Fallout 4

By +Frank B.
in Gamers' Hangout

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

compl3x

Posted
Posted

So does that make the argument that consoles are holding PC games back disingenuous? Surely there are a lot of older PC which have pretty low specs. Devs would have to account for them just like the devs have account for console hardware now.

 

Wouldn't consoles be even easier to work with? All the hardware is identical; there is no concern with compatibility.

Veteran

Louisifer

Posted
Posted

Wouldn't consoles be even easier to work with? All the hardware is identical; there is no concern with compatibility.

-

Why can unpaid mod makers make some of these older games look awesome but the devs themselves seem restrained from doing so?

 

 

That's how the industry works today, it works great for the first few years of a consoles life, but as the years go by and even the low end PC's start to surpass its performance, this leads to consoles holding back PC gaming again.

Profit drives the industry! I'm glad we have passionate fans that pick up the slack that the publishers wallets leave behind.

 

A passionate fan has no time restrictions and a passionate Dev has no time or budget. :(

Rising Star

NightScreams

Posted
Posted

No TressFX on the dog eh? Personally I'm not that impressed visually, likely I'm spoiled but the textures look dated and nothing too exciting to look at but at least the lighting is decent. I kinda hoped for more of a Crysis 3 look where nature has started to reclaim all the old destroyed buildings. Even Chernobyl has lush greenery.

Grand Master

DrunknMunky Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

So after some time on Reddit I have stumbled across this: I played Fallout 4 it was posted 11 months ago and was laughed at by everyone, turns out its spot on so far.. :o

 

It's not that hard to paint a picture like this. Where and when do most big games like this have their announcements? E3. The Bethesda staff were seen in Boston (MIT) taking research photos years ago. The story driven around "Massachusetts Institute of Technology: MIT" with a focus on technology at the heart of the plot again is standard for Fallout.

 

With the rumour about losing Ron Perlman as narrator, it's not hard to imagine they'd have the player narrate their own story either.

Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

No TressFX on the dog eh? Personally I'm not that impressed visually, likely I'm spoiled but the textures look dated and nothing too exciting to look at but at least the lighting is decent. I kinda hoped for more of a Crysis 3 look where nature has started to reclaim all the old destroyed buildings. Even Chernobyl has lush greenery.

Actually, I think the lighting is one of the worst aspects. It's all flat. It looks like RAGE, where all the lighting is pre-baked. The shadows are all very low resolution and imprecise. The shadow draw distance is also poor, with shadows appearing at their end and streaming in (see 2:04 and look at the chimneys on the rooftops). Compare it to a modern game like Far Cry 4 or The Witcher 3 and it looks terrible.

 

As for Crysis 3, that's a good example of how an overgrown world should look. Obviously the colour palette is different but in terms of fidelity it's a good comparison. If you look at the road at the end of the Fallout 4 trailer the grass is all 2D sprites with flat intersections where they join the ground. The rocks are all extremely low polygon and the character models barely have any detail whatsoever. The blue suit at the end is basically just a solid colour with very little texture detail. I've seen free mods with better graphics. I'm not exaggerating when I say it's PS3 / X360 era graphics.

Mentor

gohpep

Posted
Posted

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.

Yeah, the game looks beautiful, excluding those minor irregularities. They did an amazing job. I agree with you, but I'm not sure for the same reason, as I just prefer medieval settings.

 

Sure, graphically, it might be Fallout 3.5, but we're going to see how good the story is to actually tell how far they went. Let's just hope they didn't just do this to cash on a sequel's legacy, like Elder Scrolls Online.

Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I normally focus on gameplay over graphics, but it is disappointing to see a new game being released in 2015 that doesn't use modern rendering techniques. Things like PBR and bounced lighting should be the norm by now.

Edit: Still getting it of course.

  • theyarecomingforyou
  • Like 1
Grand Master

soniqstylz

Posted
Posted

Actually, I think the lighting is one of the worst aspects. It's all flat. It looks like RAGE, where all the lighting is pre-baked. The shadows are all very low resolution and imprecise. The shadow draw distance is also poor, with shadows appearing at their end and streaming in (see 2:04 and look at the chimneys on the rooftops). Compare it to a modern game like Far Cry 4 or The Witcher 3 and it looks terrible.

