Support NeoGAF

[King Gilga]

Looks meh? Not good not horrible, okay, meh.

 

[Se_7_eN]

The complexity.

As someone who's dabbled a bit into modding and with a development background (not a progammer/tech dude, though), I can't help but cringe (and be a bit disappointed) at the straight comparisons to Witcher 3 or GTA V for example. The data structure, modding and "freedom" over tons of individual objects and NPC's comes at a cost. The game (like most games really) isn't really a fit for a straight comparison to pretty much any other game. 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.

Now, that is by no means to say that things couldn't be better or that they are even good. Nor do I believe the engine might be quite up to snuff these days (though I also want to say that I realize that starting the whole tool chain from scratch might simply be a bit too much to ask for). I personally feel the graphics are quite fine given what the underlying tech is doing, even if the texture work, material properties, AO, image quality, shadows do let the overall composure down. But I also really don't enjoy the hyperbolic, shit-throwing these threads tend to end up, especially without any consideration for the realities and the underlying technology.

This is great, and no one thinks of this... "Whether you care about the fact that the world has much more (and more importantly the potential to have) dynamically placed, individual objects..."

What makes Bethesda games so great when compared to The Witcher and other open world RPG's, is the amount of stories, objects, and NPC's spread out throughout the world... You can come across stories and encounters none of your other friends will find.

This is what makes Bethesda games so damn great, but as Machine said... It comes at a cost, and IMO, it is well worth it.

 

[Stimpack]

Looks good. I don't know why, but a lot of the buildings kind of look like they're made of plastic to me? I don't know, something just doesn't look right. The uncanny valley of buildings.

 

[KatamariOnTheRocks]

It's why I'd never play a Beth game on consoles. They focus on the world design and exploration opportunities/content over visuals, and modders are exceptionally talented at picking up that slack.

I also disagree that it's wrong of them to let modders do "the hard work" as some people are saying, because Bethesda invests an insane amount of effort (far more than any other AAA developer) into creating mod tools that are as close to the original dev tools as possible. Without Bethesda's work there, we wouldn't get the kind of mods that made Skyrim what it is today. Whether that's visuals, gameplay overhauls, or massive content addons like Falskaar - Bethesda makes all that possible by going above and beyond with mod tools.

I didn't bring up the issue of modders picking up the slack so I know you're talking about what others have said, but if you'd like to know my opinion I agree that it's great of Bethesda to provide such great tool sets/documentation for modders.

However I think it's wrong to give Bethesda a free pass on low graphical fidelity just because they allow the fans to finish the game for them. Mod tools should be to supplement and extend the game, not to have the fans complete it.

Define bare minimum, completely changing the rendering pipeline, animation overhauls, much better character models, even these three things sound simple typed out but take a shit ton of work. Gameplay also seems to have received a ton of overhauls in responsiveness and looks like a competent shooter compared to past titles, movement seems much better, xp and skill systems have changed, etc. these things aren't marginal improvements, that's an overhaul. It's not a graphics or gameplay situation if the graphics aren't as terrible as enthusiasts would have you believe, at least not imho.

Bare minimum improvements meaning that the budget/attention given to low priorities such as graphics and animations are far lower than they should be given the talent/budget that Bethesda are capable of applying to them.

You can't quantify specific features without looking at the evolution of the project/design docs but you can be sure that this game was severely crippled by starting out as a cross Gen game and it never progressed into a truly next Gen only title.

Of course there are budgetary and time constraints that meant the game was too far along to start from scratch, but It's clear that they made the call to cancel last Gen versions after the majority of the scope of the game had been laid out, so we are essentially getting a fallout 4 that's cross Gen in scale/scope, that has shoehorned next Gen features like most other cross Gen games that have come before it.

So you played the game? I have a few questions if you did.

That's cute, people said the same thing when I pointed out how shitty Tony Hawk 5 was going to be and I was right then just as I am now in regards to Fallout 4s graphics.

 

[RedSwirl]

Arma 2 and 3 both have pretty amazing maps overall, considering they're so small in relative to AAA studios.
And while a lot of (misunderstanding) people complain about bad optimization, it's doing cool stuff no other games do and they're doing everything to develop the engine further, even adding DX12 as a free update soon with the expansion.

I keep wondering when a AAA developer will even attempt something on the level of the ArmA 2 and 3 world maps. ArmA 2 is around the same size as GTA V (but came out four years earlier), ArmA 3 is something like 2.5x or 3x bigger... and every single building in it has an accessible interior with no loading screens. I think only Just Cause 2 and 3 beat it without relying on procedural generation. I think the only technical caveats there are that 1) ArmA 2 and 3 repeat a lot of art assets and 2) all their maps are based on satellite data of real places instead of actually being designed by developers. Still, even if the same kind of "game" isn't played in those maps, it proves something more realistically big is possible.

That said, I have to admit that the ArmA maps are probably so big because a lot of their gameplay is focused on vehicular combat. Not just tanks and cars but also aircraft. You don't really need that much space when you're walking on foot. Most mainstream gamers also don't like to have 5km of road between each town.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Bare minimum improvements meaning that the budget/attention given to low priorities such as graphics and animations are far lower than they should be given the talent/budget that Bethesda are capable of applying to them.

You can't quantify specific features without looking at the evolution of the project/design docs but you can be sure that this game was severely crippled by starting out as a cross Gen game and it never progressed into a truly next Gen only title.

Of course there are budgetary and time constraints that meant the game was too far along to start from scratch, but It's clear that they made the call to cancel last Gen versions after the majority of the scope of the game had been laid out, so we are essentially getting a fallout 4 that's cross Gen in scale/scope, that has shoehorned next Gen features like most other cross Gen games that have come before it.



That's cute, people said the same thing when I pointed out how shitty Tony Hawk 5 was going to be and I was right then just as I am now in regards to Fallout 4s graphics.

