Support NeoGAF

[Mastperf]

Those screenshots weren't taken with the Share button, were they? That thing sucks. (Not that the shadows and stuff would be fixed).

PNG screenshots don't suck.

 

[jim2point0]

Different time of day?

They all look quite bad

Ahh.... the old "different time of day made bushes disappear" argument

EDIT: Wow. Old comment. Didn't realize thread was so big O_O

 

[televator]

Frame drops, huh.
Lighting does indeed look good. Glad to hear about the gameplay mechanics.

Looking at the untranslated page, I'd say he's talking about FPS drops and not dropped frames... Although historically Fallout and ES are plagued by both. I fully expect drops in FPS and stuttery motion.

 

[NinjamicWZ]

Game looks great. I don't know why people are complaining. I run Witcher 3 at max setting 4k on my i7+980ti and it looks pretty underwhelming. The rain effects I have seen in Fallout 4 so far is much better than what I experienced in Witcher 3. To be honest, even DA:I looks better than Witcher 3. Both Fallout 4 and DA:I gives you the "this gen" vibe. There is just something of the texture surface that gives them a good quality that stands out. Witcher 3 simply looks like a PS2 base game with up-res'ed flat texture with loads of modded in grass and trees.

And then there is the gameplay. I love Bethesda games for the worlds they build. The sense of exploration in Fallout 3 and Skyrim is unmatched by any non-Bethesda game. This is also the reason why I prefer Fallout 3 over New Vegas. People always talk about how bad Bethesda game's writings are. I don't think they know how silly they sound. Bethesda likes to produce the writings in such a way that fits your custom made characters. You MAKE your own story. The directed story feels thin in their games but thats also why Bethesda games are so great. People are confusing the lack of focus on story with bad writings of dialogues or presented scripts. Games like New Vegas or Witcher 3 or Pillars of Eternity have BAD writings. They are horrible if you compare them to something out of a real novel or movie. When I play these games, I cringe every time I read a dialogue. Even COD has better dialogue than these pretentious RPGs. I played Witcher 3 for 30 hours and 90% of my experience are going around towns or settlments that all look the same and using a batman voice to talk with pre-historic people wearing kitchen rags that either act like they don't like to talk or they don't have the mental ability to talk. There is simply no personality in Witcher 3. Everything is bland. New Vegas is even worse. Compared to Fallout 3, New Vegas is like a small fallout theme park RPG with flat lands, and you just walk to each station that has one tiny room. There is nothing memorable, no cool giant robots that shoots laser beams out of its eyes, no large ship with a community living within, no swamp with creepy cabins to explore, no submarines and following of a Chinese spy, no grave revelations after you murder a baby's parents, no town where everyone is trapped in a computer simulation. For the experience Fallout 3 provies, I actually rank it as the best game from last gen. I consider it to have one of the best video game stories of all time right after To the Moon. Compared to Fallout 3's story, Fallout 1/2 and Witcher 1/2/3 are jokes.

I agree with almost everything you're saying about FO3 vs NV, but you're kinda hard on Witcher 3. Batman voice/kitchen rags is hilarious and just makes me want to go back and finish it with that revelation in hand. I do agree that foliage in Witcher 3 is a god damn unintelligible, unreadable mess sometimes (modded in is an adequate descriptor... worst offender was the shrine for that undying werewolf quest on Skellig), and severely overrated when people try to posit it's foliage density above almost any open world game with a desert or urban motif as some indicator of advantage. The overgrowth props stop at trees bending and swaying in storms and wind for me.

 

[packy34]

The only thing I really don't like from that guy's impressions is that speech/skill checks really do seem to be gone. SPECIAL checks existed in 3/NV and I assumed they'd use that exclusively in lieu of skills, but... Disappointing.

 

[Akibared]

I need this game inside my PS4 right now!

 

[Undead]

They've changed the way enemies scale. You aren't getting back to Morrowind levels (where you could break the game if you wanted to), but it's not the game levels up with you. They've mentioned something along the lines of zones might have a level range, which I think is a good alternative.

