MichaelFassbender
Member
I remember watching a friend play 3 for 8 hours straight after he picked it up for 360 back in 08 or so. He eventually got stuck in some texture, turned it off, then said to me:
"This game is awful."
Fallout 4 - PS4 screenshots (now feat. PNGs)
- Thread starter Kenzodielocke
- Start date
- Status
I remember watching a friend play 3 for 8 hours straight after he picked it up for 360 back in 08 or so. He eventually got stuck in some texture, turned it off, then said to me:
"This game is awful."
Sure, but saying never produced graphically impressive games is really disingenuous as it clearly isn't the case. Not to single you out as lots of people have parroted that line.
Dictator93
Member
Do you think there is this linear trade off between the two? As in, if their gameplay designers are not coding gameplay systems, they are instead doing graphics programming?
I do not think that is how it works necessarily.
Agreed. I've always wondered how The Sims would look post-nuclear apocalypse.
legacyzero
Banned
Need moar shots, pls!
Also, new Fallout Avatar :3
Yes, I'm begging dammit. Need my fix 
Also, new Fallout Avatar :3
Some people are ignorant to game design. Just leave them to it, maybe they'll educate themselves one day.
RichiRamjag
Member
Now you're just being condescending.
Need moar shots, pls!
Yes, I'm begging dammit. Need my fix
Also, new Fallout Avatar :3
Love it.
Hahaha
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Don't see the fuss. The game looks cel shaded almost. Really diggin the style. Can't wait to play.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Shinobi, I asked a legitimate question. No "conspiracy theory" anything. You are not obtuse man, I am just asking why one set looked so washed out, and this new set pops (which I am in 100% agreement with how it looks), a simple jpeg to png will not make that much of a difference.
So either this person has his gamma turned all the way up, or he purposefully washed out the pics, for what, I do not know.
Well there it is. It is inconsistent, which does not make us "conspiracy theorists" for questioning as such. Goodness.
Coreda
Member
The point appears to have been missed. It's highlighting where the 'previous gen' comments are coming from as several are claiming such posts are 'hate posts' merely for having an opinion on the fidelity they've come to expect from AAA titles in recent years.
Neither the post or screenshots are intended to indicate FO4 is identical to previous gen visuals, few could successfully argue that, but the characteristics are what leads people to these comments. It's not the leap they had expected.
It's as if no one has ever made comparisons before.
Blackleg-sanji1
Banned
Some people are ignorant to a companies shortcomings, maybe they'll educate themselves one day...see how that works insulting ppl is not a good counter argument i literally just said you was the most level headed one in the thread with my last post to lol
Yeah, I should have read through my post before I actually posted it lol.
No, it's not a linear trade off, Dev teams can only work with limited system resources. The more system resources you use for gameplay mechanics, physics, customisation etc the less you will have to allocate to stuff like Geometry, lighting, textures etc.
Right sorry, I shouldn't have said that, I didn't mean for that to sound condescending or as an insult. I just meant, there's no point trying to argue with people saying stuff like "Well TW3 has beautiful graphics, so why can't FO4?" When they don't understand what goes into creating a game.
I'm sorry if I sounded like I was trying to insult anyone, I feel like a dick now. I'll delete the post.
Hell no. Speak for yourself. I love FO3's gameplay. VATS is so damn fun to use. Seeing a bullet slowly blow someone's head off is satisfying. Using a Fat Man is even better.
So what are you saying, that those are PC screens? You've never seen a faulty picture?
The former set is primarily CPU bound. The latter is primarily GPU bound.
Now you could correctly argue that the dev studio has limited personnel and resources to allocate to such tasks, I'd counter that given the value of the franchise, they could afford to improve in a lot of areas.
Darkstorne
Member
They have a hardware overhead though. They dedicate a lot of processing power to rendering a colossal open world where every object even down to individual pieces of cutlery are able to be moved around, collected, placed on display somewhere else. You can't expect them to create a world this vast and dynamic with the visual quality of other open world games which are far more static and less interactive, such as Assassin's Creed and Infamous.