But that's the thing, those aren't bare minimum improvements, you don't just hit a switch and boom now your rendering pipeline and animation is a shit ton better than your last two games. And where's the confirmation that it started out as a crossgen game? Aside from conjecture because the graphics aren't pretty enough?

I keep wondering when a AAA developer will even attempt something on the level of the ArmA 2 and 3 world maps. ArmA 2 is around the same size as GTA V (but came out four years earlier), ArmA 3 is something like 2.5x or 3x bigger... and every single building in it has an accessible interior with no loading screens. I think only Just Cause 2 and 3 beat it without relying on procedural generation. I think the only technical caveats there are that 1) ArmA 2 and 3 repeat a lot of art assets and 2) all their maps are based on satellite data of real places instead of actually being designed by developers. Still, even if the same kind of "game" isn't played in those maps, it proves something more realistically big is possible.

That said, I have to admit that the ArmA maps are probably so big because a lot of their gameplay is focused on vehicular combat. Not just tanks and cars but also aircraft. You don't really need that much space when you're walking on foot. Most mainstream gamers also don't like to have 5km of road between each town.

Ghost Recon Wildlands. So far 5 years of dev time iirc.

 

[K.Jack]

Wait you purchase things based off of how much effort they put into the graphics?

No, but if I come into a game thinking "mods will fix it", said game isn't worth the launch price, for me.

Surely that isn't an outlandish position.

 

[Solid Samus]

The complexity.

As someone who's dabbled a bit into modding and with a development background (not a progammer/tech dude, though), I can't help but cringe (and be a bit disappointed) at the straight comparisons to Witcher 3 or GTA V for example. The data structure, modding and "freedom" over tons of individual objects and NPC's comes at a cost. The game (like most games really) isn't really a fit for a straight comparison to pretty much any other game. 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.

Now, that is by no means to say that things couldn't be better or that they are even good. Nor do I believe the engine might be quite up to snuff these days (though I also want to say that I realize that starting the whole tool chain from scratch might simply be a bit too much to ask for). I personally feel the graphics are quite fine given what the underlying tech is doing, even if the texture work, material properties, AO, image quality, shadows do let the overall composure down. But I also really don't enjoy the hyperbolic, shit-throwing these threads tend to end up, especially without any consideration for the realities and the underlying technology.

buh 'open world'

therefore Arma 2 is a fair direct comparison

this thread mate

 

[KatamariOnTheRocks]

But that's the thing, those aren't bare minimum improvements, you don't just hit a switch and boom now your rendering pipeline and animation is a shit ton better than your last two games. And where's the confirmation that it started out as a crossgen game? Aside from conjecture because the graphics aren't pretty enough?


Ghost Recon Wildlands. So far 5 years of dev time iirc.

Improvements to their rendering pipeline should be immediately apparent in moment to moment gameplay even if it's not night and day levels of difference, and you'd think they'd show off the best of the best for prerelease promo material, so the fact that things still look bad in motion does not inspire confidence.

I thought that morrowind to oblivion was enough of a jump in fidelity so I'm looking for that same jump and it's just not there from fallout 3 to 4.

And the confirmation of crossgen is in the fact that work on the game began immediately after fallout 3, aside from the awful graphics.

 

[Breads]

That's cute, people said the same thing when I pointed out how shitty Tony Hawk 5 was going to be and I was right then just as I am now in regards to Fallout 4s graphics.

Good call on Tony Hawk. I'm sure you made a lot of people eat crow on that highly contentious title. We're talking about Fallout 4 though and there are some incredible assertions being made.

I think they made the bare minimum amount of improvements as would be financially worthwhile, meaning they prioritized making things just good enough to sell. It's the reality of the business model they follow when only putting out a large scale openworld game every few years.

Show us the receipts of their business model. What did they strategically skimp out on despite almost guaranteeing they'd make it all back 100 fold.

I want a Fallout 4 that looks good and has interactivity and there's no technical reason that shouldn't be possible in 2015. At this point in time it shouldn't be graphics or gameplay, we have capable enough hardware to deliver much better visuals than Fallout 4 is achieving.

Tell me more about their progamming/ AI pipeline and how much of a toll on today's consoles. Unlike Tony Hawk it is a bold claim to make that Bethesda intentionally skimped out or refused to hire the talent it would take to optimize things further in the last half decade it took to get to this point.

And just because all games have diehard fans that encourage stagnation doesn't make it OK to do so as well.

If they all knocked that off then we would all get better games as a result. Which is not to say experimenting with a game until it's so different it may as well be a spin off instead of a mainline marketed title, I mean making necessary technical improvements rather than small marginal ones.

What future tech did you use or what oracle did you consult to lay blame on the fans for holding Bethesda back? Nirvana fallacy aside if you didn't want people to think you played the game you probably shouldn't be throwing out things like the bolded. I had some serious questions about the gunplay but I guess they will go unanswered. As for the rest you clearly know something we don't so feel free to share with the class.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

Improvements to their rendering pipeline should be immediately apparent in moment to moment gameplay even if it's not night and day levels of difference, and you'd think they'd show off the best of the best for prerelease promo material, so the fact that things still look bad in motion does not inspire confidence.

I thought that morrowind to oblivion was enough of a jump in fidelity so I'm looking for that same jump and it's just not there from fallout 3 to 4.

And the confirmation of crossgeb is in the fact that work on the game began immediately after fallout 3.

Are you kidding me? Look at some vanilla F3 shots and tell me this isn't a drastic improvement.

 

[Solid Samus]

Improvements to their rendering pipeline should be immediately apparent in moment to moment gameplay even if it's not night and day levels of difference, and you'd think they'd show off the best of the best for prerelease promo material, so the fact that things still look bad in motion does not inspire confidence.

