Fallout 4 - New Trailer and the Graphics Technology

[crpgnut]

Hopefully they give us more than a day for pre-loading. Valve's servers are going to tank when the preload goes live; especially if there is only 24 hours to preload. 30GB X 4 million downloaders=ugh!

 

[Kyrer]

Rpg, ftw

I absolutely love Fallout but am finding it rather difficult to get excited about this. The thing I loved about Fallout 3 (as well as 1 and 2) was the vast, desolate wasteland to explore. New Vegas had less of this, and I'm also really turned off by all the suggestions of "story" that Fallout 4 seems to be presenting. What I loved about the earlier games is that you made your own story, just like an open-world, sandbox RPG "ought" to be.

Playing this would also mean having to get a new laptop, which I'm already pre-emptively suffering buyers remorse about. I was thinking about going for one of these but stopped keeping up with technology years ago, and am not sure I can bare to do my research (might just grin and bear it).

Not sure why people dislike the graphics however. Bethesda said it wasn't trying to compete visually, they are more about providing game-play and depth. Mods will make it looks amazing, either way.

 

[Morrandir]

I'm also really turned off by all the suggestions of "story" that Fallout 4 seems to be presenting. What I loved about the earlier games is that you made your own story, just like an open-world, sandbox RPG "ought" to be.

One man's curse is another man's blessing I guess.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

So reading between the lines then "we worked with our friends at NVIDIA" means that our game has been built to deliberatly work poorly if you don't use their cards in your system. Kind of like the issues in Witcher 3.

These days, for players in high graphics performances, NVidia and Intel are the solutions.

 

[JDR13]

I'm also really turned off by all the suggestions of "story" that Fallout 4 seems to be presenting. What I loved about the earlier games is that you made your own story, just like an open-world, sandbox RPG "ought" to be.

I have must have played a different series because I clearly remember each of the earlier games having a story.

 

[joxer]

I have must have played a different series because I clearly remember each of the earlier games having a story.

FO1, FO2 and FO:NV did.
FO:BoS and FO3… Errrr… Yea, it was kinda story… Size and quality of an IGN article.

 

[crpgnut]

I enjoyed the story of Grayditch more than the main quest line in Fallout 3.

Spoiler

You find a kid when checking out/looting a supermarket. He complains of monsters that have invaded his village. You find it over-run with giant, fire-breathing ants and then learn that a scientist, in a failed effort to reduce the giant ants into normal ants, turned them into fire-breathers instead, by haphazardly manipulating their DNA. You have several ways of getting rid of the ants and/or the scientist and then you can choose to abandon the kid to his fate or find him a permanent home.

To me, this quest was much better written and more fun than the main quests. Those went from bad to meh, though the battles near the end were pretty fun.

 

[bizorker]

I really don't care about the graphics if the gameplay is fun, and it definitely looks like fun.

I agree with this statement above in the abstract, but I think the overall gamer universe has mixed feelings on the gameplay of these Bethesda games. They are fantastic if you like open world immersion, but not as fun if that's not your cup of tea. I just think open world, immersion type games are better if the visual eye candy is better. When I first discovered Elder Scrolls - I believe it was Oblivion - the visuals had a huge awesome positive impact on me. And I wandered around Skyrim completely ignoring the quests for a long time. But it wouldn't be as fun for me to play an open world immersion type game with really old graphics. I'm not saying these graphics are really, really old, but I do think the core value prop of Bethesda games deteriorates as the graphics get more dated, and so this release is less exciting for me.

 

[Pongo]

It's the cut-scenes I'm worried about. Cut-scenes have started annoying the crap out of me recently...

 

[mbuddha]

The dialog and general writing of FO3 was highly disappointing to me. The game world didn't grab me either. Now New Vegas, that was an improvement in every way.

FO1 and NV best in the series. May try out FO4 after a year or two of mods and patches.

 

[Gorath]

All those effects sound great, but I'm not actually seeing much of an improvement over Skyrim or even Fallout 3.

The German reviews I've just read, especially the one at GameStar, are very clear about F4's visual quality. It looks clearly better than F3, but it's a whole league behind The Witcher 3.

What disturbs me a bit is that GameStar calls the PC interface a catastrophe and even worse than Skyrim's interface.

 

[crpgnut]

What disturbs me a bit is that GameStar calls the PC interface a catastrophe and even worse than Skyrim's interface.

Yeah, this could be a problem. It will take time for something like SkyUI to get made. I'm not sure if the official editor needs to be released before modders can fix Bethesda's mess. The toolkit isn't supposed to be out until early next year and that would be a long time to wait for a proper UI. I guess I'll find out tonight just how bad this is.....

 

[Archangel]

It seems the game has performance problems on all 3 machines. One of reviewers reported not very stellar FPS on 970 in more busy situations and both PS4 and Xbox One have problems upkeeping 30 FPS.

 

[Ripper]

It's only release day. Now relax with your backlog of games for a year of patching and modding, until this one is about ripe.

 

[crpgnut]

It's only release day. Now relax with your backlog of games for a year of patching and modding, until this one is about ripe.

This is what I plan on doing....for my 2nd play through.

 

[JDR13]

I just hope a mod for the interface is released almost immediately. I'm also hoping for a mod that will slow the level-up speed. I don't have the luxury of waiting long because I need to be finished before Nov 30th.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

After watching a two hour review, the main points were:

The product is very well rated.

As usual, this high mark is barely explained by the content of the review.

-graphics are poor, art direction is fine
-poor writing of quests
-companions save one are dull
-it is combat oriented
-UI is poor (K&M work only for the FPS side, the rest is heavy)
-No resolution of quests through competences (science, mechanics etc...)
-Tons of content, tons of quests, denser map
-Survival mode makes combat challenging, that is all (no food, ,no water etc)
-It is not a fall out game
-It is written for US kids
-The world ticks bad, but not as bad as TW3's world
And more
In short, the product is shit, but the reviewer had fun with it, he likes it. Very good score.
Move on.

 

[crpgnut]

I get just as much fun from reading Steam reviews where the guy says he hates the game and then it shows a play time of over 100 hours I hate hitting my hand with a hammer. I don't do it for 100 hours before I realize that.

 

[azarhal]

I get just as much fun from reading Steam reviews where the guy says he hates the game and then it shows a play time of over 100 hours I hate hitting my hand with a hammer. I don't do it for 100 hours before I realize that.

Some people are weird that way...

 

[BoboTheMighty]

I get just as much fun from reading Steam reviews where the guy says he hates the game and then it shows a play time of over 100 hours I hate hitting my hand with a hammer. I don't do it for 100 hours before I realize that.

It's not that hard to understand...I hated Skyrim or ME III, but played them to the end, fooling myself it will turn around at some point. Some people are simply stubborn that way.