Fallout 4 - it's official! Coming Nov 10, '15

[tidy]

.

 

[dave1029]

Have you seen TW3?



Modern engines take advantage of multiple cores, and gamebryo is not a modern engine.



No one in their right mind is going to be running gamebryo (or "creation" if you want to pretend there's any significant difference) at above 60fps.



Skyrim was CPU bound in some areas, but that was on 1-2 threads while the rest are only partially utilized. It couldn't properly use a quad core CPU the way something like Frostbyte 2 could (saturate all four cores). I bet fallout 4 will only just catch up to using 4 cores properly. If skyrim couldn't use a quad well in 2011, is there really any reason to believe that fallout 4 will competently use 6 or more?

Another person who is bashing the engine and not what is primarily the problem... DX 9 was a pile of shit. We are now on DX 11. 4 years have passed. Quad cores are no longer bleeding edge. 8 cores are very common. The consoles use 8 cores. Am I making myself clear enough? W3 facial animations are not impressive at all. Must you remind yourself of how they look? Every male in Velen looks like he has down-syndrome. It is also not gamebyro. It's creation engine 2. Yes there is a difference. Howard said they stripped it clean leaving what we love about the engine, and giving it all new physics and lighting capabilities. I hope I made myself clear enough for you.

 

[shortylickens]

its sad people are more concerned with hardware issues than how much fun a game will be.

Having said that, I just want it to look better than Skyrim. Anything more and I worry they focused on graphics instead of fun.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Another person who is bashing the engine and not what is primarily the problem... DX 9 was a pile of shit. We are now on DX 11. 4 years have passed. Quad cores are no longer bleeding edge. 8 cores are very common. The consoles use 8 cores. Am I making myself clear enough? W3 facial animations are not impressive at all. Must you remind yourself of how they look? Every male in Velen looks like he has down-syndrome. It is also not gamebyro. It's creation engine 2. Yes there is a difference. Howard said they stripped it clean leaving what we love about the engine, and giving it all new physics and lighting capabilities. I hope I made myself clear enough for you.

Sounds like you bought hype and don't really know anything about the engines. Look at the videos for Fallout 4, especially the ones with faces. They are still stiff with no emotion in them. The Witcher 3 beats it soundly from what I've seen of FO4. Spitting out talking points from Todd Howard who's job it is you make you want to buy the game isn't special. It doesn't matter what hardware is available, the engine needs to be built for facial animations and physics etc. I haven't seen anything that is all that impressive.

You know what though? I think a lot of you guys on this thread are too busy doing the happy dance that the game is actually coming and you're too defensive about that fact that you forget that just because some of us expected it to look better or have a better looking engine (based on what we have been shown) doesn't mean the game will be bad. The game will probably be fantastic, but there are certain things that must be understood and one of them is that the engine isn't as visually impressive as I had expected. The other is that Bethesda has a history of releasing games with tons of bugs and I've had a lot of crashes from their games. I hope that isn't the case with this release. I'm buying it, I have it pre-ordered already. These comments aren't coming from a hater or someone who is bashing a game they have no interest in.

 

[futurefields]

Game looks good to me. I expected an evolutionary jump from Skyrim which is exactly what it looks like to me. Blame the consoles if you don't think games are advancing fast enough. Console versions of games need to be at or near the LOD of high end PC's and since the consoles aren't very strong this is what happens.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Game looks good to me. I expected an evolutionary jump from Skyrim which is exactly what it looks like to me. Blame the consoles if you don't think games are advancing fast enough. Console versions of games need to be at or near the LOD of high end PC's and since the consoles aren't very strong this is what happens.

Wrong...it's not consoles and that's a BS excuse people need to stop using. Nothing prevents them from stepping up in the graphics of a game engine for PC. Look at Frostbyte 2, and the Unreal Engine. Both of them scale way beyond what a PS4 can do when run on a PC. Saying "it's the consoles fault" is covering up for a developer who decided to get a little lazy(and I'm not saying the PS4 game looks exactly the same as PC because it probably won't). Like the Fox Engine used for Metal Gear Solid 5. It looks almost exactly the same on PS4 as it does on PC with everything max with the exception of the resolution covering up aliasing. The game(MGS5) looks good but I know they could have scaled it up more for PC and they might still before launch but I doubt it.

Nothing prevents a developer from going all out for a PC game using all the resources available(within reason) and then scaling it so that it's playable on the PS4 and XB1. That's all in your head. It's completely up to the developer, it's their game and nobody holds a gun to their head to make the game look the same on all platforms or strip out features for parity.

 

[futurefields]

You're point about MGS is spot on.

They could have made it look better on PC but they left it at PS4 LOD.

Because console games need to be at or near the LOD of high end PC's.

It has nothing to do with what a high end PC is capable of and everything to do with marketing and economics.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You're point about MGS is spot on.

They could have made it look better on PC but they left it at PS4 LOD.

Because console games need to be at or near the LOD of high end PC's.

