Fallout 4 PC Ultra screenshots

Not any more. Since Advanced Warfare they've been using the new Sledgehammer developed engine.

Hmmm, wasn't aware of that. I'm assuming Treyarch are still using their own branch of the IW tech?

Are we sure that Sledgehammer didn't just branch off from that as well?

EDIT - Just read up a bit on that. They are using a branch of the IW Engine. Definitely a ton of new stuff though. Advanced Warfare was a looker.
 
Evilore himself split these shots off into their own thread due to him being convinced they were genuine. I would hope that's enough for most people.

Take my word for it, I wouldn't post something like this if I wasn't 100% sure of their veracity. I've been on GAF for a long time and regularly post in tech related threads, I don't want to mislead anyone.

Alright then.

I'm pretty sure these screenshots are authentic myself, but there have been many hoaxes associated with this game.

I'd prefer to see PC screenshots posted by a site whose reputation could be damaged if there was even the mildest tinkering going on - The Giant Bomb, say.

I could also ask if these screenshots are from the final build? Would we get a response - well, no, because we don't even have a source. Is PC Gamer posting these shots? IGN? The Giant Bomb? See, there's probably a reason for that.

Anyhow, it's not worth losing any sleep over.

EDIT: Also, sorry, but I don't know who Evilore is.
 
Hmmm, wasn't aware of that. I'm assuming Treyarch are still using their own branch of the IW tech?

Are we sure that Sledgehammer didn't just branch off from that as well?

I don't know. They did claim it was a brand new engine. I think Treyarch is using the same engine. It would be kind of foolish for them not to share technology.
 
EDIT: Also, sorry, but I don't know who Evilore is.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=390708
The pic I'm comparing is more relevant than your huge ass panorama shot, I'm comparing the trees and foliage in the background from a similar distance. The other screens seem to have been taken down.

Why are the shots you posted more relevant? Wouldn't being showcasing the differences the way one judges relevance? And not showcasing the similarities?
 
Alright then.

I'm pretty sure these screenshots are authentic myself, but there have been many hoaxes associated with this game.

I'd prefer to see PC screenshots posted by a site that whose reputation could be damaged if there was even the mildest tinkering going on - The Giant Bomb, say.

I could also ask if these screenshots are from the final build? Would we get a response - well, no, because we don't even have a source. Is PC Gamer posting these shots? IGN? The Giant Bomb? See, there's probably a reason for that.

Anyhow, it's not worth losing any sleep over.

The shots are almost certainly PC shots from a recently received review kit containing a PC version of the game. Our 'source' is a friend of the GAF user who posted them, and Evilore seems content enough with their validity to let them head their own thread. There's not a lot to compare directly in those shots vs the PS4 shots, but LOD is noticibly improved, and bloom effects aren't at subnative res as was the case with PS4 shots up to this point.
 
The complexity.

Whether you care about the fact that the world has much more (and more importantly the potential to have) dynamically placed, individual objects makes the graphical aspects a ton harder to optimize as there's so much less room for predetermined optimization. Just the amount of potential draw calls is probably a lot higher than Witcher 3, or the amount of gameobjects the main thread has to process, potentially slowing down the rendering thread.

This would be true if you could build bases anywhere, but you can't. You build bases on predetermined lots that are, in fact, optimized in advance through clever occlusion techniques. Gamebryo also uses "interior cells" for various interior spaces, which means the rest of the open world isn't rendered when you're inside. And these "cells" aren't truly elaborate interiors with huge draw distances. Often they're warrens of offices and small rooms, all of which could benefit from extremely simple optimization techniques. The level of fidelity that the engine is capable of delivering (based on my experience with the Creation Kit) stands in sharp contrast to what Bethesda actually presents. I think one explanation for why interiors aren't substantially prettier given the performance advantages of "cells" has to do with a certain design philosophy.

Bethesda must target some minimum level of fidelity across interiors and exteriors in order to avoid the chore of developing high quality and low quality assets for two different spaces. That makes sense if time and resources are limited. Yet even if that were the case, it still doesn't excuse the lazy, bland lighting design for offices, vaults, etc. where you have complete control over the player's line of sight.
 
