The game looks bad by 2015 AAA current-gen game standards.
Mind unboggled?
Fallout 4 - PS4 screenshots (now feat. PNGs)
- Thread starter Kenzodielocke
- Start date
- Status
The game looks bad by 2015 AAA current-gen game standards.
Mind unboggled?
You will have to elaborate on what you mean by "technical complexity" here.
Every single mundane item being moveable and physics-enabled and having their positions saved in every exterior and interior cell is also a major cause for the dreaded savegame bloat and corruption issues. That's one more thing which makes you question if it's really worth all the trouble.
I think you could still have interactive objects insofar as you can pick them up, use them for crafting and/or place them down again, without needing physics and collisions for every object no matter how insignificant.
In Fallout 3/NV it's mostly there for two reasons: to more easily get those cinematic slo-mo kills, and more fundamentally it's there to appease the roots of the series. The targeting system has been there since the first game when it was completely turn-based. It was only in Fallout 3 that it was rebranded as "VATS".
Nameless
Member
Modern Bethesda RPGs are a piss easy target since neither their engine or design priorities lend themselves to cutting edge visual showcases. No game is safe, though, not really. Even Witcher 3 which is now being held up as the beacon of visual fidelity in a sprawling open world was put through the reactionary, sky-is-falling, shitpost ringer just a few months back:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1043668
Tons of crossover between this thread, as you'd imagine. Dissecting/Tearing down a game's visuals pre-release and leveling up those DF-Goggles has become its own side hobby for a sizeable chunk of GAF. But it matters fuck-all long term, especially if the game ends up being good.
Pro-tip: If you're going to read through that thread do it now while your tolerance is peaking.
This thread is not only dedicated to technical analysis of graphics though.
RichiRamjag
Member
This happens to be a thread dedicated to screenshots. Folks are weighing in on what they see in those screenshots. That does not constitute hate. If someone was on a crusade against the game, demanding we boycott, then you would have a point. I understand many of you love the gameplay of fallout, I do too, but that really has little to do about the opinion of the graphics, especially in a screenshot thread.
I think the newer screenshots are much better, but I'm still not super jazzed about the graphics. Doesn't make me a hater.
True, but how much one may or may not love the gameplay is pretty far off in any case. "I love the gameplay" really isn't a sensible response to someone who is discussing the graphics of a game specifically. Not many doubt that the gameplay will be good anyhow.
No, there's also a lot of complaining about talking about graphics, deflecting towards sales and/or gameplay arguments, and general repetitiveness going on
jim2point0
Banned
Can't even believe this has to be said. Game looks ugly to me and I'm still hyped as hell to play it.
It should be tho. Thread started as screenshots analysis thread, just got derailed super hard early on.
Yeah agree. Even the new screenshots are ugly. This is a company that sells 10 million copies of Skyrim and they're still coasting on shitty graphics like this. Games like The Witcher have shown that great looking open worlds can be achieved on PS4. Even GTA5 looks better than this and that's a PS3 port.
No. Thread started as an image dump of screenshots from the game.
Just because a huge chunk of GAF has a mega hardon for forcing the technical analysis meme in every thread doesn't mean that's the only thing of value that can be ascertained from an image dump.
.
It looks ugly and will look ugly for the 100+ hours I play it for on my mod-less PS4.
Selective post picking won't do you any favours when trying to generate discussion. The amount of hate in this thread is unreal. You should read through a few pages and tell me that people aren't hating.
Discussion of graphics is good, it gives you an idea of what people really expect from a game's visual representation. This discussion turns to shit when people are full on comparing FO4 to Morrowind etc, what's the point in doing stuff like that? Especially when it's clear FO4 doesn't look anything like Morrowind.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
When people say it looks like/worse than a PS3/360 game, then they are hating.
RichiRamjag
Member
It doesn't look that bad, no, but those early screens were rough man. I'm sorry. As soon as I saw the newer ones, my mind was changed somewhat. Still feel like that engine is going to need an update sooner or later.
I mean, yeah, sure, it's not the best looking game by a long way, but it's still better than last gen quality. Below are some PS3 screens of Destiny, arguably one of the best looking last gen games, and Fallout 4 still looks better than that (better shadows, better vegetation density, better water quality) AND it's an insanely interactive open world game. So sure, by 2015 AAA game standards, it's not going to win awards for being a visual showcase. But it does have gorgeous art direction, and it's far more open and interactive than any other game available on current gen. Hardware has been dedicated to scale and interaction, as Bethesda games always do.