It has nothing to do with what a high end PC is capable of and everything to do with marketing and economics.

No, you got it wrong. Again it's a developer decision because they chose not to scale things up for the PC and do the extra work required.

There is no rule that says you need to keep LOD the same, or use the same texture resolution, or the same lighting effects. All of that can be changed if they want to do a little work. Some developers do, others don't. Nobody forces it to be so like you're saying.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[dave1029]

Sounds like you bought hype and don't really know anything about the engines. Look at the videos for Fallout 4, especially the ones with faces. They are still stiff with no emotion in them. The Witcher 3 beats it soundly from what I've seen of FO4. Spitting out talking points from Todd Howard who's job it is you make you want to buy the game isn't special. It doesn't matter what hardware is available, the engine needs to be built for facial animations and physics etc. I haven't seen anything that is all that impressive.

You know what though? I think a lot of you guys on this thread are too busy doing the happy dance that the game is actually coming and you're too defensive about that fact that you forget that just because some of us expected it to look better or have a better looking engine (based on what we have been shown) doesn't mean the game will be bad. The game will probably be fantastic, but there are certain things that must be understood and one of them is that the engine isn't as visually impressive as I had expected. The other is that Bethesda has a history of releasing games with tons of bugs and I've had a lot of crashes from their games. I hope that isn't the case with this release. I'm buying it, I have it pre-ordered already. These comments aren't coming from a hater or someone who is bashing a game they have no interest in.

No it's more of the faces for both look so bad that the minor improvement for Tw3 doesn't matter to me. They've both killed immersion for me. There's no, oh this is shitty but this is slightly *less* shitty. Once you pass that threshold, it's just shit, and no PC game is above that threshold for me. As for everything else, you'll just find out when the game is released. I can't convince you it's good, but as soon as you apply a sharpening filter via sweetfx, the game will be better looking than TW3. A lot of people have no clue how much TW3 relies on sharpening to look decent- turn it off and it looks like an old PS3 game.

 

[dave1029]

Please understand that for some people a game with hardware issues (or rather engine issues) is not a 'fun' game. From my perspective, Oblivion and Skyrim were only a fraction of the fun they could have been thanks to gamebryo. For me they'll forever be two potentially great games wasted on a useless engine. Gamebryo was the reason I stopped playing Fallout 3 after a week.

You guys are killing me. The 1st iteration of an engine always sucks... This is technically Gamebyro 4. Well, they rebuilt the engine for Creation so it's Creation 2. The core mechanics of the engine stays the same, such as moddability, the files the engine uses (.esm, .esp, .bundle for redengine, etc.) but physics, lighting, all that other stuff that you claim is the same was redone. Sure, Howard could be lying, but just as you accuse me of being a fanboy, I'm accusing you of have pre-existing feelings about hating the engine that you look for every single possible flaw it could ever have. The truth is somewhere in the middle. The game will look fine and be a major improvement over Skyrim. Not even mentioning when the mods start flowing in...

 

[futurefields]

No, you got it wrong. Again it's a developer decision because they chose not to scale things up for the PC and do the extra work required.

There is no rule that says you need to keep LOD the same, or use the same texture resolution, or the same lighting effects. All of that can be changed if they want to do a little work. Some developers do, others don't. Nobody forces it to be so like you're saying.

The developers by and large are deciding to keep max settings on PC and PS4/XB1 very close. It's clear on most games.

Cheers,

 

[werepossum]

GTA V already maxes out 4 cores and can easily scale to hexa, Witcher 3 also hammers quads in Novigrad. Skyrim on release also hammered CPUs. SNB is getting old. It might just do 60FPS minimum (barely) but if you want breathing room you want Haswell or Skylake.

Now I'm torn. Oh well, hopefully there are tests before release to settle this.

Sounds like you bought hype and don't really know anything about the engines. Look at the videos for Fallout 4, especially the ones with faces. They are still stiff with no emotion in them. The Witcher 3 beats it soundly from what I've seen of FO4. Spitting out talking points from Todd Howard who's job it is you make you want to buy the game isn't special. It doesn't matter what hardware is available, the engine needs to be built for facial animations and physics etc. I haven't seen anything that is all that impressive.

You know what though? I think a lot of you guys on this thread are too busy doing the happy dance that the game is actually coming and you're too defensive about that fact that you forget that just because some of us expected it to look better or have a better looking engine (based on what we have been shown) doesn't mean the game will be bad. The game will probably be fantastic, but there are certain things that must be understood and one of them is that the engine isn't as visually impressive as I had expected. The other is that Bethesda has a history of releasing games with tons of bugs and I've had a lot of crashes from their games. I hope that isn't the case with this release. I'm buying it, I have it pre-ordered already. These comments aren't coming from a hater or someone who is bashing a game they have no interest in.

I would prefer it to look better, but as Shorty says there's a major trade-off here. Time spent on making graphics prettier is time not spent making content, and most hardcore Fallout fans would never trade scale or extra content or mod-ability for better graphical fidelity.

