ONE WEEK TO GO M'THR FK'RS
Got it pre-ordered on Steam. 50% chance of this happening to me on the 10th:
Got it pre-ordered on Steam. 50% chance of this happening to me on the 10th:
I am not treasuring graphics over gameplay. Let me make it clear. In 2015 you should have both. That's what some of us are saying. There is no reason a big budget title can't have both.
You mentioned indie games but while their budgets measure in the thousands of dollars, Bethesda likely spent tens of millions on fallout 4. All we are saying is the production values should reflect that.
There have been a fair number of leaks of gameplay the past week. This one doesn't have much that I would consider spoilers, but obviously don't watch if you want every moment of the game to be new to you.
https://vid.me/QjQ2
Just look at that. Completely atrocious, it looks bad even for a 360/PS3 game. Those characters/facial animations
There have been a fair number of leaks of gameplay the past week. This one doesn't have much that I would consider spoilers, but obviously don't watch if you want every moment of the game to be new to you.
https://vid.me/QjQ2
Just look at that. Completely atrocious, it looks bad even for a 360/PS3 game. Those characters/facial animations
Someone saying that the graphics are PS2-era is just being ignorant and disingenuous for a reason (bias, I guess), or is a complete fucking idiot. Like an IQ of 4.8 or thereabouts.Pretty sure that looking over the posts, it sounds like a lot of "herp derp grafix, iz lyke PS2, particles, fugly", and etc.
Someone literally said power armor looked too new in response to screenshots depicting pre-apocolypse times, when the stuff was still new. Someone else said it was too colorful, which is hilarious given the main complaint of nearly the entire last-gen being too brown. Almost certain at least one of those complainers is guilty of both. Like color and a bright sun wouldn't exist.
Someone else said PS2-era graphics. MGS3 is one of the best looking games of the PS2, and this is head and shoulders above that. Shadow of the Colossus arguably had more detail, but it was also a bit of a stutterfest on the PS2.
People are absolutely demanding the faster horse, here. I understand it, it's all the leaks have been lately are screenshots, so graphics are the only real thing to talk about right now.
But people already dismissing the game based on some still images and months-old footage is pathetic.
I know I'm not going to change their minds, and they won't change mine. People are allowed to have their opinions. It would be nice if those opinions actually had a basis in some fact and weren't solely driven by knee-jerk reactions.
I see all these complaints, and I'm reminded of a Steam screen-grab of the boycott COD :MW2 community shortly after the game's launch.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/11/12/why-they-dont-take-boycotts-seriously/
This seems exactly the same to me. Which goes back to what I said. Consumers are stupid. Saying it's up to consumers is wrong.
Pretty sure that looking over the posts, it sounds like a lot of "herp derp grafix, iz lyke PS2, particles, fugly", and etc.
Someone literally said power armor looked too new in response to screenshots depicting pre-apocolypse times, when the stuff was still new. Someone else said it was too colorful, which is hilarious given the main complaint of nearly the entire last-gen being too brown. Almost certain at least one of those complainers is guilty of both. Like color and a bright sun wouldn't exist.
Someone else said PS2-era graphics. MGS3 is one of the best looking games of the PS2, and this is head and shoulders above that. Shadow of the Colossus arguably had more detail, but it was also a bit of a stutterfest on the PS2.
People are absolutely demanding the faster horse, here. I understand it, it's all the leaks have been lately are screenshots, so graphics are the only real thing to talk about right now.
But people already dismissing the game based on some still images and months-old footage is pathetic.
I know I'm not going to change their minds, and they won't change mine. People are allowed to have their opinions. It would be nice if those opinions actually had a basis in some fact and weren't solely driven by knee-jerk reactions.
I see all these complaints, and I'm reminded of a Steam screen-grab of the boycott COD :MW2 community shortly after the game's launch.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/11/12/why-they-dont-take-boycotts-seriously/
This seems exactly the same to me. Which goes back to what I said. Consumers are stupid. Saying it's up to consumers is wrong.
Lets see with Skyrim:
-> Civil "war" comprised of six or 7 soldiers on each side (still huge FPS drops pre-patch) running around with spazzy animations.
-> Towns with 5 or 6 NPCs that really did nothing
-> Stiff plastic animations (needs to be mentioned twice).
-> Meh writing at best (just because the story isn't built around a single character doesn't mean you can't put some effort in).
-> Engine is a joke. Really. Bethesda has millions and they still rebadged the same old rubbish from Oblivion.
Seeing as that same engine is most probably in FO4 I'm not holding my breath. And you go on and on about mods for hours but it doesn't change the tiny DC city area in FO3 or the endless train tunnels (they couldn't afford to build a couple of city blocks that are seamless? Engine limitation anyone?) or huge empty cities/spaces in New Vegas - run around the camps or cities and its sparse at best. Why should you mod what should be there in the first place?