Ah well, better than them leveling up alongside you

 

[the_batman]

I need this game inside my PS4 right now!

put the disc in nice and slow..

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

- He didn't like at all the dialogue system, and in 23 hours he's played almost no mission he was able to get out of just by dialogue.


:|

 

[SliChillax]

Ah well, better than them leveling up alongside you

This is actually great news. What's the point of leveling up if the enemies also do? Makes no difference being level 1 or 50.

 

[Hypron]

Completely stupid comparison tbh.

We're not comparing The Order 1886 and Fallout 4 here. MGSV is also an open-world game with a very long draw distance. Sure there might be some differences but it's not a stupid comparison.

Also both games stream data in real time, neither will load the entire map at once.

 

[the_batman]

- He didn't like at all the dialogue system, and in 23 hours he's played almost no mission he was able to get out of just by dialogue.


:|

hmm.. wait, so you can't outsmart or intimidate people? or was that player a moron?

 

[DAREALGUMMY]

- He didn't like at all the dialogue system, and in 23 hours he's played almost no mission he was able to get out of just by dialogue.


:|

Do we know his stats? They've made it a point to show that you can have level 10 perks from the start so I'm wondering if you need them to get out by dialogue.

 

[ANDS]

The only thing I really don't like from that guy's impressions is that speech/skill checks really do seem to be gone. SPECIAL checks existed in 3/NV and I assumed they'd use that exclusively in lieu of skills, but... Disappointing.

They didn't say there were out, just not quests could be skipped using a skill check. Someone should probably ask if Perk Checks are in the game or not.

 

[Artanisix]

Game looks great. I don't know why people are complaining. I run Witcher 3 at max setting 4k on my i7+980ti and it looks pretty underwhelming. The rain effects I have seen in Fallout 4 so far is much better than what I experienced in Witcher 3. To be honest, even DA:I looks better than Witcher 3. Both Fallout 4 and DA:I gives you the "this gen" vibe. There is just something of the texture surface that gives them a good quality that stands out. Witcher 3 simply looks like a PS2 base game with up-res'ed flat texture with loads of modded in grass and trees.

Wow, that is some of the most delusional writing I've ever seen. Good bait if troll, though. The texture in Fallout 4 is something out of last gen.

 

[packy34]

Do we know his stats? They've made it a point to show that you can have level 10 perks from the start so I'm wondering if you need them to get out by dialogue.

I really hope this is the case. If checks are gone, that's a huge loss.

 

[KiraXD]

They said they started work on it pretty much when Skyrim was being worked on.

I really don't care about the quality of the graphics, I'm in to Fallout for the world, sidequests, characters, guns and lore. That's what I'm most excited about then worrying about pushing graphical limits.

Fallout was never a looker... were people praising FO3 when it came out for its graphics? no. Fallout has never been about graphics. Its all about that Fallout World!

 

[carlsojo]

The only thing I really don't like from that guy's impressions is that speech/skill checks really do seem to be gone. SPECIAL checks existed in 3/NV and I assumed they'd use that exclusively in lieu of skills, but... Disappointing.

I'm still not really sure how it works. The Lady-Killer/Black Widow perk implies you can

Spoiler

"deceive" or "intimidate" the other sex.

 

[DAREALGUMMY]

Fallout was never a looker... were people praising FO3 when it came out for its graphics? no. Fallout has never been about graphics. Its all about that Fallout World!

Really had to be fooling yourself if you thought it looked good. Again, didn't matter to me though because it was the first time in a loooooong time that I played a game for 100's of hours that wasn't from online MP. I really can't wait until it comes out.

 

[pupcoffee]

Fallout was never a looker... were people praising FO3 when it came out for its graphics? no. Fallout has never been about graphics. Its all about that Fallout World!

Fallout 3 looked good on PS3 at the time.

 

[Fusion_Pirate]

the first town you get into 10 minutes into the proper game(whiterun) has a big fat loading screen.So does every other reasonably sized settlement and every single dungeon no matter how big or small.

witcher does the same only it leads you to the map instead of having you click on the door to the town.
and iirc, novigrad doesn't give you a loading screen if you ride straight into it.nor do any of the caves dungeons etc. thats far more seamless than skyrim ever gets.