I thought that morrowind to oblivion was enough of a jump in fidelity so I'm looking for that same jump and it's just not there from fallout 3 to 4.

And the confirmation of crossgeb is in the fact that work on the game began immediately after fallout 3.

There are immediate improvements to their rendering pipeline and the way this game looks over its direct predecessor, both subtle and not so subtle, apparent in both pictures and videos. I don't know why those of you who are disappointed try and go out of your way to minimize any legitimate difference or improvement here just because we're not seeing industry-leading visuals out of this game. (Because you need that, or how DARE you call yourself AAA? After not meeting my arbitrary checklist of what *Open World Vidya Gaem* must be?)

And that 'crossgen confirmation' blurb is a joke, right? So many 'next gen' games toward the first half of a generation began development last gen. That's not confirmation or proof of anything. It's not even a reasonable assumption based on just when the project began. MASSIVE levels of conjecture.
And for shits sake, you're using slightly underwhelming visuals in a Bethesda game as a launching point to claim that this game is actually last-gen in terms of scope and complexity, which going by the impressions and leaks of dense environments and a massive and intricate downtown, should be considered reaching at best. That's a heavy assumption to make when you could just hold off and see how the game is when it actually hits.

The ultra shots seen here are just fine. The only questionable elements I can even see in those shots are some low poly houses (which is something shared by many games of this type, including Witcher 3), and a lack of AO. When it comes to everything that I've seen so far, I honestly believe that Fallout 4 is more competitive for its time visually than Skyrim and Oblivion ever were.

 

[Fractology]

I just went back and reread some of what that "ex employee of Bethesda" leaked on Reddit a long long time back (about a year before the announcement of the game) and while it still remains to be seen if that information is true or not, at least some of it has turned out to be accurate. One weird detail stood out to me and I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the final product. They said (bold is from me):

• "Fallout 4 will be available for a wide range of platforms after launch. The first version that will be released is being developed for Playstation 4, Xbox One and PC. This version uses a brand new engine built from the ground up to take advantage of the power of next gen systems. Absolutely everything is new, and no assets or scrips are being used from Fallout 3/NV or Skyrim.
  
• Fallout 4 will also be available on Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. This version is also being developed by Bethesda Game Studios, but will release a year after the advanced version. This version runs on the Creation Engine, the same engine that powered Skyrim. This is being done so that PS3/360 users can play the game without problem. Everything will be the same in this version as the advanced version, except for the graphics, gameplay and some additional features.
• Also, Fallout 4 on PS3 and Xbox 360, last I knew, was around 20GB+"

I wonder if there's a thread of truth to this...and development on the "advanced" version of the game with an all new engine got put on hold for the next Elder Scrolls game and they ended up just picking the "Creation Engine" (Gamebryo?) as it could be put out more quickly on now current gen hardware. I will say though, that the concept of the same game being made on two different engines sounds a bit absurd, especially one at this scale. Just some food for thought.

*Rest of the leak text can be seen here, though be warned that there is the potential for spoilers if any of it is in fact legit. There's a lot of specific story detail in there* https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/38hf7g/leaked_information_about_fallout_4_previous/

 

[KatamariOnTheRocks]

Good call on Tony Hawk. I'm sure you made a lot of people eat crow on that highly contentious title. We're talking about Fallout 4 though and there are some incredible assertions being made.

I did and you'll also be eating crow when you see how buggy/unpolished fallout 4 is at launch.

And I didn't know being a contentious title exempts you of critique.

Show us the receipts of their business model. What did they strategically skimp out on despite almost guaranteeing they'd make it all back 100 fold.

Here they are: "People will buy our game whether it's incredible or shit so let's make it good enough and they'll buy it regardless."

Tell me more about their progamming/ AI pipeline and how much of a toll on today's consoles. Unlike Tony Hawk it is a bold claim to make that Bethesda intentionally skimped out or refused to hire the talent it would take to optimize things further in the last half decade it took to get to this point.

It takes less of a toll on today's consoles than it would have on the weaker consoles it was built around so true optimizations are expected, not just a touch up like a bump up in resolution.

What future tech did you use or what oracle did you consult to lay blame on the fans for holding Bethesda back? Nirvana fallacy aside if you didn't want people to think you played the game you probably shouldn't be throwing out things like the bolded. I had some serious questions about the gunplay but I guess they will go unanswered. As for the rest you clearly know something we don't so feel free to share with the class.

I lay blame on the stupid fans like yourself that do their PR for them by apologizing and arguing with people who just want a better product.

It's the fault of people like you that not only reinforce their belief that things are good enough and never need to improve but that they'll have an army of white knights to apologize for them.

And it doesn't take a crystal ball to understand that, just a functioning brain which you clearly lack.

 

[ScriptedReality]

i dont think it looks fantastic or anything at all but im playing.

 

[jim2point0]

That sweet, sweet denial.

 

[Breads]

I did and you'll also be eating crow when you see how buggy/unpolished fallout 4 is at launch.

And I didn't know being a contentious title exempts you of critique.



Here they are: "People will buy our game whether it's incredible or shit so let's make it good enough and they'll buy it regardless."




It takes less of a toll on today's consoles than it would have on the weaker consoles it was built around so true optimizations are expected, not just a touch up like a bump up in resolution.



I lay blame on the stupid fans like yourself that do their PR for them by apologizing and arguing with people who just want a better product.

It's the fault of people like you that not only reinforce their belief that things are good enough and never need to improve but that they'll have an army of white knights to apologize for them.

And it doesn't take a crystal ball to understand that, just a functioning brain which you clearly lack.

That's a lot of words to say you just make shit up.

e: I'm not even a Bethesda fan. As a Fallout fan first the best versions of their games are not made by them. I am however reserving judgement until I actually play the game. Apparently that's a lot to ask for before people are willing to criticize gameplay, a half decade dev cycle, and business practices based on screenshots and potato videos alone.

