I think we should use an lush jungle environment it looks much prettier.

Fallout is not like TES where you use different provinces with different climate and arcitecture in each game

As for OP, is he aware that GPU in PS4 is just around 6 times more powerful than in PS3?

No dramatic changes as then going from PS2 to PS3, also because going from the crappy PS2 grapic to the decent PS3 was very visible.

Going from the decent PS3 graphic to the improved PS4 is far less visible.

Well yes, it's going to be set in a post apocalyptic wasteland featuring all the classical enemies. What do you want, a game set in outer space where Sole Survivor, Wanderer, and Courier, build a new home on the moon?

What if I told you that the game is held back more by current gen consoles than what engine they are using? The modding community proves every time a game is released that the engine is quite powerful.

So if you're that worried, wait until January 2016 (or whenever the creation kit launches). Grab some texture, water, weather, lighting enhancements, and see how awesome this game will be. That's happened in every single game by the way.

I'm actually really impressed with what little i've seen/heard about fallout 4 from the developers. I gotta think you're just being dramatic. What exactly have you seen that makes you think that its just recycled?

I have to agree with OP, it did looks like Fallout 3/ New Vegas with enhanced graphic and improved existing mod.

Unlike Skyrim, which impressed and convinced me that it is definitely a NEW game compared to Oblivion.

But if the story and gaming experience is outstanding, what's the problem?

Someone close this thread, please.

[quote name="Daegor" post="24226060" timestamp="1438788196"]
What if I told you that the game is held back more by current gen consoles than what engine they are using? The modding community proves every time a game is released that the engine is quite powerful.

So if you're that worried, wait until January 2016 (or whenever the creation kit launches). Grab some texture, water, weather, lighting enhancements, and see how awesome this game will be. That's happened in every single game by the way.[/

I say you might be right. But Bethesda should give percentage to modders then .

All that ("best possible game", etc) means different things to different people.

And beyond that - no, I don't think that every game and every developer should be constantly trying to make their games Absolute Cutting Edge. Yes, it's good that some devs like to do that, to help advance the industry. But that takes massive resources. Resources that, in general, I'd rather see go towards the actual content & gameplay, not just Make It Advanced!

(I also find your "I guess you all just accept it, whatever you get" to be a bit amusing, since the general tone of your posts feels like "I guess you just decide it's all terrible, whatever you get" )

I'm slightly bothered that it appears the first big quest ends with us fighting a Behemoth. That might just be Beth's way of easing us into a sense of familiarity, but I'd rather they chose another way.

It's entirely possible I've misinterpreted the limited information, though.

I can agree with you that the graphic could have been better, 1080p on Xbox is not common on graphic intensive games, most render in lower resolution and scale up.

My take on this is that they was careful then designing so they did not get performance issues then everything was added and undershot a bit.

I'm getting the impression you would rather listen to some obscure game website editor's slanted opinion rather than form your own based on the presented facts of what has been changed in the game.

Reread your original post in this thread you started. You have already posted your judgement and you did it without any first hand experience of the game.

Maybe it's just that I've never been Uber Graphics Snob, but I think the graphics I've seen so far look great.

Your comparison makes sense, if you think about it. People that hate F3 because it was different, aren't happy F4 is so similar to 3.

I think with the scope and size of this game, the graphics look amazing... they exceed Fallout 3 and New Vegas... I'd rather more detail went into the story, gameplay, and the overall world... than them spend more time and resources to make a game that looked like The Witcher 3.

I don't know what the [censored] OP said in the first post

This is enough internet for one day, I think...

I think its looks pretty good too. I wish i had the link to the images comparing fallout 3 to fallout 4, That usually shuts up the "dur, it lookz jus like fallout 3" pepole.

Here's one http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JgJY9Sof0NA/maxresdefault.jpg

Here's one: http://i.imgur.com/gh8qj3h.png

lol.. awesome. That's probably a better comparison

I'm getting the impression that you don't understand the nature of trade-offs, which involves the understanding that having one thing often comes at the expense of something else you could have had instead. If making the game 'purdy' means static objects instead of dynamic ones, fewer NPCs rendered and more loading screens, then I'll sacrifice 'purdy' any day of the week. There is only so much than can be accomplished with the system resources available, and versatility trumps aesthetics.

Hey thanks!

Kotaku also posted a bunch of comparisons as well

http://kotaku.com/fallout-3-vs-fallout-4-in-screenshots-1712122808

Edit: Nevermind my eyes decieved me

This is actually what i was thinking of, the difference between the two is pretty obvious. Thanks!