Hellshingu
Member
Based on the PC screens and the graphics options menu I don't really think it matters what platform it's going to be on. I am sure they will look relatively the same on PC and consoles from what we've seen.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Fallout 4 PC Ultra screenshots
- Thread starter RoboPlato
- Start date
Based on the PC screens and the graphics options menu I don't really think it matters what platform it's going to be on. I am sure they will look relatively the same on PC and consoles from what we've seen.
Slackbladder
Member
Did Bethesda stick with an updated game engine because of modding? In other words, if modding was not part of the design could the engine have been changed for something else? What kind of mods can be added to Witcher 3 for example?
UnrealEck
Member
If the game's reccomended requirements are for the quality seen in these screenshots, I'll be questioning the reasons why. And probably kicking myself for keeping my pre-order in place.
Papacheeks
Banned
How is Dragon age a PS3 reference DA:ORIGINS to Dragon age:Inquisition there's a lot that has changed in the engine and design of the series and those games are on PC. The same goes for The witcher 3.
It's not stupid to argue that a smaller polish studio was able to make a game in the vein of skyrim, and surpass it in how large, lush, and full of life it was. It also changed RPG's for the better with how they approached questing, and NPC interaction.
Dragon age though not perfect also mirrors some of the deep character building and NPC interaction games like Elder scrolls started.
I just don't see 4 years or more showing good use for Fallout 4, when there are other studios much smaller doing more in the same time frame .
But to not bring comparison from games of the same genre is really you not wanting people to have conversations on why this game doesn't not look as good as it could.
Why are people talking about draw calls like it's some magical performance sucking thing that Bethesda just can't avoid?
Any modern game has tons of draw calls. Take Witcher 3. Do you really think there are more draw calls in any Fallout 4 scene than a really crowded square in Novigrad? Or walking through a forest in which every single tree is independently affected by wind?
Any modern game has tons of draw calls. Take Witcher 3. Do you really think there are more draw calls in any Fallout 4 scene than a really crowded square in Novigrad? Or walking through a forest in which every single tree is independently affected by wind?
Solid Samus
Banned
I'm fairly certain that textures will see a noticeable improvement on PC, but we have nothing to make any direct comparisons with yet.
And for the record that's what a lot of games of this nature look like when you get up close and personal with assets.
I just took these shots in Witcher 3, PC Ultra textures (alongside two I took earlier today, click for full size), and the game's got a fair amount of standard-res textures. The game benefits pretty greatly from having a sizable FOV, a further out third person viewpoint (that pretty aggressively keeps you from getting close up looks at most things), and lots of foliage.
Please do.
I am also of the opinion that Fallout4 looks quite shit. Look at the original Metro 2033 released almost SIX YEARS AGO and compare it to this shit.
Hellshingu
Member
Metro is a fairly linear shooter. FO4 is an open world RPG. You can't honestly compare the two in terms of graphics because they set out to do different things.
Moon_frogger
Member
I'm not worried about the graphics. I am worried about the game mechanically though. From the animations it looks like fallout 3.5. I'm sure it will be wonderful
I agree that lots of assets are essential for good world building. I think maybe there's some inconsistency with how we're using the term "dynamic." Dynamic might refer to any object that can move--it might also refer to objects that have context triggers (e.g. a blood splatter). Most games have these types of objects and I'd love to see more of them, but in most cases you can get away with having static objects. The issue from a performance standpoint is controlling where assets appear, and that has less to do with the number of objects (dynamic or otherwise) scattered across an open world and more to do with their concentration in a particular area, which the developer can control. Skyrim, for example, used mountains to control what you could see in any given scene. Anyway, my original observation was that it's strange that the interiors look so ugly when they could be quite beautiful.
Everyone probably agrees that a sandbox game is delightful when there are lots of moving parts. I just think it's absurd for a game with no vehicles, no destruction, and relatively few NPCs on screen at any given time to have all this hypothetical overhead because it's supposedly too complex. An example of a game encumbered by complexity would be Space Engineers, not Fallout, where the world has predefined landmarks that serve occlusion purposes. I guess I'm just perplexed that people would defend the appearance of a game based on a EDIT: fairly standard level of interactivity for sandbox games. Yes, rendering resources are shared with compute resources, but do we really think Fallout's world is so unpredictable that there's no way to intelligently optimize certain areas (although maybe not all)? My broader point is that marginally surprising quirks (like being able to pile up objects, trap lots of NPCs in a small room, etc.) shouldn't take priority over graphics. Just my opinion.
Man, I really hope that shit ends up being the mainstream ArmA-lite I've been looking for.
Good point, but there are plenty of other examples. I was just using an older "last gen" game as a reference...
