Fallout 4 PC Ultra screenshots

As I said before, I think the AA coverage on PC ultra looks pretty decent.

Wonder if we can fuck around with distance LODs again with the uGridstoload thingy.
Given how much of their basic engine functionality Bethesda generally changes across games I wouldn't be surprised if we could.

Im not seeing a big difference or leap
Look at a screenshot which actually shows off this "open world" the game is all about (that is, distance). Then look for shadows.

I'm sure we'll get suitable direct comparisons from DF or somewhere sooner or later.
 
It looks like a higher-res last gen game to me. It doesn't look great, but it doesn't look terrible, either.

Take a closer look at last gen

SickClearcutKob.gif



This is Black Ops 3, btw
 
I was really impressed by oblivion back in the day. The game looks a lot better on pc ultra thanks to the increased shadow draw distance though.

I agree but they've been iterating on the same engine for what, 10 years now?

What looked great in 2006 gradually looks worse and worse when newer engines become available.
 
I like the art style of the game, it all looks fine to me. Yeah it's not pushing graphical boundaries but the Fallout games have never been about the very best graphics and for those that do want more, well the mods will have you covered soon enough.

This game is still going to be awesome though and I can't wait to play the hell out of it.
 
Bugs and glitches aside, how optimised in terms of FPS do you guys think this will be on PC at 1080p? I have a Sapphire 280X and reading how a GTX 970 apparently handles Ultra at around 60fps, I'm thinking a mix of High/Ultra at 45+fps should be doable?
 
Its weird

Im not seeing a big difference or leap

Is the compression from these screens really blurring all the detail? Cuz I am seeing the same issues either way

Its clear that object detail and artistic quality is inconsistent across the board for this game

It's pretty much the same. It's just the same people that were disappointed by the PS4 pics, are now saying that the PC pics look great, which is hilarious
 
R9 280 here how close do you think I can get to this? If I had to guess on the recommended specs I'll probably be playing on medium or low which is sad.
 
Looks...okay. Falls into the 'not excited about the visuals, but they won't bring the experience down either' category for me, at least as long as Ultra doesn't require an absurd rig.
 
It's pretty much the same. It's just the same people that were disappointed by the PS4 pics, are now saying that the PC pics look great, which is hilarious

Like I can clearly see that this is upgraded over previous games

Thats a fact but its also clear that the upgrade wasnt universally applied to every part of the game

Poor quality assets are sticking out like a sore thumb against the higher res and well lit HQ assets.
 
ENB shaders were pretty good at improving shadow quality upclose in Skyrim, though.
Improving shadow quality is one thing, putting shadows where there aren't any is a different thing.

Also, as far as I'm aware, no one has attempted as significant a modification as ENB in DX11 so far. Obviously it could be done, but the complexity is very significant.

That's why I'm happy that pretty good shadow coverage seems achievable by the built in game settings.
 
Improving shadow quality is one thing, putting shadows where there aren't any is a different thing.

Also, as far as I'm aware, no one has attempted as significant a modification as ENB in DX11 so far. Obviously it could be done, but the complexity is very significant.

That's why I'm happy that pretty good shadow coverage seems achievable by the built in game settings.

Dude

Once you get your hands on this I would love to see a full analysis from you and your thoughts
 
There is no need for excuses guys

I think this has been talked and analyzed to death already

Seems clear that this was a cross gen game that was probably mostly finished a year ago or more

Sure they moved it to Current Gen only but the release plan was locked in likely at a point where rebuilding a game of this size wasnt an option

I dunno.... I immediately think of PC modders and how long it takes them to release texture packs and such.

I do find it amusing. They probably started work before PS4/XBO kits were available, same engine as before, etc. I can't see how people are genuinely surprised at how it looks. Now, if the next Elder Scrolls isn't a lot more polished I can understand disappointment as surely that will be current gen only, maybe even with a new engine
 
Because it's their intellectual property.

Digital Millenia Copyright Act.
The game is. The screenshot isn't. That random sites simply cave with every DMCA request doesn't mean it's a legitimate request.

Rant:
It's also disturbing that a publisher doesn't want screenshots to be out in the open prior to release. If anything, the screenshots will increase hype, people will see them and think "yeah I want to play that game!", but as they don't want this to happen, it's clear they know all too well the screenshots don't really make the game look like the game they sold to the fans and fear people will cancel their pre-orders.

