Fallout 4 Officially Revealed for PC, Xbox One, PS4 [Reddit Rumor = Ban]

Chabbles said:
It mightn't be mind blowing visually, but theres a definite improvement. Looking forward to the e3 gameplay.
FalloutNV2010-10-2312-37-32-64.png


fallout_4_screenshot___by_chabbles-d8vuxzl.png
Click to expand...

If that's not a generational difference then I don't know what is. It may not look industry-leading on a technical level, maybe not even for the open-world genre, but anyone who thinks it looks like a last-gen game is plain wrong. The lighting alone is on another level entirely for a Bethesda game.
 
TuXx said:
I seriously do not know what people were expecting. It's a Fallout game and it's open world. It was never going to be the most gorgeous game this gen has ever seen.
Click to expand...
I still like what I saw, I think it looks good. It's colorful which I appreciate.
 
TalonJH said:
I agree that It's not that impressive looking but I've never thought Bethesda games looked very impressive on consoles(other than art style). I just don't see them going for 60 fps.
Click to expand...
I think almost all Bethesda games with exception of New Vegas have looked really impressive from teaser to launch.

The games' visuals may have aged like milk, but I don't believe you if you say that you never went "wow..." during that Skyrim trailer where you got the music change and panning shots after the Fusrodah.
 
Woo! Bring on those Steam Workshop paid graphics upgrades! Has anything been said about the engine? I hope it's not iD Tech 5. Guess we'll know around e3.
 
RPGCrazied said:
It really doesn't. The PS3 couldn't run a game like that without major issues and graphic problems.
Click to expand...
That is true, and the PS3 wouldn't be so sharp either and would have terrible framerate and low resolution, but it still looks cross gen sorry.
 
maniac-kun said:
Not made by me but reflects the online community opinions pretty well:

14333498660958djbn.png
Click to expand...
Awful pic. Whilte it's true Fallout 4 looks pretty ugly and has LOTS to improve, that specific image of Witcher 3 wasn't even the downgraded pic. it was what we all wanted and we ended up getting a different (albeit great looking) thing. I'd rather have something akin to Fallout 4 and hopefully looking even better at release (a.k.a. the Nintendo) than any type of downgrade. On the otherhand, imagine if Fallout 4 is going to be downgraded, lol.


Bucca said:
Please for the LOVE OF GOD...

DON'T BE ASS ON CONSOLES.
Click to expand...

" Please for the love of God don't be Bethesda "

IT WILL RUN RELATIVELY POORLY AND YOU WILL LOVE IT
 
_woLf said:
Am I the only one who thinks the game looks pretty damn fantastic, in terms of the graphics?

Do all games need to look as good as Witcher does in order to be passable?
Click to expand...

The character models all look pretty terrible really but the environments are varied with lots of moving parts.

It don't matter anyway 'cause it's an RPG and the graphics are pretty secondary to anything else. Durante's right, Bethesda has enough money to make it look good, but looking good isn't correlative with enjoyment in my experience.
 
It looks fine to me. Quite nice to see they have expanded their colour palette as well. Hopefully Bethesda took some notes from Obsidian when it comes to writing and quest design though.
 
Lukas Japonicus said:
If that's not a generational difference then I don't know what is. It may not look industry-leading on a technical level, maybe not even for the open-world genre, but anyone who thinks it looks like a last-gen game is plain wrong. The lighting alone is on another level entirely for a Bethesda game.
Click to expand...

I think it's mostly the models. They never do good models. Still hyped.

Tryckser said:
Hey guys nice trail -

oh, I see the thread has gone to shit already.

Probably better if they release a Target-Render trailer, right guys? :D
Click to expand...


Target render, then reveal, then melt down. These Bethesda chaps aren't playing ball. This isn't the way of thing!
 
todahawk said:
They hit all the major checkboxes for a fallout game...

  • wasteland
  • nukes
  • vault
  • death claws
  • ghouls
  • companion
  • and so on...
Click to expand...

You mean the most cliche checkboxes for a Fallout game:

  • Vault jumpsuit hero
  • Dog companion
  • Mandatory Power Armor
  • Mandatory Death Claws
  • Mandatory ghouls
  • Mandatory Enclave
  • Opening the Vault
This looks really generic, but thankfully not as terribly generic as Fallout 3. I hope the story won't be a pompous tale about BoS/Enclave conflict this time around. Also a big yawn at the pre-apocalypse sections, I'm pretty sure it'll be a Skyrim-like linear intro for the game.
 
ezekial45 said:
Here's an old mock-up of a possible map for F4 last year.



Any MASS resident want to chime in based on what they saw? Let's get more speculation going.
Click to expand...
CT resident here. If any part of Fallout 4 is set in Bridgeport then it's GOTG for me.

For those wondering, Bridgeport is pretty much an abandoned factory town so it looks post apocalyptic for the most part already.
 
_woLf said:
Am I the only one who thinks the game looks pretty damn fantastic, in terms of the graphics?

Do all games need to look as good as Witcher does in order to be passable?
Click to expand...
Well, no, but the Witcher 3 is the same type of game made for the same platforms on a smaller budget, so one might realistically expect more from Bethesda. Or at least to match it.
 
Durante said:
Well, perhaps because Bethesda should have the budget of god and are apparently doing very little with it graphically?