By this logic, are games with loading screens to enter buildings really open world? Those are segmented, non-seamless, interrupting things.

Very different things- in TW3, the Novigrad and Skellige regions do not co-exist in real time for the player. You're either in Novigrad, Skellige, Kaer Morhen, but cannot freely traverse between them dynamically in real time. The only time citizens of one of those regions can cross into another region is if the game logic forces them to, due to a story arc etc. This would be akin to something like inter-dimensional travel, or parallel universes in real life. In BethSoft games, any NPC can theoretically travel from any area to any other area in the world by physically walking on foot, with the only limitations being the way their behavior is programmed at the front end. Sure, there's traditionally been loading screens when entering cities, buildings, etc. but this doesn't alter the dynamic, connected nature of the world. Whiterun doesn't cease to exist as an on-foot travel destination because I'm in Solitude.

You should also keep in mind that BethSoft has (supposedly) done away with the vast majority of building/town loads. Todd Howard has said that most buildings are now completely open and not treated as separate world cells.

 

[SwimDramaGender]

*Shrug* I expect that from a city.

Not from the countryside. Luckily the W3 has both.

The meaning of an open world is constituent on the existence of negative space. When everything is within eyesight, open worlds become levels. Spacial relationships between landmarks lose their meaning, geography becomes insipid.

How so? Even when you live ina country side, the chairs you sit in, the doors you walk through, the arrangement of bolts, nails, and steel timber connections. They are all details you don't notice. But they are there. The details make our world. Bethesda knows this, thats why they build their immersive virtual worlds with details. Every time I enter a structure I know its worth exploring. Shooting a deadbody in tomb wakes up an ancient skeleton, opening a garage basement door and I find monsters jumping out from below. Even a tiny cabin means I might find some extra clips of ammo or a magic scrolls or 2. But how many times I have entered a mansion in Witcher 3 and finding out there isn't a SINGLE THING worth interacting with. Its not about spacial relationships between landmarks, its about memorable experiences that you can get in the landmarks. Its obvious Witcher 3 tries very hard to be a good open world game. But it fails at every little element that matters.

 

[batman2million]

after seeing those pngs, I'm starting to feel better.

 

[Stiler]

People keep saying Beth games aren't known for graphics.

Am I the only old fart that was around when Morrowind came out? With it's "OMG amazing water and detailed sandstorms!" or when Oblivion came out.

For their time those games looked great...

As well, with all the large buildings/towns locked behind loading screens unlike Witcher/GTA, etc they have more room for improvement in that regard.

If people just keep making execuses for Bethseda we'll always be stuck with the crappy gamebyro/creation engine. I want a return to Morrowind where we not only had a great game with tons to explore but also decent graphics for the time.

It's not some mythical "impossibility" to have decent graphics AND gameplay. It doesn't have to be bleeding edge "Crysis" (I mean I'm sure most of us would like to be able to play the game with decent fps) but just something that looks circa 2013 or above should have been achievable.

 

[wanderingprostheyltite]

*Shrug* I expect that from a city.

Not from the countryside. Luckily the W3 has both.

The meaning of an open world is constituent on the existence of negative space. When everything is within eyesight, open worlds become levels. Spacial relationships between landmarks lose their meaning, geography becomes insipid.

Insipid geography is the worst!

 

[DAREALGUMMY]

People keep saying Beth games aren't known for graphics.

Am I the only old fart that was around when Morrowind came out? With it's "OMG amazing water and detailed sandstorms!" or when Oblivion came out.

For their time those games looked great...

As well, with all the large buildings/towns locked behind loading screens unlike Witcher/GTA, etc they have more room for improvement in that regard.

If people just keep making execuses for Bethseda we'll always be stuck with the crappy gamebyro/creation engine. I want a return to Morrowind where we not only had a great game with tons to explore but also decent graphics for the time.

It's not some mythical "impossibility" to have decent graphics AND gameplay. It doesn't have to be bleeding edge "Crysis" (I mean I'm sure most of us would like to be able to play the game with decent fps) but just something that looks circa 2013 or above should have been achievable.

