i garuntee that some will. heck settlements were probably inspired by mods. however if its the jsawyer mod that is in the game nd not optional? i likely wont be replaying the game as much until i can mod it to be a bit less harsh. i perfered project nevada
Jsawyer.esp did more to improve New Vegas than hardcoe Mode ever did, IMO. Great little plugin. Not sure how much of it applies to Fallout 4 though.
Perhaps. Mods have influence Beth for years. Even Sawyer himself said that they were influenced by some FO3 mods. One thing I want Beth to do is to learn from the Metro series. That game is way ahead of Fallout in terms of visuals by miles - even in some gameplay mechanics. And don't be surprised if Beth learn a few things from Metro Last Light.
>A liner FPS with small levels divided by loadscreens has better visuals then a massive seamless open world that has far more content, and far less loading screens.
That is to be expected.
Yes, I know. But open worlds and visuals are becoming very advanced every year. To have an open world with the visuals of Metro is something that we will see in the next 5-7 years. But Beth has been behind in the visual department for a while anyways since other older open worlds games have had more advanced shaders than TES/FO. FO4 is going to be the first Beth game with volumetric lighting(godrays). Hopefully they implemented SSAO aswell. In fact SSAO makes a bigger visual difference than volumetric lighting.
name a 2011 or earlier open world game with volumetric lighting, SSAO and god rays. I'm curious, it seems i'm missing out. Skyrim, released in 2011, was Bethesda's last game. If you claim they were behind the average tech curve by listing these features, i'm eager to learn, which open world games did implement those at the time. I have abolutely no doubt that the next TES in 5-7 years will look better than the currently latest Metro game.
Just Cause 2 is an entirely different kind of game. Its closer to GTA then TES, in that its a mostly static world, where NPCs dont have complex schedules, and most things don't have tru physics support, whereas Bethesda games do, and thus, have to spend more resources on that.
Engines are evolving. Beth is learning how to integrate advanced shaders into the Creation engine. The Witcher 3 is as new as FO4 and they have proven that you can integrate advanced next-gen shaders along with advanced schedules and physics. It is all on how well the engine is programmed. Just Cause 2 has moved on with JC3 and has created not only more advanced shaders but also scripting and physics. I'm glad Beth is also exploring the capabilities of their engine; with Skyrim Beth discovered that they could implement dynamic lighting even though it was archaic looking and limited. With FO4, godrays finally enters the scene not to mention better gameplay mechanics by the looks of the presentation.
JC2 does have godrays but there are different styles of godrays. If I recall, JC2 godrays shader is the type one can see when you're looking at the sun. Other types of godrays lets you see the sun shafts even when you're looking away from the sun like in S.T.A.L.K.E.R Clear Skies, or depending on the time of day like in Far Cry 4.
As for FO4, I'm pretty sure its godrays is going to be global(which is the normal thing to do)and not done for specific places. If not, then that would be very awkward and plain lazy to be frank. But you're right, we must wait and see. If there's ONE thing I've learned about early game presentations and that's to take everything with a grain of salt - thanks to Todd Howard for that.
Frankly, FO3 like Oblivion were good looking games for their genre but nothing really visually impressive. Skyrim was worse since it was outdated by 2011 standards. I don't know if there were other open world games that were visually as good as Oblivion in 2006 but there were certainly other games in other genres/platforms more graphically advanced than Oblivion. Lets face it, TES/FO3 are more famous for their gameplay, for being open world games where you do and be whatever you want than for amazing visual technology. They have always been more than one "tick" down graphically. Morrowind was actually more current in its technology than Oblivion/FO3/Skyrim were. The water shader of MW specially when it was raining was a sight to behold at that time no matter what game genre.
Anyways, as for depth, well, that will depend on what depth means to you. Some people think New Vegas had way more depth than FO3 despite being smaller and barren.
Not until I see what the base game is like. I am hoping they implemented the fun aspects of hardcoe mode, and junked the hunger/thirsty/sleepy bits. I *hope* they use food to regain health (hopefully stims will be rare and expensive), and water to get rid of rads (More slowly, but far more cheaply then rad away - basing that off of fallout shelter)
No, just no.
