Fallout 4 PC Ultra screenshots

OtisInf said:
I get a little tired about this 'it's a game with a massive scale so it can't be compared to any other game' nonsense. It's as if loading a page from Wikipedia is allowed to take a lot of time because the archive is massive. The scale of the game is massive, but that has nothing to do with whether a texture on a wall is looking like wallpaper or that there are no shadows where there should be etc. If you think they have every little object the player can interact with in memory at any given time, you're mistaken. The player is at a given point in the world space and the elements in that close area are loaded, like in any other open world game. The player points the cursor on an element in world space, the engine detects an interactable container and looks up what it is in its in-memory 'database' (not really a database, but you get the idea). if there are 1000 or 1million, that's not important. If that slows down your game engine that much that there's no frame budget anymore to use a couple more shaders or push a bit more polygons, you have bigger problems.

Avalanche created a massive open world with Just Cause 2 that felt alive and you could go anywhere and not only using 2D plane movement like in Bethesda's games but also through the air. It ran flawlessly on a PS3 with 512MB ram, the same amount of ram as the iPad 2.

Please accept that the Bethesda teams are great in designing a game that allows you to make your own story, and that they are good at giving you a sandbox in which you can play that story in any order you wish using whatever moronic outfit and hairstyle you can think of, and at the same time they ship that in a vehicle made by programmers who e.g. can't figure out how to write a proper state machine so quests bug all over the place.

That the games are vast has nothing to do with the shoddyness of their programming.


I don't think people base their judgment solely on a couple of screenshots, they also take into account Bethesda's trackrecord from previous games, especially their last ones. FO4 costs 59.95 EURO here on Steam. I could perhaps get a cheaper key through a shady key seller, but do the devs get any money from that route? Doubtful. So if I want to legitimately want to buy the game using the official channels I'm paying a premium price. That's OK, it's just that I then compare it with the games that also demand that premium price. If I go to the store and pick up a PS4 copy, it's cheaper. That's with the console tax included.

My point with that is that if you ask the highest price for your wares, the quality of the product must therefore be stellar. I don't have to remind you about Bethesda's latest game's quality at launch? Looking at these screenshots I have my doubts their quality bar is extremely higher this time around. Skyrim shipped on PC with the 360 assets.

THAT's the point here. Stop making excuses, they're a business that tries to milk as much money from their customers as they possibly can (remember their paid mod plan?). Nothing wrong with that, we all have bills to pay, but as a customer on my part I want to get as much as possible for my money. With Bethesda's stuff that's always a mixed bag and this time it won't be different. It will be highly enjoyable for sure, but not without the help of countless volunteers (modders) who make the game look and feel the way we all expect it to be.
Click to expand...

Well said, agree 100%.
 
blastprocessor said:
Nothing special, still has that cross gen look.
Click to expand...

There is no such "look". That is just a hack thing that people say when they aren't impressed.

In a year or so, middling looking games will just be called middling looking games, but right now people insist on using this ridiculous "cross gen look" term.

I get that it's an easy way to get a point across. I've used it myself unfortunately, but it means nothing. And it especially means nothing when a game was never cross gen to start with.
 
valkyre said:
Bloodborne has one of the most impressive world geometries I have seen in a next gen game. It pushes some crazy numbers in terms of polygons.
Click to expand...

Not to mention has some of the best enemy/boss animations I'v seen for a dark fantasy game.

OtisInf said:
I get a little tired about this 'it's a game with a massive scale so it can't be compared to any other game' nonsense. It's as if loading a page from Wikipedia is allowed to take a lot of time because the archive is massive. The scale of the game is massive, but that has nothing to do with whether a texture on a wall is looking like wallpaper or that there are no shadows where there should be etc. If you think they have every little object the player can interact with in memory at any given time, you're mistaken. The player is at a given point in the world space and the elements in that close area are loaded, like in any other open world game. The player points the cursor on an element in world space, the engine detects an interactable container and looks up what it is in its in-memory 'database' (not really a database, but you get the idea). if there are 1000 or 1million, that's not important. If that slows down your game engine that much that there's no frame budget anymore to use a couple more shaders or push a bit more polygons, you have bigger problems.

Avalanche created a massive open world with Just Cause 2 that felt alive and you could go anywhere and not only using 2D plane movement like in Bethesda's games but also through the air. It ran flawlessly on a PS3 with 512MB ram, the same amount of ram as the iPad 2.

