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

BouncyFrag said:
Maybe it'll just stay in this thread like The Witcher 3 graphics downgrade thread.
Click to expand...

That's true, except we have nowhere else to talk about it, unlike The Witcher 3. So we're stuck in here with them.

We need more people to come join the speculation thread...
 
Shaanyboi said:
I'm just still in shock to see colour in a Bethesda game.
Click to expand...

Brink was published by Bethesda, but you'd still wish it would have never come out.

BRINK_(game_box_art).jpg
 
shrek said:
I don't know. When that Skyrim gameplay trailer came out most people were impressed if not blown away with how the game looked. That was in early 2011, and I'm not sure I can say this game looks better.
Click to expand...

I play mostly vanilla Skyrim, all I run are the unofficial patches and that UI mod, and in my opinion I am perfectly okay with the way the game looks as it is, it looked really impressive in all it's trailers and I was immediately hyped about it.

Even now I jump in to it and with no sign of Aliasing anywhere and the official HD pack fixing the weird quality dip on clothing and some objects, it feels really nice to play, it's no Witcher 3 on ultra, but now it feels and looks polished and I feel like I'll take my Vanilla Skyrim over what I've seen of Fallout 4, which is noticeably better looking than Skyrim in terms of lighting and effects like that, but far less polished and basically it simply just looks like a Last Gen game, that's all there is to it.

That is not the current generation Bethesda game I was hoping to see, but you know what, the next Elder Scrolls probably will be, so I guess Fallout will have to be a necessary casualty for them to get their shit together.
 
MasterBalls said:
It strikes me as weird nobody gave Valve shit for the same thing they do Bethesda; they used Source for (over) 2 generations, and Left 4 Dead, whilst one of my favourite games of last gen, was graphically unremarkable.
Click to expand...

That's because even later games like Left 4 Dead 2 and Portal 2 still look nice, and ran amazingly on lower-end hardware.

I'm pumped for this. It looks like Bethesda drew some inspiration from the older Fallout titles to establish its visual style, and there's a noticeable jump in quality from Skyrim to this. More importantly, there's color. Kudos for a more interesting reveal trailer than FO3 or NV, and I can't wait to see what E3 brings.
 
benzy said:
That's only because Fallout 3 also wasn't graphically impressive last-gen. GTAV and MGS:GZ last gen looked better than FO3 by a wide margin.
Click to expand...
GTA V and Ground Zeroes came out five and six years after Fallout 3, respectively. Tools had improved substantially during that time. That's like comparing Condemned to Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory--absurd.
 
SalsaShark said:
wut

are you aware of how these things works

regardless, have you played the witcher 3
Click to expand...

What does the Witcher 3 have to do with GTAV exactly? And no Witcher 3 doesn't have the same level either. In Skyrim, everything a person/enemy is wearing is an actual object with data associated with them, the person or creature themselves are objects in the world, all of it is mapped and indexed. Kill 9 enemies in Skyrim, and you're tracking 9 enemies, each of them wearing boots, pants, shirts, armor, sword, shield, helmet, misc. That's 72+ objects being tracked right there, these objects are persistent as well. Witcher 3 is much simpler in that regard, you kill someone their gear is generated when they die based on their level, and it's one object that is represented. You kill 9 enemies in Witcher 3, you track 9 physical objects, the enemy. You click their body (or the mush) the loot and the items are then generated. If you roam around in a different area for an hour or so then return to those enemies you killed their body and loot will be gone. Witcher 3's garbage collection (not the right name for it) is on a much shorter time duration than Skyrim's.

Now back to Skyrim, you enter a village and kill everyone in said village. You're now tracking all the character objects and the times they have on their person, you imagine how many things are being tracked. You can then leave, turn off your system turn it back on and they will still be there, the same objects, in the same position, with the same specifications on those objects. Or if you really want to see the difference, get a mod that spawns a bunch of buildings you can walk in and out of without loading and watch your framerate take an absolute shit when you get near them all. (This is also why indoor areas have way more objects lying around).

All of this takes memory and CPU cycles (also increases the save size, it's keeping track of every single object in the world). So now you have your object persistence system taking up memory and cycles that your renderer uses.

