That is a gross simplification of how game engines work, that completely ignores how they actually work.

The fact that you can seriously make such a comment seriously is honestly pretty shocking.

Simple is usually best. Esoteric details don't really help explain it in the abstract, and that's the only way most need to see it.

Simple is best when it accurately describes the situation, your simplistic explanation did not however.

Not all game engines are capable of doing everything well. Unreal engine for example is actually kinda bad at doing thin objects, which is why most games using Unreal are like Bioshock, Gear of War, Borderlands, or the Batman games, where everything is unrealistically "meaty" looking. Even the guns have a lot of unrealistic "bulk", because the engine just really doesn't do "thin" objects that well. Not that it can't do them at all, it just not that good at it.

Similarly, the gamebryo/creation engine really isn't that good as doing the crack and mole covered faces of super mutants from Fallout 1 and 2, because it really doesn't do face textures outside of flat textures, which is why even Marcus's face bumps/moles/whatever they are, in NV were fairly terrible looking.

The idea that game engine technology doesn't limit what developers can do, and is nothing more then "newer game engine = twice the resolution, so we can get the exact same thing as before, just with double the resolution" is just flawed, fundamentally.

That is just simply not how it works.

This, except that facial structures is normal / displacement maps who is in the direct-x / rendering part of the game not engine. Yes doing facial animations combined with heavy normal maps don't look good unless you plan it, and here the engine matter.

Creation engine did the dragons in Skyrim well so it can handle big monsters.

The problem with big monsters is that they are big and hard to place, in town dragons can only land on selected locations they are marked if you open an town in the editor, they have more freedom in the wilderness I guess they look for open areas using the nav-mesh.

Now dragons can fly and have ranged attacks, this makes them dangerous, if they could only walk and only do melee they would be easy to kill with ranged, they would be just as hard to kill with melee except that you could move out of range an heal up.

The behemoth in Fallout 3 was all in fixed locations and they was easy to avoid, has anybody been killed by one?

Of course not. The example mentioned sprites. [It was about Mitheledh's mention of Mario.]

And your example of sprites was wrong, as I pointed out.

It fails to take into account that one cannot simply double the resolution of a sprite. This isn't CSI, where you can take a 3pixel camra image from a dark alley ,and blow it up, and have it become crystal clear becuase you "enchanted" the resolution by 5000 ttimes.

You have to completely remake the sprite with double the resolution, and because it had to be remade, visual aspects of it would change, tiny as they may be, either by artist error, or simply the old design not looking as good in the new doubled resolution.

You do have a wonderful time assuming whichever intention you think would make them so.
...And then you apply (always and without fail ) your own reinforcement of your own skewed perception.

For example:

This is attempted derision and even attempted belittlement ~of something I did not claim, but that you either honestly assume, or have dishonestly tried to add for effect.
______________

Of sprites... A developer porting to a platform that supports twice the resolution of the original [with equal or better color depth], can display their sprites at 1:4, and have the artwork display at the original quality; but not be taking any advantage of the platform's superior graphics potential.

Of 3D models... A developer porting to a platform that supports twice the resolution of the original [with equal or better color depth], can display their models as-is, and have the model display at the original quality; not taking any advantage of the platform's superior resolution, but benefiting somewhat from the engine's less jagged depiction of the model.

Funny how literally everyone somehow seems to misunderstand your arguments, given how often you say such things not only to me, but to others as well. Gizmo truly is the man of mystery.

Which would be incredibly stupid and wasteful of the devs. No one is going to upgrade their engine, and then use textures from the old engine that are half the resolution of what the new engine can do just becuase they were good enough, and display just fine as they are.

And when you are remaking the textures to begin with, its both natural and logical to remake them from scratch, to better suit the atmosphere you are going for in that specific game. Since every game in a series has its own narrative, and thus tone, mood, and other such factors, meaning certain designs that worked for the tone and mood of past games is no longer valid in this one.

It's the very reason why Bethesda redesignes the armors for each TES game. The designs of Morrowind could have been directly ported into Oblivion and Skyrim, textures and all, but those wouldn't fit with the setting of Oblivion or Skyrim, or the very nature of the areas of Cyrodiil or Skyrim. Its also the same reason why Obsidian used an orange filter in NV, instead of a green one, despite the fact green could have been used, and why the filter was changed to grey in Skyrim.

Not making those changes is nothing but traditionalism for the sake of traditionalism, which is a fallacious line of thought at its core. And why no game dev I can think of does it.

I have carefully checked, and they are indeed 2.3% smaller.

Pre-order cancelled.

Why even bother to type that? (That's certainly not news to anyone; I would hope.)

I do think that you've just done it again; once again made assumptions and then told a person how wrong/silly/wasteful *their idea* was.

It was never (could... never... be...) the point to suggest improvement or anything other than that a straight port to a new platform could be done, and made functional.
(It even said in the post that the result would not take advantage of the platform.)

This was in refute to the assertion that a new (Mario Bros. ) engine required new art rather than simply being a matter of preference.
(Which relates ~eventually to the matter of changed creature and item assets in FO3/FO4. The appearance is arbitrary preference.)

Because it is the point you made, intentionally or not. You don't really seem to understand what the words you are typing mean Gizmo, which is why so many people seemingly have problems understanding what you "mean". That or you are just changing the goalposts. I'm not really sure which.

But back to the actual point. If what you said this time is true, then much like your "hammer" compression, everything you have just said this whole conversation has had literally no point to it.

>You say there is no reason for them to change super mutant design.

>You use the fact that things could be ported for one engine to another, while having them still work, as a reason why.

>Then you agree that "well yeah, it would be dumb and wasteful of them to not change it!"