Please accept that the Bethesda teams are great in designing a game that allows you to make your own story, and that they are good at giving you a sandbox in which you can play that story in any order you wish using whatever moronic outfit and hairstyle you can think of, and at the same time they ship that in a vehicle made by programmers who e.g. can't figure out how to write a proper state machine so quests bug all over the place.

That the games are vast has nothing to do with the shoddyness of their programming.


I don't think people base their judgment solely on a couple of screenshots, they also take into account Bethesda's trackrecord from previous games, especially their last ones. FO4 costs 59.95 EURO here on Steam. I could perhaps get a cheaper key through a shady key seller, but do the devs get any money from that route? Doubtful. So if I want to legitimately want to buy the game using the official channels I'm paying a premium price. That's OK, it's just that I then compare it with the games that also demand that premium price. If I go to the store and pick up a PS4 copy, it's cheaper. That's with the console tax included.

My point with that is that if you ask the highest price for your wares, the quality of the product must therefore be stellar. I don't have to remind you about Bethesda's latest game's quality at launch? Looking at these screenshots I have my doubts their quality bar is extremely higher this time around. Skyrim shipped on PC with the 360 assets.

THAT's the point here. Stop making excuses, they're a business that tries to milk as much money from their customers as they possibly can (remember their paid mod plan?). Nothing wrong with that, we all have bills to pay, but as a customer on my part I want to get as much as possible for my money. With Bethesda's stuff that's always a mixed bag and this time it won't be different. It will be highly enjoyable for sure, but not without the help of countless volunteers (modders) who make the game look and feel the way we all expect it to be.
Click to expand...

So much of this post get's what people are dismissing in this thread.
 
koryuken said:
Well said, agree 100%.
Click to expand...

well, I mean, you've already decided that this is a low effort budget game developed by shovelware devs worth only a budget price of entry, based almost entirely on the visuals. And not the impressions or leaked videos, which paint a picture of monumentally improved moment to moment gameplay backed by a densely packed world chocked with crazy amounts of unique and varied content - nor confirmed details, which include sweeping new game mechanics that impact exploration and roleplaying, a massive map, shitloads of recorded lines (albiet alongside a disappointing conversation system, which nevertheless suggests a lot more voiced NPCs in general, if each individual one is rocking fewer lines)... but just the visuals are enough to tell you, Wow, Bethesda really didn't even try, man. After all, visuals are the only measurable metric for which to judge a video game by, and if a game isn't packing industry leading visuals, the primary, required design priority for any game that dares call itself Triple A, then where else could that effort possibly have gone? Nowhere else, that's where.
I dunno. it's too easy to for me to fall back into white knighting this shit because of my excessive hype, lmao. so you can probably go ahead and likewise call me out on my continued defense of the game. I'm just saiyan, it's one thing to call out the visuals and another to act as though they represent the quality of the entire game because people have come to look at games that are labeled 'AAA' through that partcular lens.

Papacheeks said:
So much of this post get's what people are dismissing in this thread.
Click to expand...

Well, I mean sure, but that post also dismisses valid points brought up in this and other threads, that directly address some of the points made in his own post. Whatever, though. Post makes a couple of good points and I'm not really trying to get back into this at any rate xp
 
TheExhaustedWalrus said:
Worried about how my 7870 will run this. I'm upgrading my GPU this Christmas, should I wait and buy Fallout 4 until I upgrade or will a 7870 run it adequately?
Click to expand...

Nobody is going to be able to offer any sort of answer until there are benchmarks. Comparisons to system requirements are practically pointless as there's no saying at this stage what those configurations actually allow users to achieve. Well, Bethesda has said that the recommended requirements assume a 1080p resolution, but that's it. 1080p and... what? All sliders to the very right? 30fps? Who knows.
 
