Fallout 4 [PS4, PS5, XO, XBSX|S, PC, XGP]

Well if you couldn't get past 10 hours of FO2, never felt inclined to play FO3 or FNV and now say you weren't compelled to finish Oblivion or even try Skyrim then I'm not sure you're going to find much in FO4 to convert you to these style of RPG. It's obviously going to have a bunch of refined controls and mechanics but if those other quite similar games didn't do it for you then this one probably won't either.

I'd rent it for a weekend and see how you get on.
Yea that makes sense to me. Rental sounds like a good thing to try out. I'm usually not too into open world (I prefer structure to a game, I generally like games where I'm not playing sim life, but something that is looking to either advance a narrative, or purposefully challenge me), but I figured it's important for me to try some of these larger titles. Assassin's Creed Black Flag was actually my first AssCreed. I followed up with their hacking game and couldn't help but feel it was the same game in a different environment.
 
The game has gone gold and there is lterally no footage except the reveal ??? I mean show us some quest, some perks in action stuff like that. How am I to know if the ideas of the devs have translated into a good game? Where is the dev walkthroughs showing multiple possibilities? :-/
 
How am I to know if the ideas of the devs have translated into a good game? Where is the dev walkthroughs showing multiple possibilities? :-/

Bethesda have been releasing the S.P.E.C.I.A.L videos every Wednesday so I would expect something tomorrow in lieu of the run of those being complete. But even if they don't show more (and I would be surprised given the videos we saw of Skyrim before release) you can wait for the reviews or wait for opinions and shared footage of others who have played it. :yep2: Live from PlayStation is really good for this.

I'm not sure videos from the developer/publisher will be more beneficial than reviews, the latter are for the most part independent whereas an official gameplay video is not going to show you anything that isn't super polished. Past Bethesda Game Studio review embargos have lifted the day before release.
 
Fallout 4 – Big Leagues Perk


There are over 200 distinct perk/ranks. Well played, Bethesda. :yep2:
 
no proper quest footage, no dialogue trees, multiple choices and effects. Bland marketing.
I've seen more marketing for Fallout 4 in London than I have for Halo 5 of Star Wars Battlefront. Hell, I've seen more marketing for the Nathan Drake Collection as well! I guess you're not getting stuff like this where you live.

fallout-4-preorder-hype-e1444374522133.jpg




F4-Amazon-beer_image1-700x700.jpg


1604615_10154261134285898_82344203428800857_n.jpg

fqmaFd5.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's their engine, pretty much the same engine frankensteined to support PBR and some modern rendering techniques. Pretty sure the game will be awesome but they need to upgrade their engine or optimize it for 60 fps imo.
 
I wonder if these graphics positively influences the actual power consumption of the consoles while playing FO4....maybe a bit more than in rest mode?
 
It's their engine, pretty much the same engine frankensteined to support PBR and some modern rendering techniques. Pretty sure the game will be awesome but they need to upgrade their engine or optimize it for 60 fps imo.

I couldn't disagree more. The parts of the engine they most need to have improved is the AI, scripting, collision detection and physics because this is what is most important to 99% of moment to moment gameplay.

Fallout 4 is an RPG which lets you explore, shoot, build, craft and build big piles of 50,000 cans. Plus anything else a maniac can imagine wanting to do. The engine is built around these things working well and the graphics engine needs to accommodate people wanting to do weird shit like that. Graphics are the least important thing to the majority of people who will actually play the game.

Bethesda could definitely have prioritised graphics but needing to support consoles meant they would have had to pair back other things and then it's not really a Fallout game any more. How many game engines out there have to deal with the player potentially doing anything like stacking thousands of bodies, body parts or items up without the engine and framerate falling to pieces?

For anybody who has forgotten this is what Fallout 3 looked like on 360.

fallout_3_24.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Witcher 3 is an RPG too and it looks almost a generational leap ahead of FO4 on consoles. I am not saying they have to improve the graphics, just move to 60 fps with the very same or similar graphics (optimize the engine basically instead of revamping it) and call it a day.
 
Witcher 3 is an RPG too and it looks almost a generational leap ahead of FO4 on consoles. I am not saying they have to improve the graphics, just move to 60 fps with the very same or similar graphics (optimize the engine basically instead of revamping it) and call it a day.

The Witcher 3 is an RPG (and a great one at that) but it does not let you destroy and create new environments or move any of the million objects the game world so the game designers know the graphics budget of most scenes because they are static environments. Fallout and Elder Scrolls games are not like this so the engine that has to accommodate the user potentially wanting to do anything at all.

That is HUGE.

edit: Also figure that every NPC model in the game has layered armour so they've not just endless identical models with the same textures. You look at the game and sure, it's a long way from what The Witcher looks like, but what you don't see are the details. The things Fallout 4 is doing and I expect we won't get a full appreciation of this until the reviews are out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's almost offensive how ugly these FO4 shots look, are people seriously ok with this kind of graphics treatment? I remember FO3 back then despite not the best looking, is still a pretty decent looking console title.
 
It's almost offensive how ugly these FO4 shots look, are people seriously ok with this kind of graphics treatment? I remember FO3 back then despite not the best looking, is still a pretty decent looking console title.

I don't claim to speak for everybody but the vibe in the fallout community is that the visuals are a big step up from Fallout 3 on consoles and people are very much looking forward to playing the game.

B3D is a microcosm in gaming because there is much scrutiny over visuals but almost nobody is discussing gameplay. This is a site for graphics whores more than gamers.

BGS titles give you unprecedented amounts of freedom to interact the game world where physics are applied to everything so it was never going to look as good as games which don't do these things and that's pretty much every other game apart from Elder Scrolls and Fallout. Anybody who expected it to look like the Witcher or GTA were setting themselves up for a fall.

