Fallout 4 - Should Be Game of the Year

[Stingray]

Also, it's not true at all that the graphics in FO4 are bad. If you have a good gaming computer and can max all the settings at 2560x1440 or 4K and get over 60 FPS, it looks very nice.

I guess it might not be true that they're "bad". But it's certainly not true that they're good. I run in 1920x1200 with every possible setting at its absolute max and if we're talking AAA top-budget games like Fallout 4 is, it looks like a game that would have come out 5-10 years ago, not something designed for "next gen" consoles.

It's also worth adding that I don't give a shit, because I'm not a graphics whore. Just reporting observations.

 

[zahratustra]

Also, it's not true at all that the graphics in FO4 are bad. If you have a good gaming computer and can max all the settings at 2560x1440 or 4K and get over 60 FPS, it looks very nice.

You Fluent's long lost twin brother Hyperion?

 

[rune_74]

I guess it might not be true that they're "bad". But it's certainly not true that they're good. I run in 1920x1200 with every possible setting at its absolute max and if we're talking AAA top-budget games like Fallout 4 is, it looks like a game that would have come out 5-10 years ago, not something designed for "next gen" consoles.

It's also worth adding that I don't give a shit, because I'm not a graphics whore. Just reporting observations.

Really? what massive open world came out 5 to 10 years ago that looked like this? It looks better then it's predessors....Witcher looked good that's true...but other then that?

 

[wolfgrimdark]

Well I am a graphics whore and I have to say the game looks great with some very good lighting if you don't take into consideration the textures - they really need a HD texture pack.

 

[Stingray]

Really? what massive open world came out 5 to 10 years ago that looked like this? It looks better then it's predessors….Witcher looked good that's true…but other then that?

I'm just talking about graphics in general, not for any particular genre. I didn't even realize there was a lower standard for "massive open world" games? I've certainly played several games in the last few years that had better looking graphics, with lower budgets on top of that. And most of them were released for the Xbox 360, PS3, and 32-bit PCs, too, none of which Fallout 4 supports.

 

[Hyperion]

I guess it might not be true that they're "bad". But it's certainly not true that they're good. I run in 1920x1200 with every possible setting at its absolute max and if we're talking AAA top-budget games like Fallout 4 is, it looks like a game that would have come out 5-10 years ago, not something designed for "next gen" consoles.

It's also worth adding that I don't give a shit, because I'm not a graphics whore. Just reporting observations.

I'm pretty much of a graphics whore and I think it looks good. Does it look as good as Witcher 3? No. And I didn't say that it does. But it certainly does not look like a 10 year old game either.

I don't think it looks that great at the 1920x1080 either. It looks considerably better at 2560x1440 and even better at 4K. I play at 2560x1440 because it looks pretty good and I can still get well over 60 FPS, which helps a lot in combat, especially shooting from a distance.

 

[Hyperion]

You Fluent's long lost twin brother Hyperion?

That's your idea of a counter point? Sad.

 

[Hyperion]

I'm just talking about graphics in general, not for any particular genre. I didn't even realize there was a lower standard for "massive open world" games? I've certainly played several games in the last few years that had better looking graphics, with lower budgets on top of that. And most of them were released for the Xbox 360, PS3, and 32-bit PCs, too, none of which Fallout 4 supports.

So, you're saying that there are games on PS3 and Xbox 360 that look better than FO4 running at 2560x1440 at more than 60 FPS? I'm having a very hard time believing that. To me, even the newer gen consoles graphics looks inferior to PC. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Hyperion]

Well I am a graphics whore and I have to say the game looks great with some very good lighting if you don't take into consideration the textures - they really need a HD texture pack.

Some of the textures need updated, but some of them look good as they are. Not sure what it up with that.

 

[Stingray]

So, you're saying that there are games on PS3 and Xbox 360 that look better than FO4 running at 2560x1440 at more than 60 FPS? I'm having a very hard time believing that. To me, even the newer gen consoles graphics looks inferior to PC. But maybe that's just me.

No, that's not even close to what I said. I meant there are games that support the Xbox 360 or PS3 (meaning were designed for "last gen") that, when running on PC, look better than Fallout 4 (also on the PC). The point being that Fallout 4 targetted the newer consoles and 64-bit PCs only, so the potential ceiling is much higher, but they didn't actually take advantage of it.