Solid Samus said:
Well, you would. You've already decided that this is a low effort budget game developed by shovelware devs worth only a budget price of entry, based almost entirely on the visuals. And not the impressions or leaked videos, which paint a picture of monumentally improved moment to moment gameplay backed by a densely packed world chocked with crazy amounts of unique and varied content... just the visuals are enough to tell you, Wow, Bethesda really didn't even try at all. After all, visuals are the only measurable metric for which to judge a video game by, and if a game isn't packing industry leading visuals, the primary, required design priority for any game that dares call itself Triple A, then where else could that effort possibly have gone? Nowhere else, that's where - therefore, bad, budget-level game. It's that simple! Some of you got the weirdest tunnel vision



Well, I mean sure, but that post also dismisses valid points brought up in this and other threads, that directly address some of the points made in his own post. Whatever, though. Post makes a couple of good points and I'm not really trying to get back into this at any rate xp
Click to expand...

Actually, I watched all of the leaked videos and consumed all of the recently released media. Based on what I saw, I am in no way interested in paying $60 (gameplay, graphics, and all). Bethesda streamelined some things, cut back a few others (dialogue, karma), added some features that I am not interested in (settlements) -- overall it looks like Fallout 3.5 to me. Thus, I will wait when the game is around $30 and then I will buy.
 
koryuken said:
Actually, I watched all of the leaked videos and consumed all of the recently released media. Based on what I saw, I am in no way interested in paying $60 (gameplay, graphics, and all). Bethesda streamelined some things, cut back a few others (dialogue, karma), added some features that I am not interested in (settlements) -- overall it looks like Fallout 3.5 to me, I will wait when the game is around $30 and then I will buy.
Click to expand...

I went and edited a bit of the shitheadedness out of my comment. Fair enough brotha, I'll see you in the OT, someday :p

I think you can actually get the game for less than 30 right now, I remember seeing some sorta deal mentioned somewhere but I already bought the game so I didn't look into it.

And I personally really believe that there's more than enough that's seen change or improvement for this not to be considered a 'Fallout 3.5' sort of deal, considering the allegedly large amount of unique 'dungeons', the stark improvements made to animation and gunplay, the conversation system now acting as an active part of the overworld, the changes made to armor and weapon systems, the addition of settlements and 'material'-based crafting giving context to previously junk 'clutter' loot populating the world, flight, new Power Armor modification and piloting mechanics, the huge overhauls made to leveling, statistics, and underlying combat calculation and mechanics, the introduction of player VO, etc. etc. but I think these differences will become more evident once the game is in people's hands. To me, calling this game Fallout 3.5 is almost like calling Skyrim, 'Oblivion 2.5' - they're similar games on the surface but you probe 'em for moment to moment differences and they're more than apparent, something that I think will be echoed here. I feel like the willingness to call this game Fallout 3.5 stems mostly from the reception to its visuals and not its actual content. To each his own, though. Game's not even out yet so once it hits and we know more, we'll know where this game really sits against its predecessors.
 
koryuken said:
Actually, I watched all of the leaked videos and consumed all of the recently released media. Based on what I saw, I am in no way interested in paying $60 (gameplay, graphics, and all). Bethesda streamelined some things, cut back a few others (dialogue, karma), added some features that I am not interested in (settlements) -- overall it looks like Fallout 3.5 to me. Thus, I will wait when the game is around $30 and then I will buy.
Click to expand...

Why are you in Fallout 4 threads, then? Your mind seems to be made up. Makes no sense

It's no different than people that click on a thread to just be like "OMG who the fuck cares?"
 
IcyRhythms said:
Why are you in Fallout 4 threads, then? Your mind seems to be made up. Makes no sense

It's no different than people that click on a thread to just be like "OMG who the fuck cares?"
Click to expand...

Why are you here? Just because I made up my mind that the game is not worth $60, doesn't make any of my opinions any less valid.
 
IcyRhythms said:
Why are you in Fallout 4 threads, then? Your mind seems to be made up. Makes no sense

It's no different than people that click on a thread to just be like "OMG who the fuck cares?"
Click to expand...

This attitude is also unnecessary. He or she obviously has an interest in Fallout as a series.
 
The Baron Count said:
There is no such "look". That is just a hack thing that people say when they aren't impressed.

In a year or so, middling looking games will just be called middling looking games, but right now people insist on using this ridiculous "cross gen look" term.

I get that it's an easy way to get a point across. I've used it myself unfortunately, but it means nothing. And it especially means nothing when a game was never cross gen to start with.
Click to expand...

I gotta disagree with you. There's definitely games that have signs that show they are/were crossgen titles. MGSV for example has extremely obvious signs of being a crossgen title in the form of textures and polygon counts being noticably worse than what you see in current gen games only.
 