Destiny PS3, great by last gen standards, poorer shadows and vegetation quality than Fallout 4, so not just lower resolution:
Damn, destiny on PS3 holds up pretty well.
Darkstorne
Member
I mean, yeah, sure, it's not the best looking game by a long way, but it's still better than last gen quality. Below are some PS3 screens of Destiny, arguably one of the best looking last gen games, and Fallout 4 still looks better than that (better shadows, better vegetation density, better water quality) AND it's an insanely interactive open world game. So sure, by 2015 AAA game standards, it's not going to win awards for being a visual showcase. But it does have gorgeous art direction, and it's far more open and interactive than any other game available on current gen. Hardware has been dedicated to scale and interaction, as Bethesda games always do.
Destiny PS3, great by last gen standards, poorer shadows and vegetation quality than Fallout 4, so not just lower resolution:
Thank you SG-17, always there to back me up
seriously though, it's the one thing that really pisses me off.What's the "technical analysis meme"?
Not when you see it in motion.
Darkstorne
Member
Yep, it's gorgeous on PS360. Easily one of the best looking games of last gen. And Fallout 4 still looks superior. Not just in resolution, but better shadows, ambient occlusion, water quality, post processing, etc. Definitely not top quality for current gen, but anyone saying it looks like a last gen game is definitely grossly exaggerating.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
The real reason threads get derailed is when you guys focusing on shit posts, rather than a serious discussion.
Let us just try to ignore those posts, I am sure Mods will take care of those shit posters.
Let us just try to ignore those posts, I am sure Mods will take care of those shit posters.
Sarcastico
Member
The game, visually, looks like a last-gen game. I can't wait to play Fallout 4 and I'm confident the game will be great, but the graphics are shit.
Trying to turn every thread into a Digital Foundry thread and then saying saying stuff like this thread is about graphics, so if you want to talk about anything but that you're off-topic and should be banned for derailing.
i guess i like subar looking games then. Those "subpar" graphics don't offend me, i guess I played on 3ds and wii u too long and forgot what graphics that other people consider to be subpar actually looks like.
1001 gaffers getting banned tonight
. Seriously though, I think it looks good, Bethesda have never given us ground breaking graphics. What they do give us though, is deep interesting worlds.RichiRamjag
Member
You sound like a....
DESTINY HATER!
😜
It's not that bad, no. But I do feel like it could have been improved more than what it was. I'm not asking for top quality or witcher 3, but there certainly is room for improvement (gameplay notwithstanding).
So you would argue that a screenshot thread is not inherently primarily about graphics? (Note that I never said anything about "graphical analysis" in the initial post you quoted, just "graphics")
shinobi602
Member
Pop in Skyrim, Fallout 3 or Oblivion into your 360 or PS3 and tell me with a straight face that it doesn't look better. Come on now.
Blackleg-sanji1
Banned
Left at like page 39 and this is still the answer people are giving. Now im not really attacking you per say because you were like the most level headed one in here on the other side if the argument But do u think that should be the standard, that jus because they never did something before they should keep getting a pass on it.1001 gaffers getting banned tonight
It does. Everything on display in a screenshot and any discussion related to what is displayed or the implication thereof are on-topic.
Talking about how the town has an eerie look in one screenshot (artstyle and mood portrayed) or how stupid the radioactive cockroach looks is certainly more on-topic than talking about how dope as fuck Black Desert at 30 FPS is compared to Witcher 3 at 60 FPS.
Anyway, enough about the meta discussion from my end. But a screenshot thread is not automatically only about graphics no matter how much certain posters wish this would be true and try to force it.
1001 gaffers getting banned tonight
This needs to stop. They have in the past, they just don't any more.
RichiRamjag
Member
Yeah, that black desert comment was out there. Isn't that an MMO? Craziness on both sides of the fence sadly.
I don't feel like the graphics discussion is forced. If I comment about graphics in a screenshot thread and someone quotes me with a rebuttal about gameplay, it's pretty silly.
What in your mind constitutes "game play"; I would find it hard to believe that many people would have enjoyed the game as they did if the "moment-to-moment" wasn't engaging in some way beyond playing dressup in The Wasteland.
Sarcastico
Member
It's not as bad, but that's not saying much. The visuals are nowhere near current-gen standards.