Some people get it, others do not.

And as someone who played Fallout 3 and New Vegas on PS3, while it has its moments, it had a lot of rough edges - all side effects of decisions to give player freedom.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't claim to speak for everybody but the vibe in the fallout community is that the visuals are a big step up from Fallout 3 on consoles and people are very much looking forward to playing the game.

B3D is a microcosm in gaming because there is much scrutiny over visuals but almost nobody is discussing gameplay. This is a site for graphics whores more than gamers.

BGS titles give you unprecedented amounts of freedom to interact the game world where physics are applied to everything so it was never going to look as good as games which don't do these things and that's pretty much every other game apart from Elder Scrolls and Fallout. Anybody who expected it to look like the Witcher or GTA were setting themselves up for a fall.

Some people get it, others do not.

And as someone who played Fallout 3 and New Vegas on PS3, while it has its moments, it had a lot of rough edges - all side effects of decisions to give player freedom.
Yeah I do realize their priority in making the game but it makes me wonder is it really important to sacrifice so much visuals in order to just pick up a rock, a chair or cut down a random tree branch? I personally don't find it immersive to do what FO4 allows you to do while bathed in well below average looking graphics. It's like you are on this beach resort for holiday where almost everything is free, free food, parking, accommodation etc, but the beach itself is polluted as hell, water is murky, sand is dirty, dead palm trees, a rotten carcass of a whale, freezing weather etc. Is this an experience people would rather enjoy? Yes, some games thrive on game mechanics like minecraft, pokemon, dota, diablo, but there's absolutely no reason why half way decent graphics shouldn't be an important factor of a Fallout game. It's just those FO supporters have never seen a FO game with The Witcher like graphics on top of its core gameplay mechanics, once they've seen it, they sure as hell would not go back. Bethesda is jsut so cheap they wouldn't invest the extra cash on a more up to date engine and fans are blindly supporting them, that's what disgusts me so bad.
 
Yeah I do realize their priority in making the game but it makes me wonder is it really important to sacrifice so much visuals in order to just pick up a rock, a chair or cut down a random tree branch? I personally don't find it immersive to do what FO4 allows you to do while bathed in well below average looking graphics.

You are not the target audience and that's totally cool, there are other RPGs out there for you. Bethesda have been making games like this for 20 years and they sell millions of copies have a cabinet full go GOTY awards.

For the record, stealing all the cans and building a giant pyramid out of them isn't my thing either but I've been seemingly blessed to thoroughly enjoy games with great gameplay regardless of the graphics, resolution or framerate. I consider myself lucky given how many other people see to find this a barrier to enjoyment, it just means some people will be missing out on a lot of good games.

It's just those FO supporters have never seen a FO game with The Witcher like graphics on top of its core gameplay mechanics, once they've seen it, they sure as hell would not go back.

Apparently you've not played a Bethesda game on PC with mods applied. If you want performance at any price the PC version is right there but we're in the console thread here.

As for gameplay mechanics, the Witcher 3 offers you a choice of combat mechanics (strong/agile melee, ranged, potions and magic) using which you can vary the way you murder and kill your way through the game's story with just a few instances where you have the scope not to murder and kill everything. There are choices throughout the main quest which give you an illusion of choice but which really only affect story slides at the end, they don't meaningfully change the game world.

Fallout also offers you a very wide range of combat but also a dizzying array of non-combat skills which means you can tackle most quests exactly how you like. You have melee and ranged weapons, you have conventional guns, energy weapons and explosives. You have stealth, you have traps, you can talk your way into places and out of problems. There are a lot of combat and non-combat options. There are choices though the main quest which materially change the game world, such as in Fallout 3 where you chose to destroy the hub town Megaton. New Vegas offers factions vying for power and your decisions will shape the game world.

They're very different games and very different in scope because in the Witcher you're a witcher and in Fallout you're anybody you want to be. Freedom.

Bethesda is jsut so cheap they wouldn't invest the extra cash on a more up to date engine and fans are blindly supporting them, that's what disgusts me so bad.

Ok, I don't know what more to say here short of repeating myself. Bethesda have a different goal with their RPGs than CD Projekt Red which I've explained above and which you seem to have trouble accepting. Commercially, Bethesda's games are more successful than CD Projekt Red. It's a fact, more people play and buy them which should tell you that the formula is popular. I enjoy both, I prefer the freedom of playing very, very different ways - not just will I cat armour build with swords and potions, or wolf armour build with swords, bombs and magic - because it's still mostly hack and slash.

In terms of the engine I really don't know what to tell you. Bethesda's engine has a bad reputation and some of this is warranted but a lot of it, in my view, is unwarranted and put forth by people who have never written a line or code let alone written or used a game engine. Bethesda are very nice in that they make some engine development tools (like G.E.C.K) available for modders and those who just want to muck around.

It's tiresome reading endless comparisons between Gamebryo/Creation and other engines running different games with oblivious disregard that those other games are not doing a fraction of what Bethesda's games are doing. Graphics are not the be all and end all of immersion. You want to compare them, fine but first let's load down this other game and its engine with the flexibility of gameplay that Fallout offers and oh don't forget that objects are no longer states models, they have their own properties and can be moved around and physics applies to everything. Oh this other game is now running like shit? What a surprise! Writing an engine has to deal with anything the player can imagine, then actually do, is hard. It's why Bethesda games can be glitchy because there are very few rules which make QA very, very difficult.

I expect nonsense like this on GAF (read this thread - you'll probably love it) but not on a 'technical forum' where so many developers post. :(
 
Back
Top