I don't buy it, man. Fallout 3 to Fallout 4 is a bigger jump than Witcher 2 to Witcher 3, and I can back that up with visual examples if you'd like. Shit, I've got three out of four of those games installed, right now. I could take the shots myself. I don't even begin to understand how you claim with such adamancy that that's not a jump in fidelity indicative of a new gen, especially if you actually played Fallout 3 vanilla recently. There's a difference with being disappointed with how this game's visuals fare comparatively against its contemporaries, and not being able to see the massive gulf of improvement made between these two games on a visual level. I've played Fallout 3 recently on PC too, and even modded I think this is an outlandish claim.



The degree to which people will go out of their way to shit all over this game has approached a level of hyperbole I've never ever seen before on this forum except maybe in those early VR threads. We're honestly in a thread about a Bethesda game with graphics that aren't industry leading and it's a meltdown of people who are legitimately surprised about that. Just think about that shit for a second.

And like I said before, if Bethesda chose to iterate on their old engine, and as a result enabled development focus over the lengthy cycle to be placed more on populating the world well and packing it with shit to do and see, then I'm perfectly okay with visual fidelity as a trade-off. As an opportunity cost I think that's more than acceptable, and - this is a big IF, but - if the game is as densely packed as it seems (going by the leaks it seems like the game is just plain stacked with content, like STACKED), then I'll consider the decision to iterate on an old engine and focus on content a good one over a bad one.

I honestly don't even think the game looks that bad, at any rate. I've spent enough threads arguing about this and actually dredging up native resolution screenshot examples of the games this game has been compared to, to know that it sure as hell doesn't look like a last generation game, at any rate. At least in the sense that there's no game from last generation doing anything like what this game sets out to do at anywhere near this level of fidelity, and during this gen, there's only one.


I'm not really bothered by the whole Fallout 4 graphics thing but your claim about the Witcher 3 looking the same as the Witcher 2 is utterly ridiculous given the scope of the games. The Witcher 3 is a sprawling open world game while the Witcher 2 is a linear area based RPG. Having said that I'd still say the jump in graphics alone is larger than between Fallout 3 and 4.
 
The degree to which people will go out of their way to shit all over this game has approached a level of hyperbole I've never ever seen before on this forum except maybe in those early VR threads. We're honestly in a thread about a Bethesda game with graphics that aren't industry leading and it's a meltdown of people who are legitimately surprised about that. Just think about that shit for a second.

And like I said before, if Bethesda chose to iterate on their old engine, and as a result enabled development focus over the lengthy cycle to be placed more on populating the world well and packing it with shit to do and see, then I'm perfectly okay with visual fidelity as a trade-off. As an opportunity cost I think that's more than acceptable, and - this is a big IF, but - if the game is as densely packed as it seems (going by the leaks it seems like the game is just plain stacked with content, like STACKED), then I'll consider the decision to iterate on an old engine and focus on content a good one over a bad one.

I honestly don't even think the game looks that bad, at any rate. I've spent enough threads arguing about this and actually dredging up native resolution screenshot examples of the games this game has been compared to, to know that it sure as hell doesn't look like a last generation game, at any rate. At least in the sense that there's no game from last generation doing anything like what this game sets out to do at anywhere near this level of fidelity, and during this gen, there's only one.


Maybe some of us were around for Morrowind and remember it? Because Morrowind (for its time) was a GREAT looking game, and TES Oblivion? Not at all a "bad" looking game.

The problem is that Bethseda just can NOT let go of the stupidly outdated Gamebyro engine. Their "Creation" engine is built on top of gamebyro and with it carries all their standard quirks and jarring things.

They could have licensed a newer engine (unreal 4, crytek, etc) or even built a new engine from the ground up (without basing it on gamebyro).

For people who call the game out on the low quality doesn't meant hey are "Shitting" on the game, it just means they care and were hoping for something that looked well...."next gen" compared to Skyrim and such, a leap like Morrowind was.

No one can honestly say this game looks like a modern 2015 xbone/ps4 game that isn't even meant to be cross gen.

