To me, Fallout 4's graphics aren't necessarily "bad", as some are saying. In fact, I'm actually fine with the way it looks. Visually, it has its own distinct style and flavor. It's much more vibrant and animated in comparison to its predecessor. In my opinion, it's a good change aesthetically. I think it'll go good with the overall theme and vibe of 4. Also, it's important to remember that Bethesda isn't trying to make the best looking game out there, and that Fallout 4 is a massively ambitious and complex game. The kind of visual fidelity that most people want is unrealistic and can't be reached, particularly on a technical level. A game like Fallout has so much more to offer, so how it looks shouldn't really matter in the end. And besides, 4 obviously looks way better than 3... and that's quite impressive considering how big of a game 4 is. Fallout has never been out stunning visuals... there's other factors to take into account that make Fallout such a great series. But at the end of the day, you just can't please everybody. People will always have their opinions and beliefs regardless of how good or bad something may be in actuality... and that's fine, I get that. So the people who appreciate what Bethesda has created will be the ones who appreciate Fallout 4 come November... and the others, well I guess they'll be playing something else.

The game is "massively ambitious and complex" is nothing more than an excuse. TW3, BAK, DAI, GTA V, ACU, etc. were all "ambitious" and "complex" open world games, yet they have better visuals. Fallout 4 doesn't look bad (I don't believe anybody is saying that), it just doesn't compare to the current open world games out there visually. It looks pretty good, but far from being the best. Mods will fix that on PC at least. Honestly, beating Fallout 3 visually wasn't a very high bar if that's what they were going for, considering removing the green tint would have made everybody happy. At least the game has volumetric lighting and physical-based rendering now. It helps.

Like I said, Bethesda isn't aiming to make the best looking game out there... but you're totally right. And mods will definitely touch it up visually on the Pc at least. But there's been quite a bit of people not happy with how it looks and complaining...

I think people were just underwhelmed, especially by the reveal trailer. I have to be honest. I wasn't really impressed with how the dog looked in the trailer (although his animations were pretty good). It has been seven years since Fallout 3 and many just had built up and really high expectations. BGS hasn't done a bad job, and certainly some of their game play footage has shown the environment (where they thrive) is quite beautiful. I think once people play and eventually mods are made to tweak the visuals and improve them, most will be happy with it.

Some people were underwhelmed with how it looked, while others were just beyond irate. And it seems like the irate crowd far out weighs the underwhelmed crowd... at least based on what I've seen. But yeah, I must confess, I was a little disappointed with some little things at first too... I had very high expectations, so that never really helps. But as I saw more and more my disappointment started to fade away, because I saw all the content Bethesda packed into 4, and it's crazy... so the graphics don't even cross my mind at this point lol.

I don't get the dislike for the graphics I think they look great...the world looks so "alive"...that's BGS does better than anyone...tw3 gta5 DAI all these have BIG worlds...but none of them fill me with wonder the way a bethesda game does...tw3 while being impressive in its own right..the world IMO is lackluster nothing makes me want to explore it...same with gta and dai ...big but hollow ...at least witcher 3 is fun for the most part...gta 5 and dai were big letdowns...........sorry got a lil off topic but I think bethesda captures atmosphere like no other due graphical and art style...I always feel like I'm in that world..long story short bethesda is doing just fine by me

I'm happy with the graphics - it's just the art direction that really bugs me. I know we've only seen the gameplay trailers (which are used to excite people), but this game does NOT feel dark enough. Fallout 3 may have been depressingly one-toned and bleak, but at least you always had that atmosphere of survival and death thanks to the colour palette. Even the Gamescom footage of the ghouls in the mall had a really light tone to it.

I mean I'm sure we'll get darker environments, but as a whole the game feels a little too built for children, especially with its new crafting system.

Having said that, it's not something that annoys me that much. But I do wish the game was darker.

I think it looks great, very much improved over FO3/NV. Certainly much more than "oh, it just looks like modded FO3" that some have thrown about.

(Of course, I'm also happy to look at each game on it's own, or in relation to previous games from the same dev. Rather than comparing everything to the absolute best and then dismiss everything else as garbage/lazy/unacceptable/etc.)

But, it's always like this.... game is announced, trailer comes out, some people go "oooh! aaaah!" and others get all snobby and say it looks abysmal. Or say "it's not using the most-recently-released uber-graphics super-technique? Terrible."

Does it look good? Yes. Does Witcher 3 look good, too? Yep. Does Witcher 3 looking good make FO4 look bad? Nope.

I like that the art direction isn't just going to be flushed with drab green though it looks a teeny little bit too colorful for my tastes. Other than that it looks pretty alright so far.

My main concern though "graphics" wise is the quality of animations. From what we've seen it looks a lot better but looking at dogmeat move around in the gameplay and trailers makes me wince a bit.

I think the game looks good actually. Maybe it means more resources were spent on improving the gameplay and the RPG mechanics.

FO4 does not "look as good" as Witcher 3, sure.