You all demand a new engine (many of you suggesting ID Tech) not realizing they'd have to change how Id Tech works to accommodate how Bethesda uses bit differences for object storage via a bit field. While the rendering engine and underlying parts are separate they're not made without being aware of the other in any modern engine, they're made in tandem. Which is why this really stupid idea of simply swapping out the rendering engine with something completely new but keeping everything else isn't nearly as easy and clear cut as many of you are making it out to be.

You people also want this brand new engine to have the same level of mod support as the old one. Where as the old engine's level of support came through many years of use and reuse, tweaks and tuning.

So really it comes down to, does Bethesda lower the amount of object interactivity and persistence to chase amazing visuals (Which case gamers will bitch the game isn't nearly as interactive as FO3 and other cries). Or do you keep that general level of interactivity (or even increase it if they allow seamless walking in and out of places) at the expense of the latest in graphical splendor? And have gamers mad the game doesn't look as good as GTAV completely missing the point that GTAV doesn't have nearly the object persistence. Or alternatively they can read Rockstar's post on how all those small attention to details things that gamers notice (sweating on the shirt, flip flops sticking) took up a bunch of memory and was a lot of work. Or ignore the big ass elephant in the room that is...GTAV had a damn £250m budget.

But hey keep comparing GTAV to Skyrim.
 
bananafactory said:
I have a feeling a lot of peoples opinions are going to change after we see the game in action at E3
Click to expand...

If at any point during that presentation we see the world freeze for a character to poorly gab at you, or a loading screen upon entering a small building, then we're going to see some opinions change all right.
 
Solid Samus said:
Except they're marketed by the same people. I've got no doubt that just like with Watch_Dogs and Witcher 3, the developers of Division were aiming sky high and expecting stronger specs this generation than what we got. It will not look like its original showing.
Click to expand...

Still both games will look miles better than F4, if this is the state in which game will release. Also, MGS V is another open world game, which I can bet you will again set graphics standard for open world games.
 
Northeastmonk said:
Brink was published by Bethesda, but you'd still wish it would have never come out.
Click to expand...

Great now im upset about Brink. This thread is so godamn negative about graphics it's unreal


on a different note..........i was unaware Homefront revolution actually had gameplay footage. I thought that game was dead in the water
 
Kinyou said:
"That will be $5 please."
Click to expand...
Now I'm just waiting for Bethesda/Valve to announce paid mods for Fallout 4 and watch as the community gives an outcry against the whole thing.

It's going to be very interesting to find out if Valve/Bethesda are willing to try the concept again or if they do try again will they back down again because of the public negative perception they will receive from it.
 
EmCeeGramr said:
If at any point during that presentation we see the world freeze for a character to poorly gab at your, or a loading screen upon entering a small building, then we're going to see some opinions change all right.
Click to expand...

Heh, I have a feeling people set themselves up for disappointment with this game.
 
EmCeeGramr said:
If at any point during that presentation we see the world freeze for a character to poorly gab at your, or a loading screen upon entering a small building, then we're going to see some opinions change all right.
Click to expand...

That's one thing I definitely don't want to see again, especially with a 16x memory increase this generation.
 
This thread is fucking retarded. I hope the mods create a downgrade/shitposting thread like they did for Witcher 3. Keep that shit(along with all the FO3 vs NV shit) in one place.
 
At least we already reached the downgrade portion of a games release.

Hopefully we can, you know, start talking about the actual game itself and perhaps people can accept that's how the game looks.
 
Who cares how good/bad it looks? It doesn't look like PS2 or anything so, so WHAT?

I feel like the most IMPORTANT thing to be worried about is how will it PLAY and if it will function with little to no issues, cause aside from visuals it IS y'know a video GAME

It looks fine. It may not be Witcher/Order pretty but I feel like we all overlooking the main thing that has been suffering in games lately, and that's the QUALITY. We've had too many games buggy or broken at launch, or even crappy/underpromised gameplay but people here worried about what it LOOKS like.

Man...


EDIT: All this over a trailer. Wait until we get a final product and get it in our hands, I just want it to run good and not have any issues.
 