It just goes to show that the general crowd doesn't really understand how games work. Which isn't a bad thing, and not that they need to, but I think they should at least be self aware of the knowledge they lack when making comparisons such as above.
But the regular Joe (the type that cares about graphics) sees Ryse and The Order graphics and then expects that level from all games that follow it.
RichiRamjag
Member
We don't know if this game was pushed to its limit though based on limited resources. It's conjecture at this point.
I feel that is taking it to the extreme. There are some who think it could have been better that don't expect ryse or the order.
Dictator93
Member
Do they only have the resources for 1 guy doing graphics programming or something then? Because they have made less progress in seven years than an indie team that built their engine from scratch with one engineer.
Natural selection 1
Natural Selection 2
nelsonroyale
Member
There was probably more interactivity in Ultima Pagan than there was in Skyrim. More advanced game!
Threads like this always end up the same. You have the people who primarily care about graphics, people who value gameplay above graphics, people who are disappointed with the graphics but will still get the game and people saying "this developer has never made games with good graphics anyway, it's about everything else".
And then you have the absurd kind of people that start to make comparisons with last gen games... or even PS2 games. Proving to me that they probably haven't touched said consoles in a long time and/or suffer from memory loss.
I've been reading this thread on and off since yesterday and while I do think it's very entertaining from a masochistic point of view, it's very interesting to see how people manage to fill a thread with more than three thousand posts... just talking about the graphics of a few leaked screenshots.
It's true that Fallout 4 probably won't be a graphical showcase. Compared to a couple other "AAA" games that have released this year, it's the first thing I notice. I guess it's okay to be disappointed at that. I guess Bethesda could do better. I'm no developer, but that's what I think. At this point, I'll be glad it runs decently on my PS4. I still have nightmares from Skyrim on PS3. That doesn't mean I'm okay with the disappointing graphics... but graphics are usually just a bonus for me. As long as it doesn't look butt ugly while running at sub 30 fps, I'll be fine.
If I learned anything from this generation, it's that too many games focus on the graphical side of things. The most disappointing games I've played so far are also the most beautiful looking games. Of course I want a game that looks good AND plays good, but if I have to choose, I'll pick gameplay over graphics.
In the end, I don't see how people can keep this "it looks good" vs "no, it doesn't" vs "this image comparison clearly proves that a ps2 game running on my pc through an emulator looks better than these leaked fallout 4 pictures" up for so long. Especially since nobody (or almost nobody?) is playing the game yet.
I'm not saying we should settle for mediocrity. I wish 1080p/60fps with good graphics was an industry standard for consoles and not something only remasters, ports or indies are capable of. But threads like this seriously make me wonder if some if you actually play games and don't just boot up games to look at the graphics.
And then you have the absurd kind of people that start to make comparisons with last gen games... or even PS2 games. Proving to me that they probably haven't touched said consoles in a long time and/or suffer from memory loss.
I've been reading this thread on and off since yesterday and while I do think it's very entertaining from a masochistic point of view, it's very interesting to see how people manage to fill a thread with more than three thousand posts... just talking about the graphics of a few leaked screenshots.
It's true that Fallout 4 probably won't be a graphical showcase. Compared to a couple other "AAA" games that have released this year, it's the first thing I notice. I guess it's okay to be disappointed at that. I guess Bethesda could do better. I'm no developer, but that's what I think. At this point, I'll be glad it runs decently on my PS4. I still have nightmares from Skyrim on PS3. That doesn't mean I'm okay with the disappointing graphics... but graphics are usually just a bonus for me. As long as it doesn't look butt ugly while running at sub 30 fps, I'll be fine.
If I learned anything from this generation, it's that too many games focus on the graphical side of things. The most disappointing games I've played so far are also the most beautiful looking games. Of course I want a game that looks good AND plays good, but if I have to choose, I'll pick gameplay over graphics.