 

[Solid Samus]

I just went back and reread some of what that "ex employee of Bethesda" leaked on Reddit a long long time back (about a year before the announcement of the game) and while it still remains to be seen if that information is true or not, at least some of it has turned out to be accurate. One weird detail stood out to me and I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the final product. They said (bold is from me):

• "Fallout 4 will be available for a wide range of platforms after launch. The first version that will be released is being developed for Playstation 4, Xbox One and PC. This version uses a brand new engine built from the ground up to take advantage of the power of next gen systems. Absolutely everything is new, and no assets or scrips are being used from Fallout 3/NV or Skyrim.
  
• Fallout 4 will also be available on Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. This version is also being developed by Bethesda Game Studios, but will release a year after the advanced version. This version runs on the Creation Engine, the same engine that powered Skyrim. This is being done so that PS3/360 users can play the game without problem. Everything will be the same in this version as the advanced version, except for the graphics, gameplay and some additional features.
• Also, Fallout 4 on PS3 and Xbox 360, last I knew, was around 20GB+"

I wonder if there's a thread of truth to this...and development on the "advanced" version of the game with an all new engine got put on hold for the next Elder Scrolls game and they ended up just picking the "Creation Engine" (Gamebryo?) as it could be put out more quickly on now current gen hardware. I will say though, that the concept of the same game being made on two different engines sounds a bit absurd, especially one at this scale. Just some food for thought.

*Rest of the leak text can be seen here, though be warned that there is the potential for spoilers if any of it is in fact legit. There's a lot of specific story detail in there* https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/38hf7g/leaked_information_about_fallout_4_previous/

There's a lot there that turned out to be accurate, although I could have told you half of that the moment as the Commonwealth was confirmed as Fallout 4's setting. All and all I still don't believe this leak on the grounds that there was some crucial information in there that turned out to be completely inaccurate. (The wife's name is Nora, not Lydia, and she's playable. There's no building blown apart at the beginning of the game. There aren't any androids kidnapping people. You're not 'The Officer'. Not the same 'East Coast' super mutants as in Fallout 3. Not to mention obvious bullshit like top down mechanics and importing Fallout 3 save decisions.)

 

[DrROBschiz]

Im sorry but just watching the videos that are out there

Game is legit ugly. Still looks fun as always but the criticisms stand

Not seeing a way to talk around it

 

[Akronis]

That sweet, sweet denial.

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.

 

[DrROBschiz]

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.

looks really good outdoors

 

[Crossing Eden]

Improvements to their rendering pipeline should be immediately apparent in moment to moment gameplay even if it's not night and day levels of difference, and you'd think they'd show off the best of the best for prerelease promo material, so the fact that things still look bad in motion does not inspire confidence.

I thought that morrowind to oblivion was enough of a jump in fidelity so I'm looking for that same jump and it's just not there from fallout 3 to 4.

And the confirmation of crossgen is in the fact that work on the game began immediately after fallout 3, aside from the awful graphics.

It is immediately apparent in motion, but all we have are 720p videos of a 1080p game, somehow with gifs that are compressed to hell and back. And the game comes out next week, they're likely gonna start showing more gameplay very soon. Remember what Fo3 looked like at release, this is a substantial improvement. It literally is a night and day difference between the two games if you actually go back and play fallout 3. You seem to have convinced yourself that this will be a buggy shit release and are waiting to say "I told you so."

Work beginning on a game after fallout 3 came out is not confirmation that the game was in production for crossgen, that's not how that works, (it's called a pre-producton, for all we know they went into full production in 2012), according to your logic AC:Unity and Ghost Recon Wildlands are now confirmed to have been crossgen games since they began working on them in 2010.

 

[Fractology]

there was some crucial information in there that turned out to be completely inaccurate.

To play devil's advocate, those could have been bumping around at the time this person was laid off and didn't make the final cutting room. Especially the story stuff. After all, we all know what happened with Destiny's story prior to release.

 

[Akronis]

looks really good outdoors

I agree. I play Bethesda's games for the exploration and world building which has yet to be matched by any similar title, in my opinion.

This is not a game to oogle environments up close. Definitely not a game for that. I'm just glad Bethesda sees the potential in modding and they continue to create some very robust tools for us to use.

 

[Krentist]

Ehh, looks pretty gross at the moment, but I'm sure within a month or two the modders will help boost the looks significantly. Happened with the other games, no reason not to expect that here as well.

 

[DrROBschiz]

It is immediately apparent in motion, but all we have are 720p videos of a 1080p game, somehow with gifs that are compressed to hell and back. And the game comes out next week, they're likely gonna start showing more gameplay very soon.

Work beginning on a game after fallout 3 came out is not confirmation that the game was in production for crossgen, that's not how that works, (it's called a pre-producton, for all we know they went into full production in 2012), according to your logic AC:Unity and Ghost Recon Wildlands are now confirmed to have been crossgen games since they began working on them in 2010.

At least it being crossgen was giving them the benefit of the doubt as an excuse

 

[The Baron Count]

The complexity.

As someone who's dabbled a bit into modding and with a development background (not a progammer/tech dude, though), I can't help but cringe (and be a bit disappointed) at the straight comparisons to Witcher 3 or GTA V for example. The data structure, modding and "freedom" over tons of individual objects and NPC's comes at a cost. The game (like most games really) isn't really a fit for a straight comparison to pretty much any other game. 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.

Now, that is by no means to say that things couldn't be better or that they are even good. Nor do I believe the engine might be quite up to snuff these days (though I also want to say that I realize that starting the whole tool chain from scratch might simply be a bit too much to ask for). I personally feel the graphics are quite fine given what the underlying tech is doing, even if the texture work, material properties, AO, image quality, shadows do let the overall composure down. But I also really don't enjoy the hyperbolic, shit-throwing these threads tend to end up, especially without any consideration for the realities and the underlying technology.