No clue about the 2560x1440 piece of your question, I use 1920x1200.

 

[Hyperion]

Well I am a graphics whore and I have to say the game looks great with some very good lighting if you don't take into consideration the textures - they really need a HD texture pack.

No, that's not even close to what I said. I said there are games that support the Xbox 360 or PS3 (meaning were designed for "last gen") that, when running on PC, look better than Fallout 4 (also on the PC).

No clue about the 2560x1440 piece of your question, never played a game in that resolution. I use 1920x1200.

The resolution makes a pretty big difference in FO4. Not so much in some games, but in FO4 it's quite noticeable for me. At 1920 it looks acceptable to me, but it's a lot prettier at the higher rez. I know some of the textures look sort of lame, but some of them look quite nice to me. For me, it's more than acceptable overall. I'm sure they'll be texture mods soon enough anyway.

 

[JDR13]

I think FO4 is better than TW3. But this is going to depend on what you like. The combat and game mechanics are better in FO4. For me it just comes down to that. If you like to watch hour upon hour of cut scenes just for the sake of a good story, then TW3 is the game for you. For me, after about 70 hours of that, I couldn't take it anymore, too much cinema and not enough action. If you just want to explore and good combat then FO4 is the better game.

Hour after hour of cut scenes? That's not what I would consider a very accurate description of TW3. It offers so much more than that. I also don't think FO4 has better combat or game mechanics than TW3. In fact, I think it's somewhat clunky by comparison.

I do think FO4 has better exploration though, and I enjoyed both games about the same overall.

 

[zahratustra]

That's your idea of a counter point? Sad.

My counterpoint was that there are pages and pages of threads where people are complaining about F4's graphics and yet you claim that's not true? And you don't even have an excuse of being Fluent's twin?!

 

[joxer]

That's your idea of a counter point? Sad.

Don't take it to your heart, it's just a freindly poke.

 

[crpgnut]

I would say that anything that somebody called crpgNUT posts can be considered not entirely serious or even sane. I still lubs Fallout though.

Yeah, I forgot to quote the person who was wondering if I was entirely serious....

 

[luj1]

Just proves that more people = more shit taste.

Yup

/thread

 

[luj1]

I guess it might not be true that they're "bad". But it's certainly not true that they're good. I run in 1920x1200 with every possible setting at its absolute max and if we're talking AAA top-budget games like Fallout 4 is, it looks like a game that would have come out 5-10 years ago, not something designed for "next gen" consoles.

It's also worth adding that I don't give a shit, because I'm not a graphics whore. Just reporting observations.

Ditto…. It's clear that textures in FO4 are severely outdated, just as Skyrim's were. Meshes are horrid too. Not that I care about visuals much, but let's not pretend it has outstanding graphics….. People have forgot how Crysis 2-3 look like… and these are games from early 2011 and early 2013, respectively

 

[rune_74]

I'm just talking about graphics in general, not for any particular genre. I didn't even realize there was a lower standard for "massive open world" games? I've certainly played several games in the last few years that had better looking graphics, with lower budgets on top of that. And most of them were released for the Xbox 360, PS3, and 32-bit PCs, too, none of which Fallout 4 supports.

Do I need to explain the difference in requirements for say a FPS to an open world?

Of course more linear games will "look" better.


This isn't related to your post, but I find it extremely poor form to call into questions peoples tastes because you don't like something. It's immature as hell, and what I have come to expect from a few of you lately.

 

[Archangel]

Do I need to explain the difference in requirements for say a FPS to an open world?

Of course more linear games will "look" better.


This isn't related to your post, but I find it extremely poor form to call into questions peoples tastes because you don't like something. It's immature as hell, and what I have come to expect from a few of you lately.

Crysis 1 was pretty open (even if that only meant forests and beaches).

 

[Stingray]

Do I need to explain the difference in requirements for say a FPS to an open world?

Of course more linear games will "look" better.

No, of course I know bigger games usually don't look as good, but to me that's a separate issue I guess. There is nothing stopping a huge game from looking just as good as a simpler linear game, except art budget, and Fallout 4 had a massive budget. I guess people just expected more, maybe expectations were unrealistically high.

Anyway as I already said, graphics don't matter much to me as long as they are reasonable, so graphics aren't one of the negatives of the game for me anyway.