One again Gizmo, you have created a contradictory logic string, that makes no actual point, because any point you made, you either directly contradicted yourself, by changing your previous viewpoint, or agree with the point that disproves it.

So Gizmo, I will ask again, what evidence can you provide that proves your point that the designs should have remained the same?

As to the bolded part, that is exactly what I refuted in my post which you said has nothing to do with the argument made. So no, I apparently didn't assume anything, because that is exactly what my response was built around contradicting.

Haha..

Was it a Pip-Boy edition? I'm sure that will make someone happy

That cinches it. Look, you are making this stuff up as you go, and now you are trying to justify even that by trying to include even... even unintentional ways of being wrong, that only you could get wrong ~because only you make the assumption.

Then you go one further, and accuse me of error in my posts, for not understanding the ways that you can misunderstand me.

After that, I've no clue. What are you talking about? What 'hammer compression'? What lack of point? You have it wrong in a major~ major way that's borderline harassment; and not just of me, but of many. You begin by default with variants of "Not really"... Anytime anyone sees a response from you, it is some form of , 'Good, you agree with me.' or 'Not really, here is why'.

For those who complain (I don't care much about their size):

Regarding Lore:

We are still talking about an radiated world.

We are talking about an "unhealthy" enviroment.

We are talking about ongoing mutations, means constant changes.

Let's call our supermutant example Bob. Bob was once a mindless FEV standard supermutant.

After the Master failed, he sets of into the wasteland. During his journey he encountered battles, harsh enviroment, even more radiation, poisons and such.

Bob begins to learn in order to survive: he envolves or mutates to make better use of his natural abilities.

Eventually Bob ended up at the Boston Area - an closely build, but destructed area.

Bob got bigger due his journey through the wasteland, so he is obviously in disadvantage in that area.

But Bob is a Mutie! The FEV within him keeps involving him: making him smaller and more agile.

That's how Bob and his friends became the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Dwarfs" .

Only issue here would be the timeframe. But due the FEVs highly aggressive nature, it could be possible.

Creative freedom explained.

Easier would be: Does your neighbor look like you?

Answer moved to a PM.

Wow.

Do we really need an in game explanation of every artistic decision? Not only is that unnecessary, it's actually terrible. How tedious would that be to play?

But in the interests of being constructive, I'll suggest a few more:

• Protections now have a transparent head and a red light - No problem. They're just a different model.
• Most objects are more colourful - Well I suppose there was a local Boston paint manufacturer who produced a particularly UV resistant brand. Easy. I look forward to having it explained to me in the game.
• The sky is often blue in the Boston area, but always grey in DC - Tricky... no wait, I've got it! You couldn't see the sky in Fallout 1 and 2, so it doesn't matter!
• There's weather in the Boston area, but not in DC or the West - OK, that's harder, but I'm sure there must be some logical explanation.
• You can look out of windows now when you couldn't before - Er, pass.

Anyway, I prefer the look of the new super-mutants. They appear more like humans who have been mutated and less like orcs.

Vault 87 Super Mutants go through indeterminate growth, like some kinds of fish. These Super Mutants might just be more fresh.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Enclave were connected to the Boston muties in some way. But then, the Institute doing it wouldn't be surprising either.

Protectrons were a new asset. I certainly thought they were fine as they were. The new model's head is closer to Robby-the-Robot's ~and still fine... but I'd hope they are different model Protectrons in the game, and not the same robots with inexplicably altered appearance.

And the complete overhaul of the environment from grey to mostly colourful? It's by far the most striking difference between art styles from Fallout 3.

Does that require a lore explanation?

It should; it would be nice.

Aside: Where I live the skies in the evening are often hard to believe; you could paint them on canvas, and no one would think them real ~who wasn't used to seeing them.

Now the joke here is that it's claimed that one can know what the refinery is burning that night, by the look of the sky.

I think it'd be neat if they did a New Orleans DLC, and did actually work that into the narrative.

Quick search turns up:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/34/82/69/348269170314af6a97c79b9e19e12133.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3400/4620455155_e5d4cd1992_b.jpg

http://writerobinson.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/sunset1.JPG

http://hdwpics.com/images/23EEFD8656AE/Bourbon-Street-in-New-Orleans-at-Sunset.jpg

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Gizmojunk001/Jackson%20Square-sm_zpsfgn8sd6o.jpg

Boston probably didn't have the same faith as DC, so things look less devastated, thus being less intimidating and more...happy, I guess?

Well it's been 200 years, people finally started to do something instead of swimming in puddle of water irradiated by a nuke in center of town. It really feels that they're rebuilding.

I don't know if it's a good change or not, but it's a change that makes sense.

It is not necessary to have lore exploration on new design, but it will be nice.

So another vote for having a reason. Interesting.

Personally I'd rather not have the game try to explain away things that were clearly changed for artistic reasons.

Of course, I have no problem if people want to come up with their own explanations.

Really?

I don't get it. Why shouldn't Bethesda rethink their creations when any other artist can? Authors revise books, directors revise films, and artists re-paint pictures. What's the big deal?

Yes, people have complained about some of the things above. Star Wars would come to mind here; some people didn't like the changes brought in with the new versions. In the end though people just walked away or accepted it. George Lucas' excuse was "it's closer to my original vision". Nobody can argue with that. It's his universe.

Same here. Bethesda has redesigned some stuff. Some of this is due to less technological restrictions, some of it is purely artistic. It's their game they can do what they want. No you don't have to like it, and if you don't you can either mod it or walk away. Nobody is forcing you to play Fallout 4 instead of Fallout 1. I'll still play Halo: Combat Evolved over Halo 4 any day, just my opinion of which was the better game. But you don't see me asking 343 to change things back to their Combat Evolved state, do you?