Expecting them to start from scratch is DEFINITELY too much to ask for. Companies like Naughty Dog have expressed how bad an idea that was last gen which is why they didn't do it this time around. There are very few devs that actually throw out their codebase entirely. It usually makes no sense to do so. I think Remedy did for Alan Wake because what they were doing was just too incompatible with their old tech. Not sure if they did the same for QB or not.

Updating and rewriting specific parts of the engine is normally enough, but it seems like when you are using a codebase as long in the tooth as Gamebryo, it's very difficult to really keep it looking modern. Cod has the same issue, though visually their games have faired pretty well this gen. Still some Quake roots showing in certain aspects though.

 

[KatamariOnTheRocks]

Are you kidding me? Look at some vanilla F3 shots and tell me this isn't a drastic improvement.

It's an improvement for sure, but not the jump Bethesda made with morrowind to oblivion.

That's what I was expecting from a next Gen title and it's not the case.

There are immediate improvements to their rendering pipeline and the way this game looks over its direct predecessor, both subtle and not so subtle, apparent in both pictures and videos. I don't know why those of you who are disappointed try and go out of your way to minimize any legitimate difference or improvement here just because we're not seeing industry-leading visuals out of this game. (Because you need that, or how DARE you call yourself AAA? After not meeting my arbitrary checklist of what *Open World Vidya Gaem* must be?)

And that 'crossgen confirmation' blurb is a joke, right? So many 'next gen' games toward the first half of a generation began development last gen. That's not confirmation or proof of anything. It's not even a reasonable assumption based on just when the project began. MASSIVE levels of conjecture.
And for shits sake, you're using slightly underwhelming visuals in a Bethesda game as a launching point to claim that this game is actually last-gen in terms of scope and complexity, which going by the impressions and leaks of dense environments and a massive and intricate downtown, should be considered reaching at best. That's a heavy assumption to make when you could just hold off and see how the game is when it actually hits.

The ultra shots seen here are just fine. The only questionable elements I can even see in those shots are some low poly houses (which is something shared by many games of this type, including Witcher 3), and a lack of AO. When it comes to everything that I've seen so far, I honestly believe that Fallout 4 is more competitive for its time visually than Skyrim and Oblivion ever were.

I didn't say there were no improvements or that the improvements made were negligible.

What I said was that the bar is set so low for them that they just have to do the bare minimum and people will be happy.

If they don't have the financial incentive to put out the best possible product they can because it will sell enough regardless, then why would they improve it any further?

They see graphical/animation improvements as diminishing gains that aren't financially worth the investment.

Would more people buy the game if the dog hair looked better?

No.

Would more people buy the game if everything looked better?

Yes, but it's "good enough" so they have no reason to do any better and invest that much more money if it doesn't directly translate to more sales.

And I'm not "checking boxes" to make a game I like, I'm pointing out how shitty a supposed next Gen game looks that clearly isn't truly next Gen in regards to graphical fidelity.

The crossgeb/crossgen spelling mistake wasn't a joke, just a spelling accident but the point made with it was intended.

It doesn't matter that other games began as crossgen because they were also hindered by that.

That only further proves my point since crossgen games are always worse than those built from the ground up for next gen.

I know you're into VR so you must see the parallel between games built for VR vs. normal games that tack on VR modes, and games built for crossgen and those built for next gen.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Expecting them to start from scratch is DEFINITELY too much to ask for. Companies like Naughty Dog have expressed how bad an idea that was last gen which is why they didn't do it this time around. There are very few devs that actually throw out their codebase entirely. It usually makes no sense to do so. I think Remedy did for Alan Wake because what they were doing was just too incompatible with their old tech. Not sure if they did the same for QB or not.

Updating and rewriting specific parts of the engine is normally enough, but it seems like when you are using a codebase as long in the tooth as Gamebryo, it's very difficult to really keep it looking modern. Cod has the same issue, though visually their games have faired pretty well this gen. Still some Quake roots showing in certain aspects though.

Isnt this the exact reason why a lot of companies use a third party engine instead of building it themselves?

 

[Crossing Eden]

At least it being crossgen was giving them the benefit of the doubt as an excuse

It's still ridiculous conjecture, people would be in for a terrible wake up call if bethesda were to try and make this run on last gen consoles.

It's an improvement for sure, but not the jump Bethesda made with morrowind to oblivion.

That's what I was expecting from a next Gen title and it's not the case.

Just because the game doesn't meet your standards for graphical fidelity doesn't mean it's not a next gen title, a next gen title simply cannot run on a last gen console without massive downgrades including gameplay related ones, this is one of them. This game is doing a shit ton more than Shadow of Mordor, and look at how that game ran on last gen consoles.

That only further proves my point since crossgen games are always worse than those built from the ground up for next gen.

I know you're into VR so you must see the parallel between games built for VR vs. normal games that tack on VR modes, and games built for crossgen and those built for next gen.

But they HAVE made a huge investment to improve animation quality and the graphics. Your entire argument is based on conjecture and false accusations.

They see graphical/animation improvements as diminishing gains that aren't financially worth the investment.

Yes they did since those have been improved a shit ton compared to their past titles.

And then there's this bullshit which shows that you have literally no idea what you're talking about.

It doesn't matter that other games began as crossgen because they were also hindered by that.

That only further proves my point since crossgen games are always worse than those built from the ground up for next gen.

But here's the thing, you're displaying how little you know about game development. Nothing has proved that this game was crossgen at some point besides terrible conjecture.

 

[Gareth Bale]

Fucking terrible. The end result is just increased LOD.

This is what their game looks like until the community updates their 20th century textures. Bethesda are such a shit company

 

[bud23]

That sweet, sweet denial.

shh no tears, only Dialogue system Graphics gameplay now.