Xbox-Xbox360 leap was WAY more noticeable to me than the current gen leap.

 

[Hypron]

People keep saying Beth games aren't known for graphics.

Am I the only old fart that was around when Morrowind came out? With it's "OMG amazing water and detailed sandstorms!" or when Oblivion came out.

For their time those games looked great...

Yeah. I wasn't around for Morrowind's launch but there was lots of hype for Oblivion's graphics. The console versions didn't look that great but the PC version definitely did some pretty cool things at the time. In hindsight some things like the horrendous character models hold it back. But it definitely was hyped for its graphics at the time.

As well, with all the large buildings/towns locked behind loading screens unlike Witcher/GTA, etc they have more room for improvement in that regard.

If people just keep making execuses for Bethseda we'll always be stuck with the crappy gamebyro/creation engine. I want a return to Morrowind where we not only had a great game with tons to explore but also decent graphics for the time.

It's not some mythical "impossibility" to have decent graphics AND gameplay. It doesn't have to be bleeding edge "Crysis" (I mean I'm sure most of us would like to be able to play the game with decent fps) but just something that looks circa 2013 or above should have been achievable.

Well, Crysis is actually an good example of a game great graphics and gameplay It might have been a fluke because the sequels weren't anywhere as good but it's absolutely a great FPS.

 

[SwimDramaGender]

Wow, that is some of the most delusional writing I've ever seen. Good bait if troll, though. The texture in Fallout 4 is something out of last gen.

To be honest, I consider Witcher 3 to look even worse than a last gen game such as Skyrim. Under 1080p I run all my games max settings 60fps, and there isn't a single game that I can rank clearly above what I have seen of Fallout 4, except the Battlefront Beta. You want talk about texture, Witcher 3 has one of the worst quality I have ever seen since HL1

 

[Rezbit]

Maybe not the thread but oh well??? Wondering whether I should pick up Fallout 4 for PS4 or my PC - which is equipped with a 560ti.

Probs slightly smoother performance on PS4, not necessarily better looking. Also play on big TV?

PC = mods and I'm sure will still look good at 30fps even on that card (judging by other newer games).

 

[tuxfool]

People keep saying Beth games aren't known for graphics.

Am I the only old fart that was around when Morrowind came out? With it's "OMG amazing water and detailed sandstorms!" or when Oblivion came out.

For their time those games looked great.

I couldn't believe what Morrowind was trying to accomplish when I first saw it. I still consider it their best game.

 

[DTKT]

To be honest, I consider Witcher 3 to look even worse than a last gen game such as Skyrim. Under 1080p I run all my games max settings 60fps, and there isn't a single game that I can rank clearly above what I have seen of Fallout 4, except the Battlefront Beta. You want talk about texture, Witcher 3 has one of the worst quality I have ever seen since HL1

This entire thread has been a little bit silly. Fallout 3 looks on par with Skyrim with is as much as I would expect from Bethesda. They have never been good at visuals.

 

[Creaking]

To be honest, I consider Witcher 3 to look even worse than a last gen game such as Skyrim. Under 1080p I run all my games max settings 60fps, and there isn't a single game that I can rank clearly above what I have seen of Fallout 4, except the Battlefront Beta. You want talk about texture, Witcher 3 has one of the worst quality I have ever seen since HL1

 

[tuxfool]

To be honest, I consider Witcher 3 to look even worse than a last gen game such as Skyrim. Under 1080p I run all my games max settings 60fps, and there isn't a single game that I can rank clearly above what I have seen of Fallout 4, except the Battlefront Beta. You want talk about texture, Witcher 3 has one of the worst quality I have ever seen since HL1

This needs to be quoted.

This is your best work.

 

[Artanisix]

It's not some mythical "impossibility" to have decent graphics AND gameplay. It doesn't have to be bleeding edge "Crysis" (I mean I'm sure most of us would like to be able to play the game with decent fps) but just something that looks circa 2013 or above should have been achievable.

Basically this. It is unreal how delicate and fragile people are when Fallout 4's graphics are criticized.

