Fallout 4 PC Ultra screenshots
- Thread starter RoboPlato
- Start date
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Fallout 4 like other games seems to only have DoF when in conversations, like in Witcher and Dragon Age.
So was GTAV not a massive improvement over GTAIV to you because of mods on pc? And since when do we compare modded versions of games to vanilla versions of games, that makes no sense.
Saucycarpdog
Member
Agreed. I can't wait for the DF thread for this game.
Summer Haze
Banned
Vanilla to vanilla comparison.
Why is it fair to compare modded Fallout 3 to unmodded Fallout 4 exactly?
shinobi602
Member
Edit: Already beaten like a dead horse.
It looking a bit better than Fallout 3 isn't really praise. Remind yourself that it's 2015, look at the graphics for every other hit AAA title this year, and look at Fallout 4 again.There's hyperbole, and then there's saying these two games look the same and that one is a budget title where the developers didn't invest in any new tech whatsoever.
Here are several more direct comparisons.
Vault Dweller 111
Member
What is happening? Where am I? What is this? Has everyone gone insane?
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
That comparison isn't "a bit better." None of the comparisons are, go check the link. And yes how much they've improved since FO3's release is quite an achievement, ffs look at what people looked at in FO3.
Dude's just got a vendetta on Bethesda, it's pretty funny.
Mister Wolf
Member
So who has the best deal on the PC version of this game?
I bought it off cdkeys for 40.
Solid Samus
Banned
lmao, it's like this thread works in cycles.
It looks a lot more than just a 'bit' better than Fallout 3, visually and technically speaking.
Krappadizzle
Member
I wanna see some AO.
odhiex
Member
So you aggree that comparison should be made between the modded version of FO3 v.s modded version of FO4? lol
The modded FO4 will looks glorious.
Yeah, but some Dynamic DoF in Skyrim through RealVision or Unbleak ENB looks REAL nice. Would be nice here too, but other than conversations and possibly VATS, not really used.
shinobi602
Member
That's more than a "bit better" to me. The game is a huge improvement over the studio's previous games. I don't even understand why we're comparing it to things like The Witcher or otherwise? Why? Bethesda didn't set out to make The Witcher, they didn't set out to make GTA, they didn't set out to make Metro or whatever the other shit it was compared to in here. They set out to make a new Fallout and they started with the games they had before and built it up from there. People should be comparing Bethesda to Bethesda. It's not a gorgeous game. Fine, it doesn't win any awards. But at least it's a clear improvement over their previous efforts. Can anyone deny that?
Does anyone really think the employees at Bethesda Game Studios don't give a shit about the games they make? Does Todd Howard just genuinely say fuck it, it's good enough, stamp it on a disc. Does Pete Hines not care at all? This thread's just wild. They all want to make a great game. They certainly tried. They've done a lot to improve on their formula. Their games have bugs. True. And their games are huge. I have no doubt they try to catch them all. For all the work they put in they get shit for credit.
+1
this thread has no chill whatsoever
the jade is next level on some people in here, people acting like this is shit mountain version 2 when its nowhere near that kind of situation
Herpes Reasons
Banned
I agree. It's a freaking new Fallout game. It's a new Bethesda game. It's a new AAA game that will provide modders with tools to improve it in many ways. Would it be nice if it resembled more of the visual hopes and expectations we wanted? Sure. But give me a break about the hyperbole in this thread. It's FALLOUT 4 for crying out loud. Play it. Love it. and play it again.
TimeEffect
Member
I know I'm probably in the minority, but I actually really am going to miss how brown Fallout 3 was.
It's like comparing San Andreas and GTA V. Sure GTA V looks nice, but I miss that particular art style of San Andreas.
It's like comparing San Andreas and GTA V. Sure GTA V looks nice, but I miss that particular art style of San Andreas.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Yeah, this game will look insane when modded. But for me at this moment it is perfectly serviceable and nails the atmosphere imo.
Fallout 4 doesn't exist in a vacuum that protects it from comparison. Sandbox games are a huge thing now and if Bethesda can't make one that compares well to the others then it's going to be scrutinized because it deserves it.
PROJECTZERO
Banned
Well said. The game looks to be improved in every single way. I think the game looks amazing
Icyflamez96
Member
Yup me too. I do want to play through this in it's regular state to see what experience I get out of it. As it seems to me now though, I actually don't really like the clear blue skies. I liked the tinge of F3, and I get a much weaker sense of atmosphere from just looking at what we've seen from F4 so far. I'm sure I'll like this in it's own way though, but I'll definitely be trying out color correction mods at some point.
How many first person open world games are there? Because there's a hell of a lot more going on in a first person open world game than a third person one. If you can think of a first person open world game that isn't made by Bethesda go ahead and use that as a yardstick.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
You're right, when it comes to interaction in a sandbox, Fallout 4 is looking to be leagues ahead of all the other open world games. Other games should catch up tbh.
old manatee
Banned
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Not only that but you can switch perspectives between 1st and 3rd, natively. So they have to take that into consideration when developing the game, compared to metal gear or witcher 3(Where 1 is contextual when aiming down scopes, the other doesn't feature any 1st person at all IIRC)
old manatee
Banned
You can switch between 1st and third person in Grand Theft Auto V and Metal Gear Solid V, which also have huge worlds and look amazing.
