Only other relevant game to compare with is Witcher 3, a bit unfair as Withcer 3 aimed very high and had to scale down even on PC.

Like Oblivion back in the days advnced features generates too much bugs for too many people. Yes pc was development platform for Witcher 3.

Fallout 4 aimed a bit low and is an more open game, it also run better on low end pc's and probably consoles too.

Note that the only next gen games I have playes is ESO, Kerbal space program and and 2 hours wit tomb raider until I run into quick time event overdrive

The graphic's as in the the 'Look and Feel' of the game are fine, the quality as in artwork is where Beth has let it slide, yes there are a lot less soup textures like some of the Skyrim Rocks when you g0t up close, that was due to the use of low resolution (512 x 512) on what Beth classed as semi unimportant to the overall look. FO4 well they have done the opposite in many respects by making a lot of it's texture resolution at 2048 x 2048 (2K?) which is what we where upgrading textures to in Skyrim, Book of Silence (aMidian) it's Armour and Weapon Upgrades where 2K and go look at the quality and detail of their artwork. Then compare it to the actual detail (artwork) of say a Raiders Armour as a DDS image file looked at in GIMP the overall visual quality of say an aMidian Armour is far superior to that of a FO4 Raider.

The thing is they have used 2048 x 2048 on to many things, including the standing up grass? this is where players are getting problems with FPS, 2K? textures all over the place with many not having the actual detail a 2048 x 2048 can provide such as we have seen in Skyrim. There are two artists at work on this over at the Nexus, one is changing most thing to 1024 x 1024 for lower spec PC's the detail and look is not lost that much (IMO) so FPS are improved, the other is re-detailing the 2048 x 2048 originals to actually look better and re-doing the Normal Maps (Bump Maps) The extra image file that creates the impression of depth or 3 dimensional? on a flat surface. The results on that one are quite impressive as the artwork is better and it appears using new Normal Maps has improved FPS over the Beth compressed ones, I've tested in certain areas with the rocks in that Mod (Vivid Fallout?) they look better and my FPS was better but that is a small test in one area. For those after better FPS and also want better detailing try the lower res 1024 Mod first then overwrite with the 2048 Mod, sounds odd but the lower res Mod has a lot more of FO4 done so far, the higher Res one is being more selective so you can if you want to (or can do) mix and match to create your very own balanced game? Rocks at 2048 res and well detailed are great, a grass stalk at 1024 res for sure looks good enough if not perfect as you run through them on your way around the Commonwealth?

Graphics are OK. I was just happy that they have dynamic lighting and shadows now. Better textures can easily be modded in.

I think this is the main issue on performance & graphics.....

Huh, interesting. My rig is much closer to minimum than it is to Recommended, and the launcher tried to convince me that it should be Ultra. I figured that was nuts, and just went with High. (I've since dropped the Godrays setting to Low, and upped viewing distances on Actors).

Personally, I think it looks great.

I'm going to say that amongst the games i've played fallout 4 is the best game out there artistically speaking. I mean that is resembles and immerses more the player in an environment better shaped and the various landscapes, buildings, objects, and characters are all more coherent with one another, all this enhanced by good color choice and realistic lighting such as god rays. Of course there are some places where it could be better. There is also the hardware limit factor that limits the distance view.

I think the main issue why graphics on Fallout will not blow your mind like Witcher 3, is bc, Fallout use alot less filter that help to bomb the graphics, and that is bc the physic engine that Fallout use take alot of power from the game engine. Remember that pretty much almost every item that isnt nail down u can move it around, that mean each items can interact between each other.

I think graphics improve alot from previews game, maybe not as much as other games, but they improve. I was gladly surprise but the amount of details every item have.

The only disappointing thing about the game graphics wise for me(on the ps4) is the draw distance on settlements.I remember my first time building,putting up a million lights(slight exaggeration) on my walls so i could see it glowing in the distance...turns out that distance was 50 yards down the road

That's interesting I was playing FO4 and the Witcher back to back today and while the Witcher's world is more beautiful, I find hard to compare because they're so different. What did strike me was how inferior the non major characters in Witcher were to the background characters in FO4. Also how few actual differnt character models there are.

You can't measure it in centimeters, can't you?
I'm playing on a"garbage rig" in everything maxed and i'm totally fine.

True, but i am betting there is a thousand more NPC's in TW3 anyway. Having huge cities like Novigrad you need alot of props in the background, resuing a peasant asset here and there is needed for that.

I agree, there's a lack in content but the graphics and sounds are awesome.

What my settings options look like: http://imgur.com/a/JgXIf

In my opinion, the graphics have only ever been there to support the aesthetic design of the game, not vice versa.

So in that respect, the graphics in Fallout 4 are fine for me; they serve their purpose well. Sure they're not brilliant, but I personally don't need them to be.