Amentallica said:
This attitude is also unnecessary. He or she obviously has an interest in Fallout as a series.
Click to expand...

We don't really need to be told over and over how he's disappointed and not going to buy it at launch. He said what he needed to say. Fallout 4 is less than a $60 for him. Cool, move on
 
IcyRhythms said:
We don't really need to be told over and over how he's disappointed and not going to buy it at launch. He said what he needed to say. Fallout 4 is less than a $60 for him. Cool, move on
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, who needs me telling them how much I dig the way the game looks, either? It's a discussion thread man
 
Trickster said:
I gotta disagree with you. There's definitely games that have signs that show they are/were crossgen titles. MGSV for example has extremely obvious signs of being a crossgen title in the form of textures and polygon counts being noticably worse than what you see in current gen games only.
Click to expand...

I probably need to rephrase this.

I'm not saying being crossgen isn't sometimes a reason for certain aspects of a game's visual makeup not being up to snuff.

I'm simply saying that there isn't a look specific to being cross gen. Generally people use the term to say something looks a bit dated. I'm just saying something doesn't need to be cross gen for that to be the case.
 
IcyRhythms said:
Why are you in Fallout 4 threads, then? Your mind seems to be made up. Makes no sense

It's no different than people that click on a thread to just be like "OMG who the fuck cares?"
Click to expand...

He's here to express his views on the game. If you don't like that, why are you here? Let us discuss in peace, stop trying to be a mod.
 
Solid Samus said:
Well, you would. You've already decided that this is a low effort budget game worth only a budget price of entry, based almost entirely on the visuals. Which I'm still laughing about. Some of you got the weirdest tunnel vision, lmao.



Well, I mean sure, but that post also dismisses valid points brought up in this and other threads, that directly address some of the points made in his own post. Whatever, though. I'm not really trying to get back into this xp
Click to expand...


I think the main issue with how the thread devolved was people mainly dismissing comparison's of any sort because of the type of freedom associated with Bethesda games. But to me it's still a AAA game, that should be held accountable for it's short comings when games that have released within the year or generation have shown changes and improvements.

Hardcore fan's dismiss someone bringing up technical specs of said games in comparisons to fallout 4 and why they are disappointed with what the product is for 59.99+.

I also brought up some comparisons and people like trace dismiss them as not applicable in comparisons when they are.

People are too hardcore in this thread defending Bethesda while other' are bringing up technical analysis of screenshots, and comparing them to other current gen open world/rpg games.
 
IcyRhythms said:
We don't really need to be told over and over how he's disappointed and not going to buy it at launch. He said what he needed to say. Fallout 4 is less than a $60 for him. Cool, move on
Click to expand...

He said this:

Well, to be fair, who needs me telling them how much I dig the way the game looks, either? It's a discussion thread man
Click to expand...

You can't be selective in what you want to hear, IcyRhythms (unless you put him on an ignore list). You like it, he doesn't. Big deal.

Plenty of people don't like pineapple pizza. I'm cool with it. :)
 
d00d3n said:
This is a bit off topic, but I just wanted to crosspost (from the spoiler thread) that if you use a VPN to NZ, the PC game will be unlockable on Steam 13.00 november 9th in western Europe, or 7.00 november 9th in the US.

picture:
nlP1mmI.png
Click to expand...

It says Midnight EST for all North America.... but for Western NA it says 9PM EST....
 
Solid Samus said:
Skyrim was the last stop for my GTS 8800. but boy did she work hard for me in those days.

I think you can make a 760 work.





btw yeah you two were right about my shitty attitude last night, I got more than a bit overzealous there, and I'll be dialing it back so these next couple days don't spiral into yet more pointless arguments and yet more grief-slinging from myself.
Click to expand...

All good man, I dig most of your posts anyhow. It's easy to get passionate on these forums. I've got to watch myself at times.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again; from the gameplay leaks, Fallout 4 has a world aesthetic that isn't seen on the market today. Cartoony realism is what I'd call it. The colors pop like a piece of campy comic art from the '60's about what the 23rd century might look like. . .if John Water, Lorenzo Semple and Richard Fleischer were in charge.

If you can look at Fallout 4 and not appreciate what Bethesda was going for, there is always CDPR and The Witcher 3 to count frames over.
 
