FO4 looks fine. If you don't like it then just wait till for the graphic mods, unless you are on console which means you will just have to make do with how it is.

I want graphics that makes it possible for the designers to convey everything they want. Everything beyond that is just icing. I mean, I like icing, but it's not really that important.

I won't let the government censor my games, I live in America the land of hypothetical freedom. Maybe that stuff would fly in Germany or Australia but I don't want big brother coming in and telling gamers that we can't play certain games because some beurocrat thinks it's too violent and realistic. That's not what the constitution stands for and I know for a fact that George "nevertoldalie" Washington would be against it.

Videos can be very misleading, Fallout 4 graphic will probably turn out to be not even half as good.

And, more realistic graphic can be a very bad thing when combined with bad story and dialogue writting like in new vegas. Or when you kill people and it looks way too realistic to a point when it become way too disgusting to watch.

But sure there are Dexter fans, that like it when stupid meets disgusting. But it would be nice if this game would be fun for normal people as well.

The problem I have with photo-realistic graphics is that they almost instantly become dated once the game is released, and about a year after its release it'll seem just plain horrible.

I don't care about high resolution or photo-realistic graphics. I care about artistic creativity and interesting art design.

Give me style over cutting-edge graphics any day.

A lot of people claim they "don't care about graphics", but good graphics is just as important as any other aspect of a game. Having a consistent graphical style, and a style that is appealing, and an GUI that is intuitive and clear.

Photorealism, of course, has nothing to do with this. It's good for some games that aim for a "realistic" experience but in the case of Fallout, it's not something I associate with realism.

I never liked games that used real life photos or video, so I just want good graphics that still look like a game. I find real photos/video in games to be disturbing and totally out of place and it never enhances the experience. Quite the opposite in fact.

I prefer my games to look like games, but I still want them to look good. Game play trumps graphics though. I want my game to look as good as it can possibly look while still leaving me the resource overhead to be able to mod the crap out of it with features like increased spawns and populated cities that dramatically increase the number of actors and combatants being rendered at once.

If making Skyrim prettier would have meant I couldn't use my increased spawn mod that turned a fort with six bandits into a fort with 30 without killing performance, then the price of prettier graphics would have been far too high.

i agree with this, i really dont think i will like a game with photo-realistic graphics, i mean good graphics like Witcher 3 or Fallout 4 is what i want, but i the same time i love cartoony style like WoW or Willstar.

Photorealism can hinder an artists style. There is also the issue of how one makes something that does not exist in the real world "photorealistic" Like special effects and alien or monster skin types and textures. Detailed sure, but photorealistic?

Also I don't want my next Elder Scroll game to be photorealistic. Last thing I want is to load the game up and feel like I'm just LARPing at the friggin Ren fair.

At this point in the development process (likely less than a month from the game going GOLD), does this opinion from potential game players have ANY relevance at all in terms of HOW the actual game graphics turn out?

This is all 100% individual and subjective player opinion and doesn't effect Bethesda's actions at all (even in the case of a player making a no-buy decision based on how the graphics turn out at release).

I think we know that...

I think dev's should just go for a look that they can pull off consistantly throughout a game, even if this means taking the over all amount of detail/fidelity down a notch. When something is suddenly lower res/poly than everything else, that takes me out of a game pretty fast. And the closer you get to photorealism, the more little flaws and inconsistancies stand out. If more realistic graphics can be pulled off, great...but if it's done at the expense of other aspects of the game, I don't think it's worth it.

Agreed, plus photo-realistic graphics creep me the hell out.

The OP was using Fallout 4 as shown by the E3 video as a benchmark for graphics not as an opinion about what Fallout 4 should look like. I expect photorealism in games to be available when Fallout 7 or 8 is out not Fallout 4 or 5. Personally, I rather have video games and virtual reality games to have a certain style rather than going for photorealism.