I was surprised with how much footage they showed in the trailer. I was expecting a teaser like the original Fallout 3 trailer.

It does make me slightly less hyped for the Bethesda conference though. But I'm guessing they will show a proper gameplay walkthough at the show?

Anyway the game looks good but I have to say it looks very safe, from what I can tell it just looks like a prettier Fallout 3. Setting the game is Boston doesn't seem to have made much difference, might as well be Washington DC again.

Also it wouldn't surprise me if it's still using a heavily modified Gamebyro engine with a few current-gen bells and whistles.
 
[QUOTE="D";166342961]Who cares how good/bad it looks? It doesn't look like PS2 or anything so, so WHAT?

I feel like the most IMPORTANT thing to be worried about is how will it PLAY and if it will function with little to no issues, cause aside from visuals it IS y'know a video GAME

It looks fine. It may not be Witcher/Order pretty but I feel like we all overlooking the main thing that has been suffering in games lately, and that's the QUALITY. We've had too many games buggy or broken at launch, or even crappy/underpromised gameplay but people here worried about what it LOOKS like.

Man...[/QUOTE]

wow you've opened my mind. thanks for caps


the hell is it with these posts about graphics =/= game

lets all just play dwarf fortress
 
Elginer said:
Looks actually surprisingly decent for Bethesda. These guys aren't known for amazing visuals or anything, it's more about the open world and some great writing in it. I'm not a big Fallout fan but I may give this a go.
Click to expand...

Oblivion was some kind of graphic monster when it was announced. Skyrim looked realy great for its time. So what are you talking about?
 
Hyperzephyrian said:
Edit: Bitching about graphics, after one trailer? Really? People who do this have no right to lament about the AAA industry's out-of-control budget spiral. You are the problem.
Click to expand...

How would a small indie like Bethesda be able to fork out the resources for a major engine overhaul, assets at least on par with other games, and some actual QA? Be reasonable people.
 
Gumbie said:
Do we know for a fact this is Gamebyro? People keep stating this like it's known fact at this point.
Click to expand...
They've used Gamebryo (or a modified version of it) exclusively since 1999. Of course it's Gamebryo. That doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be buggy, though. The engine gets blamed when Bethesda's QA is really to blame. (Although I'm sure that QA is really tough for the kind of big, complex games they make.)
HariKari said:
How would a small indie like Bethesda be able to fork out the resources for a major engine overhaul, assets at least on par with other games, and some actual QA? Be reasonable people.
Click to expand...
All these words are delicious. Thank you for putting them in my mouth.
 
Well, personally, I'm far more concerned about the lack of Obsidian involvement than the graphics. Couldn't care less about that. The dog doesn't look very good but that's such a low-level concern that I'd even go so far as to call it nitpicking.

I really hope the male character only rumour is false. But it probably is, fortunately. I can't imagine Bethesda would break the spirit of Fallout that much.

Ke0 said:
What does the Witcher 3 have to do with GTAV exactly? And no Witcher 3 doesn't have the same level either. Everything a person/enemy is wearing is an actual object with data associated with them, the person or creature themselves are objects in the world, all of it is mapped and indexed. Kill 9 enemies in Skyrim, and you're tracking 9 enemies, each of them wearing boots, pants, shirts, armor, sword, shield, helmet, misc. That's 72 objects being tracked right there, these objects are persistent as well. Witcher 3 is much simpler in that regard, you kill someone their gear is generated when they die based on their level, and it's one object that is represented. You kill 9 enemies in Witcher 3, you track 18 physical objects, the enemy and their loot. You open the loot and the items are then generated.

Now back to Skyrim, you enter a village and kill everyone in said village. You're now tracking all the character objects and the times they have on their person, you imagine how many things are being tracked. You can then leave, turn off your system turn it back on and they will still be there, the same objects, in the same position, with the same specifications on those objects. Or if you really want to see the difference, get a mod that spawns a bunch of buildings you can walk in and out of without loading and watch your framerate take an absolute shit when you get near them all. (This is also why indoor areas have way more objects lying around).

All of this takes memory and CPU cycles (also increases the save size, it's keeping track of every single object in the world). So now you have your object persistence system taking up memory and cycles that your renderer uses.