Its overhyping. All that money and all that experience and if they are still using a 2006 era engine that has been rejigged once meh. And yes the graphics are late era PS2 or early PS3/360 at best. Muddy textures, plastic foliage, plastic NPCs, that dog, the lack of any half modern lighting model, the particles/physics, the shadows. Meh.
Lets see with Skyrim:
-> Civil "war" comprised of six or 7 soldiers on each side (still huge FPS drops pre-patch) running around with spazzy animations.
-> Towns with 5 or 6 NPCs that really did nothing
-> Stiff plastic animations (needs to be mentioned twice).
-> Meh writing at best (just because the story isn't built around a single character doesn't mean you can't put some effort in).
-> Engine is a joke. Really. Bethesda has millions and they still rebadged the same old rubbish from Oblivion.
Seeing as that same engine is most probably in FO4 I'm not holding my breath. And you go on and on about mods for hours but it doesn't change the tiny DC city area in FO3 or the endless train tunnels (they couldn't afford to build a couple of city blocks that are seamless? Engine limitation anyone?) or huge empty cities/spaces in New Vegas - run around the camps or cities and its sparse at best. Why should you mod what should be there in the first place?
Its overhyping. All that money and all that experience and if they are still using a 2006 era engine that has been rejigged once meh. And yes the graphics are late era PS2 or early PS3/360 at best. Muddy textures, plastic foliage, plastic NPCs, that dog, the lack of any half modern lighting model, the particles/physics, the shadows. Meh.
I am not treasuring graphics over gameplay. Let me make it clear. In 2015 you should have both. That's what some of us are saying. There is no reason a big budget title can't have both.
You mentioned indie games but while their budgets measure in the thousands of dollars, Bethesda likely spent tens of millions on fallout 4. All we are saying is the production values should reflect that.
I don't disagree with that. But here is the issue that no one seems to address when I bring it up, regarding bethesda open worlds and open character creation:
--how does one effectively create a perfectly consistent and persistent world, with near endless amounts of content (however repetitive and samey the side quests may be), that introduces no story/character conflicts/bugs and maintains complete freedom and openness to character creation?
I submit that this will never be perfect--either you confine character creation and specific interactions (like the Witcher) for a more developed and robust story and character arch, limit sidequests to unrelated and tangential events that are designed to have little relevance to the main story or world (Witcher), or completely open up character creation and crap all over the world with weird quests and adopt a philosophy of complete openness and assume the players just want to be able to do everything...if possible (TES and Fallout). Damn the bugs, flat stale characters (I think TES endears to true role player types that like to imagine themselves in these roles anyway...so they just fill the gaps with their imagination? I dunno) and if some NPCs get eaten by a bear on their way to deliver milk to their granny, and thus the quest is never active and breaks 4 other quests because Granny starves to death...well so-fucking-be-it.
It seems to me that when comparing these two styles, the dev has to make a hard choice as to how they want to design it and what kind of limits to put on the gameworld in adopting either philosophy. I don't think either is better than the other; I just think they are different. I like them both for their own individual merits.
Its overhyping. All that money and all that experience and if they are still using a 2006 era engine that has been rejigged once meh. And yes the graphics are late era PS2 or early PS3/360 at best. Muddy textures, plastic foliage, plastic NPCs, that dog, the lack of any half modern lighting model, the particles/physics, the shadows. Meh.
No, but you can improve on stiff character animations. Make the characters believable when they are supposed to be scared or excited. Things like that. In past games some characters felt like they didn't have any emotions at all based on their animations and dialog.
We're not talking about past games, though, are we?
And how would you suggest someone scared act? How is that improved? Honestly, emotions are a lot more subtle than videogames portray them. Less animation would be more accurate.
If we're talking about stuff like spinning 180 degrees without the feet actually making the body turn, sure. That's something that needs work. But that will probably be someone that's not Bethesda.
But regardless of how a person transitions from walking to sitting, I will be enjoying this game.
Customizing my own power armor, crafting an entire town, specializing my weapons to suit my playstyle, jet-packing around while wearing said customized power armor, actually making use of the dog, etc., all in a wide open world where you literally make your own stories sounds plenty fun to me.
lol +1ah, the Haters gonna hate parade is in town...
Allow me to help some of you alleviate your massively build-up tampon tension: Don't buy Fallout 4. Don't read about Fallout 4. Don't post about Fallout 4. Just don't worry about it.
Go get a life. Every damn game doesn't need to be a life changing graphical pushing powerhouse.
Well said. Personally it looks fine for me. I'm normally a bit of a graphics whore but give me hundreds of hours' content at this level of pretty and this price and I'll call myself lucky. After a year or two, when the modding community has made it much prettier and introduced much more content, and I have plenty of options from which to choose in gameplay, then I'll play it again and have an even better experience.Bethesda released their official HD textures for Skyrim, it was a good move especially for people who didn't want to bother tempering with folder files to get community-made ones (of course mods were better, but not everyone wants to bother with them). I suppose that they will do the same for Fallout 4 at some point. My 'problem', if any, is that we always have to wait for such textures with Bethesda games. The engine is indeed very old, but good textures can still be made for the game from either the devs or the community (well, that one is guaranteed to happen obviously).
