Again you are right, but what made NV so good isn't involved in Fallout 4 so there's nothing to be hopeful about there. I don't see Todd Howard as a guy who could ever admit that Obsidian made a better Fallout than Bethesda.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fallout 4 Officially Revealed for PC, Xbox One, PS4 [Reddit Rumor = Ban]
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
Again you are right, but what made NV so good isn't involved in Fallout 4 so there's nothing to be hopeful about there. I don't see Todd Howard as a guy who could ever admit that Obsidian made a better Fallout than Bethesda.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
So if the cross gen is true or at one point was true the next elder scrolls will be the game that has been designed for this hardware from the ground up ?
Kind of stinks but I can see why it happened this way. If it's still cross gen then the ps4/xb1/PC versions will be comparable to the last gen versions, like a modded out PC version (textures, load gates removed, etc) of their other games were comparable to those console versions.
I don't care about graphics those will get modded on PC anyway. I'm just wondering what things they couldn't do because of the ram limitations. Or maybe they went ahead and did them on current gen, and the other version (if it exists) will be chopped up / less feature rich?
Kind of stinks but I can see why it happened this way. If it's still cross gen then the ps4/xb1/PC versions will be comparable to the last gen versions, like a modded out PC version (textures, load gates removed, etc) of their other games were comparable to those console versions.
I don't care about graphics those will get modded on PC anyway. I'm just wondering what things they couldn't do because of the ram limitations. Or maybe they went ahead and did them on current gen, and the other version (if it exists) will be chopped up / less feature rich?
Pre-order is up everywhere, and we have no idea what is scale of the game and what gameplay will be about. Gotta love modern gaming industry.
You could always just play both using the New Vegas engine:
http://taleoftwowastelands.com/
If you haven't done any modding with Bethesda's games before, there'll be a bit of a learning curve, but TTW is insanely stable for what it does. I pushed it to the very limit with an essentially maxed out mod load order, and yet it has crashed exactly once in my 100+ hours so far. And that was because of a silly and avoidable mistake with two 3rd party mods, no fault of TTW itself. Highly recommended, since with it you can play Fallout 3 with NV's ironsights and all the other improvements.
Lord of Castamere
Member
So the PC crowd upset over Witcher 3 downgrades, also hyped Infamous and Killzone because of their graphics?
Da fuck did I just read?
Obliterator
Member
Yeah I'm confused as well. The post seems to be implying "GAF" is showing bias but I'm not sure who exactly is supposed to be.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Here's a GAF protip: Whenever your post involves saying "GAF does this but then does the opposite" you're committing a logical fallacy and your post is dumb. Unless you're just lamenting the fact that you can't please everyone, which is true and obvious. But so many people think they're pointing out hypocrisy when they're really just confused about how groups of people with varying opinions work.
Trailer tells us very little / nothing about gameplay itself so graphics is basically what we can debate about. After E3 presentation, assuming they give us good chunk of gameplay, you can expect page after page of gameplay analysis and fighting
I don't know, reddit has done a good job of picking up little things they have seen on the trailer. I hate to say it but until some one started a thread to talk about Fallout and bar graphics argument, Reddit had more interesting discussion cause they actually talked about what they saw in the trailer with only some conversation on graphics and the whole graphics argument wasn't drowning out all the other things people saw and wanted to talk about. ANd most agreed, it's Fallout, it's never been a game you played for the graphics. Honestly, it's embarassing cause usually I count on Gaf to have much better quality discussion on stuff than reddit.
Like I think it is an interesting conversation to talk about the fact that population density does look higher. While I think 3 was kinda sparse in NPCs to talk to, I think having too many people would lose that post apocalyptic feel. ANd I do want Fallout to stay a survival type RPG game. I suppose if it keeps going it's unrealistic cause eventually society comes back. But that is one of the things I really loved about it.
Lord of Castamere
Member
I thought New Vegas had a good balance with that. Plenty of danger off the beaten path, but plently of people to talk to as well. It's all going to depend on map size too. Personally, I like safe havens in my post apocalyptic nightmare. They're comforting.
The main advantage to more people should be more quests. Hopefully.
I agree on all accounts. Vegas had a great balance and safe havens are nice to have. I just still want it to retain that world is not great and people are struggling feel (vegas did that well).
Yeah, there seemed to be a lot of NPCs visible in the Diamond City shot, and that seemed to be just a small piece of that overall area. Enemy density looks like it's gone up too, as seen in the ghoul shot. There's more on screen there than I ever saw in past games.
Eh, I actually think that's one of the few places where Vegas was weaker than Fallout 3. Vegas felt like the tech was holding back the population count, not the world. The game constantly talks about NCR's giant army, the Legion's huge army, but it wasn't capable of showing it.
On the other hand, D.C. felt like it was sparsely populated because there were very few places where a human being could survive(it was still a matter of tech limits, but it didn't feel like it).
How are they different? Is this a joke post?
Combat still trash, animations are janky as fuck, glitches and bugs out the ass.
I really don't see what you're trying to say here. Skyrim is a fantastic example of Bethesda iterating on the same shit over and over again instead of cleaning the slate and making a the best sequel they possibly can.
