Fallout 4 Discussion Thread

What?!?

 

That game had better graphics than this one... I thoroughly enjoyed that game on my PS4.... There were frame drops here and there but NOTHING like what I saw in that video...

 

Oh c'mon! LIS has a nice art style, but no way it's graphics were better, judging by Youtube material I saw on those two games.
Next thing you know you gonna say that Telltale Borderlands game looks better that The Witcher 3 .

 

LIS has better graphics than this game... I invested many hours into it... I mean we all are entitled to our own opinions. I would never say that just about any game looks better than TW3 with the graphics cranked BUT that's TW3...

 

Really Fallout 4 has terrible graphics. It is good that they at least improved on some things with the engine, but when you look at the surroundings, animations, lip sync, and general assets, it is simply looks like modded Fallout 3, with much better lightning.

I am talking about both the console and PC footage. Not those bullshots that bethesda released before. Ground texture, general geometry, this is very barebones. Even the gameplay is identical, with much less options in dialogue trees.

I still want to play it though, but I won't give bethesda a free pass at this lazy excuse. People are even trying to defend the game as if the scope is beyond this world.

 

But...modded FO3 looks better...

 

You should never have to mod a game to make it look the way it should have from the start... Bugthesda knows there is an active mod community so what incentive do they have to spend the money to actually make the game look good? I got a GMG offer for 20% off and I'm still not going to get it. I'll wait for a 19.99 GOTY... And even then I might not buy it because I refuse to support lazy devs! There is literally no excuse for the graphics in this game... Both the XB1 and PS4 with their woefully underpowered graphics can still produce much better. There is just no excuse for graphics that look worse than HL2... And textures look like they are not dynamic aside from some signs here and there so it makes the whole situation even worse.

 

Almost want to buy this with GMG's 20% off voucher. But it's so, so ugly.

I should wait for mods and a 50% off sale.

 

I feel like you guys are looking at a completely different game from what I'm seeing or perhaps you were expecting some other genre? This was never going to be Crysis level of ground breaking graphics.

It's a Bethesda game, which at this point has sort of become its own unique genre. There is no other publisher remotely capable of developing one of these, at least I haven't seen anything come close yet. They always compromise a bit on graphics so they can provide this massive sandbox world with dynamic stuff going on, tons of persistent data and a compelling art style that injects the environments with a unique sense of place. For me these games are a lot more fun than more linear titles with lots of cutscenes and super high res textures etc.

When I see these screenshots, it looks like the exact opposite of ugly, especially considering what the character models, textures and lighting looked like in vanilla Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas and Skyrim (all of which I'm still playing quite a lot, several years after release).

If that seriously looks "ugly" to you, I'd suggest to hold off buying the game for about 6 months to a year and wait for various graphics and texture mods. There will be lots of these by that time.

 

So are you all expecting a dud?? Or are we expecting a good game with less than ideal graphics? I don't give two sh*ts about what it looks like as long as it plays smooth and has an engaging story. Have only casually followed this thread or stories about this game, but really enjoyed FO3, are you expecting 4 to be disappointing?

I plan to purchase and look forward to the game, and don't care about the graphics evangelists, but are you all thinking this is a bad game at this point?

EDIT: Moviemarketing you posted while I was typing....

 

It isn't just the graphics for me, the animations.....



It just isn't the leap in tech that I was expecting. I really want FO4, tbh, and have been looking forward to it since I played FO3. I'm just really disappointed in the technical fidelity.

btw, my biggest gripe isn't about graphics at all, but that there are still loads when going in and out of a lot of buildings. @#$%^&UY^%$#$%^ THAT.

Maybe I'll get over it. I have 2 days to decide on the GMG code.

 

Same thing can be said about overclocking CPUs/GPUs etc. .
Say what you want about Bugthesda, but at least they provide modding tools for people who want to mod stuff. Wish more devs would do so.

CDkeys has it for almost half the price .

 

...well the Fallout universe is supposed to never have left the 1950s in some aspects, so maybe everyone is supposed to walk like Ed Norton from The Honeymooners.

 

Inb4 "graphics are stuck in the 50 too" jokes.

 

Inb4? Haven't we all been making those jokes already?

 

You're right, my bad. Carry on.

 

Fallout 4 Steam preload is up now.

 

Will be waiting for your first impressions, guys, gameplay in particular.
Who knows, if I won't have much work planned on weekend I might grab it against my better judgment.

 

Example of load times, just entering/exiting buildings.

It just gets worse by the day.

 

Damn, that's long...
PC, Piss 4, or Xbone?

 

Slow-ass 5400RPM HDD in PS4. We install FO4 on an NVMe PCIe SSD. #PCMR

 

Whoever can afford it that is #justPCMRthings
But loading times can get long in Bethesda games, especially if you're using mods.