If a company spends a lot of energy to fight free publicity and hype you have to be very careful. The shots shown in the TS are 'ok' but only when you view them scaled down. When I click open the shot of the ghouls for example, the texture work is absolutely way too low-res. I understand why Bethesda doesn't want gamers to see that before they buy the game, but it's absolutely key gamers do see that kind of shots before buying.

Anyway, it's not as if Bethesda didn't lie in the past about their engine and how they rewrote everything from 'scratch' for this game (like they said about the gamebryo version used in Skyrim): it's an improved version of their old, buggy, slow, inefficient mess of an engine and it's no surprise the end-result doesn't look great. I guess they used the same old cruft because their employees know how to work with it, the tooling is in place and they can get up and running fast without waiting for teh engine team to come up with a new engine/tooling etc. They forget that they have to make that step eventually, if it's not with this game then it's for the next or the one after that.

CDPR made that step clearly, they spend a lot of time migrating their tech to modern standards so their engine could deal with the vast open world of The Witcher 3, without load times, ever. I can move from:
to
Without a loading screen, while I'm in the first shot in a swamp and in the second I'm in a big city.

We all should stop making excuses for Bethesda and what they try to sell us at a very premium price. It's not the graphics if they're super great or not that great, the graphic quality are a sign that the underlying technology is old as well. They polished it up a bit with better lighting, but e.g. texture work is still very bad. I doubt they did that on purpose or that they couldn't find the right people to come up with proper textures. The only explanation I can think of is that their tooling (and thus the engine) is simply not up to it and they refused to update it with systems that do. I wouldn't be surprised if the same memory leak aspects, corrupt world data (so the game CDTs when you go to a specific part of the map), and an endless stream of buggy quests which can't be completed are present at launch. Especially considering they try to hide the state of the engine so furiously by take-down notices of screenshots.

/Rant.
 
The game is. The screenshot isn't. That random sites simply cave with every DMCA request doesn't mean it's a legitimate request.

Rant:
It's also disturbing that a publisher doesn't want screenshots to be out in the open prior to release. If anything, the screenshots will increase hype, people will see them and think "yeah I want to play that game!", but as they don't want this to happen, it's clear they know all too well the screenshots don't really make the game look like the game they sold to the fans and fear people will cancel their pre-orders.

If a company spends a lot of energy to fight free publicity and hype you have to be very careful. The shots shown in the TS are 'ok' but only when you view them scaled down. When I click open the shot of the ghouls for example, the texture work is absolutely way too low-res. I understand why Bethesda doesn't want gamers to see that before they buy the game, but it's absolutely key gamers do see that kind of shots before buying.

Anyway, it's not as if Bethesda didn't lie in the past about their engine and how they rewrote everything from 'scratch' for this game (like they said about the gamebryo version used in Skyrim): it's an improved version of their old, buggy, slow, inefficient mess of an engine and it's no surprise the end-result doesn't look great. I guess they used the same old cruft because their employees know how to work with it, the tooling is in place and they can get up and running fast without waiting for teh engine team to come up with a new engine/tooling etc. They forget that they have to make that step eventually, if it's not with this game then it's for the next or the one after that.

CDPR made that step clearly, they spend a lot of time migrating their tech to modern standards so their engine could deal with the vast open world of The Witcher 3, without load times, ever. I can move from:

to

Without a loading screen, while I'm in the first shot in a swamp and in the second I'm in a big city.

We all should stop making excuses for Bethesda and what they try to sell us at a very premium price. It's not the graphics if they're super great or not that great, the graphic quality are a sign that the underlying technology is old as well. They polished it up a bit with better lighting, but e.g. texture work is still very bad. I doubt they did that on purpose or that they couldn't find the right people to come up with proper textures. The only explanation I can think of is that their tooling (and thus the engine) is simply not up to it and they refused to update it with systems that do. I wouldn't be surprised if the same memory leak aspects, corrupt world data (so the game CDTs when you go to a specific part of the map), and an endless stream of buggy quests which can't be completed are present at launch. Especially considering they try to hide the state of the engine so furiously by take-down notices of screenshots.

/Rant.
I agree
 
With all the cross-gen allegations I'm starting to wonder if this was the case and that the game is therefore suffering from the same kind of bottlenecks like 32-bit application and memory allocation issues that Skyrim does. That would probably be a major buzzkill for modders. Oh, and the scripting language as well. Skyrim used Papyrus which was just flat out bad for a game like that.

People commonly underestimate just how hurt Skyrim was by that stuff. All those fancy über graphics screenshots you see only really work for just that, screenshots, in practice. The game is rendered way too unstable to actually play it with the additional burden of gameplay mods that way, cause you're simply overloading what the engine can handle regardless of your PC hardware.
 
