Er... no... no that's not true at all...

NV had a 2GB memory limit on PC. IF it was memory intensive to you... then it probably means you only had 4 gigs... or you were running a lot of mods, and it was running out of pre-allocated space.

Also... the reality of PS4/One's memory... is that it's shared between the GPU and the CPU.

Probably a safe bet that Xbox One will have 2gigs eaten up by the OS alone. So.. the GPU might use 2 gigs, and the CPU will use the remaining four. Buuuuuuuuut... Xbox and PS4's games might try to keep their memory consumption to 4 gigs on the CPU, than 1 gig on the GPU for safety reasons.

If you can run any of the currently released games that were a big deal, you'll be fine. That includes skyrim with it's HD textures on.

people are so spoiled by high end picture perfect graphics in other games that they forget 2 things

furst Fallout never been about graphics , it is about the character , the world and the story

and while high end graphics are a must in most linear games it is a complete different thing in a open ended world

second high end graphics will look completelt outdated within 2 years , what we ve seen now they will last much longer , take a example on skyrim , while they indeed start showing age they srill pretty good and even fallout 3 and new vegas graphic still look good

ooh and lastly i think the graphics look so like fallout and anything else will feel wrong

I saw an image taken from the Fallout 4's website (the one with the workshop, dog, armor etc.) wich was basically decomposed to see how the graphics were.

They pointed out a lot of antialiasing and...multisampling (I think?) issues.

It would be cool if they step up their graphics, but I want it to run on more than 30 FPS on my i5 laptop.

Anyways, my mind still think NV's graphics are top-tier

well you see once upon a time there was a game Known as Fallout, No bloody 1, 2, Tactics, Brotherhood of [censored], 3 New Vegas or 4.

Back then fans of the game saw it as being PERFECT! and all was right with the world, Then along came Fallout 2 and for parts of the fan-base ALL hell broke loose in triplicate because it was not THERE vision of perfection, and much Grumbling was heard.....As time went by and Tactics came out there was more agitation and grumbling from some of the fan-base but by and large eventually they either got along or moved on. untill Fallout Brotherhood of [censored] came out and the Grumbling became weaponised for the first time. . .

Then word started getting around that Fallout 3 was in the works and there was much rejoicing, , , and some grumbling. . . then time went by and suddenly Bethesda bought out Fallout because the Evil ones had sold the fans down the river for some silver. . .. causing some fans to grumble and complain because Bethesda was NOT Black Isle. . .. even though Black Isle was more or less long gone thanks to the efforts of the Evil ones. . . and there was a surprising amount of ranting and raveing from the "True fans" of The One True Fallout. . . that you would think they were actually trying to boost sales and thus cement Bethesdas ownership!

then Fallout New Vegas came out to a surprisingly understated level of Grumbling......(yes some people complained it was just going to be a payed mod to the game and so on... . but yes there was some grumbling so things were all right....

Now comes Fallout 4 and the inevitable happened, Grumbling! so in reality the grumbling just proves that all is well in the fallout fanbase.....

^^^^

The internet is great if you want to find outraged people. Doesn't matter how spurious it is. Neighbours dog peed on the fence line? A bird crapped on your car? WAHGRRRFRACKINRASSINFRASSIN!

The Bioware lead designer came out and took a verbal jab at Fallout 4's trailer.

He said on twitter "You could just watch a Fallout 3 trailer"

Disrespectful

That's a bit rich coming from Bioware.

The graphics in the trailler are fine. The game's going to be large and have a lot of things to do compared to the average "Triple A" title that drops on current gen consoles and PC so I think graphics are forgivable.

I hope somebody threw Dragon Age II at him.

Correction its not memory intensive compared to pure pc games who tend to eat any memory they can get to improve performance.

Its very memory intensive if you have 256 MB system memory.

On One/ PS4 this will not be an issue as you say. GPU probably limits stuff before memory does.

If the game uses more than 2GB memory they can forget 32 bit version at last something I seriously hope.

on an 32 bit OS (XP or Vista 32) you can only access 4GB ram and this includes memory on graphic card. So if you have 1 gb on it and windows uses 1 you have 2gb left for game.

And plenty of rotting fruit, preferably still in the tins.

Personally, I'd rather have less than state of the art graphics in order to leave some headroom for special effects without killing frame rate. I'd prefer to be able to render big battles with large numbers of combatants firing energy weapons with explosions galore than to be able to look at a beautifully rendered tree in a world where you never see more than two or three baddies at a time because rendering more would cause a performance hit.

There are trade-offs, and I am happy to sacrifice fidelity for FPS and a greater number of characters, objects and effects rendered at once.

Will I finally be able to alt+tab in Fallout 4? ._.

When pressed for comment, Todd Howard responded: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAH"

I swore I wouldn't post out here again, but I find some of the comments here and elsewhere regarding BGS's graphics quality to be inaccurate or outright false. I guess people have very short memories.