 

As for Crysis 3, that's a good example of how an overgrown world should look. Obviously the colour palette is different but in terms of fidelity it's a good comparison. If you look at the road at the end of the Fallout 4 trailer the grass is all 2D sprites with flat intersections where they join the ground. The rocks are all extremely low polygon and the character models barely have any detail whatsoever. The blue suit at the end is basically just a solid colour with very little texture detail. I've seen free mods with better graphics. I'm not exaggerating when I say it's PS3 / X360 era graphics.

 

So something like this

 

the-last-of-us-car-wrecks.jpg

Grand Master

theyarecomingforyou

Posted
Posted

So something like this

That's artwork, not in-game.

 

Here's an in-game screenshot.

 

crysis3_2013_02_19_01brs9w.png

 

It's worth pointing out that Crysis 3 was released two years ago. That means developers have had time to analyse it and incorporate techniques into their development. The engine is able to be licensed and has been used for MMOs, so scales to large environments.

 

There really isn't any excuse for the terrible graphics seen in the trailer.

Mentor

Jub

Posted
Posted

It's worth pointing out that Crysis 3 was released two years ago. That means developers have had time to analyse it and incorporate techniques into their development. The engine is able to be licensed and has been used for MMOs, so scales to large environments.

 

There really isn't any excuse for the terrible graphics seen in the trailer.

 

I agree fully with the people who say that gameplay should come first, and that graphics isn't the most important aspect of the game. And yet I must agree with you too, because graphics does increase immersion and makes the world more believable which does enhance gameplay (greatly). That's why there are so many thousand gigabytes of mods for Fallout and Elder Scrolls to make the games look and behave better.

 

I'm currently playing a game called ArcheAge which is indeed built on CryEngine 3. It runs at 125 FPS on average on my machine, and the worlds are massive with huge amounts of intractable items. I'm not saying Bethesda should license it, but it's definitely possible to get more out of a game engine than what they're doing with Gamebryo.

 

The saving point is that Fallout 4 will be moddable and scriptable. I do prioritise that over a "superior" game engine, but then again, I'm pretty sure one does not exclude the other. Pretty sure the developers would do (even more) amazing things with the Fallout and Elder Scrolls franchises if they didn't have corporate and marketing douchebags on top telling them to cut costs. :(

 

In any case, I'm so excited and I can't wait. It's going to be great, no matter how ugly. There's always Boris and the Nexus.  :rolleyes:

  • theyarecomingforyou
  • Like 1
Grand Master

FloatingFatMan

Posted
Posted

If it is some mobile bull.... or as Shad said an effin' MMO I am going to catch a plane to the U.S. drive up to their HQ in Maryland and hit them all in the head with a hammer.

 

That's kinda how I felt after about my 14th attempt at that frigging giant robot section in FO3...

Whilst a single player FO4 is preferable, I and i'm sure many others would play the shizz out of a fall out mmo.

 

I wouldn't say no to an MMO set in the same world... Just as long as they keep the single player part.

 

Maybe just an online mode like GTA V?  That could be cool...

Grand Master

soniqstylz

Posted
Posted

It's not that hard to paint a picture like this. Where and when do most big games like this have their announcements? E3. The Bethesda staff were seen in Boston (MIT) taking research photos years ago. The story driven around "Massachusetts Institute of Technology: MIT" with a focus on technology at the heart of the plot again is standard for Fallout.

 

With the rumour about losing Ron Perlman as narrator, it's not hard to imagine they'd have the player narrate their own story either.

 

ifdpz4z0zfwaqelfcsnh.jpg

Veteran

+Asmodai MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

I'm currently playing a game called ArcheAge which is indeed built on CryEngine 3. It runs at 125 FPS on average on my machine, and the worlds are massive with huge amounts of intractable items. I'm not saying Bethesda should license it, but it's definitely possible to get more out of a game engine than what they're doing with Gamebryo.

Just as a point of fact Oblivion and Fallout 3 used Gamebryo but Skyrim used their own internally developed "Creation Engine" which is almost certainly what Fallout 4 uses.

I really don't think they want to license an engine from anyone anymore preferring instead to build their own. I think that's part of why they bought id Software as well to get the engine development skills of John Carmack.

