0
92

[–] PrivateJoker 0 points 92 points (+92|-0) ago 

Meh, FO3 and NV weren't that great to look at on last gen consoles yet i still put in 100s of hours with each of them. I'm sure this one will be just as good, if not better.

0
36

[–] Bkow 0 points 36 points (+36|-0) ago 

Me too. I don't play Fallout for the latest and greatest graphics. I play for the story and the side stories and the incredible locations and characters.

0
28

[–] munk_e_man 0 points 28 points (+28|-0) ago 

Not to mention the freedom. Anytime a game offers this huge amount of customization and sandboxing, it comes at the expense of a bit of graphics. Modders will always be there for power PC gamers who have rigs able to handle intense graphics, but as someone with a pretty mediocre laptop I'm more excited that the game will actually be able to run on my computer.

0
20

[–] austenite12 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

My only beef with Bethesda is their character animations. Ever since Morrowind they've stuck out to me.

0
1

[–] escape 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Plus if you really want those graphics, use mods! Get the best of all worlds!

0
0

[–] BRockShooter 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Same here. I usually don't play games for their graphics. I play games for thier gameplay, openness, replayablity and both the development and mod community behind them.

Look at Minecraft. The game has TERRIBLE graphics, but yet remains the most downloaded game on the planet and has one of the largest player bases and mod communities around.

That proves it, right there, that graphics don't mean squat if the game doesn't have the gameplay that people are looking for.

0
11

[–] ARCHA1C 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

But they were more graphically-competent relative to other titles of the time, whereas FO4 is clearly lagging behind in visuals.

The visuals in FO3 certainly aided to the appeal. I enjoyed the great draw distances and details. The discovery of new areas and visually-interesting sights added to the playability of the game.

I wouldn't simply dismiss the dated graphics of FO4. Having sub-par visuals in a AAA title could hinder it's long-term appeal.

1
23

[–] Womb_Raider 1 points 23 points (+24|-1) ago 

Yes, but on PC, mods will come with time and textures will be replaced. I'm not worried.

0
16

[–] Madi 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Ehh, maybe it's just because I play a lot of older games, but I think FO4 looks pretty good visually

0
1

[–] YourDumbWhat 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

They're not THAT bad. It certainly won't ruin it's appeal long-term: at worst, it looks like something that could have potentially came out a few years earlier in the fantasy land of unlimited game budgets.

As for FO3, I don't think it was any less behind graphically than FO4 will be. You know what else came out in October 2008? Dead Space. Anyhow, let's look at this from a Bethesda release stand-point. They make a new engine for Oblivion, then use the same engine (with some polish) for Fallout 3. They make a new engine for Skyrim, then use the same engine (with some polish) for Fallout 4.

0
1

[–] BRockShooter 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If all you care about is graphics, why even bother playing games? Go watch a AAA movie instead where you can gawk at all the overly saturated pretty visuals until your eyes fall out.

0
1

[–] the-code-always-wins 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I just hope they maintain the interesting plot of FNV. Storywise, Skyrim was a big downgrade.

0
1

[–] Rellik88 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Maybe because I remember NES. I thought the graphics were quite good.

1
27

[–] PunisherWarJournal6 1 points 27 points (+28|-1) ago 

If modders can make Fallout 4 as slick and vibrant as Skyrim can be made at the moment I don't think we'll have to worry.

2
26

[–] ez2typ 2 points 26 points (+28|-2) ago 

Until Bethsoft tries to charge for mods again.

8
42

[–] TheyKeepOnRising 8 points 42 points (+50|-8) ago  (edited ago)

Bethesda did not charge anybody for mods. They gave modders the option to sell their mods if desired.

EDIT: Downvoted for giving the facts? What is this, reddit?

0
4

[–] voat-simulator 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

You think they didn't learn their lesson?

0
2

[–] Oriumpor 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Funny, that looks like Ark.

0
1

[–] Azriel777 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I Hate this logic, it is broken? It is missing something? Just let modders fix it. WTF? That just encourages companies to be cheap and half ass their work if the know someone else is going to fix it for them.

0
0

[–] NedTaggart 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

this is exactly what I came here to say. I played skyrim for years on Xbox. I purchased it recently on steam just to mod it.

Bethesda has made good with the games they produce. I will continue to play them for now.

0
21

[–] Muesli 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago  (edited ago)

shrug Fallout always has had a very distinct art style, and as long as they don't mess with that and keep the graphics at a reasonable level (but maybe get rid of the *damn neckseam this time around, pretty pwease?), I will be fine.

I much prefer a game that feels interactive to one that looks slightly better but reacts like a painting, i.e. not all. I've hated that in SWTOR (not even weather and day/nightcycles, really, Bioware?!) because it dramatically decreases my immersion. As long as it ensures I can keep my weapons lying around my cave and have a radstorm, I don't care if it's visually not quite as stunning as that van Gogh over there.

0
16

[–] dontnation 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

Animation is so much more important to me than lighting or shaders. Unfortunately it has always been terrible in bethesda games.