This doesn't mean the game won't be fun or enjoyable, but to see all the people try to defend Bethsed and make excuses , to me, is just like burying your head in the sand.

Tehy have a mocap studio,t hey obviously aren't using it for regular animationis. Look at what Naughty Dog achieves with mocaping, it's night and day the difference in animation.
 
This would be true if you could build bases anywhere, but you can't. You build bases on predetermined lots that are, in fact, optimized in advance through clever occlusion techniques. Gamebryo also uses "interior cells" for various interior spaces, which means the rest of the open world isn't rendered when you're inside. And these "cells" aren't truly elaborate interiors with huge draw distances. Often they're warrens of offices and small rooms, all of which could benefit from extremely simple optimization techniques. The level of fidelity that the engine is capable of delivering (based on my experience with the Creation Kit) stands in sharp contrast to what Bethesda actually presents. I think one explanation for why interiors aren't substantially prettier given the performance advantages of "cells" has to do with a certain design philosophy.

Bases aren't what he was referring to when he was talking about 'dynamically placed, individual objects'.

You do realize there are performance tradeoffs right? Look up draw calls in relation to performance.

A Bethesda game has a massive amount of draw calls because almost every object is dynamic (meaning it is not baked into the environment thus saving draw calls).

Every single mesh that can be moved is a draw call and if they don't use texture atlasing then you can say that every single mesh is 2 draw calls (mesh and material). But wait then you have to add shadows which, depending on the method can add at least 1 more draw call.

So lets say they use texture atlasing for all the small objects. That still means that there are at least 2 draw calls per movable object. Remember that just about everything in the game can be moved (everything that isn't is likely batched into one big mesh to save on draw calls when possible).

Walk into a house in FO:NV and you might find 50 objects you can mess with. Thats at bare minimum 100 but more than likely closer to 200 draw calls, then you have to take into account the draw calls the house itself and all the non movable objects that are not batched. The UI itself is probable 3 or more draw calls.

Beyond that you also have the character and weapon (likely 10 draw calls) and any enemies which would be 4-10 draw calls each. Add into that the draw calls from outside the house which depending on LOD distance can balloon out into 2000+ easy if there is grass and trees.

Culling can help with some of the draw calls but it has its own performance cost.

Now with all of this we still haven't gotten to post processing, Textures sizes, AI, scripting, physics (Beth games have dynamic physics which eats the CPU like nothing), and the lighting engine.

Are there multiple lights in the house casting multiple shadows? Whelp if there are then you can go ahead and double your shadow draw calls.

Do you not see how a Beth style game balloons out into a performance nightmare?

How do other games look so good (Witcher 3)?

Well they use a hell of a lot of static assets that can be batched (combined in both mesh and texture) to vastly limit draw calls which allows them to have better "graphics". Ever notice how almost all loot in the witcher games is found in chests? Well, that is another way to limit draw calls, keeping dynamic objects off the map (lower draw calls, lower physics budget, ect).

People need to educate themselves on how games are made before they start frothing at the mouth over OMG bad graphics. Not every game has the same base, or even the same goals.

I don't doubt that customization lots are preoptimized but these games don't do a whole lot of occlusion, most nearby objects in a particular cell are being tracked and many are being rendered at once. It's like, if I throw a grenade down a distant hallway, or lob one a good 50 meters with my gun, the objects on the other side will still be displaced, you know? And since they're individual objects, individual assets with individual meshes and textures representing loot, weapons, armor, and objects further contextualized within the game world through physics and interactivity - many of which being actively tracked and rendered - that could reasonably demand a fair amount of performance.
 
Looks extremely meh and not only from a technical point of view
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. with some basic mods definitely wins over this crap, for my taste.
 
Technically it still looks mediocre...just at higher resolution. Look at that vault suit in the first pic. It has zero textures. no detail whatsoever. doesn't even have creases in it. The dog doesn't even look like it has fur. MGSV's DD looked so cuddly.
 
Pretty much meets all of my expectations when they said how long they had been working on this.

I was expecting to see skyrim levels of fidelity with better lighting/shadows and that's pretty much what I'm seeing from the screenshots.