Of course that went badly for them when he jumped shipped to go work on VR at Oculus (I believe there is a lawsuit involved now) so they went out and got the CryEngine lead developer Tiago Sousa to jump ship. Source

Fallout 4 is almost certainly still using the Skyrim Engine though (with minor tweaks), we likely won't see a major engine upgrade until Elder Scrolls VI.

 

Pretty sure the developers would do (even more) amazing things with the Fallout and Elder Scrolls franchises if they didn't have corporate and marketing douchebags on top telling them to cut costs. :(

It don't think it's marketing or cost cutting that's holding them back from a technology point of view. I think it's console specs. They're going to make a game that runs well on the Xbox One and PS4 so that limits what the PC version can do.

They also want to use each major engine version for one game each of Elder Scrolls and Fallout so (maybe that's cost driven, maybe it's time) Fallout ends up just reusing whatever the Elder Scrolls before it used (with some tweaks).

Elder Scrolls VI will launch a new true current gen engine but even then the PC version will be held back by the PS4 and Xbox One. Fallout 5 will likely use that engine as well.

From a Tech perspective Fallout 4 is Skyrim with the Fallout 3 art style in a new city.

Mentor

Jub

Posted
Posted

Just as a point of fact Oblivion and Fallout 3 used Gamebryo but Skyrim used their own internally developed "Creation Engine" which is almost certainly what Fallout 4 uses.

I really don't think they want to license an engine from anyone anymore preferring instead to build their own. I think that's part of why they bought id Software as well to get the engine development skills of John Carmack.

 

Creation Kit is most certainly an evolution of Gamebryo, considering bugs and other quirks from Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Fallout: NV were still present in Skyrim. They received quite a few nasty words for this after launch, considering what they promised.

 

I also don't think they want to license another game engine at this point either, but you should keep in mind that Gamebryo wasn't theirs. It was/is licensed. Also, I'd hazard a guess and say they bought id Software for their IPs and potential revenue, not for their technology. So far, id has not developed an engine suitable for large-scale games like Elder Scrolls or Fallout.

 

 

It don't think it's marketing or cost cutting that's holding them back from a technology point of view. I think it's console specs. They're going to make a game that runs well on the Xbox One and PS4 so that limits what the PC version can do.

 

Yes and no. Look at other games running on the current-gen consoles. Assassin's Creed: Unity, Far Cry 4, The Witcher 3, etc. They're all massive, and they're beautiful. As a software engineer, I can almost guarantee it's all to do with efficiency.

 

Whichever case it might be, like I've said before, I put graphics way after story, lore and gameplay. I'm so excited. (And I really can't quite hide it.)

Grand Master

soniqstylz

Posted
Posted

Question -- with all the remasters we've seen, would any of you (non-PC gamers) have picked up a remastered version of Skyrim (or maybe ES3/4/5 together) if BethSoft made it as a way to a) cash grab and further fund development, and b) get accustomed to the new hardware and make a better FO4?

Rising Star

NightScreams

Posted
Posted

That's artwork, not in-game.

 

Here's an in-game screenshot.

 

crysis3_2013_02_19_01brs9w.png

 

It's worth pointing out that Crysis 3 was released two years ago. That means developers have had time to analyse it and incorporate techniques into their development. The engine is able to be licensed and has been used for MMOs, so scales to large environments.

 

There really isn't any excuse for the terrible graphics seen in the trailer.

 

Yeah I had hoped F4 would have settled with an art direction similar to that because it's a great and plausible way to evolve the world of Fallout so it doesn't feel like retreaded territory again. Chernobyl despite all it's radiation hot spots is quite over grown so what Crysis 3 did is much more realistic as  well as being pretty.

  • theyarecomingforyou
  • Like 1
Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Chernobyl wasn't the site of a nuclear detonation, not comparable.

They've always followed the "nuclear wasteland" feel, the only areas you see real regrowth are either because of a GECK, or because of a unfortunate Ghoul. As nice as running around a post apocalyptic irradiated forest would be, it just doesn't fit with the series.

Grand Master

Torolol

Posted
Posted

Chernobyl wasn't the site of a nuclear detonation, not comparable.

They've always followed the "nuclear wasteland" feel, the only areas you see real regrowth are either because of a GECK, or because of a unfortunate Ghoul. As nice as running around a post apocalyptic irradiated forest would be, it just doesn't fit with the series.

How about Hiroshima? its a REAL nuclear detonation site ...

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