I don't understand why people have to trivialise our argument, either.

Whether you agree or not, the game does not feel dark enough for me. It's not game breaking by any means, but it is a little disappointing.

Although I myself enjoy the color pallet, I remember them talking about some places still holding that dark, dilapidated feel. Hopefully they will strike a nice balance with it!

Then there are always ENB's and graphics mods to ease your disappointment after the G.E.C.K. Goes out, maybe even before (I'm not that into Graphics mods so I don't know if how deep they need to go).

My point is using "ambitious" and "complex" to justify inferior visuals to other open world games that are also "ambitious" and "complex" is a silly argument. Yes, these games aren't necessarily as interactive as Fallout 4, however TW3 has almost zero load screens with hundreds of hours worth of content and plenty of mini games (horse racing, gwent, sailing, etc.), ACU has thousands of NPC rendered in crowds, coop, very few load screens, GTA V has offline and online with racing, tennis, under water exploration, heists, etc., Arkham Knight has a dense open world with horizontal as well as vertical exploration and lets not forget the complex nature of the batmobile's inclusion, DAI has a large focus on story, the war table, online features, etc.

All of these games are technological achievements and do some things others don't. I'm expecting great things from Fallout 4, but I grow tired of people using a lame excuse to justify why BGS did not attempt to make their game look even better. It was their choice and not some limitation because they couldn't make it look better. They prioritized and had other commitments. They reasoned it looked good enough and PC gamers can always make it look better if they so choose.

The presentation of a subject doesn't have to be draqed with a dark color palette in order to create a dark mood. I trust the final product will surprise. We have to remember that it's a post-apoc game set 200 years later. A lot can happen to brighten the palette and show that civilization is moving forward - it doesn't mean the dark themes are gone.

How do you know they could make the game look better the world just may be so filled to the brim this is the best they had while not sacrificing performane

I think the graphics look pretty good. I don't need top of the line graphics to enjoy a game. Fallout 4 doesn't look terrible and is an improvement over 3 and New Vegas... Which is good enough for me.

I suppose you're right.

It's just the way that Bethesda has marketed the game so far that has me sceptical. I know Fallout 3's atmosphere was flawed, but something about the way the soundtrack and the colours and the graphics and the setting all intertwined really impressed me. Hopefully Fallout 4 can replicate that in its own way.

I understand, I grow similarly tired of people comparing games and calling one objectively better than the other due to graphics (Not saying you did.) without considering what else was put into it.

You may disagree, But I for one much prefer a focus on the gameplay and mechanics over prioritizing graphics. I can't see "But it HAS to look as good or better than X" talk happening at Bethesda. It's just not their style. And considering we are basing what we know of Fallout 4 off of Compressed, recorded, streamed, and reuploaded footage in 1080P and not in 60 FPS, I really want to wait until the game releases and see how it looks first hand. Of course it's not going to make it suddenly look a million times better than TW3, but it WILL make a big difference, Especially on PC.

It looks better than Skyrim IMO, that's good enough for me.

To my understanding, Fallout 3's original timeline put it a little after the bombs had dropped. That would essentially explain why we had anomalies like Little Lamplight, and why the wasteland looked like the bombs had dropped yesterday.

Fallout 3 is set in 2277. Roughly the same year as Fallout 4.

Sorry, I guess comments like that tend to combine in my head with all the other times I've seen people complain about things being "too bright" (I really didn't see anything wrong or out-of-series-style about Diablo 3, for instance) or writing off games as "too cartoony" just because they use a color palette and/or aren't using realistic textures. So I end up giving responses that aren't 100% responding to the thing I'm quoting. Gotta work on that.

Graphics certainly don't make a game "better," it's just a piece of the pie. Again, the mod community will improve the graphical fidelity, so it's really not a major point.

Game play obvious matters, but graphical fidelity helps to immerse and provide that suspension of disbelief. BGS games are about transporting players to another world, and photorealism goes a long way into making these worlds tangible and believable. If Fallout 4 had the visual fidelity of Morrowind, it would not be as convincing, regardless of game play and mechanics.

That's not to say that graphics are more important, but they certainly aren't a secondary concern. I believe the look and the feel matter just as much as how the game actually plays. Again, the game looks good (primarily the environment and not so much the dog), but certainly could use improvement.

I'd love to hear an elaboration, instead of just requoting the exact same thing, as I clearly don't know what you are referring to.

He meant the timeline they were going to go with during development but opted to change it before release.

Ye I wasn't thrilled about the way the dog looks. The thing that bugs me about it more than that is the Protag calling it 'Boy.' The dog they used to mocap, etc is a Female, you wouldn't think it but there is actually a noticeable difference in body shape. (Males have a higher back end, Females have a more curved downward- back) Something small and silly, but having had one of each It seems weird.

I figured,in hindsight. but that's a pretty big assumption unless there is any supporting evidence.

I have no idea what their rationale was for that. It probably was a silly mistake they didn't even consider. I honestly just hope animations, in general, are better this time around. Wonky and awkward animations will honestly bother me more than the visuals or how the dog looks. Visuals are easy to fix. Animations, not so much.

Was I the only one giving props to Bethesda for actually showing game rendered footage? We've been getting way too many games lately that have trailers with graphics far beyond what the game can actually handle.

They certainly seem improved, but I still suspect we will see a bit of sliding with four legged creatures. Also I'm not putting too much faith in an amazing Jumping animation.

Agreed. I would much rather them use some reserve as to how much they show off graphically, and be pleasantly surprised when I see it first hand in all it's PC-version glory.

Yeah I hadn't heard this either, but I figured he knew more than I do about F3s development, considering I know next to nothing about it lol

Internet, Internet never changes

I... don't really care. If it svcks mods'll fix it.