if graphics were a standard, then why are 2d and 8bit games still succeeding? just as many has already said, it's all about that content.

one example of a game failing due to content, yet had very good graphics for the time was Star Wars The Old Republic. This game looked amazing and was one of the reasons why I got it upon release, in addition to KOTOR, however just a few months after release, players completed just about 100% of the game and complained "there just isn't enough to do here".

Do they?

(XOne) I personally think this is the best looking open world game I have, comparing it to GTA V and Far Cry 4.

Isn't that the game that died after a certain expansion was released?

Neh its back and better than ever. Its a great single player, a svcky MMO.

No, that was Star Wars Galaxies. SWTOR is Bioware's Star Wars MMO.

Witcher 3 graphics blow Fallout 4 out of the water but there's no way you can say FO4's graphics are bad, that's just silly. The game generally looks very nice. I wish I could say the same for the character models though...

I think the game looks good for what it is. Fallout 3 and NV had average graphics compared to Fallout 4. There are plenty other things that need fixing besides the textures. But truth be told, it is a great game and I can't stop playing it. Lol

/Sigh

The graphics are fine. The only slight problem I could see arguing are the facial animations.

Fallout 4 is flawed with many other problems though. The graphics should not even be on anyone's priority list given the very evident flaws that tear this game apart. First and foremost, the streamlined and pointless dialogue system.

idk. didn't stick around long enough to find out.

True, but when i compare these facial animations i will compare them to Skyrim and not TW3/MGS V. Its not the same developers, not the same amount of people working on the game and not the same budget. Can't really be compared. Fallout 4 facial animations versus Skyrim = HUGE improvement.

This. This right here.

Metal Gear Solid V - open world, really great engine, but the world is desolate and boring as all hell.

I find Fallout 4's graphics more than sufficient for the kind of game it is. If I want eye candy, I'll play something else. If I want to immerse myself and forget time even exists, I'll play a gamesas game.

lol what? I can't let this one slide. You realise that Witcher 3 cost even less than Skyrim to develop and it is a next-gen game. And it only took them 3.5 years to make. Bethesda = more money, bigger team.

Fallout 4 absolutely should be compared to current gen games.

It cost less because it is developed in Poland. The Polish zloty versus the American dollar isn't really a great argument. Also it had 250 members on the development team, while Bethesda has a 100. Are you aware of how much can change with 150 more people?

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-cost-81-million-to-make/

Skyrim cost about the same. And that is development, not marketing.

Fallout 4 has great graphics for what it is. Graphics should never be the standard for how we judge games.The art style of Fallout 4 is certainly my favorite from a game this year though. The only major issue that I have is how poor the animations are in comparison to The Witcher 3. Facial animations and combat animations are absolutely poor and haven't evolved much from Skyrim at all.