Looks like we're getting a better object draw distance out of the box too but I still intend to increase the uGrid draw distance in the settings file.

If it really is as dull visually as it seems though, I'll just sit on it and wait for the texture & static mesh mods. Skryim these days is unplayable for me without those after seeing how much of a difference they make.

My best hope is that a lot of existing modders will be able to either re-use lots of assets they've already done work on or quickly be able to implement some of their work into FO4 (vurt's flora jumps out as a potential candidate)
 
Bases aren't what he was referring to when he was talking about 'dynamically placed, individual objects'.

I think his comment was directed at excessive draw calls rather than the overhead for keeping track of random junk (which the engine actually cleans up). So sure, you might keep 500 "dynamic" tires in your inventory and unleash them all at once, which would cause a problem--but who's really going to do that?
 
I'm not really bothered by the whole Fallout 4 graphics thing but your claim about the Witcher 3 looking the same as the Witcher 2 is utterly ridiculous given the scope of the games. The Witcher 3 is a sprawling open world game while the Witcher 2 is a linear area based RPG. Having said that I'd still say the jump in graphics alone is larger than between Fallout 3 and 4.

No, it's not ridiculous. I never discounted the scope of the open world or said that that doesn't factor into my perception of Witcher 3's visuals or engine. I was just illustrating the point that on a visual level, it's strange to me that these shots somehow don't represent a stark enough improvement from vanilla Fallout 3 or New Vegas to be considered a 'generational improvement' in the opinion of the person I was quoting, when it's more of a direct and noticeable visual improvement over its predecessor than a game like Witcher 3 was.

You should compare Witcher 1 (2007) -> Witcher 3 with Fallout 3 (2008) -> Fallout 4 and not Witcher 2 from 2011.

Even then I'd say that there's a reasonable level of advancement from Fallout 3 going into Fallout 4. Probably not as stark as Witcher 1 to Witcher 3, but certainly reasonable.
 
I think his comment was directed at excessive draw calls rather than the overhead for keeping track of random junk (which the engine actually cleans up). So sure, you might keep 500 "dynamic" tires in your inventory and unleash them all at once, which would cause a problem--but who's really going to do that?
I do. A lot of people embrace the sandbox. I'm sure you seen the videos with 500 cheese wheels rolling around or whatever
 
Pretty sad we have to wait for modders to make the game look better than it's current state. It's not their job to do that, bethesda should have gone brand new engine instead of their dx9 roots.

Witcher 3 IMHO shows better use of 3-4 year development cycle than what I'v seeing in Fallout 4.

Just my 2 cent's.
 
Technically it still looks mediocre...just at higher resolution. Look at that vault suit in the first pic. It has zero textures. no detail whatsoever. doesn't even have creases in it. The dog doesn't even look like it has fur. MGSV's DD looked so cuddly.

I wonder if they'll release an HD pack in a couple months like they did for Skyrim.
 
Pretty sad we have to wait for modders to make the game look better than it's current state. It's not their job to do that, bethesda should have gone brand new engine instead of their dx9 roots.

The point is, Bethesda currently has the most modable engine in AAA gaming. No way would I ever take a graphics boost/new engine to switch to another engine with less modability.
 
Even then I'd say that there's a reasonable level of advancement from Fallout 3 going into Fallout 4. Probably not as stark as Witcher 1 to Witcher 3, but certainly reasonable.

Agree. Comparing vanilla shots it looks a lot better. But people expect more I guess. I'm just hoping the balancing and other mechanics are improved (building etc.). New Vegas was so much better in that department, that I'm cautios about F4. But I will have to wait for in-depth impressions on that.
 
I think his comment was directed at excessive draw calls rather than the overhead for keeping track of random junk (which the engine actually cleans up). So sure, you might keep 500 "dynamic" tires in your inventory and unleash them all at once, which would cause a problem--but who's really going to do that?