In the end, I don't see how people can keep this "it looks good" vs "no, it doesn't" vs "this image comparison clearly proves that a ps2 game running on my pc through an emulator looks better than these leaked fallout 4 pictures" up for so long. Especially since nobody (or almost nobody?) is playing the game yet.
I'm not saying we should settle for mediocrity. I wish 1080p/60fps with good graphics was an industry standard for consoles and not something only remasters, ports or indies are capable of. But threads like this seriously make me wonder if some if you actually play games and don't just boot up games to look at the graphics.
legacyzero
Banned
Clarkus Darkus
Member
Well it is a considerable big leap from F3/NV on the previous gen of consoles, Since you know that's what console owners will be comparing it against, Not the PC uber versions.
Not sure what a PS4 screenshot thread has to do with PC or The Witcher 3.
Not sure what a PS4 screenshot thread has to do with PC or The Witcher 3.
They could allocate more personnel resources, but imagine how expensive that'd be? Look at GTAV, deep, living, breathing world with fairly decent graphics (even now) and its development costs were absolutely ridiculous.
The graphics could have been better, I admit, but I wouldn't have expected anything much better because of the limited power of the consoles.
Lmao, you got me there. No I just meant system resources as a whole, like Tuxfool said though, they could have allocated more personnel to graphics design and programming but it would have been extremely expensive. The consoles aren't powerhouses, they can only achieve so much.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
No, that is not what I am saying. The original pics in this threads were PS4 shots, the chances that all of his shots capture directly from the frame-buffer to be faulty is pretty slim.
What I am asking is how the originals looked so washed out, and lack any sort of color pop, yet the new ones pop and look how we expect from the reveal video which I expected to see.
Time of day? Gamma/brightness in the game itself turned all the way up?
The great thing about these threads, is discussions and speculations if not in a constructive manner. But also it appears the game is inconsistent, which is also understandable as well with such vast world building usually with different people working on different sections.
Does anyone know how big the map is, in comparison to other open world games out there currently?
I only used those as examples for high-end graphics.
Dictator93
Member
Yeah, good point. Maybe they also just do not see it as a priority these days.
Huh, I look at those screenshots and think they look great. I think, "I can't wait to explore those areas".
I never understood the practice of scrutinizing a single frame of a game until all the flaws pop out. It always looks better in motion.
Everyone has hobbies I guess.
Can't wait to dive into this!
I never understood the practice of scrutinizing a single frame of a game until all the flaws pop out. It always looks better in motion.
Everyone has hobbies I guess.
Can't wait to dive into this!
Probably not lol, can't wait to see how good TES:VI looks though!
dragonelite
Member
People are mad that others are talking about Fallout 4 graphical shortcomings in a picture
thread? Its not a looker compared to other open world games like the The witcher 3
If it was a video showcasing gameplay i might understand it, but pictures will be dissected.
thread? Its not a looker compared to other open world games like the The witcher 3
If it was a video showcasing gameplay i might understand it, but pictures will be dissected.
SolidChamp
Banned
Why are the PNGs not loading in for me?
legacyzero
Banned
Have you checked your PC's Image Fluid?
Trogdor1123
Member
I honestly don't see what people are complaining about. The game looks great.
Clearly your PC is not equipped to display Pretty Nice Graphics, possibly stick to Just Plain Graphics?
seriously, try clearing your cache
SolidChamp
Banned
Macbook Air.
Shit like Facebook has recently started to act funky with loading images in.
In the OP the first set of images load, but Shinobi's PNGs don't.
The moment i saw the pictures i knew something was wrong. It's pretty obvious to me they weren't captured correctly. Everythings looks blown out and dull.
Add that with compression from both the PS4 and the site uploaded it to, and you have something that's not an accurate representation at all.
Crimson_1ce
Banned
Finally a game with a bit of longevity! Even MGSV didn't last me as long as I first thought.
Also yay first post
Also yay first post
The game is a considerable leap from Fallout 3/Vegas.
Overall it's not a graphical showpiece (just like Destiny and many other PS4/X1 games aren't) but what can you do about it? Deal with it if you're interested in the game.