DrROBschiz
Member
Nice shots!
Yeah i mean this kind of thing is expected in open world games
Its all about how its hidden away from the player and aggregate quality.
Definitely brings some much needed perspective
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
old manatee
Banned
Spazznid
Member
By this example, we should not accept any game looking less visually pleasing to you, Koryuken, than Metro 2033. So that means even games which offer completely different gameplay, and options must still look like Metro. Minecraft? Metro. Life is Strange? Metro. Bioshock Infinite? Metro.
How about we stop comparing games to other genres? Why aren't you in the Street Fighter threads, screaming at how using a simplified art style is their way around making the game look as good as Metro?
Why don't we compare games to Crysis 3? Or Battlefield/Battlefront?
I have NEVER seen someone who plays Elder Scrolls or Fallout games excited for either game for their graphics, ever. Hell, I almost throw up whenever I have to re-install my mods for Skyrim and see the way it looks vanilla. I know that isn't something everyone can agree on, but I don't expect everyone to agree with me.
Considering all versions of the game will support mods, there's no reason not to believe that everything or close to everything you dislike can and will be changed by modders who are of like mind. But for those who actually enjoy the way the game looks and plays, there's no reason to assume it should be changed for you specifically.
I haven't played the game, but so far I feel good to meh about most of the gameplay changes. Visually I was worried but as soon as I saw the trailer and the E3 presentations, I felt like it looked fine, if not pretty good. At least now it doesn't look like green everywhere with everything completely low-res rusted. But some people liked that style, and there will assuredly be mods to get it back.
Long post, but I like to come in here and rage sometimes.
Oh and stop comparing apples to oranges please.
You also see that this is from Xbox360 right? Are we talking about PC in this thread or console?
So we should be talking about modded PC then right? Very few PC players would run Bethesda games unmodded if they were worried about graphics.
Solid Samus
Banned
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I think it looks plain no matter what you compare it to. Probably the worst looking AAA game I've seen this gen.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
old manatee
Banned
This is seriously an Emperor's New Clothing moment. Anyone who thinks that Fallout 4 looks like a AAA current gen game is just lying to themselves. Bethesda is more shameless than Telltale.
Is this shitheap still running on the Quake 3 engine?
Is this shitheap still running on the Quake 3 engine?
It's a shot from a few pages back, my guess ps4 considering the female protagonist who also is in the ps4 shots, but just a guess.
Don't make excuses for big corporations. They can hire anyone they want, the modding scene for bethesda games is huge, all of them would likely want to work there at some point. If they needed more people, they could hire them. That is, if more people would save it. We all know the 'Mythical Man Month' from mr. Brooks, don't we?
Others did too, and didn't suffer from it. They made a decision which had its side effects, as in: lower quality assets and the like. Nothing wrong with that in theory, but they shouldn't sell it as an AAA title with a premium price.
What I always wondered is why they didn't move the subsystems that make the RPG into another 3D engine. Apparently they think it's not worth it. Which is precisely why we shouldn't make excuses for them.
Oh well... in the end it will likely turn out well, but the beginning (read: right after launch) it will likely be a tough nuclear winter.
So you're going to argue that it isn't? It's last gen then? I should be thanking them for making the best looking PS3 game ever then.
What i am against is what seems to be Bethesda's general development philosophy. They unwilling to update their engines and simply rehash the same exact game with a slightly new setting every few years.
Each iteration however, seems a bit more and more "streamlined" for the masses. Each iteration lacking more of the detail and soul that made the originals great. This is true of Skyrim, Oblivion, Fallout 4, etc.
Their unwillingness to invest in new engines/tech basically shows that they are following the CoD model and the masses are eating this shit up. I guess I am in the minority. And yes, when a new iteration of a beloved franchise comes to a new generation of console, I would have expected Bethesda to make the appropriate investments in tech. Otherwise, they are quite similar to shovelware devs -- which they currently are IMO.
Dictator93
Member
Well one thing that I have seen so far that is rather inescusable given rendering is the distinct lack of shadow casting lights in-doors. Whether in the house in the beginning or in the vault.
Also, it is still depressing when a game does not use POM for flat surface texturing. No matter the game.
No shadows (LATE 2015)
Real time shadow maps and POM (2007)
Most pre-pbr games don't.
It is not as if the materials in FO4 are super great inspite of having a PBS workslow apparently.
I think that graphically this is a very poor show specially when you consider these shots are on the Ultra setting.
More troublesome for me is how janky the game sort of looks. Poor animation gives me this jank feeling and its just distracting and off putting to me.
Oh well, still hopeful.
More troublesome for me is how janky the game sort of looks. Poor animation gives me this jank feeling and its just distracting and off putting to me.
