A big release like this should not look like a 4 year old title imho. Also I believe that most of us want this game to be great and we should not have to wait for modders to actually utilize our hardware. And I personally would love to be in the need to upgrade my rig to play some new game that I really want.Good old Crysis days, that's what drives evolution of HW/SW
Not really obsessed with graphics, but I still do wonder why bethesda can't create a new engine that fixes all the problems. Imo, they're just lazy coders who want to use the same old engine from 2005 and have the mod community fix everything that is wrong with the game. It's much cheaper.
Wait what... This is on ULTRA setting? GTA 5 and the Witcher 3 look better... Even Watchdogs looks better, probably even GTA 4 looks better... Maybe not on the draw-distance aspect, which seems like the only impressive thing based on those screenshots. Then again, I will be playing this game for the story, not the graphics. But I am disappointed in these ULTRA settings... If this is ultra, then my 7970 OC better run it on ULTRA (or thereabouts). Because really, this doesn't look anything special.
This dosnt look more demanding than Skyrim. Hell, it isnt even looking that much better than Skyrim. 7970 aka 280X was pushing 100fps+ in that game. Mods will come, alot of them, game will be heavier i guess but even so, i would not worry about it. Tahiti still very capable.
The issue I have is this doesn't look better than Crysis 3 which is 2yrs older. For a "blockbuster" title this is a bit disappointing. I realize Crysis has built its reputation around incredible graphics, but for a "next-gen" to get whipped and/or barely breaking par? That's disappointing. Crysis 3 Medium > FO4 Ultra...
and still using directx 9. the lest they could of done is give us dx 11 with tessellation I mean thats what it looks like...
Yeah I call these screenshots BS too. Looks nothing like the official renders and videos we have seen earlier. And the screenshots also include pad button info which makes me suspicious too. Never seen high end PC graphics freak leaking screens while playing with a pad before. Other possibility is that Bethesda has been lying big time about the graphics capabilities of the game. Which is not too far fetched either. We will see soon...
It could be better but not bad really. I just finished Witcher 3 last night, never did like it. It was like a cut scene fest with bitchy actors. I'm ready for FO4.
Well since F3 and NV didn't even have shadows for most static items... This is already a massive step up. I know it isn't anything much, considering how well say... Frostbite games look and run, it's obviously a little disappointing. However, I guess things aren't directly comparable since those are much smaller maps while Fallout has always been open world. GTA V however does look pretty sweet and runs super well even on my old card. If performance is great then I won't mind too much. Overall, the screenshots remind me alot of L4D2's art style and graphics.
PC Graphics Settings Menu Revealed http://www.overclock3d.net/articles/gpu_displays/fallout_4_-_pc_graphics_settings_menu_revealed/1 Wheres all the GameWorks ?
^Yeah, as long as it runs well, I'll be picking this up very soon rather than waiting for a sale like I usually do. $60 is nothing for a game that I'll probably put well over 300 hours in over the next five years or so. whoops, meant to quote snip3r_3
You can't turn it off bro, gameworks4life. Plus, I consider that a feature. If you did your FPS would exceed 75 and the game's physics engine would have a seizure like it does in Skyrim.
This is Bethesda. They have never made a game with top of the line graphics (except maybe Oblviion, given the graphics standards at the time). They recycle/rename the same game engine for over a decade, adding minimal features. At least they aren't trying to hide anything. This game will be full of glitches, awkward animations, and probably 1 or 2 game breaking bugs that will be addressed by a patch or two. That being said, after the extremely overrated bore-fest W3 was, we need a game like this. Can't wait.
I guess I kind of agree. They generally don't push graphics standards forward -- but they usually ship games with better graphics than the previous one. In this case it doesn't look any better than Skyrim, in fact due to the desaturation of being in the wasteland it honestly looks worse. And I get it -- it's a wasteland -- it's supposed to be desaturated, but I'd argue that they should offset that by using higher res textures and more detailed tree assets and stuff. It's not like Skyrim where you are rending grass and trees leaves and stuff. Whatever, will still probably be a fun game. But I can definitely see people using the graphics as a strike against it's total score. It's not impressive in the least bit, even for Bethesda.
Waiting for reviews for this one, graphics don't matter 'too' much to me but I'm not jumping for this game until I know the story and characters aren't bland like FO3 and Skyrim and the game isn't bugged to **** like FO:NV
Maybe this will mean it runs well on consoles? The previous games were SSSSSSSSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO bad on the PS360. I remember Skyrim hard locked my console 5 times just trying to get through the intro. And Fallout 3 would hard lock about every 15 minutes once you got past the 100 hour mark.
In 2015 almost 2016 this type of graphics is unacceptable...looks like a fallout 3 reloaded to me with same graphics with some improvements of the same engine...
I was going to say that people should stop complaining about graphics as those are surely good enough. After seeing those screenshots I'm not so sure anymore, it looks bad. Well, still have The Witcher 3 to play (20h so far) and Legacy of the Void is also being released... Perhaps I'll get this one for xmas.
these aren't the only in-game screen shots available. go to your fav search engine, search fallout 4, images, and enjoy the much crisper higher resolution screenshots that pop up.