I will be honest with you, after playing so many open world games recently, which had none or very little loading screens between areas, I don't understand why Betha can't do the same...

 

That's console version, hence the button prompts. Consoles always have long loading screens, especially with this kind of open world sandbox game, as they use mechanical HDD.

Here is Skyrim PS3:

There are more games these days with open maps, but they are not the same kind of sandbox game like Bethesda's, where you have a save game that needs to keep track of tens of thousands of objects rendered in-game, for example, lots of other persistent data, scripts running on all the NPC actors loaded in the adjacent cells, etc. So far it seems like no one else is able to make a game engine like this.

 

Dat 8GB unified GDDR5 doe

 

Feel the next gen technology, baby!

 

Ummm...Witcher 3?

But blue balls is painful

 

Thought so.

Yeah, I don't really know what's the technology behind those games, but one thing I know for sure - TW3 didn't have a problem doing this.

You have to suffer through to get to the good times, baby!

 

The majority of PC gamers are still installing games on their bulk HDDs.

 

Haven't played Witcher 3 (can't even run Witcher 2) - but from the footage I've seen it looks like the updated RedKit engine is pretty similar to the previous iteration. Objects in the game world are either baked into the environments or exist only on inventory list. You can't drop a thousand cheese wheels suddenly in a room and kick them around, etc.

 

You have any numbers to back up this generalization?

 

Of all PC gamers (or even ordinary users) I know I'm probably the only one who has SSD (I'm also a rare example of a person who buys video games), so yeah, Kevin might be up to something. Obviously this differs from region to region, so you can take it with a grain of salt. But do remember that this is a first world tech forum, so obviously majority of people sport an SSD here, but real life is a bit different from tech forums.

 

By that token, one can say that PC gaming is a first-world hobby

 

Actually no - console market over here is very small. But there is definitely a difference the way PC gaming is treated in different areas (aka "must have 60FPS" vs. "don't care for 60FPS" for example).

 

Looking at Steam hardware statistics, only 26.48% of DX11 gamers have a GTX 660 or higher.

How many of that 26.49% and then the remaining 73.51% do you figure has a large SSD?

 

No idea, but I would guess that more people have SSD, which are relatively inexpensive and improve everyday user experience, compared to high end desktop graphics card which is expensive and not useful at all for most PC owners.

Also, a bit more Steam users play on laptops than desktops, and even lower end laptops these days often ship with small SSD. I don't know of any high end laptops shipping with mechanical HDD unless it's custom order.

 

Are you being serious right now?

Steam also says:
53% have <4 physical CPUs which fails FO4 minspec.
39% have Intel CPU <2.7 GHz which fails FO4 minspec.
52% have <8GB RAM which fails FO4 minspec.
52% have <2GB VRAM which fails FO4 minspec.

 

Oh look. Console users have framerate issues like crazy.
http://wccftech.com/fallout-4-reports-severe-performance-issues-surface/

I WONDER WHO PREDICTED THIS?

 

Nostradamus?

 

No, Deus Ex

 

I never asked for this...

 

Wrong game

 

So then you agree that the majority of PC gamers are still using HDDs?

 

No, I agree to disagree with you reading anything from Steam hardware surveys. And the fact that you're using Steam to represent PC gamers as a whole.

 

Party pooper!

Well, at least he presented some data.

 

There's nothing about SSD/HDD in the Steam data

 

True. He just speculated on the fact that given some of the hardware components some gamers have there's a low probability that they also have an SSD. They can have a smaller capacity SSD, which may be not enough for a lot of games to be installed on given the fact how much space new games take up. I mean, I have a 480GB SSD and after 5 games installed I only have 130GBs left (inb4 HD pr0n jokes)... Devs should really calm their games down...
But I don't how you or me prove/disprove his point with any constructive arguments.

This is getting...wait...there's that .gif I've been saving for such occasion?
Ah, here it is!


Should we do a separate topic on this issue?

 

Man I want to buy the game, just to benchmark it.

I have a problem.

 

Please don't do that, unless you want an instacrash

Some images surfaced which show that 4790K/GTX980 performance is crap (like 38FPS). I'm not sure if those are "real" FPS, or random dips.
Other people report that GTX960 runs it on ultra (with lowered shadows and some other thing) at 60FPS.
Speculations speculations...

Can I have it after you're done benchmarking?

 

We had that years ago with 10,000 barrel explosion and nuke mod in Crysis, which is still a better physics sandbox than 99% of games today.

 

I watched part of that specific guy's stream on PC, when they asked him about the frame rate he said almost constant 60fps.