Some aspects of the game do look somewhat "cartoony", but I think overall it's just much more lively and vibrant in comparison to its predecessor. And that's something most people didn't expect. I think the animated color palette will go well with the theme of the game, but it may take some getting used to.

I'm fine with a more natural environment. I didn't particularly enjoy how everything in Fallout 3 was washed out. I just believe some of the models (behemoth, dog, etc.) are far from impressive.

Visually, Fallout 3 was rather ghastly and morbid. But that's what Bethesda was going for aesthetically. And I'd find myself getting kind of depressed after playing it for so long. So I'm looking forward to fallout 4's upbeat visuals...

Quick opinion: the trailer part with the protectron looks meh (talking about colors)
But the brown-ish devastated area with broken terrain looks amazing, to look at and probably to be in (well, it might be dangerous, also.)

Sorry if I came across that way, I just wanted to highlight the fact that my original statement was conjecture - I felt that that was immensely obvious from the start: "to my understanding" tends to translate as "it's shaky knowledge and founded on half-truths/opinions." It didn't sound like you wanted an elaboration as you didn't really seem to understand my original statement based on the attempt at correcting it.

This.

Nothing looks more jarring than a man running around with the stability of a freshly birthed deer... but that's a nugatory objection, Fallout: New Vegas was plagued with poor animations but it still emanated quality.

In regards to graphics; great games don't require great graphics.I'm sitting here in awe at the MGS: V trailer because of it's art direction, phonoaesthetics of the music, and the narrative it weaves and teases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9JV0EvCkMI

As history tells us: Great games last forever, great graphics don't.

Ahh MGS. People praise on it so much yet I never played it, mostly because the story was hard to understand if you didn't play the first games...
Then I played Ground Zeroes. The game was flawlessly done (except for the AI: I stood in a corner where anybody could see me and they were all pointing guns at eachother) but in the end (after the MQ and one side mission) I didn't want to play it again and it didn't attract me. I really want to like them because they really look great but I have this...emptyness towards them.

I... don't really see a lot of difference there. Of course, the FO4 behemoth is in shadow/lit from behind, so it's hard to get a feel for any of it's details.

No worries, Misunderstandings happen! I didn't understand initially, but pieced it together and became curious of whether or not I was missing something.

I often speak in a rather flat way so that also occasionally comes off as salty, etc.

Ground Zeroes while a good (not great) game, it's completely incongruous with the series.

Ground Zeroes is the equivalent to operation anchorage in contrast to the greater Fallout series, Ground Zeroes had a borderline impalpable narrative (bar a few very select moments) during the majority of the experience.

I can only offer my own personal endorsemant of the series.

You'll need patience and equanimity to play it, as the gameplay and at times the story aren't forgiving.The gameplay can be especially frustrating in the earlier metal gear games.But the story is responsible for it's salience in gaming and for my own personal adulation.

It's complex and at times convoluted, but the characters and the universe enjoins you to care and to decipher the gallimaufry of thematic twists and nuances presented. Characters like sniper wolf, Hal and psychomantis are characters I'll never forget with plot moments I'll never stop contemplating, and twists that are still discombobulating.

Fallout, Metal Gear Solid, and Bioshock are the only games series I really 'care' about, and are among the few games I remember and wish to do so.

You may hate the series, but the potential rewards for trying are immense, with few games offering the story, universe and characters it does.

Edit:

If you're going to try the series, you have no alternative but to play all of the games (ideally in the order of release, or at least in the order of the big boss saga) or you'll just be confused throughout the entirety of the storyline.

It's not like Fallout or Final Fantasy, the stories are directly tethered to each other across each game in the series.

Each game serves as almost a T.V episode that continues on to the next one forming one complete series of events, and not something that can be enjoyed as independent stories like other games.

Thanks. I don't think I'll buy MGS5 just now, when it comes out, but perhaps one day you might hear my opinion on the game.
And yes, BioShock is awesome. Sad to know that its road has ended, perhaps for the best. Maybe one day...

Considering that this is the last Kojima MGS, I'll probably give it a shot in September. I never got into MGS to begin with because, aesthetically, it didn't strike a chord with me. I'd like to see what the fuss is all about, and if I'm blown away by what I see I'll probably go back and play the others in the series.