His Majesty
Banned
True. But neither does it fit in with the open world games (AC:U, TW3, GTA V) of this generation
we will see when the game ships, if this game runs at a rock solid 30fps with no dips, then we got the perfect balance between performance and graphics for this game. I love the way it looks, it gives me confidence in the framerate and the overall atmosphere of the game.
to be completely honest, I am really not seeing how it doesnt.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
What are these standards and who defines them?
Broken mess, small scale compared to FO4, last-gen port. Try door number 4?
For an RPG? The character development systems; choices and consequences in quests and with factions; if there's any strategy in it, itemization; dialogue and skill/background/faction-related options in that; the quality of the battle system/resolution mechanic; and exploration. In my opinion, Bethesda only really excels at the latter.
And they seemingly get progressively worse at some of them.
First is true (you're correct), second is laughable, the third just hurts your point as a last-gen port looks better than FO4.
I'm not sure anybody could call the Witcher 3 small scale. That GTAV is being compared should be more damning than not.
Darkstorne
Member
That's not what their argument is. They're saying all Bethesda games look bad by whatever current-gen standard they launch on. They agree FO4 looks better than FO3, but only because FO3 looks awful compared to, say, Destiny on PS360.
Obviously they're still wrong, just trying to clear up this confusion. They're saying FO4 looks like a high quality last gen game, not like FO3.
Personally I adore the art direction and I have no doubt the PC version will be able to push shadow distance much further from day one .ini tweaks. Modders will take care of the textures and meshes, and that's really all it needs to look like a high quality 2015 game imo.
Coreda
Member
Previous Bethesda games on those platforms weren't the standard anyway. When people say it look like a previous gen it's the characteristics of those games they take away.
Did a search for in-game PS3 screenshots and found the following from users.
These seem more representative of what that sentiment is referring to. There is a strong visual design to FO4 but the fidelity is still lacking compared to more recent showcases.
Sarcastico
Member
Other better looking current gen games, obviously.
Lol. Sorry but you sound desperate.
blame space
Banned
I actually really like the style they're going with for this game.
I don't think that should be a standard, no. Bethesda can only use the power given in certain ways though, they just haven't given us amazing graphics this time.
They chose to use the power of the consoles for other things including customisation, more dialogue choices, more detailed worlds with more random objects in, which this time aren't just random objects with physics applied, they actually can be used to create stuff with. Bethesda have given us settlement building options with fully usable electricity with deep customisable options. Caravan trading AI that will go from outpost to outpost selling stuff for you.
They given us a new lighting system, new AA solution and better character models, better facial animations and better animations overall. Bigger world (more playable space because there's no mountains) better loading times when fast traveling and entering buildings. More buildings that can just be walked into instead of being a separate loaded area.
I'm missing loads of stuff, but essentially, the above is why we aren't getting groundbreaking graphics from Bethesda anytime soon. They'd rather create deep worlds that people want to spend hundreds of hours in and I'm fine with that.
And for some reason it's acceptable to use tight, linear games as a graphical comparison base? Games like Uncharted, TLOU and Gears of War don't have to render huge open worlds it's hundreds of thousands of dynamic objects in, they only have to render small, linear sections and can allocate system resources to other things like better textures, lighting, character models and geometry.
P.S. I know it's not you comparing, I'm just asking your opinion
nelsonroyale
Member
The Witcher 3 probably has a much bigger world than FO4....
Blackleg-sanji1
Banned
Calling the witcher 3 small scale is very insulting, that last gen port looks better says alot and as far as broken mess goes you may be right but kets wait until fallout 4 is actually out?
People on both sides of the current technical argument are ridiculous in my opinion.
If you haven't played the game or seen the game in action it's probably best to:
1. Play the game yourself
2. Wait for a review with more substantive technical analysis
Previous Bethesda games on those platforms weren't the standard anyway. When people say it look like a previous gen it's the characteristics of those games they take away.
Did a search for in-game PS3 screenshots and found the following from users.
These seem more representative of what that sentiment is referring to. There is a strong visual design to FO4 but the fidelity is still lacking compared to more recent showcases.
Those games not only look worse, but they're linear as fuck and have very little interaction, few NPCs, very little in the way of inventory, just nothing that makes them comparable. I mean, it's laughable that anyone would make that comparison.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
The scale at what the Witcher does with its world is much smaller than Fallout (interactivity, physics, persistence, etc). Also, a game built to run on 256mb of RAM and graphics hardware from 2006 looks fantastic on modern hardware. Who could have guessed?
- Status