"It's about the story and experience!"
"The world has m-movable objects and base building!"
"I'm going to have fun so who cares! LALALALALA"
"Lol! Bethesda isn't known for graphix guys!"

Okay cool, good for you. It's this delusional perspective that, because I don't like the graphics, somehow means I don't appreciate the other characteristics of the game. You know what I like more than good gameplay? Good gameplay with good graphics. Or how about some basic fucking shadows. Is that too much to ask? To have the option for an actual lighting system? Or to not have crap gamebryo animations where people run in stilted positions? It's not like there's anything else to judge the game on at this point, none of you have even played the game anyway, so literally all we have to discuss about is the graphics.

To be honest, I consider Witcher 3 to look even worse than a last gen game such as Skyrim. Under 1080p I run all my games max settings 60fps, and there isn't a single game that I can rank clearly above what I have seen of Fallout 4, except the Battlefront Beta. You want talk about texture, Witcher 3 has one of the worst quality I have ever seen since HL1

That's actually hilarious. The roof texture for a random hut in Witcher 3 looks nicer than the ground texture that you see all the time in Fallout 4, and it's on par with the texture of Fallout 4's main character.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

To be honest, I consider Witcher 3 to look even worse than a last gen game such as Skyrim. Under 1080p I run all my games max settings 60fps, and there isn't a single game that I can rank clearly above what I have seen of Fallout 4, except the Battlefront Beta. You want talk about texture, Witcher 3 has one of the worst quality I have ever seen since HL1

http://i.imgur.com/whx5rvc.jpg[img][/QUOTE]

[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CK7q5azUcAAfHyd.jpg

 

[Allnamestakenlol]

This needs to be quoted.

I don't even. I hope he's trolling, otherwise...

 

[manfestival]

People keep saying Beth games aren't known for graphics.

Am I the only old fart that was around when Morrowind came out? With it's "OMG amazing water and detailed sandstorms!" or when Oblivion came out.

For their time those games looked great...

As well, with all the large buildings/towns locked behind loading screens unlike Witcher/GTA, etc they have more room for improvement in that regard.

If people just keep making execuses for Bethseda we'll always be stuck with the crappy gamebyro/creation engine. I want a return to Morrowind where we not only had a great game with tons to explore but also decent graphics for the time.

It's not some mythical "impossibility" to have decent graphics AND gameplay. It doesn't have to be bleeding edge "Crysis" (I mean I'm sure most of us would like to be able to play the game with decent fps) but just something that looks circa 2013 or above should have been achievable.

The game was impressive for its time but its true. Bethesda games tend to be ugly and this is no exception. Its a reputation that they have earned over the years. It does not discredit the past with morrowind

 

[Crossing Eden]

Basically this. It is unreal how delicate and fragile people are when Fallout 4's graphics are criticized.

"It's about the story and experience!"
"The world has m-movable objects and base building!"
"I'm going to have fun so who cares! LALALALALA"
"Lol! Bethesda isn't known for graphix guys!"

Okay cool, good for you. It's this delusional perspective that, because I don't like the graphics, somehow means I don't appreciate the other characteristics of the game. You know what I like more than good gameplay? Good gameplay with good graphics. Or how about some basic fucking shadows. Is that too much to ask? To have the option for an actual lighting system? Or to not have crap gamebryo animations where people run in stilted positions? It's not like there's anything else to judge the game on at this point, none of you have even played the game anyway, so literally all we have to discuss about is the graphics.



That's actually hilarious. The roof texture for a random hut in Witcher 3 looks nicer than the ground texture that you see all the time in Fallout 4, and it's on par with the texture of Fallout 4's main character.

The game quite clearly has a lighting system in place. Define "actual lighting system.'

 

[Artanisix]

quote witcher 3 has worse textures than fallout 4

bro the hut you linked has better textures and geometry than the .png house in the op

The game quite clearly has a lighting system in place. Define "actual lighting system.'

Cool a lighting system that neglects to light any movable object within the game, including the dogs, monsters, and random items.

 

[tuxfool]

I don't even. I hope he's trolling, otherwise...