Anyway, if those pictures posted above were indeed taken from the PC version (at max settings I suppose) then I find them 'alright', for the time being. It's nothing horrendous, especially not considering it's... well... it's a Bethesda game (we should all have expected it from them, I'm very surprised by some of the negative reactions around, Bethesda ain't CryTek or CDPR), and it's using that old engine again (heck I'm surprised DOOM wasn't made with gamebryo, they can't get enough of that engine).
Honestly though, it looks at least decently better than Skyrim at release (vanilla, non-modded). And just like all previous Bethesda games it will only get better, much better over time. The main issue is indeed the waiting until it gets there. It usually takes about a full year after release to be in a state where you can choose from multiple mods from all categories, including Unofficial patches, Utilities, new UIs, etc. If any of you guys genuinely feel disgusted by the default (even maxed out) graphics then just wait, really. Just be patient, save your money, and maybe keep an eye occasionally, once every month or so after release and browse the Nexus / Workshop and see what's being worked on by the community and read official patch notes to see what got fixed/changed/added, etc. And about 10 to 12 months later just get it for much cheaper, maybe even with a DLC or two included in some GOTY edition or in a Steam sale.
The 'situation' about Fallout 4's graphics really isn't different from Skyrim's at release (on the PC). I clearly remember people around complaining about how Skyrim's default textures looked bad (and honestly they weren't 'bad' in my eyes, but they could have been noticeably better of course). Then the "rage" about it faded away after about a month, mods started to come out, word of mouth and media on the web spread about how it "now" looked better thanks to mods, more people tried it, found out it was finally "better" and then Bethesda followed with their official HD pack (and then the community complained about that pack anyway and how 'x' and 'y' texture sets weren't touched or remained uncompressed or stuff like that).
Just wait if you're pissed about the graphics, and just buy it if you simply want to play a typical Bethesda-flavored exploration-based game (and that's fine by me, couldn't wait to go back in the Fallout world again).
I'm going to be finishing up Mad Max right before FO4 is released. Based on what I've seen online, I'm starting to think MM might be the better 'post apocalyptic' game of the two. Granted, I haven't played FO4 but with as impressed as I am with MM, it's raised the bar for FO4
You are making an incorrect assumption here by saying player driven narratives versus a fixed character can't have an excellent story/characters, just look at the first 2 Fallouts and New Vegas. I understand that in games like the Elder Scrolls yes I would agree without because your character is literally a blank slate. This isn't the case for Fallout.See, these points are worth addressing. Every game has their issues--shitty combat in Bethesda games, stale side quests; closed on-rails world in Witcher 2, this adolescent understanding of maturity: booby cards yay! repetitive and endless pickup events and easy combat in W3 (still, combat way better than in Skyrim, for comparison).
The reason, again, that issues of player character development and tight story aren't good points for comparison is because these games are still very different in their story. You don't have a set character with Bethesda: you might as well be cupcake wearing a bowler hat, it really doesn't make a difference. Some are trying to make a comparison of a well-defined character like Geralt and a blank space, and try to draw a point here. I laugh at these people, because they simply don't understand what they are talking about. "Character is important!" Yes, yes it is. I think such claims in these threads, though, come from people that don't understand the concept...(probably because these ideas were soley informed by japanese cartoons and my little pony; but I digress).
Bethesda games are not character-driven. They are player-driven. Many compromises are made, but other opportunities open up because of this. I'm not saying it's the better model, it's just what it is. I do find issues with such completely open play that you end up making bizarre and incongruent choices, events within the same world clearly conflict and most problematic: some major events seem not to matter all that much in the end.
The issue of the engine, yet again: Look, I'm talking about "Well why doesn't Bethesda use it to its full capacity?" Again--the issue of Bethesda being lazy and releasing a "half-finished" product, compromising for consoles, whatever, has absolutely nothing to do with the engine. Nothing. That is something else. The fact is that their games remain rather robust years out and the shear amount of content that people can introduce because of this, and the quality people can pull out of those engines is staggering. It's one thing to compare the vanilla engines and cry and moan about the twigs not looking like twigs in other games, then look at a mod, using the very same engine, that makes some really bitching twigs.
Ignoring the true capability of the engine to make an argument that it is shit based on dev laziness is not worth anyone's time, to be honest.
holy moly. what did you order?
Season combo from Best Buy
What's in that? Google revealed nothing.
I hate the idea of DLC now being sold before the god damn game is even released.
I didnt like it when EA did it.
I didnt like it when Ubisoft did it.
I am freaking furious that Bethesda did it.