I have a question about future graphics resolution that people want to see in games based on the graphics of Fallout 4. Do you want:

1. Graphics as good as real life. Where it is so good that playing Fallout 4 would make you think you are actually seeing what Boston will look like in the 23rd Century Fallout universe.

2. Improve graphics to the point where it is still possible to distinguish between reality and video games.

3. No more improvement to graphics resolution. Fallout 4 is as good as I want graphic resolutions to be.

4. Fallout 4 is too realistic for me.

5. Some other response.

Personally, I would go with 2 since I believe 1 will cause more people to confuse reality with some video game. Especially with games that are set in the present. With games like Fallout and Elders Scroll, the setting is very different from reality so it is not possible to blur the line between reality and these games for most people.

You know you can make a poll? Lol. Im happy with fo4 graphics as I find the more graphic Intense the game is the less technical systems it has.

Uhm graphics aren't everything... but nice graphics are nice to have. Tho I do think bethesda games have been pretty decent in this department and in allowing us to run mods with better textures.

I don't see any reason to limit the sales to people with eg. 12 cores, 64 gb memory, quadsli and raided SSD's.

The mods let us pick and choose a bit more than regular settings. Find the grass too glaring? Get a mod... Find the textures too low? Get a mod. Find the window lighting too meh... Get a mod... Missing butterflies? Get a mod...

I rather like it... The basegame should be decent, but not go overboard...

...

So it should only become photorealistic, when it fits with the computers people are running and it's not something it absolutely needs to be... for me to enjoy it.

For the future, I can only assume photorealism is going to be the ultimate goal (unless the game is going for a more artsy aesthetic). For now, I'm fine with F4's graphics.

Personally, I think that photorealism will be banned in certain games like Call of Duty and other action games due to GTA. Cartoon violence is OK, but realistic violence is going too far.

See, I approach games the same way I do movies. Saving Private Ryan was extraordinary when it came out because it was so graphic about the injuries the soldiers were taking. Was it realistic? Only those brave souls who were there on the beach that June day in 1944 can tell us how close it really was. But to my point, if I can watch realistic depictions of graphic war violence in a movie, why couldn't I do the same in a video game? What's the difference?

The difference is that Saving Private Ryan has you watch some fictional character pulling a trigger while a game has you control a fictional character to pull the trigger. If we are talking about Virtual Reality, then you are pulling the trigger to fire your gun at someone instead of just controlling a character to fire a gun.

I see your point, but I feel like there's enough of a disconnect that it wouldn't actually cause any psychological problems on a mass scale (you will always have some nuts who say "I learned to be violent from a video game!"), and with some games currently trying to get the most realistic graphics possible I can't imagine that trend will stop short of achieving photorealism.

I don't see the trend going towards complete photorealism, honestly. Most of the graphical effects in games like depth of field, motion blur, or just the lighting in general are more dramatic than realistic.

I wouldn't even want games to approach photorealism. The uncanny valley factor would shoot through the roof, as animations and facial movements don't keep up with graphical fidelity. And, this might be a little hokey, but video-games have actually given me an appreciation for the natural beauty of the real world... >.>

I think this is the very first post outa all I have seen that I actually disagree with Chesire Khajitt. shares icecream i guess

Course I am not so eloquent as starkaos.

But man most teens are morons and they will do whatever to play cool stuff. Woah woah I was a moron too but see I have a few years under my belt and got upped to idiot, most people develop a lot more than that. There is simply stuff they don't handle well. And stuff some even advlts kinda of fantasize and glamorize that is just -expletive deleted- . And that not even sixual stuff I am just passes on that

Its a fine line between fun and Just NO. And if were recognizing PTSD do we really want to give those that cant handle well (normal life in general lets face there are those read bout em every day in the States) a crack at it too.

Hey we're all friends here. It's healthy to disagree! I'm just saying (and I'm not trying to change any opinions on this subject, just putting ideas out into the internets), that with the way things go, if we some day are capable of creating viable phototrealistic games I'd bet money someone would make one. If it were available to purchase I'd probably play it too, if it sounded interesting enough. You guys aren't wrong though, I can definitely see the negatives of this.

Damn went an got cat nip for nothing.... guess no need for a make up.

And I hear you too, There will come a day. And I dont expect I will be able to resist myself. The chance to play Captain kirk all those alien hotties.

I am calling now they will my find my lifeless body slumped in chair visor on but one hell of a smile on my face.

True enough, but if a massive psychological problem is caused by 1 person for every 1,000,000 players at the current level of graphics, then photorealism could cause 10 people for every 1,000,000 players to cause these massive psychological problems. Of course, there is the issue that certain players use these as training simulators and blame it on video games when they get caught. Activist groups don't care about the 999,990 players out of 1,000,000 players that are not affected by video games so they will over-sensationalize the issue which will cause photorealism in action games to be unavailable.

Lol oh yeah!

You aren't wrong. I was thinking just now that the military would probably be the first to develop it for training purposes.

One thing is for certain, there'll be a damn strong backlash if photorealism ever is achieved by the media and governments around the world. There's always been this ridiculous misconception that people who went on murderous rampages were often motivated by the fact that they played violent video games. Frustrates me to no end.

Annoys me too amigo

Just throwing this out there. Photo realism may not be the end all. After that level of realism has been achieved, the next step would be a sort of idealized realism. The kind of thing where after spending time in the game you step outside and find it drab or dull. A perfect realism.

Anyways, on the topic at hand, I would love it if it was super realistic looking. Not just the textures and models, though. Also the way things move, the physics systems and such. That could be amazing.

I am satisfied with what I've seen so far. It is by no means the best looking game out there and I'm OK with that. It doesn't have to be.

One day we will live in computers forever...

In a game article that I read years ago about a pinball game, a dev was talking about how a truly great game has to be fun without graphics. So they would create the basics of the game and play it without any graphics or sound. If the game was fun without any graphics or sound, then it would be a good game. This concept is proved by games like Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress. The graphics in Minecraft svck and are non-existent in Dwarf Fortress, but they are very good games. Then there are games that look really good, but the game is terrible due to poor gameplay mechanics and story. IMO, gameplay mechanics and story are always better than graphics with graphics being the icing on the cake.

Yeah, I don't think Beth is aiming for photorealism - Fallout 4 still has a somewhat stylized art design, that I don't think is entirely due to not being able to make it "real"-er.

(I also don't think that photorealism is the end goal of all games/graphics. You can make the graphics "fancier" and "prettier" without going towards photoreal. )

I agree. I wouldn't want photorealism in Fallout going forward.

That's old news. I thought everyone knew that. Hence why I'm ok with Fallout 4 not being the prettiest. I know that they gave up things in the graphics department because they needed the resources to do more in the gameplay department. Or at least that's the story they're telling.

Hence why I talked about a sort of perfected or idealized realism in my previous post. Kind of like those pictures that have been photoshopped to look better than the real things did.

As for Fallout 4 being a bit stylized, I think that's a smart thing to do. If you can't pull off the realism well enough, but still try, things end up looking a bit strange. It's better to stylize things a bit, instead, so that people notice or pick out all the mistakes or areas where they fell short.

l love graphics, but pushing them to hard can make a game unplayable on anything available today sadly. I truly believe we could do so much more with graphics if the GPU and CPU capabilities were there.