Fair enough.

I call it an load of bull myself, first fallout uses an lot of distinct fallout objects like 1950 architecture and distinct robot types, it's not like they can change the handy robot into an humanoid type just because they think the jet it hover on is unrealistic.

Look how people complain about smaller super mutants.

Secondary PS4 is 6 times stronger the PS3, its many video card generations but is not so impressive as the PS1 to PS2 to PS3 jumps who was far larger, more important its very easy to see changes from an PS1 to an PS2 game because the models are blocky. PS3 to 4 looks less impressive as an high quality PS3 game looks pretty good,

Main change is that textures is much better. Vegetation look better but does not show so well with the sparse vegetation in Fallout as it does in an game like the witcher. Shadows looks much better.

Finally, they have right in some degree, Fallout 4 is not as graphically demanding as Witcher 3, Its a bit unusual that you can run the game in full hd on Xbox One.

It look like Bethesda aimed a bit low with Fallout 4 while Witcher 3 was aimed a bit high so the developers had to cut some stuff.

I think Fallout 4 is just as much graphically/processor demanding as Witcher 3 but in different ways. Fallout will likely have a lot more interactive and movable objects which takes a lot of processing power to handle and sometimes the game engine does not handle well. I do not really recall if Witcher 3 has any interactive/movable objects. Witcher 3 likely has more NPC's than Fallout likely due to too many interactive/movable objects.

I think the game looks great and is much better than Fallout 3 and Skyrim.

This game is going to need more powerful specs than Skyrim. Considering that Skyrim was released four years ago.

I have no idea in all honesty, but considering how Todd Howard has vaunted over the improved RAM of the next-gen consoles I'd expect the minimum RAM requirements to be higher.

Im starting to think that I will be able to play it on the gaming lap top i've had for the past 4 years, graphics wise they don't seem to be pushing it too much further than what they did with skyrim and that is a breeze to run on my laptop. we'll see

Found a gif that highlights the shadows and animation differences between Skyrim and Fallout 4.

http://gfycat.com/LoathsomeKindChipmunk

The same here. I'M all done upgrading my pc to play a game. I've spend thousands over the years doing this. But i'm older now and just don't want to do it anymore. I can run Skyrim and ESO on high settings. That's it for me And another thing is how one game cpu based and another is ram based. So sick of having to deal with upgrades.

I generally replace my computer every 5-6 years. Its just something Ive done since I was 20 or so. I want to play this game on the best setting I can so I spent a little more this time.

The real question is how does Particle Based Rendering impact CPU and GPU load. I have not found anything on the internet to show this. Anyone found anything about this?

Was anyone else around leading up to the release of Oblivion? I remember seeing the demo video with the rib cage casting a shadow on the prison cell wall and thinking it was the coolest thing ever. Oh how far we've come.

This is the video I'm taking about: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=de1M4Q_g2eg

Do you mean physical based rendering? From what I've read, it doesn't seem to have unilaterally better/worse performance, but it just changes the development workflow and what systems are taxed by rendering. This https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/1rl7bq/could_somebody_please_explain_physical_based/ actually does a really good job of explaining what PBR really does, I think.

The big takeaway I'm getting from that is PBR is much more consistent under different lighting conditions; which is really useful for Bethesda, since their level design is based around recombining the same assets (clutter, architecture, lighting templates) in creative ways to make each location feel unique. That consistency seems like it would really help them out.

Yeah Physical based rendering. It was late when I wrote that and I had just looked at an article dealing with PBR for particles. DOH!

There is no way the requirements are close to Witcher 3... Even Skyrim was WAY lower than Witcher 2. I doubt they made such a high jump between Skyrim and FO4. That sounds nearly impossible from what we have seen.

save to say if you can play the witcher athigh setting you almost certain can run this game at very high if not highest setting

Do both console operating systems use only 2 GB of memory? I figured they both would eat up half of what was available.

Maybe but I think it will be close to Witcher 3 since both games are designed around the current consoles. What I have seen the graphics look pretty close to Witcher 3. Bethesda likely have not shown the best graphics yet since people complained when Witcher 3 did not look as good as the trailers a couple years earlier. Who knows all the footage we have seen might have been from one of the consoles.

Also I usually find the minimum specs are a real hit or miss if the game will run or run well enough to really play the game.

Probably not the same specs. Being there's the new lighting and weather system in it. Probably more stable of a game to. Didn't play skyrim on the PC. But fallout 3 was sketchy on PC, with random crashes, even on high setting. But I'm sure it will run smoothly.

I'm thinking that the requirements will be a bit higher than skyrim. Lighting and shading alone could easily push up the max requirements but since you can turn those down/off the min requirements might not be as big of a change.