 

[The Baron Count]

It's an improvement for sure, but not the jump Bethesda made with morrowind to oblivion.

That's what I was expecting from a next Gen title and it's not the case.




I didn't say there were no improvements or that the improvements made were negligible.

What I said was that the bar is set so low for them that they just have to do the bare minimum and people will be happy.

If they don't have the financial incentive to put out the best possible product they can because it will sell enough regardless, then why would they improve it any further?

They see graphical/animation improvements as diminishing gains that aren't financially worth the investment.

Would more people buy the game if the dog hair looked better?

No.

Would more people buy the game if everything looked better?

Yes, but it's "good enough" so they have no reason to do any better and invest that much more money if it doesn't directly translate to more sales.

And I'm not "checking boxes" to make a game I like, I'm pointing out how shitty a supposed next Gen game looks that clearly isn't truly next Gen in regards to graphical fidelity.

The crossgeb/crossgen spelling mistake wasn't a joke, just a spelling accident but the point made with it was intended.

It doesn't matter that other games began as crossgen because they were also hindered by that.

That only further proves my point since crossgen games are always worse than those built from the ground up for next gen.

I know you're into VR so you must see the parallel between games built for VR vs. normal games that tack on VR modes, and games built for crossgen and those built for next gen.

I highly doubt Bethesda or any other established dev care what people think of the visuals. The art teams have their bars that they set for themselves and so long as they hit that goal, they are happy.

 

[ghibli99]

Might sound lame, but I never expect Bethesda games to come out looking cutting-edge (or even good). Looks OK, but that's not why people play these games. Plus, the modding community will eventually come through and make this look truly amazing. It's crazy playing Skyrim vanilla vs. even with a minimal of graphical mods. Like nearly 2 generations removed from each other.

 

[MaLDo]

The pic I'm comparing is more relevant than your huge ass panorama shot

Sure.

 

[DrROBschiz]

It's still ridiculous conjecture, people would be in for a terrible wake up call if bethesda were to try and make this run on last gen consoles.

I dont consider the current visuals a stretch at all

Its seems all in all a modest upgrade. But hey certainly someone savvy will have some real hardcore analysis soon

Clearly the minimum requirements tell a very different story. Its just not coming across on a visual standpoint

Its ugly bro

 

[bud23]

Plus, the modding community will eventually come through and make this look truly amazing.

They won't on the PS4.

 

[Afrodium]

And the confirmation of crossgen is in the fact that work on the game began immediately after fallout 3, aside from the awful graphics.

It's likely that the 'development' that started after Fallout 3 was a small team working on story and concept art. I doubt development for this game really revved up until Skyrim was out the door.

 

[DrROBschiz]

They won't on the PS4.

yeah...

I hope the delay is addressed.. they said that mod support would come to PS4 later but what does that mean or entail

 

[The Baron Count]

Isnt this the exact reason why a lot of companies use a third party engine instead of building it themselves?

More or less. In theory proprietary tech is usually better, simply because you can write the code that suits your needs versus relying on or having to modify existing technology, but it's also expensive as hell and more importantly adds a significant overhead to the dev time.

Jason Rubin talked about this in 2003. He was saying how devs tended to spend a shit ton building an engine for a new title on a new platform just so they could have the tech ready for the second title and hopefully actually make some money.

Above all you don't want your artists building assets without a finished engine to actually work with. You need to have a solid codebase before hand. Bungie fucked themselves over with that kind of thing for both Halo 2 and Destiny.

Third party engines alleviate most of these issues. Of course there are still companies like Insomniac who pride themselves on always building proprietary stuff.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

Its ugly bro

Subjective, bro. Half the people in this thread would disagree, just look at the first page. I think it looks pretty durn good. I don't like seeing people dump on a developer for stupid reasons.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I dont consider the current visuals a stretch at all

Its seems all in all a modest upgrade. But hey certainly someone savvy will have some real hardcore analysis soon

Clearly the minimum requirements tell a very different story. Its just not coming across on a visual standpoint

Its ugly bro

The visuals no, the underlying tech, yes. I'm sure it doesn't need to be stated that games aren't just comprised of textures, animations, and lighting data.

 

[_machine]

Expecting them to start from scratch is DEFINITELY too much to ask for. Companies like Naughty Dog have expressed how bad an idea that was last gen which is why they didn't do it this time around. There are very few devs that actually throw out their codebase entirely. It usually makes no sense to do so. I think Remedy did for Alan Wake because what they were doing was just too incompatible with their old tech. Not sure if they did the same for QB or not.

Updating and rewriting specific parts of the engine is normally enough, but it seems like when you are using a codebase as long in the tooth as Gamebryo, it's very difficult to really keep it looking modern. Cod has the same issue, though visually their games have faired pretty well this gen. Still some Quake roots showing in certain aspects though.

Yeah absolutely, and I believe it's quite obvious that they have very much re-written a massive part of the rendering. I'm fairly sure it's using a deferred renderer this time, the whole lighting is done in a different way (and with a new authoring workflow), the "volumetric" lighting part (still not quite sure what the technical implementation is), far shadow rendering (which was not possible with the old cell system of the engine) etc. Though personally I would like to see the differences within the editor and learn more about the object and memory logic.

 

[KatamariOnTheRocks]

It is immediately apparent in motion, but all we have are 720p videos of a 1080p game, somehow with gifs that are compressed to hell and back. And the game comes out next week, they're likely gonna start showing more gameplay very soon. Remember what Fo3 looked like at release, this is a substantial improvement. It literally is a night and day difference between the two games if you actually go back and play fallout 3. You seem to have convinced yourself that this will be a buggy shit release and are waiting to say "I told you so."

Work beginning on a game after fallout 3 came out is not confirmation that the game was in production for crossgen, that's not how that works, (it's called a pre-producton, for all we know they went into full production in 2012), according to your logic AC:Unity and Ghost Recon Wildlands are now confirmed to have been crossgen games since they began working on them in 2010.

