Just goes back to my previous statement....and if it looks better so what?
It won't win game of the year because it has better AA.
Fallout 4 will IMHO have the superior gameplay and that is what really matters.
Bethesda E3 Press Conference (Sun., 7 pm pacific)
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
Just goes back to my previous statement....and if it looks better so what?
It won't win game of the year because it has better AA.
Fallout 4 will IMHO have the superior gameplay and that is what really matters.
I actually agree with you for the most part. I'm mentioning graphics though because I'm particularly disappointed by Fallout 4's visuals. The animations are terrible. That dog is pure BS. It turns by rotating/ice skating. It gives objects to the player by having that object shoot out of its mouth and into the players hands. Half the game looks like it's a 360 game. It's simply unacceptable. If you're going for a realistic look, you better damn well make sure the animations don't take the player out of the game like they do in Fallout 4.
The whole thing feels a little skeezy to me. It's like Todd Howards team looked at a table loaded with Skyrim's cash and Todd Howard said "Do we use some of this to make an all new next gen engine, or do we keep it all for ourselves and slap a cheap coat of paint over our ancient engine?"
I don't like how Todd Howard answered that question.
You sure about that? Fallout 4 might be bigger, but damn, Witcher 3 has so much to do. It isn't just quantity either, but quality.
but yeah, why people focus so much on graphics and continue with these unrealistic expectations is a mystery.
allout 4 looks great to me. It sounds great. If previous Fallout games are any indication, then Fallout 4 will be super fun and super engrossing.
Based on what? Fallout 3 gameplay was pretty bad, and this doesn't look like much of a step forward. Adding more crafting and tower defense isn't going to make it groundbreaking. Fallout has a huge hill to climb to even sit next to the Wither 3.
It's weird. I'm usually the one saying exactly what you're saying.
There's something about Fallout 4 that screams poor craftsmanship to me (strictly speaking on the graphics). Like they tried to get away with something. I don't know. Maybe I'm projecting.
This just seems the opposite of what Blizzard does. Blizzard has never made a game that's pushed hardware and yet they focus on the right stuff. Art direction, clarity, colors, animation, smoothness. For example, Overwatch doesn't look nearly as good as Doom 4 but they do it the right way. I honestly think Fallout 4 fails in every one of the following aspects...Art direction, clarity, colors, animation, smoothness. It just looks janky as hell.
I don't recall them saying they were going for a realistic look.
Maybe it is because I have literally played every game in the Fallout series that I know this, but the games were meant to be more stylized then anything. The games are meant to be imbued with elements of realism sprinkled with 50's era humor to give a more stylized even cartoon-like vibe at times.
As for the engine choice it makes sense if you think about it. They obviously had a deadline they wanted to meet. They started the game right after Fallout 3 came out. Why spend more time creating an entirely new engine when you can just tweak the current one to allow better textures, better lighting, and better physics and larger environments. From a pragmatic stance it makes perfect sense and the game looks great IMO for how big a scale it will be.
I gave it an A-, it would have been an A+ but because of how bad Battlecry looked I had to knock it down just a little (WTF is up with that animation?) otherwise the conference was great. Doom looked like a lot of fun and Fallout 4 looks like it'll be an amazing game. I think they really hit it out of the park overall with presentation and just not seeming like they are trying too hard the way so many other companies do with their E3 pressers.
I think it's just that when they started working on it 4 years ago, they made the decision to stick with that crap and super dated engine they have used since Morrowind. Was only so much they could do from that point.
I gave it a B- because the only game that wasn't a given was a mobile one, and because they showed ESO which was depressing.
No.
None of this makes sense.
An engine built from the ground up would allow this game to look sooooo much better. Fallout 4 has been built on an ancient engine and it shows.
EDIT: Sorry, I misunderstood your point. I see what you're saying.
Last edited:
Well that 'bad gameplay' won it GOTY awards so one of us has a strange idea of what 'bad' constitutes. I will say that I think you guys are judging Fallout 4 gameply on Fallout 3 the latter of which came out in 2007. While the gameplay was good and amazing at the time, compared to modern open world RPGs it hasn't aged well I will agree.
As for the hill to climb. There are still many things we haven't seen of Fallout 4 and I'm going to take a guess here and say the stuff we haven't seen will be the icing on the cake. For me the highlights were the improved crafting, the settlement building, the variety of environments, and the improved dialogue.
Battlecry was the worst of the show. Never heard of the game, but the gameplay was super choppy with awful animations. The'd have to at least double the number of animation frames to make it flow nice. A big mashfest of slashing. Definitely not the YT feed as other games they showed looked great and smooth.
Totally agree. With the new console generation on the horizon, it was the time to start fresh with a new engine. Sure, that would have delayed the game another year, but it would have been worth it. I have this sick feeling that they will continue to roll ahead with this Gambryo crap for the next ES as well, which kinda makes me want to puke.
Well, unfortunately, some people still put graphics as the most important aspect of gaming. And it will never change. Oddly enough, some of those hardened graphics gamers prefer playing on console, which goes against the superior PC versions.
