First off I usually never mind sub par graphics and generally don't like people who complain about them in games.

My problem is after checking out some of the HD gameplay that was up today of the game the graphics are the same as Skyrim which came out in 2011. The faces looks better, combat graphics are nice but the world and objects up close look absolutely atrocious.

Before seeing this and seeing the E3 footage I thought the graphics would be fine and not an issue but now I have doubts.

My question is... If Bethesda has a huge budget and is selling many millions of dollars worth of the game and merchandise why couldn't they spend a bit more on graphics in the budget? Has anyone said the reasons for having 5 year old graphics. I mean 2013 graphics okay fine but 2010-2011 is a bit strange. I personally wouldn't mind longer loading times to have a more beautiful game world. I don't expect amazing visuals but maybe a bit more advanced would be nice.

Thoughts?

By the way as mentioned I will still play the heck out of the game. I am not mad. I am just wondering about the budget and time and why a bit more updating wasn't possible.

Yes because the recording of a recording always looks the same as seeing the screen in person. Take out your phone record yourself playing skyrim watch the video and tell us how good it looks.

Graphics are all right for a console,can't wait for PC version.

I'm just glad there's shadows in the enviroments outside and little bit inside depedning on light source like in skyrim dungeon.

Compare to FO 3 and NV,it is a step up and hope we get HD texture for PC like in skyrim.

The videos I saw were not a crappy screen or cell phone video; they were very clear and crisp. When objects were close at all you could tell they looked like plastic; the walls especially were very odd. Obviously that leaked quakecon footage was horrible crap quality but the 2 I saw today were not.

The graphics don't look bad to my eye. I am curious about whether they seem good enough to warrant the relativity beefy reqs though.

I am sure with mods or on a PC they will be okay. I am on xbox one so my hopes are not super high. I just dont know how mods will work well with Xbox one...

I am playing dying light while waiting for Fallout 4 and the graphics blow fallout 4 away. The Dying Light game was made on a very small budget from a small company. Bethesda is a giant and has the resources to make things look better... I just don't get it.

Try having a fully dynamic world that is pretty darn huge by most games standards. It isnt a matter of load times so much as "can the system handle it?" PC will no doubt get a high res texture pack though, and of course modders will have fun with there own versions too. Fallout isnt your avergae game, and i am sure if they wanted to, they could make a visualing stunning master piece, but why release that when it would only be able to run on certain PC rigs?

I don't want to argue over that. I am not a graphic elitist. I am just wondering why it doesn't have much of an improvement from Skyrim many years later with the budget and resources they have. I don't need real life graphics but plastic walls, no texture in objects, and some of the animations are cringe worthy. The good news is I played new Vegas a bunch the last few months so it will at least be slightly better than that .

As I said make the load times 10 seconds as opposed to 5; who cares? If it looks better it is worth it. I don't really buy it though. There are many open world games with no load times in exteriors, just when you go into interiors. We are talking about Bethesda, not some indie company here.

By the looks of the presentation, I think Beth has really improved things starting with the inclusion of volumetric lighting. But if you're a pc player, graphics is the least thing to worry about if you know what I mean.

At least the graphics are a step up from Fallout 3 graphics, that I'm happy with but always room for improvement.

um, argue over what?

Either way, this is a huge game and the recommended settings on PC alone are bigger than most other games out there. On a console you cant afford to push the limits too much, they aimed for solid 30FPS at 1080p and they have no doubt done it based on Pete Hines tweets. As for PC, i reckon the ultra settings will be pretty damn good, assuming you can run it.

As I said about load times, it isnt a matter of taking longer so much as it being able to actually run it. And with a dynamic game like Fallout there is already alot of processing going on with textures on top of that.

I think when people start playing they will notice the graphics are pretty good, as really not as bad as they have been made out to be.

I'm guessing recent stuff have been on console, they seem to have scaled it back on those. Which is understandable.

But even compared to gameplay on consoles, no it does not look like Skyrim, imo. The latter having lower rez textures, lower poly meshes, worse animations, worse lightning, less and worse normal/parallax/displacement maps, etc. Fallout, to me, seem to have joined the rest of the triple A games in the graphics department. Well, on almost all levels. The difference being such things as character creation and using the same skeleton and animations for both genders. Compare it to MMORPG's like Black Desert, it's like night and day. Sure, one could say it because it's a western market game and thus they care a lot less about the representation of our characters. Still, they are far behind. Oh well, maybe in time for the next Elder Scrolls things might change.

I would like to point out since the to[pic is graphics, we have reached a point of diminishing returns when it comes to advances in graphics..


we saw a major jump each generation.. you could see how much better the SNES was over the NES, and how the N64 was over the SNES..

but as people have been pointing out, there wasn't as much of a jump in graphical quality between the 7th and 8th gen consoles..

this is because graphics can only go so high..



this may be good, because since we have reached the point of diminishing returns, companies may put less effort into "but look how nice everything looks!" and more into "okay, how can we make this game as entertaining as possible!"

Everything in Skyrim looked like clay don't compare F4 with it.

but anyways, F4 looks fine I Don't know what people are complaining about besides Bethesda decision to keep using Gamebryo

I don't know. Maybe it is just that the game looks cartoony... Something just isn't right; there are just some odd things when looking at the videos.

I guess I am just crazy. I don't think Bethesda will ever be near current games; they were always be behind 3-5 years visually.

Thank God the gameplay and open world are amazing! Here's to hoping one day the visuals measure up maybe the next elder scrolls.

Well, by now you should know that FO has a unique style which kind of looks "cartoony". Some people actually find this charming.

You know, I decided to look up the e3 screenshots again, i honestly dont see how people can say this game isnt as good as a others in terms of graphics. Either the wait is driving people mad or they all expect photo realism by now.

oh well

Personally, unless a game is actually cel-shaded, I'm always confused by people labeling them "cartoony" just because they have some saturation in the color palette.

But there always seem to be threads like this one. Skyrim was coming out, and there were graphics snobs throwing around "looks like last gen" in threads on that forum. And now we have the same thing here. Meh. (actually, that's interesting. If Skyrim looked last-gen for it's time, and - apparently - FO4 looks like Skyrim.... does that mean that it's graphics are 10 years old? )

Borderlands art style was charming. The super mutants I saw in the video today from fallout 4 were a bit much.

I guess there is nothing to be done but mods now. I just hope they step up textures and meshes and a few things in future patches.

I was fine with the e3. I even didn't understand people who were saying the graphics were bad. As I said the HD gameplay I saw today was rougher than I was hoping... Just look at the walls, objects, and facial animations.

If after the first reveal in June everyone was shouting about how amazing the graphics were, then a true fan would have been horrified by the implications of that.

Assassins creed unities Paris was beautiful to look at, but I have absolutely no desire to see it again. Fallout 3's D.C. was crude by comparison, but designed as such to have soul and character - and the impression of the imagery is impossible to forget.

The fact they've abandoned the last-gen consoles this time should be reassurance enough about the technical upgrades of Fallout 4.

Yes, the cartoon style of Borderlands was implemented really well although, I must admit, the first mod I downloaded was a mod to get rid of the cell shading and changed the graphics to that used by the cutscene renderer.

Graphics are important but they're no where near as important as the gameplay. Personally I think the graphics look fine, not the best I've seen certainly but they could have always been worse.

But the videos are of screen captured console. The screen capture on consoles drops the resolution to 720p and 30 fps. Trust me, I video capped some bf4 on my ps4 and it looks like absolute trash when the game itself looks decent.


As I said the video you watched was 720p. The console game will be halfway between e3 and the leaked combat vid you watched. I am assuming i saw the super mutant one?