I just finished replaying Fallout 3 on PC so I know how it looks and always take that into account when comparing the two games.

F3 to F4 is not the jump in fidelity that comes with a new gen.

And I base the fact that it'll be buggy on my own experiences with every single other Bethesda game at launch.

I want nothing more than a good fallout 4, people seem to convince themselves that anyone criticizing the game must hate it and want it to fail.

I love Bethesda games and I love the fallout series and that's what pushes me to want a better game.

And to say any game beginning development after the last gen started winding down would have to start on last gen is silly.

It isn't silly to think that Bethesda would continue using the same engine they used on that Gen rather than starting from scratch.

And since that engine supports last gen and production would have been estimated to end around 2015 they could have simply made the choice to go crossgen as many companies did when developing around that time since they could target a larger install base while effectively selling the same game twice to certain people.

It's harder to imagine them targeting next gen only from the start than to believe that at some point they made the call to cancel last gen versions after it had already shaped the scope/scale of the project.

 

[tuxfool]

Updating and rewriting specific parts of the engine is normally enough, but it seems like when you are using a codebase as long in the tooth as Gamebryo, it's very difficult to really keep it looking modern. Cod has the same issue, though visually their games have faired pretty well this gen. Still some Quake roots showing in certain aspects though.

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

 

[Solid Samus]

It's an improvement for sure, but not the jump Bethesda made with morrowind to oblivion.

That's what I was expecting from a next Gen title and it's not the case.




I didn't say there were no improvements or that the improvements made were negligible.

What I said was that the bar is set so low for them that they just have to do the bare minimum and people will be happy.

If they don't have the financial incentive to put out the best possible product they can because it will sell enough regardless, then why would they improve it any further?

They see graphical/animation improvements as diminishing gains that aren't financially worth the investment.

Would more people buy the game if the dog hair looked better?

No.

Would more people buy the game if everything looked better?

Yes, but it's "good enough" so they have no reason to do any better and invest that much more money if it doesn't directly translate to more sales.

And I'm not "checking boxes" to make a game I like, I'm pointing out how shitty a supposed next Gen game looks that clearly isn't truly next Gen in regards to graphical fidelity.

The crossgeb/crossgen spelling mistake wasn't a joke, just a spelling accident but the point made with it was intended.

It doesn't matter that other games began as crossgen because they were also hindered by that.

That only further proves my point since crossgen games are always worse than those built from the ground up for next gen.

I know you're into VR so you must see the parallel between games built for VR vs. normal games that tack on VR modes, and games built for crossgen and those built for next gen.

Well, I mean, you seem to be operating under the assumption that your 'cross gen' speculation is actually fact. I'll try and be a little clearer - A game that begins its development cycle last generation, is not a 'cross gen title' simply due to that fact. I don't think that Fallout 4 was ever a cross gen title in the sense that I don't think it was ever designed to run on a PS3 and 360. I say this for several reasons - not only because I don't believe that the visuals themselves are evidence enough toward this (nor are they even indicative of cross gen levels of fidelity imo), but because we all saw what happened with Skyrim and FNV/3 on PS3 and 360 - those consoles were just too hamstrung to even achieve those games, much less iterations on those games that would hope to claim any sort of legit advancement. The whole idea of Fallout having been cross gen is just too limiting and makes too little sense to me.

And at any rate, I like this blurb from a post I saw yesterday -

...because you, like several other people in the thread act like game developers have to check specific boxes, and are required by the laws of gaming to allocate as much resource as equally possibly to all these different places.

In other words, you think it's a REQUIREMENT that Bethesda games should have amazing mindblowing graphics, because it's a post-apoc game that makes millions.

It's like, here we are, four years into a long wait, and I'm shown a huge and expansive world absolutely packed with shit to see and do. That's been the development focus, apparently, as it shows - the game is intricate and there's shitloads of quests and scenarios and little dungeons and shit, and from everything I've heard so far they actually feel genuinely unique from one another on top of it all. There's absolute shitloads of voice acting which implies to me a heavily populated world (especially considering how the convo system now works). Stark improvements to the gunplay have been made, and third person is now a more viable and much less unattractive way to play the game. There's extensive weapon and armor customization, and I can tear down and build up my own settlements.

And, I mean, I'm expected to get hung up on the graphics here? When

1 - I do honestly find them perfectly servicible for what the game is, and am getting awfully tired of being told that it's because I'm a Beth fan who gives them a free pass, because lmao. Texturework isn't anywhere near as bad as its made out to be in general and actually holds up pretty well upon direct comparison to other similar games. Lighting and atmosphere looks good, and while the lack of AO stands out, I'm expecting most of the things I don't like about the visuals like that to be ironed out PC-side in very short order. And I really think that Fallout 4 remains kinda competitive on consoles, even compared to The Witcher 3 - take some time to view Digital Foundry's PS4 gallery for Witcher 3 if you want to see a game that doesn't hold up as well in stills quite as well as it does in motion. I don't think FO4 is the best looking game ever, far from it, but if what I've heard and seen about this game's scale and variety is actually the case then I'm okay with what I've seen.

