder Scrolls franchise.

 

If the best they can be called is "fine" then that's pretty poor. When we have games like The Witcher 3, Assassin's Creed: Unity and Far Cry 4 pushing graphics I don't see any excuse for a major franchise like Fallout 4 to have such weak graphics.

 

Are graphics the be-all-and-end-all of gaming? Absolutely not, but they are certainly a factor. This is a next-gen title yet the graphics looked decidedly last-gen. There are plenty of games that achieve great things with relatively simple engines (Team Fortress 2, Dishonored, Alien: Isolation, Bioshock Infinite, etc), so it's not all about polygon counts or tessellation. Considering it has been so long I was hoping for something better, something more competitive with other open-world titles.

Yeah, I do agree that the graphics aren't stunning, but they're acceptable. They're not so bad that you don't want to play the game. Of course they could have done better. And perhaps they're trying to be honest by not hyping the graphics, like Watch Dogs and The Witcher 3.

 

For me, Skyrim was horrible. Most of the rocks have square borders, and the textures are badly mixed in many places. Though barring those glitches, it was a beautiful game.

Grand Master

+Red King Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted (edited)

Bethesda's engines offer poor performance and cannot handle multiple enemies on screen ... so games like Fallout, Oblivion, and Skyrim have small unimpressive battles.

All three also look terrible.

I am not impressed with the new trailer - looks like its the same limiting last-gen engine.

Which is unacceptable for a AAA title.

FFS looks at the hair in Witcher 3 and compare it with Fallout 4 doggy.

Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I do agree that the graphics aren't stunning, but they're acceptable. They're not so bad that you don't want to play the game. Of course they could have done better. And perhaps they're trying to be honest by not hyping the graphics, like Watch Dogs and The Witcher 3.

 

For me, Skyrim was horrible. Most of the rocks have square borders, and the textures are badly mixed in many places. Though barring those glitches, it was a beautiful game.

Skyrim did a lot with a pretty basic engine. Graphically it was far from cutting edge but overall the art style was decent. For me the Fallout games have never matched that quality, as I much preferred Oblivion to Fallout 3 (in terms of aesthetics).

 

I'm still looking forward to Fallout 4, it's just not as much of a step forward as I was hoping.

Veteran

+Asmodai MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

That trailer was terrible. What's with the PS3 / X360 era graphics? The flat texturing on the dog and wooden animations are just embarrassing. Not impressed at all.

 

I'm sure the game will be enjoyable but those graphics are inexcusable.

I don't think Fallout games get their own engine.  The engine work is done for the Elder Scrolls games and then the Fallout games piggyback.  Fallout 3 used the Oblivion engine and Fallout 4 likely uses the Skyrim engine (the "Creation Engine").  So at its core it's a 2011 engine (with some minor updates no doubt).  It looks like it's current gen only now but since these games are multi-year deals I've little doubt it started with support for 360 and PS3.  In fact was evidence it may still be right up to the announcement:

Example

If you want a major engine revamp from Skyrim you're going to have to wait for the next Elder Scrolls.  That being said I'd be happy with a Skyrim release for PS4 so I'm fine with this using essentially the same engine as long as the world is big and alive and interesting to play in.

Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

I don't think Fallout games get their own engine.  The engine work is done for the Elder Scrolls games and then the Fallout games piggyback.  Fallout 3 used the Oblivion engine and Fallout 4 likely uses the Skyrim engine (the "Creation Engine").  So at its core it's a 2011 engine (with some minor updates no doubt).  It looks like it's current gen only now but since these games are multi-year deals I've little doubt it started with support for 360 and PS3.  In fact was evidence it may still be right up to the announcement:

Example

It probably was intended for last-gen consoles, given it looks like it's based on the same engine as Skyrim. It wouldn't surprise me if support was dropped relatively late into development. What's clear is that this isn't a next-gen title. I wish the engine was developed independently of the Elder Scrolls franchise, as each game should be iterating and improving the engine - especially when we're talking about four years since Skyrim. At the very least I was expecting a new art direction.

 

The biggest problem for me is that this doesn't look 'new'. It looks like it's retreading the same territory, which is not what I want from a sequel. It looks more like a Bioshock 2 than a Half-Life 2. A new art direction could have really set this title apart without needing a new engine, like Valve did with Team Fortress 2 or like Arkane did for Dishonored with the rather tired Unreal Engine 3. Even the use of the Brotherhood Of Steel armour is going over the same territory, as the image at the end is the same armour as the Fallout 3 boxart. There's nothing here that screams 'wow, this is new and innovative'.

 

This is Fallout 3.5.

Veteran

+Asmodai MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

I wish the engine was developed independently of the Elder Scrolls franchise, as each game should be iterating and improving the engine - especially when we're talking about four years since Skyrim.

I don't think Bethesda Game Studios (the individual studio responsible for Elders Scrolls and Fallout, not to be confused with Bethesda Softworks the publishing arm or Zenimax Media the parent company.) has all that many people.