Witcher 3 doesn't exist.
Actually a much better comparison, given that it's mostly a dense populated city, insane that they got it running at 60 FPS on consoles while looking damn good, despite being a remaster
Solid Samus
Banned
The particular type of sandbox game that Bethesda makes isn't a 'huge thing' and has never been. In fact, I dare you to name sandboxes that are anything like Fallout or Elder Scrolls, much less one that compares favorably on a visual level. And in the past, that fact has helped to protect these games from unflattering direct comparisons, because people understood that to a certain point there were tradeoffs when it came to massive scale. As I've repeated throughout this thread, the only difference today is that Witcher 3 is a thing, and because of that game, people now expect any open world RPG to prioritize visuals where they normally might not have the same expectation - without any regard for important context, for underlying mechanical decisions and design decisions that might necessitate a priority on other things over visuals on the part of the dev team. You hear 'AAA' and an arbitrary checklist of things pops up in your head that an AAA game must achieve, 'because reasons!'. Now that Witcher 3 has brought that expectation of industry leading visuals over to the open world RPG side, you expect that shit from every competitor, no matter their individual capability as devs, the opportunity costs associated with their choice of development routes, or how they choose to appropriate their resources and prioritize particular elements of their design over others. It's like, what little we know about this game so far partly includes that it's absolutely chock full of content, but people are letting their exaggerated disappointment with the visuals color their entire perception of the game, without even stopping to consider that perhaps these visuals are the result of compromises that have enabled a stronger game or more content-filled game in other areas relevant to Bethesda's direction with fallout.
GTA V is definitely 30 on all consoles.
Krappadizzle
Member
No. It doesn't work that way. You compare any game to similar games in the genre, in this case it's open world RPG. Should Halo 4 not be compared to Halo 3 simply because they are different devs? Should Skyrim have only been compared to Oblivion to find the metric of improvement? Should I not compare a Toyota to a Ford because they are different makers?I want to see better from Bethesda.
It's more than fair to compare Witcher 3 to this. Open World RPG. Witcher 3 didn't have any NPC's that weren't quest givers that had any purpose other than atmosphere and I was fine with that. Whereas it seems FO4 will have more meaningful NPC's and i'm fine with that too. I just hope there are more of them. I love the mods for Skyrim/Fallout:NV that add inconsequential NPC's rather than the 15 or so they have in any given space at a time.
It's unreasonable to expect them to shoot for the same things sure, they are different games. But it's not unreasonable to compare either as long as you understand why they are different. The game absolutely looks better in every single way on the graphical front compared to New Vegas/FO3. It's not even debateable. Some of the hardest hitting ENB's looks close to FO4, but they are usually specialized to favor certain conditions, and most certainly don't run universally well in all situations. But it's not debatable that FO4 looks better than FO3. It does. But it doesn't look to be the same leap in spectacle as Morrowind->Oblivion/Fallout 3->Skyrim was. It looks half-hearted in its presentation. If this ran at 60fps on consoles I'd be more understanding/empathetic to it's presentation, but it doesn't.
Yes, they don't care as much as they should.
Bethesda is an AAA studio whose last game sold 20 million copies yet operates with a fraction of the staff compared to similar or smaller studios that actually makes an effort to push technology and production. That wouldn't matter as much if Bethesda is a crack team of artists and developers, but what few people they have still haven't learned how to program or animate after... 20 years? Many studio can do better open world graphics than Bethesda at this point, they simply don't value what it takes to be at the forefront.
TimeEffect
Member
I dont understand the Witcher comparisons, only because Fallout does seem to have a lot more in terms of interaction, which I assume is technically demanding in a way Witcher never has to be.
It will be interesting to see comparisons to Witcher in terms of quest design though. That seems to be the huge thing that will probably decide RPG of the year for people on the fence.
I will say that the animations in Witcher add a lot to the story in cutscenes. Characters are full of life for it, each having their own little animation style and nuances, which add a lot to their character that voice acting never can
It will be interesting to see comparisons to Witcher in terms of quest design though. That seems to be the huge thing that will probably decide RPG of the year for people on the fence.
I will say that the animations in Witcher add a lot to the story in cutscenes. Characters are full of life for it, each having their own little animation style and nuances, which add a lot to their character that voice acting never can
Solid Samus
Banned
Why are we comparing Fallout 4 to GTA V, again?
And MGSV's visuals are arguably underwhelming in a lot of respects, not to mention the world is fairly barren, so I don't know why that's held up as a golden standard against Fallout 4 which can be said to be doing a lot more actively with any given area of world space.
If the game comes out and is good then Bethesda will get credit for making an excellent game. There's very little promotional material for is game, so at the moment all anyone has to look at is some screenshots and a few potato quality videos. Graphics are pretty much the only thing that can be seriously discussed, and GAF loves dissecting screenshots anyway. Plus, the game doesn't look too pretty so this reaction is pretty much inevitable. If the game is amazing then the graphics will be forgiven. If it's disappointing then the graphics will drag it down even further.
