Maybe they're not the same people? I am consistently a fan of up to date graphics and while I do find other redeeming qualities in games with loads of content and freedom like Bethesda's, I always think they could do better to make those worlds more lively.

I think there is wisdom in that. I admit to have initially looked at it from that comparison. However, as another member posted, it is a striking difference after downloading the 4k uncompressed version. Then review the vanilla FO3 and Skyrim.

Granted, it's not pushing the realism envelope as much as others but it's a very acceptable palate for vanilla.

I first noticed the lighting was nothing short of running an ENB looks very good. I thought the art style was well done and a close up of curves were not blocky. At first glance, it looked like they were just missing a final layer of detailed texture. Once the 4K downloaded the textures were there.

As much as the webs have been slamming the graphics, a poll was recently taken in the forums about what element you could do without if you had a choice between various content, customization, characters and world space. Interestingly, as the poll was developing into the third day, it showed that most people would give up graphic fidelity. Alas, the poll was thought to be misguided and thus, disrupted and parts deleted by the OP.

I look at it with the same limitation decision. I accept having less than CGI quality realism to allow for more content and complexity. I accept a base game that meets the requirements of a broad range, accompanied with tools to make improvements tailored to my system's capabilities.

As somebody who is currently replaying Fallout 3 and New Vegas (TTW) and has one of the Fallout 4 screen shots as his desktop background, I'm confronted by the huge difference every time I close my game. The graphics look fine.

I think people remember the old graphics with rose colored glasses. It's like Homeworld Remastered. If you played the original game way back then and then see the remastered version years later, you can't really tell the difference because it looks more or less how you remembered it. It's only when you actually see the original again that you realize it never looked as good as you remember and the difference between the new and the old is striking.

Reckon you've got a point. I used to play Mario 64 when I was a kid and thought it was amazing (great game to be fair...), always looked back with fondness and nostalgia. Played it years later and it struck me Mario is made out of large cubes... I look back on Fallout 3 which I've not played in a long time and picture an idealised version in my head.

been wondering about that aswell

fallout games never been about the graphics

always been about the content and worldbuilding

and i rather have a game where thr developers are spending more time on the content than a game where most of the resources is wasted on picture perfect graphics

I don't like the "Game XYZ is not about the graphics" stance. This apology usually comes when a game has sub-standard graphics.

How about every game is about different things for different people? Some care more about mechanics, some about characters, some about graphics, but they're all here for a reason, they are fans of the series. It's not self-entitlement to criticize a game by its published official trailers, both the developers and the fans should deal with criticism in a respectful and elegant manner.

In my book a video game is about the whole experience (sum of all parts) and the race for photorealism wasn't some conspiration pushed by Ati and nVidia to sell video cards, it was the natural realization of an older dream to immerse the player in a beautiful living, breathing world once the technology allowed. So yes, video games are about graphics too, unlike books. It's true that for every player there is a personal threshold for tolerance to outdated graphics, some could live with Oblivion graphics and hope the race for polygons stopped there and the progress would mostly come in other departments like writing or branched quests. Some say Morrowind is beautiful enough, some want every new game to be a jawdropping videocardkilling revolution like Crysis.

I am not yet satisfied with today's graphics and I must admit that I expected more not only from Fo4, but also from this console generation. The generation is still young indeed and beautiful things may still come, but judging by the technical specs only I hoped more developers would push the envelope further. So far Witcher 3 is, despite its downgrade controversy, the only new-gen game that make me feel it's worth the hardware upgrade.

The graphics looked fine for me, they wern't really amazing, but i don't agree they looked like last gen consoles, there is some nice lighting in there, i'm used to modding Bethesda games with texture packs anyway, so ironically i don't think a lot of PC gamers will be complaining about the graphics much personally. i thought the trailer looked good anyway.

Hate? What hate? Slight disappointment maybe, but I'll reserve judgement for later when more details and movies emerge. I think it looks 'decent' but I have come to expect more than 'decent' from AAA studios.

It's nonsense.

The lighting, shadows, and textures are superior to the previous Fallout titles. More superior to Skyrim even considering Skyrim had terrible lighting and shadow effects without heavy mods.

People are mistaking bright colors for bad graphics, imo

I agree, this is something I reacted on myself. A bit surprising as you would obviously do the trailer on top of the line hardware.

Else it looks good.

Two issues with this console generation is that the jump is not so large, also the previous generation was able to do pretty good graphic making it much harder to improve quality a lot.

Man it bin a really long time since some of you played Fallout 3 and New Vegas because Fallout 4 looks way better then those games.

That how Fallout looks on every self respecting fallout fan's PC :

http://imgur.com/a/CyFB8

Like i said, textures quality is not a problem, LOD distance is a problem. Not to mention animations.

i don't hate the graphics the least. from what i've seen in the trailer, they're awesome. and since beth do all their trailers within the game engine, that's just what the game's going to look like.

Part of the issue is that even with Skyrim I'm playing using the HD patch and other graphic enhancements. I supposed I've forgotten what vanilla Skyrim even looks like. So when I look at my Skyrim ... and then the trailer ... yeah it's a little lacking. Though I have no doubt that the PC version will have visual upgrades ... and I'll need a new PC ... as soon as I can convince my wife that my old PC can't file taxes anymore ...

Simply put I think it is just human nature to complain about something and never being 100% happy. Honestly I don't care what the graphics looks like as compared to other Bethesda games I am just happy to finally have a new fallout game.

They should really think about adding Nvidia Hairworks to the game. TW3's creature look fantastic with it.

I guess people are trying to compare the graphics to Witcher 3? I didn't have a chance to play it but the cinematic/gameplay trailer looked really good.

If your a Fallout fan, the graphics shouldn't bother you. The fact that its announced, has me thrilled.

I think Graphically, it looks great.

If anything, the less-than-mind-blowing graphics is a good sign. A very good sign. If they didn't put all that time and energy into graphics then what did they spend all their time working on?

Graphics look fine. Not sure if it's a new engine or not though.

I'm more interested in story, gameplay, quests, etc. Fallout 3 and NV are a hard act to follow I think.

What I'm most happy about is that it appears that they have done something similar to something I suggested on the forum, about maybe setting the game initially before the bombs fell, giving you a glimpse of the old world and then you get cryogenically frozen or something and wake up 200 years later. My idea was a little different but still, It'd be nice to get a look at the old world and it appears this game might deliver a bit of that.

Other than that well, um, you did see that airship right? guys? the air ship?

Nice. What mod are you using for the sky?

How in the world can people say the graphics are on par with last gen hardware with a straight face? You really think the 360 with its 10 year old specs can pull off what we've seen? Skyrim vanilla 360 looks pants. I honestly think people are looking back with higher than reality regard.

They complain that the Capitol Wasteland would not be so dreary and dead after 200 years, and then they complain that the Boston area is too resurgent in life and color. Go fig.

It is not my gallery, but i think it is either Realistic Wasteland Lighting or Nevada Skies.

Pretty legitimate concern after TW3. Bethesda's less than stellar graphics and animations used to be excused with 'yes but it's open world', 'yes but it's an RPG', 'yes but it's huge', 'yes but it has many npcs running around', yes but yes but yes but.

I think TW3 killed all the 'yes buts'. It's an enormous open world RPG, has tons of rpg mechanics and content and very highly detailed graphics. Let alone great story and characters with personality. The bar has been raised and the bad reaction to Fallout's graphics comes from people who thought Bethesda would come up with something breathtaking after a long dev cycle that happens to coincide with a major hardware leap. Maybe they will, maybe at this stage they don't have yet, or don't want to show yet the graphics on Ultra settings. Any strategy is cool as long as the final product is going to be top class.

Cool, thanks. I'll have to check those out.