Morrowind was one of the most demanding games graphically when it was released in 2002.

Four years later, Oblivion was one of the most demanding games graphically and had one of the highest system specs of any game on shelves. Oblivion and Crysis were two of a handful of games that were typically used and cited for benchmarking PC system performance. In fact, Oblivion was one of the primary games (along with Crysis and a few others) that Nvidia cited as good titles for using their (then recently introduced) SLI graphic card technology (i.e., joining two or more cards together to improve performance for graphically-intensive games).

FO3 was based on Oblivion's engine and had similar specs when it came out in 2008, so it was also fairly high tier, although tech on PC had progressed in the two years since Oblivion.

Skyrim was improved from FO3's engine and was the first game after Bethesda purchased the NetImmerse source code after Emergent went bankrupt. NetImmerse was the original name given to the engine that later became GameBryo and then became Bethesda's Creation Engine (for Skyrim).

Just as another reminder, Gamebryo was also used for another extremely demanding game at the time when Oblivion was being made: Civilization IV used Gamebryo.

The graphics for FO4 in the trailer are very good and certainly top tier, quite similar to the level of Oblivion versus Crysis in 2006.

Keep in mind that the first (beginning) and third (ending) of the trailer are cinematic, but the second (middle) section is in-game. Todd has stated (and Pete Hines has affirmed) that BGS's policy is to not use purely cinematic trailers because they feel that doing so is misleading (to put it nicely). Todd insists (and Pete supports) waiting until they can offer a trailer depicting actual in-game quality. Not for teasers like Skyrim's (30 seconds or so), but for actual, full trailers (a few minutes).

Finally, people who think another engine can do what Bethesda's does need to offer some examples of games with thousands of interactive objects throughout the game world. I have yet to see another company offer such a game, and certainly have not seen an engine that can do such work, not in the West or in East Asia. There may be one, but people who complain have never, to my knowledge, offered such examples when they make comments.

Everything I have posted here can be checked by searching for articles from the various time periods of the respective games.

Im not worried unless the musical act doesnt work.

I wouldn't say the graphics look bad per se, there is a lot of detail to the textures and everything else if you watch through and pause to look at the scenes in the trailer, I just think we have begun to come accustomed to games trying to look either real, or go out of the way to look cartoony.

The style of Fallout 4 to me looks like they've gone for a middle of the road approach on it using a bit of both. and at times you see the bulk of the surrounding areas looking fairly realistic, and then a character model in the shot as well looking rather cartoony and the styles clash a bit.

I would argue that it was planned to look that way in the respect that they wanted to make it look more realistic but not lose what's now becoming a signature look for fallout games.

I'm more concerned about the soundtrack and composer to be honest

I hope Inon Zur is back

To an extent I agree, but I don't think we'll see that in Fallout 4. I'm sure they'll have a slightly higher headcount (like, 15-20 people on screen at once) but that's it.

Hell, if they haven't managed to beef up the LOD much, even on the high-end PC they must've used to create that 4K screenshot, then I'd say a significantly higher pop cap is off the table. Also, if they could do that then I suspect they'd at least tease it in the trailer, a bit like how they clearly showed off the seamless interior/exteriors. But there was no densely populated areas, even in the city.

I'm wondering if the uGrids setting can be increased and maintain stability now. That would be awesome.

UGrids to load was a huge step ... and very dependent on the players machine. I would imagine they have tried to make more information pre-loaded and streamlined in such a way so as to notice the old uGrids step up for how it was be less drastic.(if using that this time)

You really only need to load the information relevent to what the player will notice. Some restructuring can achieve this.

15-20 was the limit in Skyrim. That was memory limited, I say 50 is closer, now the GPU is the limit and its far more ways to fix this than memory limits, for one npc off the screen is not rendered so don't count.

Now how many enemies you can see at once has another limit, they have guns and will shoot at you, if you have 50 enemies shooting at you and advancing you have an serious problem.

You will not get into close combat with them to say it simple.

Having 50 characters on screen is different to having 50 characters in combat on screen. The amount of AI processing, hit/collision detection, pathing and so on it has to account for goes way up, not to mention any added effects associated with gunplay (50 miniguns and Fatboys will single-handedly kill performance).

It also affects occlusion culling (which, as you referred to, is when things off-screen aren't rendered). From memory, past BGS games have had pretty crappy occlusion culling, so I'm hoping they use Umbra or something, because that would presumably increase performance quite a bit, and reduce the reliance on uGrids. Although going by the LOD in some of their screens, I'd guess maybe they haven't.

The difference between 15 and 50 enemies isn't from drawing the frames so much , as is the complex scripting controlling each npc.

So the GPU isn't the bottle neck in that case. However I imagine the processor , system ram and even Vram might get taxed for keeping track of when/where the player might turn to then render those moving npc's. What actually gets drawn and rendered is of less consequence.

LoL ... thanks for the ninja