0
4

[–] ClairityDX 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Agreed. Fallout 4 looks pretty damn good compared to FO3/NV, but the animation is still abysmal. It's almost like they just slapped some higher resolution textures onto New Vegas-based models, imported some Skyrim engine effects, and called it a day.

4
19

[–] Slothking 4 points 19 points (+23|-4) ago 

Fallout 4 is about "freedom", not being the "best looking game," says Bethesda

Well no shit, Bethesda does not do graphics.

But it is funny as shit that they talk about freedom and then admit adding more unkillable characters, VOICE ACTOR FOR PC, and gimped speech options.

It will be shit.

0
2

[–] GarrioValere 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Also the whole power armor section from the gameplay trailer didn't exactly scream freedom.

0
3

[–] mscomies 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The power armor sections lasted for about 2 minutes in the last gameplay trailer. I don't think the Fallout 3 trailers of the GNR fight against the super mutant behemoth screamed freedom either.

0
0

[–] TH_ 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Bethesda does not do graphics.

The phrase "bethesda-face" didn't come from nowhere.

0
0

[–] strongdoctor 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I've always gotten the impression that Bethesda rely wayyyyyyy too much on modders.

0
0

[–] chasesan 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It will be the shit.

FTFY

0
8

[–] DSQ 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

How is this any different from the previous TES or Fallout games from Bethesda? They all had massive immersive open worlds to play around in and average graphical look compared to the top notch graphics at the time. Is the point of this news to just reaffirm, that everything will be just like people were expecting?

0
8

[–] ARCHA1C 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

average graphical look compared to the top notch graphics at the time

I think the difference is that this time, FO4 looks to be well-below average in visuals, rather than average.

FO4 looked like a last-gen title to me. I'm not a visuals snob, but it would be nice to see a AAA title push the envelope a bit with some eye candy. I'm sure gameplay will be great, but gameplay in many older games is great, yet nobody wants to play them anymore because they look so dated.

0
10

[–] VanGoghingSomewhere 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

and granted, the witcher 3 has a great deal of freedom and still has some of the best graphics

2
7

[–] TheyKeepOnRising 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

If you are worried about graphics, just buy it on PC. The ENB mods will come out after a month or so, and then you will have all these great visual options that your computer can't handle.

0
2

[–] adambetts 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

FO4 looked like a last-gen title to me.

Don't you think you're exaggerating a bit? Fallout 4 isn't the most hi-tech but last-gen sure can't do a lot of things seen in Fallout 4 screenshots/video such as long drawing distance, high density foliage, more moving objects, lighting engine, shaders, etc.

If you said it looked like a first-wave title then I'd mostly agree with you. Xbox 360/PS3 weren't as pretty as we remembered.

0
0

[–] deepdesigns6 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I thought so too until I saw the uncompressed trailer. There is a lot going on there that you might not be noticing.

0
0

[–] MrTastyFace 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

True, but the gap between Bethesda releases and the rest of the industry grows every year. Oblivion was actually pretty decent for the time- bear in mind this was the same year we got HL2: Episode 1, Rainbow Six: Vegas and Prey and it isn't far behind those titles which is especially impressive since it was a first person open world game at a time when no one else was doing it.

Now compare FO4 to The Witcher 3, GTAV, MGSV, Arkham Knight, AC:U or any other AAA open world game. Shit, compare it to Rage, a game that came out 5 years ago and it still doesn't hold up. We've had incremental improvements on Oblivion for the last decade while the competition keeps getting further and further ahead.

0
5

[–] buttlet 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The Fallout games have always been kinda ugly in my opinion. The the first two looked so muddy sometimes it was hard to tell what was happening. Three and New Vegas had shitty animation bad textures and those horrendous color filters. My love for fallout has little to do with visuals. Graphics mods will blow the vanilla graphics away even if they focus more on them anyway.

0
4

[–] munk_e_man 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I actually liked the color filters. To this day you can look at the most random screenshot of Fallout 3 or NV and instantly tell it apart from every other game that came out in the last generation. They also gave the games a sense of atmosphere and consistency that I really liked.

0
1

[–] buttlet 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

To each his own. I just feel there are better ways to convey atmosphere.

0
0

[–] Zorin 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It doesn't help that I hated Fallout:NV's atmosphere.

1
4

[–] Golconda 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Don't care, "War never changes" and neither do graphics... ;)

3
3

[–] Questionssm 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Dear Bethesda,

If you put as much effort into graphics as you do trying to monetize other peoples achievements; Perhaps you wouldn't have to make excuses for your character models. Rockstar doesn't have issues making a "tangible" world. CDPR doesn't have issues making a Tangible realistic world. Kojima doesn't have issues making a tangible realistic world. All with the exception of CDPR have produced games on the previous gen consoles that look fantastic for the limited power the consoles had. To top it off you release them all on pc an unlimited platform with no increase in fidelity. Don't get me started on that buggy mess you call New Vegas. There is no excuse its pure utter laziness.

Sick of your shit,

Fallout fan.

P.S. Let there be a 2.50 USD dog armor mod. I'll burn Bethesda to the ground.

load more comments ▼ (60 remaining)