I am very tired of these posts claiming that Bethesda lags behind in visuals when the opposite is actually the case.
Oblivion and Crysis were THE games used for benchmarking graphic cards in 2006 and shortly afterwards. NVidia basically developed SLI tech specifically because Oblivion was such a huge hit seller and people wanted to be able to play it more smoothly than normal GPUs allowed. Go back and read various reviews of graphic cards at that time and you'll see that Bethesda has always pushed the envelope with their releases. In fact, Oblivion was pretty much the ONLY game on the shelves in 2006 with recommended CPU of 3.0 GHz. Oblivion's water, grass, and trees were the major hits for processing and most machines just could not handle it. This was really where the start of splitting machines between general/productivity use and high-end/gaming/video editing use began as far as the OEMs were concerned.
Crysis was created purely to see if it could be done (i.e., a game where pretty much everything had physics). It was more of a tech demo than a game, per se, and it was nowhere near as good a seller as Oblivion because of that fact. The result, of course, was that it showed that such a thing could be done with enough processing power as well as restricted game design (e.g., linear shooters are great for such technical feats). That's also why it was used along with Oblivion as a gold standard for any new graphics card that was released. NVidia did use a couple of other games to benchmark their cards, of course, but these two were the top-end, most-demanding titles.
Any game developer is aiming for mass market, not tech demo quality. Or perhaps it would be better to say that any game publisher is doing this since it is the publisher that funds the development. We cannot compare software made for restricted market, high-end workstations to mass market PCs and consoles, for example, as that would be comparing apples and oranges (i.e., two products with totally different goals and associated markets). If someone happens to have the money to afford a high-end workstation for their personal use, that's great, but such a person cannot claim that any game developer is behind the curve with visuals and effects that would be fine on their hardware but cannot be effectively done on the majority of the mass market machines available/in use. That would be like claiming that GM or Toyota lags behind Ferrari in automobile performance. It's a pointless comparison.
Only because a game is use to benchmark a graphic card doesn't mean necessarily the game has advanced visuals. Oblivion was foremost used because of the huge amount of processing data used within an open world. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why Nvidia decided to do SLI for it. Also, Oblivion was a bigger seller than Crysis because TES already had a fan base and Crysis was a new ip and was a PC exclusive and there was virtually no PC at that time that could have run Crysis with everything maxed out and with good fps. Like we all know already, open worlds with highly advanced visual technology like in Crysis or Metro is almost, if not, completely prohibited. But that is changing fast because of the immense popularity of open worlds nowadays, not to mention that consoles have a new generation of technology that will let devs push the console tech better than ever before. The Witcher 3 is a good example that high tech visuals can be achieved along with a complex open world environment.
FO4 is looking like its going to be the most advanced Beth game to date in terms of gameplay mechanics and visuals. By no means I'm expecting cutting edge visuals but I'm expecting, however, better tech than we had in Skyrim. Although, at the end of the day, what makes a Beth game is the overall gameplay experience and the modding tools they have created for their games.
I guess it depends on what "things" in particular.
If it adds to my enjoyment of the game, they can borrow from mods all they want.
Well, Horizon and Witcher3 have better gfx than FO4. Both are open world.
An argument can probably be made for AC:Unity and BattleFront as well.
See
Witcher 3's gameworld is 99% static objects, and NPCs with no real complex schedules, to waste CPU and GPU power on. OFC it will have better general graphics, it doesn't have to do as much in other areas.
I believe many who have really played TW3 will disagree.
Maybe this is the wrong forum for this, but on my part I'm tired of people dismissing Crysis as just a tech demo. Ignoring the horrible story, it's one of the most innovative FPSs I've played (back then "innovative" was the cool word), with great emphasis on player's creativity. Nanosuit was actually power armor that did something other than increased health. Multiplayer had large maps with vehicles, aircraft, supersuits, freeze rays and nukes. Also, I'd hardly call a game with levels as large as Skyrim's Holds linear.
Have you actually played Witcher 3 for even a minute, or is that too far beneath you to even consider? If you're just going to relentlessly trash every single game out there that isn't developed by Bethesda, then at least pretend you have the slightest idea what you're talking about.