ANDS said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again; from the gameplay leaks, Fallout 4 has a world aesthetic that isn't seen on the market today. Cartoony realism is what I'd call it. The colors pop like a piece of campy comic art from the '60's about what the 23rd century might look like. . .if John Water, Lorenzo Semple and Richard Fleischer were in charge.

If you can look at Fallout 4 and not appreciate what Bethesda was going for, there is always CDPR and The Witcher 3 to count frames over.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it cartoony. More like an Americana kind of look mixed with sci-fi. Either way, the art is incredibly strong in this game.
 
Papacheeks said:
I think the main issue with how the thread devolved was people mainly dismissing comparison's of any sort because of the type of freedom associated with Bethesda games. But to me it's still a AAA game, that should be held accountable for it's short comings when games that have released within the year or generation have shown changes and improvements.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that. But at some points it seems like the criticisms levied toward this game stem less from judging it on its own merits, where it has improved or failed to improve across the board on an objective level, and more from this sense that any 'AAA' open world game must check or at the very least strive to check off a checklist of expectations associated with the 'AAA' label, now expanded within the open world niche to include 'groundbreaking graphics' as a standard as a result of The Witcher 3's explosive popularity and strong technology/visuals. Regardless of unique circumstances that come with being two very different development houses with differing recourses, development philosophies, and design priorities. I definitely became overzealous with my defense of the game over the last couple of nights, but if there's one thing I'll stand by, it's that I don't like the idea of people acting as though this game doesn't meet up to what I see as a shallow definition of what an AAA game, or a game worth $60, should be, when there's always been so much more to these and many many many other full priced games released throughout history than just their visuals, and in most cases we tend to judge those games on more factors than just their visuals - such as their content and the kinds of unique experiences they enable. By all indications this game seems jam packed with much more and much better content than their last Fallout game, but there have been so many people in these threads whose conduct would make it seem as though - in the context of Fallout - that shit is a non-factor relative to the game's visual fidelity... as though that's the primary metric by which these games should be judged, as though that's the primary metric these games had ever been judged by. In reality, you can compare Fallout 4 to any game under the sun, but comparisons based on surface similarities aren't worth a whole lot to me.
 
My PC can handle Witcher 3 on ultra custom locked at 1080p/30fps, should I be worried about Fallout 4 which has similar system requirements?
If I'm aiming for similar outcome, I guess I shouldn't, right?
texhnolyze said:
My 6-year-old PC with AMD cpu and gpu combo runs the Witcher 3 on ultra (w/o hairworks) at 1080p 35 fps.

AMD PhenomII x4 955 BE 3,2Ghz
AMD HD 7870 Ghz edition 2Gb
Memory 8Gb

I've only played for about 30 minutes (gotta go to work) and didn't experience anything weird/crash.
The game's beautiful and well optimized, even without a dedicated driver from AMD.
Click to expand...
 
I'm just hoping my 6GB of DDR3 won't prevent me from running the game at all. Can't afford to buy more right now. I ran the Battlefront beta on high-ultra at 60fps and that had a minimum of 8gb/rec of 16gb, so I'm not too worried, but still...
 
Wish some reviewers would run benchmarks, I want to plan down sampling, gsync vs ULMB, etc. at least with these AAA titles that are popular on pc reshade presets and what not will get pumped out very fast.
 
Koyuga said:
I'm just hoping my 6GB of DDR3 won't prevent me from running the game at all. Can't afford to buy more right now. I ran the Battlefront beta on high-ultra at 60fps and that had a minimum of 8gb/rec of 16gb, so I'm not too worried, but still...
Click to expand...

Chill. It's going to run fine unless Bethesda REALLY fucked up.
 
How do you guys think a 280x crossfire setup will fair? Maybe I should opt to run it on a single 280x, or go and buy a 390x? Thoughts?

Edit: original post said 380x, lol. Sorry about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Outer Worlds >>>>> Fallout 4
2
90
4K
mdkirby replied
Looking for the best Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 4 mods that are close to baseline
12
1K
Strategize replied
Fallout | Season 2 trailer
2
57
905
Krathoon replied
Fallout 76 x Fallout TV Show Update Announced, Walton Goggins 'The Ghoul' Now Canon
News 
10
199
N30RYU replied
Chinese RPG, Gujian 4: Swords of Legends announced for Consoles and PC
2
98
2K
Felessan replied
Top Bottom