It doesn't approach the artistry of Dmax's post.

 

[Khaos_Knight]

looks way better than fallout 3 or even New Vegas still worried about performance Bethesda and PlayStation has never been a good mix, they have no excuse with 8t fucking gigabytes of RAM this time I really want to get the PC version of my PC is too old

Can't fault Bethesda too much for that last gen cause the PS3 was a piece of shit lol.

Fallout 4 will have bugs on the PS4 but it won't be anywhere near as bad as the Fallout/Elder Scrolls situation on the PS3.

 

[Fusion_Pirate]

*Shrug* I expect that from a city.

Not from the countryside. Luckily the W3 has both.

The meaning of an open world is constituent on the existence of negative space. When everything is within eyesight, open worlds become levels. Spacial relationships between landmarks lose their meaning, geography becomes insipid.

All due respect (and I get very much what you're saying), but I buy and play video games to be entertained and occupied by the world I'm playing in. If I seek peace, serenity and negative space, I'll go on a jog, or take a hike in the woods. I don't want to pay $60 for an open-world adventure game, and then get bored when I 'head out into the wilderness for an adventure'.

 

[The Baron Count]

This is one of the craziest threads I've seen in a while. Geez.

 

[KiraXD]

Fallout 3 looked good on PS3 at the time.

no it didnt lol. Out the same year as Mirrors Edge, RE5, inFamous, Dead Space, Bioshock... you think ANYONE thought that FO3 was great looking compared to anything else that came out that year?

 

[pupcoffee]

no it didnt lol. Out the same year as Mirrors Edge, RE5, inFamous, Dead Space, Bioshock... you think ANYONE thought that FO3 was great looking compared to anything else that came out that year?

Considering what it was, you know.

 

[ANDS]

Okay cool, good for you. It's this delusional perspective that, because I don't like the graphics, somehow means I don't appreciate the other characteristics of the game. You know what I like more than good gameplay? Good gameplay with good graphics. Or how about some basic fucking shadows. Is that too much to ask? To have the option for an actual lighting system? Or to not have crap gamebryo animations where people run in stilted positions? It's not like there's anything else to judge the game on at this point, none of you have even played the game anyway, so literally all we have to discuss about is the graphics.

If you aren't seeing shadows, perhaps you are looking at the wrong screenshots. As for the character animations, they've clearly been upgraded; perhaps not to your refined tastes but to suggest the engine is stagnant is a bit silly.

 

[Obliterator]

To be honest, I consider Witcher 3 to look even worse than a last gen game such as Skyrim. Under 1080p I run all my games max settings 60fps, and there isn't a single game that I can rank clearly above what I have seen of Fallout 4, except the Battlefront Beta. You want talk about texture, Witcher 3 has one of the worst quality I have ever seen since HL1

I normally don't accuse someone of this but this has to be bait. Its too over the top

 

[Stiler]

The game quite clearly has a lighting system in place. Define "actual lighting system.'

Dynamic lighting system that lights/shades everything in the game dynamically as it moves/changes position.

lots of the shadows in Fallout 4 appear to be "pre baked" rather then dynamic, meaning the shadows are not real-time shadows but pre baked. That is why a lot of objects look really "flat" with the lighting because of the lack of shadows and lighting that should be there but aren't.

That is why for example, when you see dogmeat standing under a "shadow" yet he still has no shadow cast on him, because it's not dynamic.

 

[KiraXD]

Considering what it was, you know.

look, Fallout is my all time favorite series, and FO3 is absolutely one of my favorite games... but i never once thought it was great looking. it looked okay, and it played fantastic... i love awesome graphics as much as the next guy... but fallout never wowed anyone in that department... skyrim came a little closer to wowing me, FO4 is pretty good too... but again... not amazing... but i dont care about any of that mess as long as it plays like fallout.

 

[Soltype]

Game looks great for how big it is, don't hope for 60fps.

I don't know, there's just something off abut the graphics, just can't put my finger on it.It just feels like it's missing something, that's why I thought it was 60 on consoles.I have pretty good PC so I should be getting 60, but that Arkham Knight situation has got me scared.