I'm in the same boat. The whole F.O.B. Microtransaction thing has me weary, if it doesn't effect the game balance in SP I will probably check it out.

Also We should be careful of drifting off topic before Summer sees this lol

Damn. We need an Off-Topic thread (does that make dense?)

I can't comment on the graphics because I haven't played the game yet. Actually, no one here has.

Good point. I also said that we shouldn't fully judge the game until we've spent a good chunk of time playing it. However, I think most people are critiquing what Bethesda has revealed so far.

Pretty much my thought too, in MGS-GZ there were two disappointing things that I think would not have happened in a Fallout game:

• I hated after I had competently stealth killed half a base to reach a prisoner, that foes instantly spawned to block my route back - I had cleared the area - what do they have, teleport?
• On the way to stealth assassinate someone, which again I do carefully and thoroughly, they decide to drive off... ffs...

Pfff, I like to play the game my way, very pretty graphics and I respect the mastery of the game, but I found it infuriating.

I'll have Fallout 4 every day please, filled with things and the graphics it has.

it seems like they're shooting for a constant 30 fps on consoles, and that means dropping the graphics down a bit. the witcher 3 looks amazing on ps4 and Xbox One, but it runs like crap.

Look at the proportions of the behemoth in Fallout 4 versus Fallout 3. Fallout 4's behemoth looks ridiculous with its body parts being overexaggerated in some areas and underexaggerated in others. The Fallout 3 version is much better proportioned and less "cartoony" as a result. To look "cartoonish" generally suggests in many cases that the proportions of the body are abnormal or strange in some way. That certainly is the case with the new behemoth. It just looks silly.

That's exactly why they are limiting the visual fidelity. As far as TW3, it's a PC game. CDPR has always been a PC developer. If you want the best experience with their games, you need a gaming PC.

i just will point out, TW3 sell that much in 6 week, look how many copies sell Skyrim on the first 3 week.

Anyway about the graphics, F4 look good, u cant have every game look the same that will just plain boring, plus TW3 or GTA have diferents styles of art, both game are great i have play both, while TW3 is fun and all, the whole game is super diferent from what a Fallout or ES game will be.

Plus as u all must remember TW3 doesnt look close to what CDproyect show on any of the Trailers.

u cant compare the 2 since, first Fallout 3 mutants are from a diferent virus that Fallout NV or any other Fallout, so since u didnt play Fallout 4 yet, u dont know the explanation about this new Mutants, the close explanation i can think, is that they are part of the same army of mutants from Fallout 1 and 2, and those mutantns didnt have HUGE versions.

It's worth noting TES has been an established franchise on consoles since 2002. It has been widely popular since Oblivion in 2006. It's a bit unfair to compare Skyrim (a franchise with a long legacy of success on consoles) to TW3, which was the first game in the franchise to be released on both consoles. TW1 and TW2 were PC games with the latter being ported to the Xbox 360 a year later. The point is CDPR is a serious contender and their community and renown merely grow with each game they make.

As far as the graphics "downgrade," that was purely because of consoles. CDPR even admitted that the limitation of console hardware forced them to reel back in the visual fidelity overall. Had the game only been made for PC, it would have looked exactly like their trailers. Of course, only a small percentage of PC gamers would have even had a powerful enough PC to even play the game.

I feel like the only person in the world saying this, but if it isn't as bad as the last game's graphics then I'm happy. Then again I also seem to be the only person who realizes that having as much content as a Fallout game means you're going to have to have cuts in SOME part of your game. Might as well be the least integral part of what makes a game great.

Actually, I can compare them. Perhaps you aren't familiar with geography in the United States, but Boston (where Fallout 4 takes place) is very close to Washington, D.C. (where Fallout 3 takes place). Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 are on the west coast, so no the super mutants in Fallout 4 are the same. Without a doubt it's reasonable to believe it's the same strain that is found in the Capital Wasteland as they are so close in proximity. Not to mention, Fallout 4 also takes place around the same time as Fallout 3. So yes, the likelihood of this being the same super mutant just seeing art style changes by the team is very high.