Like I can clearly see that this is upgraded over previous games

Thats a fact but its also clear that the upgrade wasnt universally applied to every part of the game

Poor quality assets are sticking out like a sore thumb against the higher res and well lit HQ assets.

People were expecting this to look like KZ Shadowfall or Crysis 3 on Ultra, and I understand that. But people also need to understand (especially on Fallout, THS, etc) that these games go way beyond a normal FPS/RPG normally does
 
The largest problem with Fallout is more artistic than anything

If the barebones art assets were of higher quality to begin with across the board than the upgrade in resolution and lighting would make them POP

Think about how Dark Souls 1 looks when Durantes mods are applied. The high quality art the was once buried now comes alive

In Fallout 4 we are seeing the opposite. The increase in resolution and added lighting and effects makes the flaws stand out more.

And its not like its ALL bad. You can see certain areas from the screenshots that have GREAT detail. There is also the issues of how they use contrast and color... Which I think they did a much better job of in the outdoor areas and not so much indoors
 
Improving shadow quality is one thing, putting shadows where there aren't any is a different thing.

Also, as far as I'm aware, no one has attempted as significant a modification as ENB in DX11 so far. Obviously it could be done, but the complexity is very significant.

That's why I'm happy that pretty good shadow coverage seems achievable by the built in game settings.
Skyrim was quite moddable in terms of shadow distance, but yeah i forgot that this is DX11 title. This could be problematic ;/
 
The game is. The screenshot isn't. That random sites simply cave with every DMCA request doesn't mean it's a legitimate request.

Rant:
It's also disturbing that a publisher doesn't want screenshots to be out in the open prior to release. If anything, the screenshots will increase hype, people will see them and think "yeah I want to play that game!", but as they don't want this to happen, it's clear they know all too well the screenshots don't really make the game look like the game they sold to the fans and fear people will cancel their pre-orders.

If a company spends a lot of energy to fight free publicity and hype you have to be very careful. The shots shown in the TS are 'ok' but only when you view them scaled down. When I click open the shot of the ghouls for example, the texture work is absolutely way too low-res. I understand why Bethesda doesn't want gamers to see that before they buy the game, but it's absolutely key gamers do see that kind of shots before buying.

Anyway, it's not as if Bethesda didn't lie in the past about their engine and how they rewrote everything from 'scratch' for this game (like they said about the gamebryo version used in Skyrim): it's an improved version of their old, buggy, slow, inefficient mess of an engine and it's no surprise the end-result doesn't look great. I guess they used the same old cruft because their employees know how to work with it, the tooling is in place and they can get up and running fast without waiting for teh engine team to come up with a new engine/tooling etc. They forget that they have to make that step eventually, if it's not with this game then it's for the next or the one after that.

CDPR made that step clearly, they spend a lot of time migrating their tech to modern standards so their engine could deal with the vast open world of The Witcher 3, without load times, ever. I can move from:

to

Without a loading screen, while I'm in the first shot in a swamp and in the second I'm in a big city.

We all should stop making excuses for Bethesda and what they try to sell us at a very premium price. It's not the graphics if they're super great or not that great, the graphic quality are a sign that the underlying technology is old as well. They polished it up a bit with better lighting, but e.g. texture work is still very bad. I doubt they did that on purpose or that they couldn't find the right people to come up with proper textures. The only explanation I can think of is that their tooling (and thus the engine) is simply not up to it and they refused to update it with systems that do. I wouldn't be surprised if the same memory leak aspects, corrupt world data (so the game CDTs when you go to a specific part of the map), and an endless stream of buggy quests which can't be completed are present at launch. Especially considering they try to hide the state of the engine so furiously by take-down notices of screenshots.

/Rant.

I also agree. The fallout screens look pretty abysmal on a 4k monitor, heres hoping it looks much better when it arrives. Witcher 3 was consistently the best graphics I have ever seen in a game and very minimal loading times.
 
Serious question but why is the sky blue after a nuclear holocaust?
Its been over 200 years. Fallout 3 was the one that was fucked up having everything puke green and dead.


I'll be getting the GOTY Edition next year on Steam for mods after I upgrade my PC. Until then I'm happy with the PS4 version.
 
Rioting? Nah. But we are still paying $70 for shiny new "next gen" "AAA" game so we -- rightfully -- have high expectations. It's not the consumer's fault when game development began; the onus is on the studio for their game to not be visibly outdated the day it launches. We give Bethesda a pass cause we love the game play and they allow the community to mod the game.

