I like to judge each game in its time context, what other games looked like? better or worse in the same year. Of course within its own series there must be visual progress in 5 or 7 years...

I remember when I first installed Morrowind and Oblivion ... jawdropping visuals for their time. Skyrim not so much, Fallout 3 looked the worst of their games imo at the time of its launch. From the screens and videos (videos only official because I don't want too much spoilers and screens both official and unofficial) I think Fallout 4 is somewhere between Fallout 3 and Skyrim, definitely better looking than Fallout 3 at its release time but failing to match what Skyrim looked like for the year of its release.

Can it be done in Dying Light or some other zombie games? Witcher and Dragon Age aren't really that fair to compare.

Dying Light.....

u cant, on Dying Light u cant pick up everything there is in a room.

Okay I haven't played it but people said you could.

Game looks fine to me, but I might be a bad person to gauge that on. If Todd came on stage at e3 and said "Fallout 4, has been redesigned as an entirely text based game". My response would still be "FO4? Here's my money!"

u can take what is inside chest and boxes, isnt like u enter a house and u can move the dishes like ES or Fallout, plus almost everything on Dying Light is inside Container no just trow there.

What is this "sub par" you speak of? I play Skyrim on the PlayStation and it looks fine.

FO:3, FO:NV, Oblivion, all on the PlayStation.

I only miss my face textures, and vibrant mod for Skyrim.. It's fine otherwise.

So YOU have decided that the game is not good enough and Bethesda should bow to you?

The graphics are better than Skyrim....

ok so i watch another leak Video, and come on i cant find any video that isnt under 720p.

They are at 480 or 240p that mean u will be missing all the small details. Really ppl stop watching leaks and wait for the game to come out.

Personally I think dev' already waste too much money in graphics thoses days when it would better go in content, like for example in Bethesda games showing the player the world around the character actually cares about what he does.

This is what I expected.. People blindly saying the graphics are fine and defending not having updated ones. I am a huge Bethesda fan and have been since day 1! I grew up on thier games. Don't hate me for expecting a bit more out of my favorite game company of all time. I am going to play the heck out of Fallout 4.

I simply asked WHY Bethesda couldn't upgrade them a bit more with the budget and resources they had and all the kiddos on here hop on the "bash" the OP train.

If the game comes out and looks nothing liked the leaked video I saw I will eat crow and be the first to admit my error. If I was right maybe some people will see where I am coming from.

I know fallout 4 is done and I will play it. I just hope after its success Bethesda gets up to speed in the graphical department for the next elder scrolls game.. No excuses like "oh visuals aren't important." You can have both an amazing game and amazing visuals; they are not exclusive from one another.

Dude get on your head Bethesda game arent Witcher games. U wont get those graphics, but u cant come and say that it look the same as Skyrim. Bc it doesnt.

If they made a game heavily graphic as Witcher 3, we wont be getting alot of the freedom we normally get on Bethesda games.

People disagree with you and suddenly they are "kiddos"? I'm 28 and, like I said, IMO there's nothing wrong with the graphics. I think the game looks great.

I'll trust that the day Rockstar will make an Obsidian written RPG.

Haven't seen that for now.

If you really think the graphics are not updated, then OK. That's your opinion which a lot of us do not share. Please, don't call us kiddos because of that (I am 39 and consider myself a younger one in BSG community, but certainly not a kiddo).

EDIT: To answer your title question - I believe it is not a budget question, but a question of time available and BSG priorities. Clearly, graphics were important to them...but not number one on their top list.

WOOOOT he call me kiddo =D yay i dont feel old anymore now hahahhahahaha

im sorry dude u are the one acting like a kiddo, games like CoD are more what u should play.

I am playing the game dying light while I wait for fallout 4. It is a year old. The visuals and people look amazing; you have a bridge with hundreds of zombies ALL moving; stunning background, and ZERO lag or issues even with all the movement and scenery ect. So please don't tell me a giant game company like Bethesda can't make people, facial animations, objects, or anything look a bit better without sacrificing performance.

To the poster who said he was 28; most people on the forums are very young if you look at the community survey they did on here. I grew up with crap pixelated graphics like you did. I just think Bethesda should push the envelope in visuals a bit more for the next game.

First of all you said... "Woot"; secondly so because I want Bethesda to push better visuals I automatically should play call of duty? You may be old but that that comment signifies immaturity.

I have played every TES game since day one made by Bethesda and have played thier fallout games. I am the biggest Bethesda fan out there which is why I expect the best. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't want photo realism; just more updated graphics in future games.

You know, I'd be perfectly happy if games went back to MGS1 graphics. Devs put so much energy into graphics that it draws away from everything else in the game.

I have to agree with this guy, heck it's 2015. I think there should at least be somekind of a standard for graphics in this day and age i.e the Witcher 3. You tell me Witcher 3 isn't huge like skyrim or oblivion? Have you even played the game, lol.

"More content" isn't an excuse to have Skyrim-level textures in 2015. Unless the game has like 1000 hours of gameplay, which I doubt. Witcher 3 can last over 200 hours.

I've read all of your posts in this thread and you are acting like a "kiddo" more than anyone.

The graphics are clearly not on the level of some games but they are definitely better than 3.

Graphics aren't particularly important to me anyway, I'd rather play a game that I enjoy playing than one that looks good but plays like crap.

A mod can go ahead and close this thread... We will just wait and see what the game looks like. This is going nowhere and no one can answer a question.

The good news for Bethesda is no one seems to care if they match gameplay with visuals in future games so looks like you can spend less time and money BSG and still have legions of unquestioning fans !

You don't read the forum do you?

There's a lots of discussions about the game.

It's just it's about content, not graphics.

dude u got something wrong bc im defending Fallout 4 graphics actually. I think that game like Witcher 3 get overrate just bc they focus to much on graphics.