It's been years since I actually played Fallout 3, but I seem to recall that they actually handled most of the secondary content quite well in terms of writing and overall tone - it was mostly just the main quest-line that was a bit 'bleh'. It was almost like they managed to loosen up a bit more when it wasn't the main story, which worked in favor of the franchise's style. There were some great moments.

I suppose the same can almost be said of TES games too.

It looks good. A huge improvement over the previous games, even if it's not top of it's class this gen.

Maybe the Bugbryo engine that gamesas insists on using restricts them from having Crysis level graphics.

To be honest, I wouldn't care if Fallout 4 had New Vegas graphics as long as the content/story is awesome.

Graphics are such an overrated feature of games. Maybe I'm just older, but it seems to me like the actual content of games is entertaining less frequently that it was 10 years ago. It seems like sooooo much energy is svck into making the games graphically appeal that the story/characters/content is frequently underdeveloped. I don't know about you but outside of the Witcher 3 I have found a game entertaining for more than 15-20 hours in a loooooooonnnnngggggg time (Elder Scrolls and Fallout games being the exception).

So I suggest you guys check out the lossless quality of the trailer,, it REALLY maks a difference compared to 1080p of youtube, Youtube compression make the quality of videos like crap.


Agreed. They still made The Witcher 3 for consoles right ? Consoles are now the stamdard and you can have Console graphics on PC with a lot less than 1000￡ and on PC you can even go lower than that ! Plus Witcher 3 looks damn good on consoles too.

To be fair, I had to do a double take a few times. The graphics aren't as much bad as they don't appear to be all that much different.

That could be taken to mean several things, one of which is a testament to the craftsmanship of fallout 3.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

All that being said, the upon close scrutiny, the fallout4 graphics do appear to be objectively better.

The internet makes everything meta...threads of people moaning about threads of people moaning Personally I think what we've seen so far is mostly beautiful and I don't expect bleeding edge graphics from a Bethesda RPG, still gonna moan about stuff I don't like though.

To me the graphics look fine. I grew up in the 8bit era of consoles (Atari, NES, Sega, etc.). So as long as I can tell who's who and what's what, I'm okay with that. Besides gameplay is what matters to me not graphics.

...and apparently people moaning about people moaning about people moaning

It's turtles all the way down mate.

My opinion on the matter? The graphics are functional. They arnt over the top 4K and they arnt 8 bit. If they had to trade in on the graphical detail (which looks slightly better than Skyrim imho) to give us more features elsewhere (like more objects on screen and greater draw distances) then I'd be fine with it. With a game as massive as this will be there HAS to be balance. If the graphics are too demanding then they'll have to reduce something elsewhere. I'd be absolutely happy with the graphics if it meant greater uGrids and possibly no load screens for interiors and maybe even, for the first time since Morrowind, open cities.

Don't like it, no one is forcing you to buy the game. Plenty of us out there who will buy it and enjoy it.

Those graphics are gorgeous if we get a map twice of skyrim with new mechanics.

Well BGS games don't ever look worse than previous gen games.

I think that has bummed people out.

Or AC Unity, Witcher3, or sadly even GTAV(PC).

In my first reaction to watching the trailer, I criticized the graphics. Mind you, I didn't say "they're complete [censored]" or anything that extreme, but I did say that I felt they were lacking.

Having watched the trailer numerous times since, it's a hit or miss thing for me - with mostly grand slams but a couple strikes. The environments look @#$%in fantastic! Some of the models, like the Mr. Gutsy, look great too. However, that dog looked and moved horrible. I don't care what F3 looked like. I've played Witcher 3 and Shadow of Mordor, and that dog is sub-par in both animation and appearance. Some of the humans didn't look that great either, but the animations did look a lot more natural.

It's been what, 7 years since the last game came out? And there have been new games that come out that have raised the bar for graphics and game play. I feel I have every right to criticize where it is due. Plus, in the end, I just want F4 to be the best game that it can be. I'll disagree with anyone that says it looks like [censored] both fundamentally (criticisms should be constructive) and objectively (there are absolutely things in the trailer that look great), but I'll certainly voice my opinion if I feel it is warranted and can be helpful.

Honestly, they look fine to me. Yeah, they aren't the best, but I know I'll enjoy every minute of play time regardless.

I just hope the shooting feels fluid. Please don't be faster crossbows from skyrim.

I imagine that like Skyrim there will be an HD patch for PC shortly after release. I'm curious what use they've made of the new gen consoles added computing power, but would actually be somewhat disappointed if they squandered it all on improved eye candy. Guess we'll hear soon enough.

Game will be optmized for PS4/ One however they will probably not run full hd or more than 30 fps, this is pretty much standard today. You can run it on an pc who is weaker than One but then it will not look good.

If you run Skyrim nicely you will be able to run FO4 but not at max. If you struggle with Skyrim you can forget it.

Hopefully we get an HD patch for pc too,

main benefit of PS4 / One is 8GB memory, TES FO3/NV is memory intensive, this will not only enable higher resolution executes but also more textures and more characters on screen at once.

Except far more open areas and less loading doors everywhere. Probably also more gear variations too as you have the memory for it.

I think its just people expecting drastically different artwork in some way. If you look at Oblivion to Fallout there are massive differences, same for Fallout 3 to Skyrim. But for Fallout 4 the artwork style is very similar to Fallout 3 for me that just means that the styles are stabilized and I expect the next ES game will have a similar style to Skyrim (If it is in skyrim) but maybe not because ES tends to change landscapes.

You get what I'm sayin though right?

Look at it this way: If the game desen't have top tier graphics then it probably won't have insane system requirements, and that is a good thing.

It honestly doesn't seem to be mid-tier either, unless those screenshots weren't running on max.

This may be a three fold problem, and that is 1) people expecting Bethesda to push the envelope with graphics (which won't happen with Todd at the helm), 2) the confusion of http://in2gpu.com/2014/06/20/difference-graphics-aesthetics/ and vice versa, and 3) comparing to Skyrim/FNV ENBs.

The youtube trailer doesn't do the showcase any justice, and while it does not hurt the aesthetics it smudges the graphics quite a bit. I'd suggest people have a look at the uncompressed version for a better idea of what to expect.

So what other "low tier" game are you comparing it to?

What else would anyone talk about?

Unsurprisingly the short teaser trailer only gave us a decent view of the graphics, and it's always disappointing to see graphics that aren't absolutely mind-blowing (even if we have no reason to expect or need them). Besides, the main focus of this trailer, the dog, looked and moved a bit too muck like a plastic toy for my taste. And look at this http://www.thejimquisition.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ass1.png. It's like a block of wood suffering from severe depression. Once people see one thing they don't like, the floodgates begin to open and they'll start picking everything apart. It also makes it look like Bethesda haven't even tried to improve their assets (pun intended). Same dull animations, same ugly bodies, and potentially the same lackluster visuals.

If the dog had a few more pixels in its texture and more fluid animations, and if someone had toned up that butt, we'd probably have a few less people complaining about graphical fidelity. The worrying is pretty irrational, but it's not completely unfounded.