Well yeah, that's what the quote I posted below my response to you addresses. It's not that 'base parts' are the only dynamic objects necessitating individual draw calls. Pretty much every individual interactive or individually rendered object in the world is, including scene dressing elements (which can get pretty hefty in any given building or environment), loot (including armor and weapons on the ground), characters (a draw call for each of their their clothing elements, which are now layarable and could amount to several for just a single set of clothing), weapons (which are now pieced together from individual parts), foliage, etc. etc. and that could have an impact on the game's fidelity, ultimately. It's not about offloading '500 tires' from your inventory, but the cost of a clothing/armor/weapons systems like this, alongside loot and world objects that are contextualized within the world as their own interactive 3D objects.
 
The point is, Bethesda currently has the most modable engine in AAA gaming. No way would I ever take a graphics boost/new engine to switch to another engine with less modability.

That makes no sense what so ever. Sure modding is a big part of bethesda games. But to have a game in production for over 4 years and have, competition in Western made RPG's like The witcher 3, and dragon age show a better use of revision in engines to me is slap int he face.

Especially when you look at what's achievable. Also when you look at the advancement's in game design with the dialogue system.

Something I hear from another thread is not so great in Fallout 4. Has similar issues as Fallout 3, and skyrim's questing system.
 
So you're saying that the fleeting amusement of a minor cheese explosion should dictate the target performance in a game? Interesting.
Now you're being deliberately dense. Or maybe you have been the whole time.

Of course my specific example of people goofing off isn't the reason Bethesda accommodates for the possibility of a bunch of individual physics objects. But it does illustrate the sort of emergent gameplay that's only possible when such a thing is allowed for.
 
So you're saying that the fleeting amusement of a minor cheese explosion should dictate the target performance in a game? Interesting.

I still remember the first time I entered the Super-Duper Mart in Fallout 3 because each and every little back room had a self contained little 'story' to tell, through the placement of many little individual objects and assets in each scene, often further contextualized through my ability to pick them up and use or equip them myself. It's half the reason you'd hear so much back then about how Bethesda were such experts at world-building - like, as soon as you leave the Vault, you turn around and see the skeletons of stragglers, alongside several signs warning visitors and begging entry. In Super Duper Mart, I step into the women's bathroom and just through observing the uniquely intricate scene dressing of beth open world games I can put together a story in my head of what these people were like and how they live, and what lead to them becoming the way they were before I shot 'em. Maybe I grab up their alcohol or jet and become addicted myself, contributing to my roleplaying progression. Maybe I open a nearby nasty ass bathroom stall and find a table with some poker chips strewn around haphazardly, a few drugs, some playing cards, and a teddy bear sitting on one side. And right there I know exactly the kind of person I'm dealing with, lol. That's the kind of little shit these games are filled with and that comes at a cost is all I'm trying to say.
 
I vote we wait for the game to release before we bury it. We need to coin a phrase for the phenomenon of hating a game before it's even been released.

I know... Pre-hate! As in, "Look at all the pre-hate this game is getting!"

God I'm a genius!
 
That makes no sense what so ever. Sure modding is a big part of bethesda games. But to have a game in production for over 4 years and have, competition in Western made RPG's like The witcher 3, and dragon age show a better use of revision in engines to me is slap int he face.

Especially when you look at what's achievable. Also when you look at the advancement's in game design with the dialogue system.

Something I hear from another thread is not so great in Fallout 4. Has similar issues as Fallout 3, and skyrim's questing system.

Dragon Age is garbage, don't bring that game up when talking about actually good games like Fallout and the Witcher. How does modding not make sense? The Bethesda games are great, but what takes them from great to best in genre are because they're so modable. I have like 80 separate mods on Skyrim right now that fix 99% of the flaws the game has. I would never take a slight graphical boost for the removal of that opportunity. And really, if you think Bethesda can't make a competent graphical upgrade with an established engine, why would you trust them making a new one?

I vote we wait for the game to release before we bury it. We need to coin a phrase for the phenomenon of hating a game before it's even been released.

I know... Pre-hate! As in, "Look at all the pre-hate this game is getting!"

God I'm a genius!

Pretty solid term. Witcher 3 got a hell of a lot of pre-hate, seems like open-world RPGs are fodder for it.
 
I do. A lot of people embrace the sandbox. I'm sure you seen the videos with 500 cheese wheels rolling around or whatever

To me that's not really a sandbox because there is no world reactivity to that stuff.