I mean, I have no problem playing indie games with "objectively" much worse graphics, but I'm also a bit miffed.
Click to expand...
Seriously. No one here said will be horrible to play. But the graphic it's the most awful seen in a new game. How people can defend this thing? If I wanted graphic like this, I would stayed on ps360.
 
Weird. It doesn't look as good as I was hoping, but I also don't think it looks bad at all. The previous games were immersive as hell too. Fret not PC players though. 4k texture packs at least will see the light of day for sure.

Is this supposed to be a prequel, or a sequel? I couldn't tell if some of those sequences were supposed to be flashbacks or within the current setting.

Also, hopefully Obsidian gets dibs on the sequel again.
 
Exciting to have a new reveal, but jesus, graphics wise it looks like a kickstarter campaign game that failed halfway through
 
Jarate said:
And people wonder why devs put up bullshots for their games

these are probably bullshots
Click to expand...

I agree that its not 100% in game, but its a hell of a lot closer to the actual product than what most devs show.

Kudos to Bethesda on that!
 
Lukas Japonicus said:
If that's not a generational difference then I don't know what is. It may not look industry-leading on a technical level, maybe not even for the open-world genre, but anyone who thinks it looks like a last-gen game is plain wrong. The lighting alone is on another level entirely for a Bethesda game.
Click to expand...

it's a generational leap among games that looked bad in their respective generations.

Art is great though
 
Could look like an N64 game for me and I'd still be hyped as hell.

Hopefully the world is as seamlessly connected as Witcher 3. Loading screens while entering buildings needs to stay last gen.
 
cackhyena said:
I think it's mostly the models. They never do good models. Still hyped.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is just what I was saying to a friend. The character models don't look too hot, and the animations still look pretty damn stiff. That one dude running down the street looks like he's shat his pants. But apart from those two things I think it looks fantastic visually. A great example of how art style and a good colour palette can be more important than technical prowess.
 
Durante said:
Well, no, but the Witcher 3 is the same type of game made for the same platforms on a smaller budget, so one might realistically expect more from Bethesda. Or at least to match it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying Bethesda cheaped out and made FO4 with a low budget or are you saying the developers are incompetent given the budget they had?

The Witcher 3 had a lower budget but it also wasn't developed in the US which would have bloated it's budget big time.
 
outunderthestars said:
I would argue that actually supporting mod creators will lead to be better content.....
Click to expand...

I'd also argue that if they plan on reintroducing the concept of paid mods for this game they might have deliberately neglected the graphics in the knowledge that the community will do a good job at making it look better and they will stand to profit further from that.
 
The more I look at it, the more it really does look like Fallout 3 with ENB and mods. Specifically Wanny's preset. I still think it looks pretty good, but I can see how people would be disappointed that it doesn't look better.
 
Durante said:
Well, no, but the Witcher 3 is the same type of game made for the same platforms on a smaller budget, so one might realistically expect more from Bethesda. Or at least to match it.
Click to expand...
Do we know what the budget of TW3 was? And if we do, should we also take into account the lower Polish wages?

Just sayin - I wouldn't be surprised if TW3 probably cost in the same realm as many bigger name AAA titles, wage-adjusted. They worked on it for a long time and have a very big team now.
 
All these years of hype and excitement for a new fallout and this is how so many of you react to just one trailer. Without knowing anything about how the game plays. Overreacting bunch
 
_woLf said:
Am I the only one who thinks the game looks pretty damn fantastic, in terms of the graphics?

Do all games need to look as good as Witcher does in order to be passable?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it looks fantastic, but it looks about as good as I thought it would.

I was definitely surprised by the number of people moaning about the graphics. It's Bethesda's first open world game of the generation and they've been working on it since 2011, expecting much better than this is foolish. Hell, expecting anything graphically mindblowing out of anyone aside from Sony owned/allied studios seems foolish at this point.

The lack of proper AO really stands out, though.
 
Interfectum said:
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying Bethesda cheaped out and made FO4 with a low budget or are you saying the developers are incompetent given the budget they had?
Click to expand...
Well, those are two possible explanations. I'm sure there are more.

I'm just saying that comparing this game to Witcher 3 and complaining about the results is actually fair, unlike many of the comparisons and complaining which occurs on GAF ;)
 
TheYanger said:
Hard to get hyped when Bethesda fucked up Fallout 3 so badly and then let Obsidian take the shit for New Vegas despite it kicking the crap out of their game.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. Not particularly interested in this one or anything Bethesda does for that matter. I just hope they eventually give the franchise back to Obsidian so we can have some good games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Report: Call of Duty 2025 still releasing on PS4 and Xbox One
Rumor  2
62
3K
kikkis replied
Looking for the best Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 4 mods that are close to baseline
12
372
Strategize replied
Terminator 2D: NO FATE rated for PS5, Xbox Series, PS4, Xbox One, Switch, and PC in Australia
13
2K
March Climber replied
The Outer Worlds >>>>> Fallout 4
2
60
2K
Ridaxan replied
Terminator 2D - No Fate coming to PS5, Xbox Series, PS4, Xbox One, Switch, and PC on September 5th
News  2 3 4
178
10K
gooner4life_uk replied
Top Bottom