But Bethesda is not above fair criticism. Consumers have the right to feel a little sour about FO4's lack of graphical "progress" compared to other next gen titles released in the last few years.

It's not exactly fair to the game, though. Realistically, resources are limited and for some reason graphics are the only thing people complain about when comparing titles. Nobody complains that the Witcher 3 doesn't have dynamic, sandbox styled physics and props like Fallout does, but everyone wants to complain that Fallout 4 doesn't look on par with the Witcher 3. That's the big thing people have to understand is that there's a bunch of under the hood systems in place that only Bethesda is doing with their games and that requires work load to be diverted to those systems.

And that is the fault of the consumer for not understanding the process behind creating a game and the distributing of labor relative to the scope and complexity of said game.
 
Wasnt that Radial Blur, like in Skyrim?

Yep, radial blur - different thing

Ah, you're right, well here's to hoping there's at least camera based motion blur, that'd be neat.

(Or to continue being pessimistic, it's a blur that's used only when dashing D:)
 
Comparing Fallout to Witcher is like comparing apples to tomatoes. Technically they are both fruit, but you'd never use them the same way. It's disingenuous to compare them.
 
It's not exactly fair to the game, though. Realistically, resources are limited and for some reason graphics are the only thing people complain about when comparing titles. Nobody complains that the Witcher 3 doesn't have dynamic, sandbox styled physics and props like Fallout does, but everyone wants to complain that Fallout 4 doesn't look on par with the Witcher 3. That's the big thing people have to understand is that there's a bunch of under the hood systems in place that only Bethesda is doing with their games and that requires work load to be diverted to those systems.

And that is the fault of the consumer for not understanding the process behind creating a game and the distributing of labor relative to the scope and complexity of said game.

Plenty of people had various complaints for Witcher 3.

The criticisms of the visuals stand. I dont think the majority of people discussing these issues are going to avoid the game or not applaud the things it does right.

This is just something that sticks out and is worth discussing
 
Definitely not what I'd like to see if those are in fact ultra PC shots. I do like the art style and colors though so I don't think it looks too bad. if nothing else it feels like a more attractive world for modders to begin iterating on.
 
There's like no texture on anything. No wrinkles on the clothes, no grain on the wood. Add some bump-mapping or something, Bethesda!

There IS

but its not universal

Some objects and areas got special treatment in the art and detail department and some didnt

Unfortunately its really easy to see these discrepancies
 
Not even Ultra makes it look good.



Haha yeah. These look about the same, just higher res. Imagine if getting pranked and mixed in some ps4 png's in there, like this one https://www.anony.ws/i/2015/10/31/Fallout4_20151031145033.png

They wouldn't tell the difference. The "PC Ultra" placebo is real.

Maybe... I get the feeling 80% of all people in this thread are commenting on how not good looking the game is. Myself and almost every post on this page for example.
 
Comparing Fallout to Witcher is like comparing apples to tomatoes. Technically they are both fruit, but you'd never use them the same way. It's disingenuous to compare them.

Aye, it would be like comparing Witcher 3 combat to Dark Souls combat. Sure, you could. But the question would be why? as they are setting out achieve different things
 
There's like no texture on anything. No wrinkles on the clothes, no grain on the wood. Add some bump-mapping or something, Bethesda!

This is usually very dependant on the lighting conditions. Those kinds of details are in the normal maps these days, and if the lighting isn't up to par then it's not going to properly reflect those details on the objects.

It's actually one of my major pet peeves with graphics in general since the PS360 era kicked off, since the flatness becomes painfully apparent if the lighting isn't perfect 100% of the time, which it isn't with the limited technology employed. Before that era, all that stuff was baked into the diffuse textures so they would at least be consistently visible. We went from being consistently fairly nice to sometimes great and sometimes awful texture detail.
 
Aye, it would be like comparing Witcher 3 combat to Dark Souls combat. Sure, you could. But the question would be why? as they are setting out achieve different things

I think the issue is that there are SO many open world competitors night now that are setting the bar higher than it was last gen

So Fallout 4's modest upgrades stand out
 
Comparing Fallout to Witcher is like comparing apples to tomatoes. Technically they are both fruit, but you'd never use them the same way. It's disingenuous to compare them.
It's a more accurate comparison than when people compared Skyrim to Dark Souls in 2011.

If anything I think TW3 proves that a voiced character and limited dialog options are not a bad thing by default, so there are some direct parralels to be made between the two games.
 
Top Bottom