So everyone has their own opinion but I think the game looks great, the lighting looks fantastic and love the art style I think it looks "better" than alot of other games..yes witcher 3 included

People tend to forget, that compared to a lot of open world games, even Witcher 3, BGS games' worlds are way more interactable.

When you go inside a house in Witcher 3, everything is static. You can interact with containers, thats it. (and candles yes) In BGS games, a lot of interiors are full of dynamic items and objects, that the player can interact with. You throw a grenade and all those items have to react to the explosion. If Bethesda can pull the graphics that they have shown of - kudos. (Y)

It's all opinion. I was never impressed by fo3 or nv, but that didn't take away from my experience. I'm assuming the same with fo4. And it DOES look like it is an improvement on fo3, however small some may think it is, so that's good. Improvements are improvements to me

I don't care much, but yeah it looks fine. I didn't have high expectations at all of the visuals, so I was actually pleasantly surprised.

Looks great to me. The lighting, water effects, character models, animations. It all seems very fluid.

I think it looks good, from what I've seen so far. Graphics aren't the most important thing in a game like Fallout, and they'll be boosted by mods anyway.

And yet that system is never really used for anything. You could pretty much play Oblivion, Skyrim and Fallout 3 forgetting that the z key does anything at all.

I was pleasantly surprised. Frankly, I was expecting Skyrim-level. From what we've seen so far, it's leagues beyond that, and the art direction really makes the world & characters look interesting on top of good. People who were expecting photo-realistic graphics have no idea of the limited time & resources developers have. Every bit of it Bethesda saved by only upgrading the graphics to the extent they did was more they could put into gameplay, the world, the story, and bug fixing. I'm plenty happy with the way Fallout 4 looks.

Looks well enough. Anything better than Fallout 3/NV visuals will be able to impress me. Just seeing the Fallout universe in Fallout 4's visuals is amazing.

I'm just happy that Skyrim and FO4 finally let you make a PC that passes for something human. Prior games had some of the worse player creation systems ever.

The Vanilla weren't great, agreed. Modded, though, Skyrim had some of the prettiest I've seen. I'll be happy if FO4 has Skyrim level graphics, which I'm sure it will.

if you are on console you're screwed of course, especially when it came to last generation.

If you are worried about graphics etc PC is the only way to go. Even next gen consoles wont be able to touch hi res texture packs in Fallout 4 on PC.

The difference between the female protagonist in FO4 and the the female character creation options in the past two Fallout games is simply astounding.

I don't in the normal version of Skyrim it was a pain in the ass to make a decent look character. The only race I could make a decent looking character with was Breton.

Seriously. I couldn't even play a female until I got the game modded first. Which is funny when you think about this being a first person game.

Except the fact that it has a 3rd person view makes it NOT a first person game. At the very least, it's a hybrid that allows both modes to be played.

Graphics are one of the last things I care about when looking at a game. Game play, user interface, story etc.. are all far more important to me than how the game looks. It may be because I grew up playing text based games that occasionally had some ascii graphics (any Trade Wars fans out there?). As long as the games graphics are at least as good as it's predecessors that's all I ask for.

I actually used that system very often, in all three of those games. I love being able to manipulate objects and place them wherever I want.

They looked fine to me. I also wouldn't mind if the graphics weren't as good as other Xbox One/ps4 generation games if it meant they were putting more of their energy into gameplay, story, etc.

This isn't entirely accurate. Yes, you can pick things up in a BGS game, unlike most games. To say The Witcher 3 isn't interactive, however, would be false. You can throw around and blow away just about anything in most homes. Everything isn't just glued to the floor.

Fallout 4 looks rather bland to be honest. BGS's excuse was because of other complex features, such as the real-time player structure building, in the game. Honestly, it's a pretty lame excuse in my opinion. The major limiting factor is and will always be consoles. Their games are built for consoles and just like Skyrim, will look bland because of it. BGS wants 1080p 30 FPS on X1 and PS4 which is why the visuals are the way they are. Skyrim was not a pretty game when it released. Neither will Fallout 4 be a pretty game when it's released. At least they added volumetric lighting and physical-based rendering, but the game is far from being a graphical masterpiece. The Witcher 3. Batman Arkham Knight. Star Wars Battlefront. Dragon Age Inquisition. Even Grand Theft Auto V on PC puts Fallout 4 visually to shame. If you noticed, each and every single one of those games is a large open world. Perhaps not as "interactive," but extremely large with plenty of activities to engage in.

Thankfully, I don't really care how the visuals come out. That's why we have a modding community to replace all the low resolution ugly textures BGS tosses in. Higher resolution textures compiled with ENB and some other mods will fix whatever graphical concerns Fallout 4 suffers from. BGS just builds the foundation. It's the community that actually builds the house.

I still enjoy playing Morrowind. While I do enjoy great graphics, there's definitely a point of diminishing returns. I'd rather monetary resources were directed to more quest content and world features than amping up the polys by an order of magnitude.

Seriously, you can't even change a hair style in witcher, that game is very limited, but also very big standard RPG. Heaving physical clutter doesn't say anything about interactivity. If you want to compare interactivity, then simply count up all the functions in game and you will find out that witcher is not even close to bethesda games.

That's not true...

I'm satisfied with Fallout 4's graphics, but it doesn't shine brighter than much else this generation, and quickly looks standard and not anything more.

I think a good way to make a scene look good is to add either particle effects or blur to it in order to give a bit more depth to the visuals than straight texture and polygon count would allow. One of the reasons the majority of New Vegas looks like ass is because there's not a lot of effects going on in the scenes making everything look kind of flat. Compare a snowstorm in northern Skyrim to a sunny day in Novac and you might see what I mean. The snowstorm has snow and dust particle effects aswell as blur. This makes it seem a lot less like the real world and more like a attractive painting. Fallout 3 used bloom to much the same effect, although that was in the bloom-crazy days of the mid to late 2000s. I mean [censored], bloom was everywhere.

Fallout 4 seems to understand this as well, with things looking much more painting like than a photograph. The bright colours contribute to this feeling aswell, and that shot of the deathclaw in that blasted hellscape of the wasteland from the trailer made me very excited to visit that location in the real game.

Also good art designs does wonders. I still love Morrowind in its vanilla graphics, even if im nostalgia-bitten as hell. I just can't get enough of that dunmer architecture.

oh it is indeed true