If Bethesda wasn't going to focus on their rendering then I would like to see work on the underlying systems that would truly make their worlds a sandbox that would allow NPC AI to properly react to the player doing things outside of scripted and expected bounds. Develop true monster ecologies, dynamic NPC settlements, dynamic worlds economies. That seemed like the path they were on with Oblivion and I find it kind of disappointing that after 10 years and 3 games it doesn't seem like these systems have made much forward progress despite a huge increase in processing power since then.

I said this earlier but people always tout world exploration as this giant selling point of Bethesda titles but they seem to just be doing the same "tell a story using prop placement or logs" that everybody and their mother is already doing now. Maybe it was innovative in Fallout 3 when everybody was falling over themselves talking about that little scene with two skeletons laying on a bed holding hands but that stuff is commonplace now.

I know it's akin to some kind of fanboy war but when I see what Obsidian did with faction, reputation, and quest solutions using the Fallout 3 framework in 18 months I can't help but wonder what Bethesda could do in 4 years on an upgraded version of their own engine. And maybe they have and it's still under wraps. But the closer we get to release it just feels like they delivered a prettier Fallout 3 that includes a base building component.
 
Dragon Age is garbage, don't bring that game up when talking about actually good games like Fallout and the Witcher. How does modding not make sense? The Bethesda games are great, but what takes them from great to best in genre are because they're so modable. I have like 80 separate mods on Skyrim right now that fix 99% of the flaws the game has. I would never take a slight graphical boost for the removal of that opportunity. And really, if you think Bethesda can't make a competent graphical upgrade with an established engine, why would you trust them making a new one?



Pretty solid term. Witcher 3 got a hell of a lot of pre-hate, seems like open-world RPGs are fodder for it.

So People can only bring up games you deem worthy to compare Fallout? OK gotcha to the ignore list you go.
 
It's funny, because Skyrim also looked like ass when it released. I don't know why people expected this game to look that crazy good with all the things going on in the game.

Mesh and texture improvements will be easily added in. I'm just hoping the lighting engine is good enough.

Honestly. "All the things going on"? I'm not bashing the amount of things actually going on in this game, but I do have to compare it to for example GTAV. GTAV is vastly more detailed than Fallout 4 by the looks of it. Both in terms of dynamic objects reacting fully to physics, the amount of AI's active at the same time and in terms of graphical fidelity. Sometimes you see insane amounts of vehicles all with an actual character inside with a full set of AI routines. Loads of pedestrians with full sets of AI routines added to that. Characters and vehicles all using an incredibly advanced physics engine ( I dare say that the rage engine together with euphoria is the most impressive physics engine when it comes to how characters react and behave.)

At the same time the visuals gives you great amounts of polys, texture works and effects. Hell. Every single vehicle has real-time reflections that are actually "real" showcasing the environment. Fantastic draw distances etc.

Fallout 4 has great looking lighting, but other than that it's far behind today's standards in terms of visuals. I really doubt there's anything going on that really explains the spec requirements. Other than the engine being really old and in dire need of an upgrade.
 
So People can only bring up games you deem worthy to compare Fallout? OK gotcha to the ignore list you go.
People are free to compare what they want, but PS3 references, references to different genres, etc, are stupid and a waste of time arguing over.
 
This would be true if you could build bases anywhere, but you can't. You build bases on predetermined lots that are, in fact, optimized in advance through clever occlusion techniques. Gamebryo also uses "interior cells" for various interior spaces, which means the rest of the open world isn't rendered when you're inside. And these "cells" aren't truly elaborate interiors with huge draw distances. Often they're warrens of offices and small rooms, all of which could benefit from extremely simple optimization techniques. The level of fidelity that the engine is capable of delivering (based on my experience with the Creation Kit) stands in sharp contrast to what Bethesda actually presents. I think one explanation for why interiors aren't substantially prettier given the performance advantages of "cells" has to do with a certain design philosophy.
Yeah, I didn't touch on interiors since they are undoubtedly a much, much less resource intensive in their engine and for examply could be benefit from a some pre-baked routines, better occlusion culling, lighting setups and more. I feel the fidelity they are delivering is much more constrained by production resources rather than anything else, which hopefully they have considerably improved since they have been quite active in hiring level designers.

