Yes, that's an excellent metaphor! Could not have said it better myself

I'm not defending TW3 or any other game but just pointing out the facts. FO4 doesn't look great compared to other games, you can try to convince yourself (like many here seem to do) it looks awesome but it just doesn't.

Based on the leaked shots I've seen, I wouldn't call graphics bad. Just.. underwhelming. Considering the hardware requirements, I was expecting more.

I wonder if any one has considered that the graphics of the pc are on par with the PS4 AND XB1 because they are the same? Its probably going to be like Skyrim where at a later date we will get the hd textures from them.

I do not care about graphics much. But I do care about animations. As for the requirements, you shouldn't expect an open world game to have the same requirements AND graphics with a linear "staged"

game.

You didn't have to dissect the files lol, you were able to count the pixels in-game instead

I've seen a couple of vids more now. You might want to avoid Dogmeat and fighting ghouls if you want good animations.

Yes one should not compare Fallout 4 with, say, Battlefront, but anyone has to admit, that the requirements are really steep for a game looking like this. I highly doubt the game will look much better on Ultra on PC. The new consoles are on par with average PCs out there, so we should not expect much more.

Yea I saw that video too. Also the mutants in another video seemed to behave a little strangely. Couldn't tell whether it was the AI or the animations - imagine that.

Uh...are you sure we are on the same page? You must be crazy if you think I've said or thought that FO4 is graphically up to date with the likes of TW3 and other current games. Your listening skills is incredibly strange.

The ghouls really put me off. They looked good from behind but when they charged they looked they were rehearsing for a Michael Jackson tribute video. The looks could have been because of that night vision though.

Lol, I did. It's just that I was looking at so many blurry textures that I wanted to make sure it was not a glitch of textures not loading up correctly. xD

I`m fully and strongly agree with Layman.

"To be frank, I don't want better graphics, in fact, I would prefer that Bethesda would keep the old graphics, and expand upon the massive game world. I would also love to see hundreds of new perks, dozens of new weapons, and thousands of upgrades to keep me involved for another 10k hours. You see, Bethesda cannot afford to do that because there are critics out there that break the developers, critics who have no idea what a good game truly is, and they have no clue how irrelevant graphics are in modern games that can have potentially no limit on detail.

I would rather have another Fallout 3 with expanded content, than another mainstream, walk in a straight line and watch your character do all the action game like Battlefield, Tomb Raider, or the RPG wannabes like Kingdom of Amalar"

There is more important to expand big big big game world and do the same graphic as was in Fallout 3. But not to create unreal graphic and do that lowering game world. And I think that graphic as was in Fallout 3 more equivalent to post-atomic war / wastland mood then nice looking ruins. Fallout is not about unreal graphic game where player just must press "w / forward" all the game and don`t think about nothing more. This is more of that! World of Fall out series is about living in a wastland. And if we must (and i think must) choose graphic or huge world with tons of perks, weapons, upgrades and etc so true fans of Fallout always choose lower graphics but grate story, mood and big world. That was all the time from thirst Fallout until now. SO Bethesda keep going! And thank you for this awsome project

FO4 only has loading screens in some areas. Even Witcher 3 has loading screens between large areas.

I'm seeing commentary on the leaked youtube 720p gameplay, along the lines of:

'what a piece of crap'

'same dull graphics as Skyrim'

etc...

They can suit themselves, the game looks good to my eyes.

I don't have a problem with the graphics apart grom the bloated specs considering how it looks.
My main gripe is the fact that they're still using a modified gamebryo engine, it's just lazy, they should have written a new engine from ground up, the animations are horrible, especially the sprint one, another thing i noticed that is back is that when a Player opened his "favorites" menu and chose a different weapon the games froze for half a second, that is just bad l, and let's not forget about bloating savefiles either.

This engine has to die and bethesda has to finally write a new one, Morrowind used this engine first, and since then it's been modified but that is not enough.

First u need to learn GTA 5 and Witcher 3 dont allow u to have the freedom the player have. Plus both game have loading screen, Withcer have some nasty one during large areas. Plus before compare Fallout with Witcher learn that Witcher 3 is a multi region game, with alot of free space on those maps, look Skyllege isle where almost everything is water, or Valen where u have alot of forest.

Anyway the game dont need to have ultra realistic graphic to make it good, if u go and capare the texture from the armor on Witcher 3 or GTAV with the cloth from the PC release screenshot today u can see they are at to part.

Wow.....

So various people feel like pointing out, that a renown sandbox game series, doesnt match up in the graphic department with current linear story arc games?

FIrst, please link a screenshot of the current gen game that you have in mind to compare this title to. I know certain games have these little nuances that are 'neat' but as far immersion goes, are not groundbreaking (hair effects for example). Furthermore, these photos are taken in a broad daylight enironment - which can only be so interesting in any game.

I'm sure everyone would be whistling a different tune if the screenies had ENB going on, but do realize, this game is being made for consoles, and suffer the development stranglehold to have either more graphics or more mechanics.

Thure93, We can compare Fallout to other games and and see what we can copy from others or do different way. But did we need it?? You talking about witcher or others about tomb rider.. its others games with other history. Look at the tomb raider now, its making me lought )) was good games but whats now?? Now it`s just brainless shooter where we must press one button with good graphics and play without any choise accept creators. From that game disappeared all good things. All ppl screamed "graphic graphic" and whats now?? There is no selection what and how, just creators choise.. so in my opinion its just brainless thing now. Witcher.. Its cardinally other game so i dont think we must compair it with Fallout. If you not a new guy in a game`s world so you must see the difference between games history, time when they was created and etc. Fallout all his trip from its begining has own style and never copy others. I want to say not "it (Fallout)" but "He (Fallout)". Because its not like any others. I can say that others tryed to copy Fallout but not Fall out others. So I dreaming about Bethesda going that way all along I loved Fallout from thirst game and 1st look. And I think that we all understand that This game have his own mood, look and good path which we love from the begining And have creators which not trying to "buy" gamers only with good looking interface but I think trying to attract with hole world where they giving to us to do things how we want and when we want. Bethesda ppl got heads on shoulders and know how to keep Fallou and not "FallTombWitcher or other..". So I really want to see how Fall out going on His own path

If I recall, the graphics have been advertised in the release trailer and the E3 demo.