I still play FFVII.

Witcher 3 looks like ten times better and offers a huge world too..

Aside from some textures it looks absolutely great to me. Much better than Skyrim. (Anyone remember the meshes on thos apples and breads? Or the terrible shadows ?! )
Even compared to other games it looks very good IMO considering how much interactive it is. Stuff also gets wet now and rain finally works and the weather effects look very good. I don't get what's all the fuss about.
Textures will have amazing mods anyway and now even consoles can have them (albeit at a reduced quality perhaps).

P.S I played both Witcher 3 and MGS V, so it's not like I haven't seen those games.

The only thing I feel is bad is a) faces and b ) clothing. In that order. Otherwise it's perfectly fine.

...you know, for all that we say "old graphics are great, too!".... that first generation of 3D games has just aged terribly. I grabbed Parasite Eve on PSN a couple years ago, remembering how good it was, and wow does it look incredibly blocky. SNES pixel graphics age much more gracefully.

edit: the pixelated-ness of playing SD games on HD monitors probably doesn't help.

The only way to not see the beauty of TW3 is to play it with your eyes closed.When the wind blows through the vegetation and the light coruscates through the trees it can be awe inspiring.

Fallout 4 isn't praised for its graphical fidelity, which is congruent with every game in the series.But Fallout 4 is by no means amazing graphically in relation to the current generation of games.

Edit: post could be more coherent, but I'm too tired to care.

Graphics are fine by me this is a huge game w/ a ton of content most games that claim they have better graphics also have around 1/2 the content I think FO4 got the balance between content & graphics just about perfect

True enough . Its a very different philosophy of design, I just wish all the generic merchants weren't the same guy etc.

The graphics on ultra already look good. With reshade effect out there, upcoming enb and modders hd textures its going look better.

You cant find the freedoms in other open world games !

You could have geralt, triss in fallout 4. Im sure someone will make. Skyrim already had witcher 3 characters.

Some good melee swords, guns... Im sure there will be. There might even be magic firing from power fist. Even ported from Skyrim also possible.

For me. I had not bother with main quest. Basically exploring the world, do abit of side quest, miscellanous quest. Enjoying settlement.

You cant compare other games freedom as what bethesda offer. No battle. My thought.

Witcher 3: http://abload.de/img/2015-08-01_000018hbxk.jpg

GTA V: http://abload.de/img/271590_screenshots_20i1bsw.jpg

Fallout 4: http://abload.de/img/2015-11-11_00006vvxf6.jpg

the lighting really makes Fallout look better than the other games for me

Witcher looks way too colorful 'fantasy' like, GTA is a bit too pale

the colours of Fallout really make it look stunning most of the time

Witcher obviously has way better textures and character models but that's not what makes graphics look good in my opinion

you don't even see your character most of the time in Fallout... the whole picture, the lighting, the shadows, the way the landscape is built... those are the things I'm looking for in a game and Fallout really shines in those areas <3

Nope, because graphics don't matter and never have. For some reason during the 7th generation a bunch of graphics [censored]s started playing and that's all they cared about. And now EVERYBODY wants "super high magical graphics".

The graphics are meh.

But that's ok because games aren't all about graphics and this isn't a crummy "Yet another Call of Duty game with weak story and good eye candy here". Content is what matters the most. And open world games do have to decrease a bit at times due to the larger enviroment (That said, it could still have been better). If it looks and plays amazing, great. If it looks ok and plays amazing, great. Graphics would have to be preeeety low to put me off.

Here's what I think. I think Beth decided that people shouldn't have to be obligated to upgrade to the next shiny graphics card in order to play this game. And kept people with older comps in mind. Am I willing to sacrifice a little eye candy so a lot more people can enjoy this game? Yes. A line gets drawn eventually but Beth have done well not to fall too far off the tracks. And "only 60 FPS" is pretty weak when the focus of the game is the content. If it had focused on eye candy (Let's compare it with a game, like, say "The Forest" or "Ark", examples of very immersive environments, which is similar too yet not quite the same as sandbox which was Beth's goal) instead then it may be another matter, but not the case here. 60 fps is a pass in my book. 30 fps would be a whole other can of tuna.

Now Just Cause 3 on the other hand would be a good example of good graphics (gameplay aside, which has yet to even be noted due to not out yet). Will it run nicely and look beautiful? Maybe. Will people be able to run it on a decent graphics card that is older but not a piece of junk? Most likely not. I got a good rig and will need to upgrade my 660TI. A game can be as good and as beautiful as it wants, but that's meaningless if people can't play it. Beth have a lot of older fans. They haven't neglected them. They made everyone happy because everyone can play the game. They could have added extra eye candy that needs a 900 graphics card or something but they didn't, they decided that there are people with slightly older rigs and that not everyone can or afford to upgrade regally.