You all demand a new engine (many of you suggesting ID Tech) not realizing they'd have to change how Id Tech works to accommodate how Bethesda uses bit differences for object storage via a bit field. While the rendering engine and underlying parts are separate they're not made without being aware of the other in any modern engine, they're made in tandem. Which is why this really stupid idea of simply swapping out the rendering engine with something completely new but keeping everything else isn't nearly as easy and clear cut as many of you are making it out to be.

You people also want this brand new engine to have the same level of mod support as the old one. Where as the old engine's level of support came through many years of use and reuse, tweaks and tuning.

So really it comes down to, does Bethesda lower the amount of object interactivity and persistence to chase amazing visuals (Which case gamers will bitch the game isn't nearly as interactive as FO3 and other cries). Or do you keep that general level of interactivity (or even increase it if they allow seamless walking in and out of places) at the expense of the latest in graphical splendor? And have gamers mad the game doesn't look as good as GTAV completely missing the point that GTAV doesn't have nearly the object persistence. Or alternatively they can read Rockstar's post on how all those small attention to details things that gamers notice (sweating on the shirt, flip flops sticking) took up a bunch of memory and was a lot of work.
Click to expand...
Not to mention GTA V's absurd budget, too. But yeah thanks for this, really can't stand the ignorant dismissive posts from --

dark_prinny said:
No matter how you put it. This game looks horrible.
Click to expand...
--- .... sigh.
 
Zombie James said:
That's one thing I definitely don't want to see again, especially with a 16x memory increase this generation.
Click to expand...

They're usually really fast loads though, still it's nice to feel like you didn't get transported to a different world. I just want a better LOD, more uGridsToLoad. Things popping into view at close proximity kills immersion.
 
[QUOTE="D";166342961]Who cares how good/bad it looks? It doesn't look like PS2 or anything so, so WHAT?

I feel like the most IMPORTANT thing to be worried about is how will it PLAY and if it will function with little to no issues, cause aside from visuals it IS y'know a video GAME

It looks fine. It may not be Witcher/Order pretty but I feel like we all overlooking the main thing that has been suffering in games lately, and that's the QUALITY. We've had too many games buggy or broken at launch, or even crappy/underpromised gameplay but people here worried about what it LOOKS like.

Man...[/QUOTE]

I'm sure it'll play amazingly well and have little to no bugs.
Since, you know, graphics aren't important so they were able to focus on the above.
 
I hope we play as the German Shepherd.


As for the graphics, meh... Just that much easier to hit 60FPS, it'll probably be a lot more demanding elsewhere. Do hope it gets a lot of QA time though.
 
[QUOTE="D";166342961]Who cares how good/bad it looks? It doesn't look like PS2 or anything so, so WHAT?

I feel like the most IMPORTANT thing to be worried about is how will it PLAY and if it will function with little to no issues, cause aside from visuals it IS y'know a video GAME

It looks fine. It may not be Witcher/Order pretty but I feel like we all overlooking the main thing that has been suffering in games lately, and that's the QUALITY. We've had too many games buggy or broken at launch, or even crappy/underpromised gameplay but people here worried about what it LOOKS like.

Man...


EDIT: All this over a trailer. Wait until we get a final product and get it in our hands, I just want it to run good and not have any issues.[/QUOTE]

Yeah well it's a Bethesda game, so it's gonna be buggy at launch. But hopefully not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

POSTAL 2 Redux announced for PS5, Xbox Series, PS4, Xbox One, Switch, and PC
News Trailer 
14
183
SomeNorseGuy replied
Rumor: Xbox Bringing Original and Xbox 360 Games To PC Via Emulation, It’s Claimed
Rumor  2
97
152
BlackTron replied
[Windows Central] Increasingly, it looks like 'Xbox PC' is the official branding for Microsoft's Windows 11 gaming efforts
Opinion Rumor  2
72
579
mayham2199 replied
Report: Call of Duty 2025 still releasing on PS4 and Xbox One
Rumor  2
62
4K
kikkis replied
Persona 4: Revival Announced - Xbox/PS5/PC/GamePass
2 3
118
687
DoktorCoktor replied
Top Bottom