But unlike The Witcher 3, Fallout 4 won't be paddling around in a VERY SHALLOW puddle 2 weeks or so after release, it's gonna be awesome for years to come.

I would happily take Gordon Freeman's crowbar to 100 Witcher 3 games just for a new 1 hour gameplay video of Fallout 4 right now.

The graphics look very similar to that of RAGE - Which I am fine with.

Currently playing back through Fallout New Vegas and that faded, amber color palate is horrid.

Honestly I'm not expecting much of a dark tone. This isn't a survival horror like Dead Space with necromorphs popping out of vents and trying to amputate you. The "darkest" elements we had in Fallout 3 were the mutilated flesh bags the super mutants kept around. I thought New Vegas did a better job with the Legion and how they would crucify and butcher their enemies, but that's Obsidian and not BGS. We'll see what we get, but this will be more of an action adventure game than anything that might spook you.

But I want my 4k resolution textures with uber sampling and tessellation and ambient occlusion and depth of field and volumetric lighting and dynamic shadows and...

You and I must have played different games... TW3 is definitely not shallow. On the contrary, if Fallout 4 doesn't live up to expectations, TW3 will easily be game of the year. Honestly, the only reason Fallout 4 will last for years (if we are being honest) is because of mods and not the base game. CDPR has been working very hard to also build a modding community for their games, so BGS better watch out. Especially when TW3 sold six million copies in just six weeks after release...

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2015/08/26/six-million-copies-of-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-sold-in-first-six-weeks.aspx

BGS is going the right direction by taking after BioWare when it comes to a compelling story. However, I think they need to take some cues from CDPR as well. Cyberpunk 2077 just became that much more anticipated...

Yeah, Witcher 3 is not shallow by any means. Very deep and complex.

agree completely witcher 3 is pretty good but the world is so bleh there's really no fun if your not questing...no real exploratory fun...village village village trees trees monster nest trees wash rinse repeat...I do think it's a solid 8/10 tho...I can't see it competing with fo4 tho...just my .02

I don't care how the world looks as long as the game is fun.

overall...this x1000 all that matters is are you having fun...kinda like how I'd play saints row any day over gta lol

I don't expect the game to be like a survival horror, but there's always been a level of hopelessness and depravity associated with Fallout games, and I'm not getting that vibe at all with this one.

It certainly looks like Bethesda are taking a whole new approach and establishing a completely different theme in Fallout 4, but I don't like what I see so far. I'm not going to berate Bethesda for trying a new angle though, and I'm willing to reserve my opinion until I've played the game for a couple of months.

While the game may be an action adventure, it's still a post-apocalyptic action adventure rather than a fantasy action adventure, and I wish the tone of the game reflected that better.

I actually agree with you. I think there should be a pessimistic tone and a level of hopelessness in a post-apocalyptic United States ravaged by a nuclear holocaust. I'm just not getting that sense as it seems BGS is so worried focusing on so many different features and elements of the game. Plus, I think Fallout 4 is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to how many people criticized how depressing Fallout 3 looked.

Exactly. It feels difficult to criticise the art direction because they've obviously tried to address Fallout 3's shortcomings in that department, but maybe they've overdone it.

Ok let's recap...

"hey this game looks fantastic, pretty pretty gwapixs!"

"hey this story is very mature and immersing! very in-depth!"

"oh look more pretty gwaaaaphex!"

"hey Triss is showing her butt off again, six does sell after all!"

"hey the combat is... err... is combat..."

"awww pwetty graphics... um yeah saw it an hour ago... nice"

"hey look... more woods!"

"pretty gfx again...."

"Triss' butt again.... story gets cliche..."

"ponytail really likes to move...."

"time for a suave..."

"gfx..."

"more woods"

"killed 4 gryphons, same crap..."

"died dozen times because the combat mechanics are shamefully flawed..."

"ok been fun for a few hours... bye now"

My understanding is you didn't even beat the game and you were horrendous at the combat system. In reality, the combat system is quite easy and intuitive, yet has a steep learning curve depending on the difficulty. Regardless, you've shown you are not impartial about your criticisms of TW3 at all.

Fallout 4 is going to look good. It just won't look better than The Witcher 3. Hopefully the game play will make up for that, but if it doesn't The Witcher 3 will be Game of the Year with no contest.

Yeesh. They brighten the color palette a little bit and people act like it's turned into Super Mario or something.

Yeah, I've never understood the "isn't drenched in grey/brown = Happy Friendly Kid's Game" thing.

They are complex in different ways. Fallout uses a lot to track dynamic events, item locations, body locations, and plenty of other crap. Most of the others have little in the name of interiors, and clutter. TW3 had interiors, but 90 % of them were the same houses all loot being container based, mainly Pro-Genned. Each has their own little "Twist" at what they do. AC with its Crowd/group systems, TW3 being (Mostly) seamless and looking great, GTA V.. Being GTA V I guess? DAI I haven't played, and Batman is not really comparable in terms of what they are doing.

If you're going solely off how Pretty it looks, then of course some of those games will top it. As a dev, It's what's under the hood that counts, IMO.