Oh well, still hopeful.
Not that it invalidates criticism, but Bethesda's texture work has always been poor.
Modders will put out a texture pack that looks better with zero performance hit within a week of the game being out. Fancier mods will follow for those with the hardware to handle it. It's whatever.
Modders will put out a texture pack that looks better with zero performance hit within a week of the game being out. Fancier mods will follow for those with the hardware to handle it. It's whatever.
Don't buy it then.
Wolfe
Member
Lol what a joke, if that happens the "fans" brought it on themselves. Realistically I imagine it'll sell and review quite well.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
So they shouldn't sell this huge open world RPG from a long running series at full price after overhauling a shit ton of things and spending 4-5 years in development. Wtf am I reading?
Ofc they don't which is why I can't stand the "last gen games looked better" hyperbole. Plus are we sure that the PC version doesn't have indoor lighting? Even if FO4's implementation of PBS isn't as good as some other games this gen, it's still better than some games that don't have it altogether. A large majority of things actually look convincing up close, (i'm talking about in focus shots not pictures where a gaffer zoomed in on a picture). POM being absent is a bit disappointing tho as that would help immensely with the buildings.Well one thing that I have seen so far that is rather inescusable given rendering is the distinct lack of shadow casting lights in-doors. Whether in the house in the beginning or in the vault.
Also, it is still depressing when a game does not use POM for flat surface texturing. No matter the game.
No shadows (LATE 2015)
Real time shadow maps and POM (2007)
Most pre-pbr games don't.
It is not as if the materials in FO4 are super great inspite of having a PBS workslow apparently.
old manatee
Banned
The background simulation and AI complexity compared to Fallout 4 isn't even close here. As Crossing Eden said, underlying tech is the big difference here.
Holy shit what am I reading. A game should cost less because it has more features than 90% of other AAA titles, but it isn't shiny enough. That sounds reasonable. You're embarrasing yourself.
ViolentP
Member
Based on?
Pseudo_Sam
Survives without air, food, or water
Is this real life? What the fuck is going on
Don't make excuses for big corporations. They can hire anyone they want, the modding scene for bethesda games is huge, all of them would likely want to work there at some point. If they needed more people, they could hire them. That is, if more people would save it. We all know the 'Mythical Man Month' from mr. Brooks, don't we?
Others did too, and didn't suffer from it. They made a decision which had its side effects, as in: lower quality assets and the like. Nothing wrong with that in theory, but they shouldn't sell it as an AAA title with a premium price.
What I always wondered is why they didn't move the subsystems that make the RPG into another 3D engine. Apparently they think it's not worth it. Which is precisely why we shouldn't make excuses for them.
Oh well... in the end it will likely turn out well, but the beginning (read: right after launch) it will likely be a tough nuclear winter.
I'm not making excuses I'm just explaining the reality of the situation. They're a rather small company for the industry and class they are in. And while I don't think games in general should be selling at $60, there's no reason this game should not compared to any other $60 game. Just because you find the graphics to be sub par doesn't make the product objectively worth less. There is likely more content here with stuff like full VA that few games will ever even touch. No one is getting short changed by paying $60 for it.
And yeah they can hire anyone they want probably and in scores, which I later explained is probably not happening because they don't want to change their company too much, which is a valid reason. These are people too who spend thousands of hours making these games. I'm not going to begrudge them for not wanting to turn their livelihood into production line like Ubisoft does with 1000+ man teams churning out games. Just because they can expand doesn't mean they want to. If their games suffer consequences of that people will not buy them and they'll have to either expand to keep up or refocus their efforts to projects they can more adequately tackle.
old manatee
Banned
It looks like Fallout 3 which looked kind of janky like 7 years ago. Whatever. I'll buy it with all of the DLC for $20 in a Steam sale a year from now.
Please continue, this is my entertainment for the day.
You must seriously be blind if you think Fallout 3 looks anywhere close to Fallout 4. Literally insane.
These are the same? These are anywhere close to the same graphically? Try harder dude.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I mean, I would love all games to be $40, but you're crazy. Bethesda games are worth the $60 way more than most games.
ViolentP
Member
You shouldn't forget everything else a game offers.
Undertale looks worse than that copy of ET I got out of the landfill. They should pay me to play that shit. Jesus christ do you even read what you type? Fallout 4 is going to be a massive open world with hundreds of hours of content, but it should be cheaper because it doesn't have as many shiny effects as other smaller games.
Solid Samus
Banned
Seriously, that reasoning is fucking asinine. This is EXACTLY the type of shit I was talking about earlier.
Well, yeah, you should probably follow my comment back to its source.
D
Deleted member 325805
Unconfirmed Member
It's passable but you'd expect better from an AAA title.