Oh, my bad. Dunno where I got 60 from, just an assumption on my part, don't really care much for consoles at the moment.
Edit: I don't quite understand people who seem to think that "It looks bad" and "It looks better than fallout 3" are mutually exclusive.
I dunno, I think Fallout 4 looks pretty good, but I wasn't the one who brought up "first person open world games".
Agreed about the open world stuff, imo MGSV should be compared to the Mad Max game instead and not games like Fallout and the Witcher.
Yup, the level of player interactivity, big or small, these Bethesda games have is one of the main things that sets them apart from all these other open world games. I think it's for that reason I am willing to overlook the rough edges their games usually have.
The Witcher 3 has more NPCs in frame at once in Novigrad than Bethesda games have interactable items in a scene.
Bethesda open-world/sandbox games do something entirely else than the rest of the industry. When they say their worlds are 'dynamic', then they really are dynamic: there are occasional resets but the majority of the time everything stays the way you leave it. You can drop a weapon in a dungeon and later revisit that dungeon to find it at the same spot, you can steal every pot in Skyrim and put them in your house and that shit will stay there. Corpses become skeletons or ash after you visit them some bit later, NPCs have dozens of use-cases and different abilities, and you can murder almost every person and the game keeps on going.
You can keep shitting on them for visuals or not fulfilling your over-exaggerated expectations for AAA video games in this age and console cycle, but there is a good reason why outside of the Grand Theft Auto series Bethesda are considered masters of the genre and sell boatloads of copies.
You can keep shitting on them for visuals or not fulfilling your over-exaggerated expectations for AAA video games in this age and console cycle, but there is a good reason why outside of the Grand Theft Auto series Bethesda are considered masters of the genre and sell boatloads of copies.
texhnolyze
Banned
Even though I love Fallout, I'm leaning towards this sentiment.
Why can't we compare Bethesda open world games with the others?
We know that Fallout isn't all about graphics. But if we're talking about graphics only, I'll have to agree that Fallout 4 is underwhelming compared to the others. I won't even deny that. But will that make me hate Fallout 4? Of course not.
old manatee
Banned
So we can't compare Fallout 4 to Metal Gear, GTA, the Witcher, or even modded Fallout 3. OK enjoy the game guys.
Vault Dweller 111
Member
Can you break down entire towns and build them back in real time in the Witcher? Do dead bodies and items stay on the ground forever in GTAV?
There is a hell of a lot more going on in a Bethesda game than just looking good. It has unrivaled interactivity that you just don't get in other games.
If Bethesda games were so easy to make then more developers would, they tend to sell pretty well. 'Open world' is vague as hell and it literally is the only thing in common with Witcher, MGS, GTA, and I'll take my less than stellar graphics with a world that I can do anything in, over the pretty game that I can walk around in, any day.
There is a hell of a lot more going on in a Bethesda game than just looking good. It has unrivaled interactivity that you just don't get in other games.
If Bethesda games were so easy to make then more developers would, they tend to sell pretty well. 'Open world' is vague as hell and it literally is the only thing in common with Witcher, MGS, GTA, and I'll take my less than stellar graphics with a world that I can do anything in, over the pretty game that I can walk around in, any day.
Solid Samus
Banned
I entirely disagree with that. Vanilla Skyrim is a lot rougher than you remember, I think. I dunno, I could boot it up and take maxed out screenshots if you'd like me to. I think that based on what I've seen, Fallout 4 absolutely represents a reasonable advancement from Fallout 3 and Skyrim, especially these ultra PC shots (even ultra on PC when Skyrim released wasn't all that impressive, with average resolution textures and unimpressive LOD and material effects abound). And I also don't believe that it's fair to outright compare Fallout 4 to The Witcher 3 without considering context. 'Open World RPG' is a nebulous phrase that can encompass very different games, and Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 have very different underlying mechanics that enable their particular approaches to roleplaying and contextualizing the world. In Fallout's case, those particular design decisions demand a degree of performance overhead that came at the cost of visual fidelity, as was the case in the previous few Fallout and Elder Scrolls games. Which is something people are normally willing to forgive or overlook, in return for content that they feel they will genuinely enjoy (in FO4's case it appears design emphasis was placed primarily in filling the world with a dense amount of content). Until that ever-nebulous AAA label creeps its way into the equation and gives people these hardlined, arbitrary expectations they feel absolutely must be held to, regardless of context.
Why don't we compare Total War to Ultimate General: Gettysburg?
And you go ahead and enjoy being deliberately obtuse.
Look guys, I love the Witcher 3, outside of not having played Fallout 4 yet it's likely to be my GOTY. In no way though can we compare the level of interactivity of TW3's world to that of a Bethesda game. The world of the Witcher 3 is almost entirely static, you never change it, kill characters who shouldn't be killed etc. It's a lot easier to crank the graphics under those circumstances.
Remember in Skyrim when you could pick up a random bucket from out in the world and place it over a shop keepers head in order to steal from right under his nose? You can't do things like that in other games.
Remember in Skyrim when you could pick up a random bucket from out in the world and place it over a shop keepers head in order to steal from right under his nose? You can't do things like that in other games.