The leaks bear out that the game looks like the trailer and the demo (duh)

In a world where games over-hype their graphics and then disappoint,

Bethesda have showcased what the game is like and leaks confirm that it is just like that.

So why the butthurt?

The game has been fairly described and looks like it looks.

None of this is a surprise.

What demented expectation was there otherwise to trigger disappointment?

I think it looks perfectly fine, but if graphics are a must, I could recommend several sub-par games to look at.

Because graphics maters to Me, to him,her and them.

Anyways loading screen takes about 10 to 16 secs to load in buildings just FYI.

I'm still but hurt about oblivion because what Todd told us.

I'll admit I cringed at the low resolution, but it will not prevent me from getting the game. I guess when my first Beth game was Oblivion (well Wayne Gretzky Hockey was the first game but that was many years ago) and then played Morrowind, that was a shock (as well as combat in general) where doing that helped me not look at general graphics "be all" attitude: Skyrim spoiled me. As long as exploration is excellent and hope story is good (Morrowind and New Vegas were excellent) I know I'll be this game as long as I played Skyrim (that one took me 1.5 years to finally play other games).

Looking at FO3 graphics and FO4, safe to say I'll be fine on that part.

So like 5 seconds when I put it on my SSD?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxWUtShF_pE

It just works

People know Bethesda is the best, and consequently they grow upset when it seems another developer does something better, and so they have to vent. It's just a healthy release of stress.

Well, why optimize when those rich PC people have fancy hardware that compensates for it

I wonder if they if remembered to enable code optimization on their compiler this time

And on the other end of the spectrum, people are saying that FO4 looks "just like" Skyrim, looks bad, looks last-gen..... hyperbole in both directions.

-----

re: "bloated specs". I'm not up on all the details of the latest graphics bling. Some of the terms they're throwing around, like "Physical based rendering"/etc.... how much horsepower do these things take? (particularly in a game that has dozens of loose objects everywhere, rather than static locations. If that would have any effect at all.)

-----

re: GTA Different games have different requirements and abilities, based on what they need to do. GTA has randomly-generated crowds (so they can be thrown around at will), which is different than a Beth game's people. GTA has cars & planes, so it needs to have a larger worldspace for people to travel through quickly. It also doesn't have a world built out of thousands & thousands of placed, physics-effected objects. This changes the load on the engine & the computer - it also changes the kind of engine. Just because they're both "open world" games, doesn't mean that GTA and FO4 have the same focus & features in their engines. (Witcher too, but to different extent - how much of the world & scenery is loose stuff? Not saying this is a good or bad thing, just pointing out that it's a difference in engines, and will therefore change what a game is capable of. A market stall with a bin full of static apples vs. a bin full of loose physics-enabled apples are completely different loads on an engine.)

-----

re: loading screens I certainly hope that there's loading screens between the exterior and interiors! I want those spaces to be separate..... I don't want some random fight that happens to blow up a couple cars & toss a mini-nuke or two around, to destroy the inside of a building & toss all the carefully-placed environmental details (which I loved in FO3) around before I can even get in the rooms. That would be terrible.

(To be fair, I never understood the "I wish the cities were open!" complaints about OB/SK, either. Loading screens just don't bother me. )

-----

Kind of like I've never really understood things like

The whole "Game X looks better, so this one looks bad" thing. And I've rarely noticed texture issues unless I ran right up and stuck my viewpoint against a surface at 0 range.* I look at a game as itself. Does it look good to me? Not "does it look good to me compared to GTA V". Nitpicking number of polygons, number of shaders, size of textures..... nah. Look at screen, does it look good?

And everything I've seen of FO4 so far looks damn good. (I haven't looked at the leaks, don't want to spoil the game. Just official screenshots, and the non-story videos.) Looks like a "modern game", whatever that means.

And no, I don't think that photorealism is what they were aiming for (more of a stylized approach), so the fact it didn't hit that mark doesn't mean it "looks bad". Personally, I think that photorealism isn't a great look much of the time - as well as a great way to blow most of your budget and not have much "game" behind the pretty. Depends on the game, of course.

* the one texture issue I do notice is those games that have streaming texture loading. So you enter a new area, and the place looks like minecraft through a blur filter, but then slowly fills in and gets sharper. That sort of thing is kind of annoying. Borderlands (hmm, did Rage do that?), some MMOs.....

edit: oh, an additional thought. Just because graphics technology improves & advances, that doesn't make older games that "looked good", suddenly look bad. If I thought a game looked good when I originally played it, odds are good that I'll still think it looks good. SNES games still look good. World of Warcraft still looks good (speaking of games with endless legions moaning about how terrible & outdated they are...). Fallout 3 still looks good (never did use any of the non-body texture replacers for that game - thought the most popular ones looked absolutely terrible, with amazing amounts of noise & busyness).

There is a limit, of course - games from the beginning of the 3D era (PS1/etc), when everything was built out of 7 polygons? Those are a bit rough to go back to. Probably doesn't help that they had amazingly terrible camera mechanics, too. So hard going back to play Parasite Eve 1 on my PS3.