and 2 - The last few Bethesda games I played were never graphical showcases outside of their own niche before the introduction of mods? Fallout 3 and Skyrim were great looking open world games, but at the time they had no direct competition. There was no mistaking that they were heavily outmatched by contemporary linear titles of the time, though, and the only difference in this situation is that we have Witcher 3 to make direct comparisons to, which has skewed the entire conversation by giving people this weird expectation that open worlds now must be backed by industry leading graphics regardless of context. Bethesda's got a smaller team than Witcher 3, doing bigger things (at least where interactivity and environment diversity are concerned). It's no surprise to me that in order to achieve a huge world that's packed with the things they want, that tradeoffs had to be made - same as any other game, except as soon as a game has that nebulous AAA label slapped onto it, people lose it and expect the best of every world, again, regardless of context. You can call it having standards, sure, but I don't want to be made out like I have lower standards (especially as someone who paid as much for his gaming setup as he did, lmao) just because I'm willing to be a bit amenable toward a game that doesn't prioritize visual fidelity above all. I mean, shit, I game on PC, where many of the biggest, best, and most unique titles can be considered to do the same shit. It's not like I'm going to sit here and moan for days on end because Metal Gear Solid V's (AAA game) graphics aren't anywhere near as intricately detailed as GTA V's or Witcher 3's, or because Arma 3's continued development has focused on the rollout of enhanced features and extra content as opposed to addressing its' flat' and clay-like visuals. I'm too busy enjoying and respecting those games for everything else they work to accomplish, and I expect that Fallout 4 will entertain me in the same manner.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I just finished replaying Fallout 3 on PC so I know how it looks and always take that into account when comparing the two games.

I've played FO3 on 360, this is a huge improvement.

F3 to F4 is not the jump in fidelity that comes with a new gen.

Subjective. Just the bump in the polycounts of objects could be considered a huge jump. Let alone material shading and lighting being much better.

And I base the fact that it'll be buggy on my own experiences with every single other Bethesda game at launch.

It's an open world game, one that's processing a ton of data, there will be bugs, but saying "people will be eating crow" at launch based on your assumptions is a bit much.

I want nothing more than a good fallout 4, people seem to convince themselves that anyone criticizing the game must hate it and want it to fail.

Because some of the criticisms sound like confirmation bias. You for instance keep implying that they said "this is good enough we don't need to make a graphical showcase" as if they could do that on consoles in the first place.

And to say any game beginning development after the last gen started winding down would have to start on last gen is silly.

So is using the fact that game doesn't have pretty enough graphics and started pre-production years ago, (game development where a shit ton of things get an overhaul takes time), as confirmation that it was a crossgen title.

It isn't silly to think that Bethesda would continue using the same engine they used on that Gen rather than starting from scratch.

That's exactly what they did but they made a ton of improvements to it.

And since that engine supports last gen and production would have been estimated to end around 2015 they could have simply made the choice to go crossgen as many companies did when developing around that time since they could target a larger install base while effectively selling the same game twice to certain people.

Which is still conjecture.

It's harder to imagine them targeting next gen only from the start than to believe that at some point they made the call to cancel last gen versions after it had already shaped the scope/scale of the project.

A shit ton of things and planning happen behind the scenes. The only reason the game is next gen only in the first place is because they couldn't make it a crossgen title.

 

[ymgve]

I just went back and reread some of what that "ex employee of Bethesda" leaked on Reddit a long long time back (about a year before the announcement of the game) and while it still remains to be seen if that information is true or not, at least some of it has turned out to be accurate. One weird detail stood out to me and I'm wondering if it has anything to do with the final product. They said (bold is from me):

• "Fallout 4 will be available for a wide range of platforms after launch. The first version that will be released is being developed for Playstation 4, Xbox One and PC. This version uses a brand new engine built from the ground up to take advantage of the power of next gen systems. Absolutely everything is new, and no assets or scrips are being used from Fallout 3/NV or Skyrim.
  
• Fallout 4 will also be available on Playstation 3 and Xbox 360. This version is also being developed by Bethesda Game Studios, but will release a year after the advanced version. This version runs on the Creation Engine, the same engine that powered Skyrim. This is being done so that PS3/360 users can play the game without problem. Everything will be the same in this version as the advanced version, except for the graphics, gameplay and some additional features.
• Also, Fallout 4 on PS3 and Xbox 360, last I knew, was around 20GB+"

I wonder if there's a thread of truth to this...and development on the "advanced" version of the game with an all new engine got put on hold for the next Elder Scrolls game and they ended up just picking the "Creation Engine" (Gamebryo?) as it could be put out more quickly on now current gen hardware. I will say though, that the concept of the same game being made on two different engines sounds a bit absurd, especially one at this scale. Just some food for thought.

*Rest of the leak text can be seen here, though be warned that there is the potential for spoilers if any of it is in fact legit. There's a lot of specific story detail in there* https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/38hf7g/leaked_information_about_fallout_4_previous/

There are quite a few details that fit well with what we've seen (10 years after Fallout 3 is the major one) but this:

At the beginning of the game, you create your character (You can only be a male in the main story)

is so totally false and everyone that's been even close to developing the game must have realized this was the case. Tens of thousands of female main character spoken lines isn't something you can just half-ass at the last minute.

 

[omonimo]

Looks meh? Not good not horrible, okay, meh.

Just meh? We are talking of Ultra setting. It's quite horrible frankly to my eyes see such stuff.

 

[Solid Samus]

I just finished replaying Fallout 3 on PC so I know how it looks and always take that into account when comparing the two games.

F3 to F4 is not the jump in fidelity that comes with a new gen.

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.

And I base the fact that it'll be buggy on my own experiences with every single other Bethesda game at launch.

I want nothing more than a good fallout 4, people seem to convince themselves that anyone criticizing the game must hate it and want it to fail.

I love Bethesda games and I love the fallout series and that's what pushes me to want a better game.

And to say any game beginning development after the last gen started winding down would have to start on last gen is silly.

It isn't silly to think that Bethesda would continue using the same engine they used on that Gen rather than starting from scratch.

And since that engine supports last gen and production would have been estimated to end around 2015 they could have simply made the choice to go crossgen as many companies did when developing around that time since they could target a larger install base while effectively selling the same game twice to certain people.

It's harder to imagine them targeting next gen only from the start than to believe that at some point they made the call to cancel last gen versions after it had already shaped the scope/scale of the project.

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.