Metro and the stalker series had potential, but tiny budgets meant mediocity. Metro Ll was a decent improvement, but the game didn't push my buttons.
Have to say I'm not particularly hyped for this one. I enjoyed the previous 2 but they never found them as engaging or inspiring as the elder scrolls series. Plus I'm still playing witcher 3 which is an incredible game imo and have MGS V to get into too. I guess I'll pick this up in a few months and give it a go then!
Fo3 and nv were undercooked, but with fo4, bethesda have made huge improvements everywhere, I'd be surprised if this wasn't one of the great games.
You may well be right, but this time I'm gonna at least wait for a few reviews and player feedback to see how its all come together.
Have to agree here. The game is either not using a PBR rendering system, or has been ported mid-development from an non-PBR system to a PBR system. As a result all of the lighting looks wrong and the surfaces lack solidarity and depth. You can also see they used a BSP level building system, and then exported these into Maya or w/e and then reimported them as static meshes. If this was a competitive FPS area game like Quake, this would not be a problem, but anno 2015 adventure games using an FPS front-end should not be using BSP's at all, and furthers the argument this is a very basic graphics engine and not AAA in the slightest.
People saying this barely looks better than Fallout 3 are either blind or clueless. I just played Fallout 3 this week and this game looks a hell of a lot better. It's not even comparable. That said, to me, it looks like the lighting (especially) and shadows in FO4 need some work. Everything has a kind of "flat" look to it. Either way, I'm completely stoked for this release. Amazing graphics has never been what made Fallout a great game so I'm curious why everyone is so hung up on that one aspect, without even playing it. People like that probably aren't going to like it anyways if your biggest concern is cutting edge eye candy.
Well, there is nothing wrong (in my most humblest of opinions) to grade aesthetically a AAA game, so long as you make it clear that your opinion is specifically about that and not the game in totality. The figures for development are not yet known, but conservative estimates put it somewhere in the $100 million range. Even if you low-ball it to $80 million, you could create an entirely new game engine (including graphics) for that amount of $. Codemasters created the EGO engine in 2008 for $80 million.* *citation
I tend to agree, I've always put more focus on gameplay than visuals. On the other hand, the only things we can really comment on at the moment are visuals. From what I've seen, most of those criticising the way the game looks aren't stuck on the idea it's an ugly game. It's more down to the fact many of us feel that a AAA studio with a large budget should have put more effort in (especially considering the games price). This happens with almost every Bethesda developed title. The games tend to be released without any polish, they're visually underwhelming and often buggy as hell. Hopefully the bug side of things wont be a problem this time around, but the visuals are decidedly unimpressive. There is nothing wrong with holding one of the biggest studios in the business to a higher standard. Either way, I'm sure the community will release some fantastic mods for the game in the coming months.
Agreed, I'm not mentioning story or gameplay as I'm sure it'll be like FO3 which I loved and poured hours into. From a visual aspect it still looks underwhelming from the shots posted for a AAA game at the end of 2015. Visuals aren't the be all and end all for this game by any means but it's still disappointing from such a big studio if this really is all Ultra mode offers (again referring to the screens posted in this article). Will I buy it though? Sure thing but not right now as I have way too many games to get through as it is and I'll grab a GOTY with all the expansions. Hopefully I'll have cleared my back log out a bit by then :nerd:.
Part of FO3's appeal, admittedly modded, was the sense of scale, and FO4 looks better than FO3 modded "and" has probably 3x the object density. I agree that it would be ideal if AAA companies/budgets raised the bar graphically/technically, but I'm waiting on 16nm before a huge upgrade, so I don't mind if FO4 runs well on my never say die 7950.
Why do the PS4 screenshots look so crisp compared to these which look low-res and the lighting seems poor aswell. Like others said "flat". Compare http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=183681329&postcount=2101 PS4 version looks like it "pops" a lot more than our PC screenshots.
Those shots aren't that good compared to PC ss's I have.....you'll see in a few days how good this game looks maxed, not to mention the draw distance.
Why would you compare the 7870 to the older GTX 580? The direct competitor for the HD7870 was the GTX 680 and AMD got beaten so bad they invented the ghz edition try and even things.
The image in the spoiler had sweetfx applied to it, that's all the "mod" is. Though my main reason for posting the image was the supposedly awesome draw distance.