I'm more interested in the quality of the game, its missions and story and I hope it won't be seriously bugged at launch.
I think people can deal with the fact this won't be the best looking open world game this gen.
Overall it's not a graphical showpiece (just like Destiny and many other PS4/X1 games aren't) but what can you do about it? Deal with it if you're interested in the game.
I'm more interested in the quality of the game, its missions and story and I hope it won't be seriously bugged at launch.
I think people can deal with the fact this won't be the best looking open world game this gen.
legacyzero
Banned
Give us some footage, Bethesda! Or, if you just wanna give me my copy early I'll take that!. I'm a JOURNALIST! Yeah! A "journalist".
Oh... An even bigger problem
Oh... An even bigger problem
Windom Earle
Member
Looking at this thread makes me appreciate the jump from GTA4 to GTA5 a lot more. Not only did they improve gameplay, they also created one of the best looking last gen games. An open world game at that. They didn't just settle with "maybe good enough", they pused themselves and the hardware to the limit. I am seeing a lot of lame excuses here, but there is none.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Agreed. The new screens Shinobi posted are what I expected to see when this thread first popped up. (Still wish there was AO, even if very slight to make the objects look more part of the world.)
I would not bring up a Bethesda game, let alone this engine as a bastion to judge what these consoles are capable of. "Cross gen" GTAV would like a word. Which now makes me salivate thinking of the current-gen GTAVI engine.
i think there's two factors at play.
1) this gen is just starting... sure the consoles have a few years on them now but the past year is really when we started to get to the meat of it. in the meantime we've primarily gotten cross gen titles or re-masters. even MGS5, one of the headline graphical showcases, was cross-gen. we're just now getting out of the woods in terms of "current gen" being standard. then you factor in that fallout has been in development for about half a decade now, this becomes more relevant
2) this gen simply isn't that big of a leap, and it's just something we'll have to come to terms with. if your PC has a 660 and an i3 processor, you're about in the same neighborhood as a ps4, which says a lot. the reason why Oblivion was "lifelike graphics" ten years ago was because the console situation was the inverse of what it is now, a fairly massive leap. bethesda didn't have to scale lower, or in a worst case scenario, release a total gimped port or no port at all (in which an AAA PC exclusive wouldn't fly at all these days)
it's something to keep in mind... and before somebody brings up witcher 3, it's already been discussed ad nauseam why the two games are hardly comparable. hopefully by the time elder scrolls 6 (or maybe, fingers crossed, Obsidians new Fallout) hits there'll be a solution where a massive open world won't compromise the visuals, remember skyrim was leaps and bounds over oblivion. but we're not quite there yet.
1) this gen is just starting... sure the consoles have a few years on them now but the past year is really when we started to get to the meat of it. in the meantime we've primarily gotten cross gen titles or re-masters. even MGS5, one of the headline graphical showcases, was cross-gen. we're just now getting out of the woods in terms of "current gen" being standard. then you factor in that fallout has been in development for about half a decade now, this becomes more relevant
2) this gen simply isn't that big of a leap, and it's just something we'll have to come to terms with. if your PC has a 660 and an i3 processor, you're about in the same neighborhood as a ps4, which says a lot. the reason why Oblivion was "lifelike graphics" ten years ago was because the console situation was the inverse of what it is now, a fairly massive leap. bethesda didn't have to scale lower, or in a worst case scenario, release a total gimped port or no port at all (in which an AAA PC exclusive wouldn't fly at all these days)
it's something to keep in mind... and before somebody brings up witcher 3, it's already been discussed ad nauseam why the two games are hardly comparable. hopefully by the time elder scrolls 6 (or maybe, fingers crossed, Obsidians new Fallout) hits there'll be a solution where a massive open world won't compromise the visuals, remember skyrim was leaps and bounds over oblivion. but we're not quite there yet.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
I had more fun with Fallout 3 than I did with GTA IV and V combined though.
Was that even taken using the share button? Washed out colors aside, I don't remember my JPG shots of other games being that compressed.
Edit: Oh yeah probably from the site.
- Status