It is reasonable for them to expect more than one game out of an engine. Their games take so long to make because without a HUGE team making all the spoons, books, etc. of their open world games it takes a lot of time.

That's also why a lot of work is being done in the game industry in general on procedural content generation. They're trying to try and cut down on those times but Elder Scrolls tried that already in Daggerfall (some would say prematurely) and seem to be a bit gun shy on using it again, instead preferring to rely on human made assets.

At the very least I was expecting a new art direction.

The biggest problem for me is that this doesn't look 'new'. It looks like it's retreading the same territory, which is not what I want from a sequel. It looks more like a Bioshock 2 than a Half-Life 2. A new art direction could have really set this title apart without needing a new engine, like Valve did with Team Fortress 2 or like Arkane did for Dishonored with the rather tired Unreal Engine 3. Even the use of the Brotherhood Of Steel armour is going over the same territory, as the image at the end is the same armour as the Fallout 3 boxart. There's nothing here that screams 'wow, this is new and innovative'.

I think to a lot of people the art style is one of the things that define a Fallout game. More Fallout fans would likely be upset by them radically changing the art style and leaving out the signature Brotherhood of Steel armor than would be happy about the change. 

This is Fallout 3.5.

I don't think that's a fair statement. Fallout 3 used the Gamebryo engine from Oblivion. Moving to the Skyrim engine IS a big upgrade from Fallout 3/Oblivion even if it is still last gen.

I think it would be fair to say that Fallout 4 is Skyrim with the Fallout 3 art style though.

I think for A LOT of people that's fine though. I have little doubt it will sell extremely well even if it's not pushing the technology envelope.

Grand Master

compl3x

Posted
Posted

Perhaps this is a dumb question, and I apologise if it is, but why can unpaid mod makers make some of these older games look awesome but the devs themselves seem restrained from doing so?

 

Is it just to ensure compatibility among a larger pool of hardware?

Veteran

+Asmodai MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

Perhaps this is a dumb question, and I apologise if it is, but why can unpaid mod makers make some of these older games look awesome but the devs themselves seem restrained from doing so?

 

Is it just to ensure compatibility among a larger pool of hardware?

 

Unpaid mod makers make their mods on PCs with superior hardware specs.  The devs themselves make the game so it will run on consoles.

Veteran

Louisifer

Posted
Posted

...At the very least I was expecting a new art direction.

 

...It looks like it's retreading the same territory ....A new art direction could have really set this title apart ...Even the use of the Brotherhood Of Steel armour is going over the same territory, as the image at the end is the same armour as the Fallout 3 boxart. There's nothing here that screams 'wow, this is new and innovative'.

 

It's like you've forgotten what Fallout is, everything in all of the games is a result of that great war... BoS armour wont change apart from special variations usually developed pre-war. The art style will always stay true to what it is.. pre-war and knackered.

 

Anything "new and innovative" will always be made from existing items, they don't have facilities to innovate like the pre-war times.

The only way I see them introducing new things is if they leave North America and visit Asia/Europe but I don't see that happening any time soon, I'm pretty sure they have enough lore to keep the NA story going for a while. :)

Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

I don't think Bethesda Game Studios (the individual studio responsible for Elders Scrolls and Fallout, not to be confused with Bethesda Softworks the publishing arm or Zenimax Media the parent company.) has all that many people.

It is reasonable for them to expect more than one game out of an engine. Their games take so long to make because without a HUGE team making all the spoons, books, etc. of their open world games it takes a lot of time.

That's not what I mean. They should be improving the engine constantly so that developers on both franchises are contributing to improving it, rather than it being the Elder Scrolls games that have the visual leaps. It's been four years since Skyrim and yet the improvements are minimal. I'm not talking about hiring more people, just of sharing the tech advancements.

 

I think to a lot of people the art style is one of the things that define a Fallout game. More Fallout fans would likely be upset by them radically changing the art style and leaving out the signature Brotherhood of Steel armor than would be happy about the change.

The art style wasn't one of the strengths of Fallout 3 and there has been criticism from Fallout fans that Bethesda is focusing on the BoS when the universe is much larger than that. I'm not talking about an animated style like Team Fortress 2 but I'd like to see something with a bit more character, something to distinguish it from Fallout 3. I'm just not seeing that.

Grand Master

trag3dy

Posted
Posted

Perhaps this is a dumb question, and I apologise if it is, but why can unpaid mod makers make some of these older games look awesome but the devs themselves seem restrained from doing so?

 

Is it just to ensure compatibility among a larger pool of hardware?

 

Because unlike the original devs mod makers don't have to worry about getting the game to work on 3 trillion different pc configurations. They just need to make it work on their one pc configuration.

 

Also the original devs have deadlines and such to meet. I'm sure if you gave them all the time they wanted without restraints they could do the same stuff and better, too. But eventually a game has to be "finished" and sold as a product.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing