With rare exceptions, no games graphics svcks these days. Some are better at the eye candy than others, but they are all for the most part, nice looking games to play. So, graphics are the last thing I worry about for a game, gameplay is much more important. A pretty game that is a pig to play is still a pig of a game. An ugly game that is fun to play is still a fun game.

I hate cute cat pictures.

Dammit! Please uninstall the internet.

I am ok with that.

Bethesda don't make graphics for 拢1000 cards. Thankfully.

Same with the Harry Potter PS1 games. The graphics blew me away back in the day but when I actually came back to play them recently, I could see the graphical flaws.

The key for me in terms of graphics is that the world seems interesting. Fallout: New Vegas even more so then Fallout 3 was just ridiculously brown and very washed out, which is a shame because the area around "vegas" lent itself to having really interesting colour pallets.

There's no hate. I will tell you though why I believe that many people concentrate on speaking about the graphics of the game, and it gathers so much attention.

Think of what we currently know about the game: we only know what the trailer has shown to us.

And what is the info the trailer communicates to us ? Well, it doesn't tell us anything about the gameplay.

Neither it gives something about the story plot of the game, aside from the fact that the player is from Vault 111,

one of the many vaults. But we don't get to know anything about Vault 111, all we know is that its just another of the many Vaults.

So what is there left that could be considered a 'new' piece of information that we get from the trailer ?

The graphics. The only thing that we know for the game now, is what its graphics look like, and that the player is from Vault 111 in Boston. That's all of it.

So, discussion about the game will either be pure speculation, or it will be based on info that we got from the only trailer there is, and the only info that

the trailer communicates is that the game takes place in Boston, that the player is probably someone from vault 111, what the aesthetics of visual and

audio design are, and what is the graphical fidelity of the game.

The audio info we get, is an old already known song, and the already known Fallout theme, nothing new here.

What we know about Vault 111 is only that its on Boston, and we can't really talk about anything else about it.

What is left to discuss is the graphics, so many people argue about the graphics. Some like them, some not.

Lol. Thar's kinda how i justify buying a new motorcycle. "Honey, if we want a tax return, i'll need to buy a new bike for comuting, huge benifits for taxes."

?000 for Ultra settings on PC. For every other configuration or platform the settings can be scaled down. Everyone can have the graphics they are willing to pay for. Forced graphics parity on all platforms is lame.

Eh. Nice graphics are nice but I'm more interested in having fun with the game.

Bear in mind I'm an old dinosaur who still doesn't understand why we needed console (xbox1, PS4) upgrades.

because people nowadays expect every game to look like Crysis 3 or something without having any knowledge on how games are made.

Fallout 3 - http://i.imgur.com/XTXAgKs.jpg

Fallout 4 - http://i.imgur.com/Oi2Vjr0.jpg

Fallout 3 - http://i.imgur.com/ky4RDUj.jpg

Fallout 4 - http://i.imgur.com/MTYqVZv.jpg

I mean c'mon people...

http://www.dsogaming.com/screenshot-news/fallout-4-versus-fallout-3-graphics-comparison-screenshots/

"This is terrible!"

Seriously, the 3 minute trailer took me about ten minutes to download. The difference in graphical quality between an actual video file, and a compressed video streamed from the Internet is pretty striking.

It will be fine, a lot of quality is lost when things are compressed. That's true across the board for both video and audio.

Different people complains about different things.

Its very true that fallout 3 and NV looks like its a few years since the war and not 200. Lack of vegetation but more important all the stuff lying around like food, who would not be eatable after so long, ruins too look a few years old.

This is done on purpose to give an post apocalyptic feeling, had the game looked like Oblivion, new towns and settlements and overgrown ruins it would be more realistic but would not give the feeling.

This was less of an problem in Fallout 1 and 2 but become one in 3 as you see everything close up.

Could you post a link to the uncompressed file?

NO DIFFERENCE!!!!! /sarcasm

I think the screenshots look way better than when the trailer first aired on youtube. I personally think the game looks great, The shadows alone are a massive improvement.

Having said that I don't see a significant difference between pictures 13 and 14.The rest of the pictures the difference is evident.

Not being a really devoted fan, but there looks to be aliasing in that Fallout 4 pic, the view from the vault, so possibly taken from the trailer (movement happening). That makes it blurry a bit. The fallout 3 pic is a still. But you can tell right away the difference in detail, draw calls (amount of stuff on screen) and the lighting effects. Fallout 3 pic looks very dull, bland, meh.

As much as I like graphics, its not the top most important thing. Well written story and character development is tops.

http://www.gamersyde.com/download_fallout_4_trailer-34774_en.html

I'd agree, but we were more likely to get a photo-realistic Fallout 4 than a well written one

Thanks

Ah yes, its a Bethesda game after all.

Thanks - wasn't going to do it from my phone.