That said, they are also limited at least partly by the same constraints. Props have to be individual gameobjects and draw calls, there's little room for pre-baking due to the nature of modules (and it would add quite a bit more complexity to modding).

It's a much more of a general problem with the exterior cells where the game can't use many of the technique used by W3 or GTA V, mostly due to gameobject handling and the general mod support (which adds a huge, complex overhead in to the production, engine and graphics). For example Umbra would not realistically be feasible for them, nor some of the lodding methods of GTA V (which are based on a very static environment cells and lots of single draw call of lod models).

Bethesda must target some minimum level of fidelity across interiors and exteriors in order to avoid the chore of developing high quality and low quality assets for two different spaces. That makes sense if time and resources are limited. Yet even if that were the case, it still doesn't excuse the lazy, bland lighting design for offices, vaults, etc. where you have complete control over the player's line of sight.
Yup, that is very much the core reason of not only the general level of polish in interior cells (as in there lots of room for improvements) as well as for example texture authoring. A general workflow is required for the consistent level of detail and performance most cells have (not to mention the production aspect, but that could spin off a whole another post from me, and I simply don't have the time right now), but also the reason why they definitely show the compromises.

That makes no sense what so ever. Sure modding is a big part of bethesda games. But to have a game in production for over 4 years and have, competition in Western made RPG's like The witcher 3, and dragon age show a better use of revision in engines to me is slap int he face.
No, for any developer with proficiency, it makes absolute perfect sense. That modding adds a massive overhead to the whole game, from production to rendering thread to game logic thread to texture authoring to shaders to everything. I am fully aware that the Witcher 3 for example has modding tools, but they are not nearly as expansive nor was the tools for TW2 in any way near as useable as Creation Kit for example. That usability comes at cost when you need performance, as it means less pre-baking, less control over the individual situation, more overhead in object logic etc.

Again though, none of the above means that I should be happy with low-poly props, texture seaming, material lighting, SSAO or others. It's just a part of the whole, complex function and I do wish that we had gotten more, but I also realize that what they have done so far is in anyway a small effor or investment, it should be obvious that their rendering pipeline has gone through some massive changes.
 
1446551147355.png
Man, houses in the future are made of card-board with stone wall wallpaper pattern. I knew it!

Was it really that much to ask for some parallax mapping? Skyrim mods added that, if modders can add that to a game from, what, 4 years ago, why can't Bethesda add that to their new flagship title?
 
Are any of you guys prone to excitement?

Before a big release like this I always feel exactly as I did when I was a kid just before Christmas. This is also my first triple-A release as a Gaffer. I've been a long time lurker, and was never able to participate.

Discussing these games before, during, and after, has become a big part of the experience for me. I guess that means I'm a 'forum person'.
 
Are any of you guys prone to excitement?

Before a big release like this I always feel exactly as I did when I was a kid just before Christmas. This is also my first triple-A release as a Gaffer. I've been a long time lurker, and was never able to participate.

Discussing these games before, during, and after, has become a big part of the experience for me. I guess that means I'm a 'forum person'.
Definitely, I always enjoy a new AAA release. Welcome to GAF, we get a little silly around here at times with hyperbole but it's a good place.
 
Man, houses in the future are made of card-board with stone wall wallpaper pattern. I knew it!

Was it really that much to ask for some parallax mapping? Skyrim mods added that, if modders can add that to a game from, what, 4 years ago, why can't Bethesda add that to their new flagship title?

What platform is that?
 
Are any of you guys prone to excitement?

Before a big release like this I always feel exactly as I did when I was a kid just before Christmas. This is also my first triple-A release as a Gaffer. I've been a long time lurker, and was never able to participate.

Discussing these games before, during, and after, has become a big part of the experience for me. I guess that means I'm a 'forum person'.

Yes. This will be the first time I have felt this way in years. It may be the last time until Elder Scrolls 6. For me this is a once in a half decade event and am super excited. That said, I can understand some of the problems people are having even if they don't bother me much.
 
Top Bottom