That's kinda my point. F4 looks very much like F3 gameplay-wise, making it even more dated feeling.
No it makes sense if you value performance over visuals and you have a timeframe in mind. You like quoting the Witcher 3 as setting the bar but there is no doubt the game struggles on both consoles and more so the PS4. I've seen Youtube vids of the game hitting 19fps at times on the PS4.
I guess that is what you want then? A slideshow on consoles.
I'd like to say that I could absolutely be wrong about Fallout 4.
If the game does some really interesting/ambitious stuff, then putting up with those graphics will be fine. There just wasn't anything in that trailer that suggested really interesting/ambitious stuff. It looked like a slightly better Fallout 3.
If the game does some really interesting/ambitious stuff, then putting up with those graphics will be fine. There just wasn't anything in that trailer that suggested really interesting/ambitious stuff. It looked like a slightly better Fallout 3.
New engines built for new hardware typically allow for more impressive looking games to be played at a smoother framerate.
It's not as if Bethesda didn't have the time or the money to do that.
Then you have a problem with the style and the setting.
These games are meant to be similar in both feel and gameplay. That said similar does not mean the same.
- You are not a Fallout fan
- You prefer graphics over gameplay and performance
- You like Witcher 3 more
- You don't mind playing games like Witcher 3 on PS4 at 19 fps, as opposed to better optimized games
Ok, we get it!
It has nothing to do with graphics.
Shoddy animation, dated dialogue system, poor FPS mechanics (band-aided with VATS), awful facial animation / expression, are all things Bethesda games have historically suffered from, and this looks to continue the trend. Hopefully things not made evident from the demo have been improved, such as narrative, sense of agency over the world, and the ability of the game to foster any sort of emotional attachment.
- I'm not a Fallout fan.
- I absolutely do not prefer graphics over gameplay and performance. Go read my Blizzard comment.
- I'm not a Witcher fan.
- N/A
Here's the thing as well. This game is getting backlash from a percentage of the gaming community for its visuals. There are TONS of games that do not get backlash when they are unvealed visually for the first time. It's not like this is totally coming out of left field.
Some of you guys need to play the original games.
There was never a need for emotional attachment because you are a loner out in the wasteland. It is a brutal, horrible place where your friends become enemies and death is everywhere.
This game is not supposed to be like the Witcher where you could feel for Geralt. Nope. This is a world with no hope and your character exemplifies that.
From what I saw the facial animation was a step up from Fallout 3 and NV and so was the animation. Hell the mole rat death animations were way better than what they were in Fallout 3/NV.
I saw improvements over the previous games everywhere.
There was never a need for emotional attachment because you are a loner out in the wasteland. It is a brutal, horrible place where your friends become enemies and death is everywhere.
This game is not supposed to be like the Witcher where you could feel for Geralt. Nope. This is a world with no hope and your character exemplifies that.
From what I saw the facial animation was a step up from Fallout 3 and NV and so was the animation. Hell the mole rat death animations were way better than what they were in Fallout 3/NV.
I saw improvements over the previous games everywhere.
One reason for VATs is to slow things down. The reason is because unlike typical military shooters where enemies take cover and the game turns into a pop and cover game, Fallout is open world with usually little cover. There's lots of enemies (especially non-human monsters) preferring to bum rush you in groups where they are often faster on foot too. Making the game a traditional fast paced shooter would lead to lots of spray and pray. You can play the game that way, but it is difficult.
Another reason is to give gamers a chance to strategically shoot enemies in limbs, when it would impossible to do that in real time gameplay accurately. The game is trying to go for a combo of modern real time gaming, but also having old school RPG roots from the 90s.
As for your others, fair enough. Though we haven't seen a lot of it. But maybe those things haven't improved much. Bethesda RPGs are large open world games which are designed for flexibility and allow gamers to do what they want at their pace, as opposed to urgency and time limits.
Some people would never touch an old RPG. Those games from the 80s and 90s look too lousy, play too slow, too turn based, and animate with 3 frames of art. lol. And almost all of them had no compass or easy pointers. You had to figure it out yourself. In modern RPGs, the compass shows you where to go.
Witcher 3 is a good game too, but different style when it comes to setting, art and gameplay. It doesn't even allow first person view. And unlike most RPGs that allow some kind of flexibility, Witcher games don't. Every one has to play white haired Geralt. Among the most basic concepts of an RPG is creating your own character, which typically includes some kind of modifiers or even a new name. Nada.
It is getting a backlash from gamers who have never played the previous games or maybe just played NV and F3. They also think that the game should look a certain way regardless of how big it is or what the engine is doing in the background.
Everyone else who knows what the game is going to be like already know that visuals take a backseat, and also know that the visuals have been improved and are content with how the game looks.
Skyrim looked phenomenal when it launched.
Skyrim also didn't garner any backlash when it was unveiled.
Were the gamers who are criticizing Fallout4's graphics sleeping when that happened? I'm confused.