I do hope Bethesda does a much better job with quality control and debugging, of course. I literally could not play either FO3 or FONV for five minutes without crashing before researching the necessary mods and modifications.

Wrong...it's not consoles and that's a BS excuse people need to stop using. Nothing prevents them from stepping up in the graphics of a game engine for PC. Look at Frostbyte 2, and the Unreal Engine. Both of them scale way beyond what a PS4 can do when run on a PC. Saying "it's the consoles fault" is covering up for a developer who decided to get a little lazy(and I'm not saying the PS4 game looks exactly the same as PC because it probably won't). Like the Fox Engine used for Metal Gear Solid 5. It looks almost exactly the same on PS4 as it does on PC with everything max with the exception of the resolution covering up aliasing. The game(MGS5) looks good but I know they could have scaled it up more for PC and they might still before launch but I doubt it.

Nothing prevents a developer from going all out for a PC game using all the resources available(within reason) and then scaling it so that it's playable on the PS4 and XB1. That's all in your head. It's completely up to the developer, it's their game and nobody holds a gun to their head to make the game look the same on all platforms or strip out features for parity.

Of course something prevents developers from spending all this extra time - money. The PC market is a smaller, less profitable market, generally. Certainly a developer could choose to do all these extra things, but probably not without losing ROI. We all want the best looking games, but we also want the gaming industry to be profitable, to attract talent and investment.

There's something else too - time. I was getting quite tired of waiting for word of Fallout 4ever. It looks plenty good enough for me, and better this quality this year than a better engine for Christmas 2016.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Of course something prevents developers from spending all this extra time - money. The PC market is a smaller, less profitable market, generally. Certainly a developer could choose to do all these extra things, but probably not without losing ROI. We all want the best looking games, but we also want the gaming industry to be profitable, to attract talent and investment.

There's something else too - time. I was getting quite tired of waiting for word of Fallout 4ever. It looks plenty good enough for me, and better this quality this year than a better engine for Christmas 2016.

It depends on the engine. For example some developers start with textures that are way higher resolution than necessary. Those are scaled down to fit within memory constraints and for performance reasons. That's how Naughty Dog did Last of US for PS4. They went back and used the textures at their original resolution which was much higher than what they used for PS3 when they created the remaster for PS4. They scaled them down because the PS3 didn't have the memory available to use them. This can apply to a developer working on a PC game as well. That's not costing any time or money because the assets are already made. They just don't compress them down as much. I guarantee you that they have no requirement for parity between PC and console so blaming consoles for a game not being as visually impressive as it could be is just an excuse. It's always up to the developer and if they use that excuse as well they are using it as a scapegoat.

 

[sandorski]

If it looks as good as Vanilla Skyrim it will be more than acceptable. Story and Gameplay are what I like about Fallout.

 

[shortylickens]

If it looks as good as Vanilla Skyrim it will be more than acceptable. Story and Gameplay are what I like about Fallout.

For shizzle.

 

[tidy]

.

 

[JujuFish]

Haha, silly people and their obsession with graphics.

 

[shortylickens]

Haha, silly people and their obsession with graphics.

Well, in the case of the NES I find games so ugly they are difficult to play.
SNES is the absolute minimum quality for me.

 

[JujuFish]

Well, in the case of the NES I find games so ugly they are difficult to play.
SNES is the absolute minimum quality for me.

Magnavox Odyssey or bust.

 

[futurefields]

If it looks as good as Vanilla Skyrim it will be more than acceptable. Story and Gameplay are what I like about Fallout.

It will look a lot better than Skyrim. Check the screenshots. Textures, lighting, looks a lot better.

The stuff in the distance looks kind of the same though. I still expect a lot of pop-in if they aren't careful with how they design things. With such wide open vistas as Fallout 3 had its impossible to hide pop-in.

 

[Regs]

The visual element in every video game, especially one constructed for the illusion of 3d, I find important. There is a balance, and the original fall-out was dated in its release yet more than enough to carry the imagination of many at that time. Going back to that same game however , by today's standards , the game looks so visually outdated that it detracts from the fun of the game. It actually becomes distracting!

 

[ImpulsE69]

I understand what you mean Regs (and this isn't pointed at you), but at some point when dealing with 3D graphics it becomes nitpicking. Gameplay should be looked at above all else. If a few jaggies, textures that aren't 2k, or so-so facial expressions ruin the game for someone, then that someone probably should find a new hobby because they will never be happy.

It's amazing what you see people complain about. Most of this thread is just people complaining about the graphics of a game that isn't even released yet. While I realize that is about all you can comment on at this time, the time of great jumps of quality are over for some time. As many have said, games are expensive to make. Why is that? It certainly isn't because the gameplay is better. The only thing that has changed in games is graphics. People are going to buy the game regardless of how the graphics look.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Magnavox Odyssey or bust.

I used to think this was awesome.....its a castle! and a dragon!
Great memories especially when I found the Easter egg.

at the time I did think it looked a bit like a duck