I mean, I don't even give a rat's ass about the game's graphics. But I do care about the trash gunplay/combat and fucking ARMA-2-tier animation quality that has riddled Bethesda games since the dawn of time. It makes the world they create feel like a screenplay of a hokey B-tier movie. Characters look and move like dolls and slide around the world like it's a fucking tuesday. I want them to do better. This trailer gives me no indication that they have.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
You can't say GTA V plays HUGELY differently to GTA 3. There's stil upgrades in between. It's because they're part of a series. Fallout 2 -> Fallout 3 was a unusually distinct upgrade.
I wasn't talking about the graphics you strangely single-minded man. Nor was I saying Skyrim leaves ZERO room for improvement. It's a smoother game to play than Oblivion though, and I don't think many would disagree with me. If I can go back to a game after playing its sequel and the original feels awkward and clumsy, the sequel has done its job. This is the case with Oblivion -> Skyrim.
DC was too sparse though. Once I discovered everyone, I felt like, "That's it?" I like talking to NPCs in my RPGs. It breaks up the areas of exploring and combat and it is rewarding to find a little town of NPCs and find new stories while I explore. DC really didn't have much of that at all. Hell, I love the lots of smaller quests of Vegas over a few longer quest lines where I still felt like "That's it" once I finished them (partly though I felt that way cause I loved the game and I wasn't ready to have already pretty much done everything).
Maybe Vegas was limited by technicalities, but it didn't feel too bad to me. Besides, Bethesda gave them two years to churn that out and not much support with the engine. Apparently they wanted to do a lot more but couldn't (so sad. Vegas already is my GOAT, I wonder what it would have been if Obsidian had been able to do what they actually wanted with it).
But, I will admit that sparcity of DC did add that whole wasteland feel that I think they did really well (the thing in general I say 3 was better than Vegas). There is definitely a balance. But point being is I think there is a point in a game like fallout where too many PCs is bad too (but too few is bad for gameplay reasons).
I wasn't either, you less-than-averagely-skilled reader. That was a comment on the hate flowing from all sides because the graphics look poor.
The metric by which you define 'proper sequels' is freaking hilarious though.
The core mechanics between the two have not changed a bit. It's a more modern version of the same game on the same engine.
Unbelievable jank and bottom-tier animation quality? Garbage combat/gunplay? All still there.
Octavianus
Banned
More like a monumental downgrade.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
Boston.
So I am guessing we will see a Larry Bird reference in the game?
A nod to the Irish?
The American Revolution?
The New England Patriots football team? (They were once in Boston)
Red Sox?
Leprechauns?
Come on, Bethesda. Make the locale interesting.
So I am guessing we will see a Larry Bird reference in the game?
A nod to the Irish?
The American Revolution?
The New England Patriots football team? (They were once in Boston)
Red Sox?
Leprechauns?
Come on, Bethesda. Make the locale interesting.
I actually agree. Though, D.C. felt more like a post-apocalyptic wasteland to me.
That's like saying morrowind to oblivion was a big upgrade.
RandyBobandy
Banned
I'm kinda excited to see what modders do with it in all honesty.
Look how nice Skyrim looks now
Look how nice Skyrim looks now
Exactly. Many of us have been waiting the entire generation so far just for the announcement and now by some miracle it seems the game might actually make 2015.
But people were expecting a graphical showcase for some reason. Since when have vanilla Bethesda games ever been graphical showcases? Skyrim looked nice enough for its time but it was nothing fantastic. The graphics for Fallout 4 aren't even that bad. If Bethesda did make the graphics their biggest priority then people would be complaining about framerate and size of the world.
Honestly, what did you guys expect the game to look like? And do you own gaming PCs? If so then just mod the fuck out of it like every other Bethesda game and make it look however you want. If the graphics are THAT painful for you and you don't own a gaming PC then get one and mod the fuck out of it.
And somebody said it looks like a 2007 game? Really? Does every game from 2007 look like Crysis on max now? I can't believe the hyperbole in this thread.
It's 2015 and I have yet to start playing Skyrim.
Bought it last year in Steam sale but two things put me off:
- It's a long game.
- The longer I wait, the more and the better the mods.
Over the years I've already accumulated a large bookmarks folder with mods I read about.
Solid Samus
Banned
I think that Fallout is every bit as much about society's slow but inevitable progress back forward as it is about survival. Maybe even moreso.
this ride never ends!
inb4 "HAVE YOU GUYS SEEN THIS YET? omg there's this rumor on Reddit"
Nah, man, the saddest part is, that was Nirolak's response to the very first mention of that Reddit rumor in this thread. All these other ones were after a moderator came in and called bullshit. After.
Turin Turambar
Member
And then they will sell 20 million copies and will sleep like babies above sacks full of money.
hobblygobbly
Member
"Francis" is a character that boogie2988 has used for years, he was also a former GAF member. Francis is a parody/satire character he uses.
Skull_Splosion
Neo Member
I'm so confused. I want to believe it will be released by Christmas but I highly doubt it. I've been revisiting Fallout NV on PC for the past 2 months (adding new mods to it as I go) so I couldn't be any more hyped for new, official content.
We don't have gameplay, we don't have concrete story details.
Apart from the setting and the graphics, what else is there to talk about that isn't speculation?
I say it's natural to talk about graphics, there isn't much else to talk about that wouldn't just go in the speculation thread.
Apart from the setting and the graphics, what else is there to talk about that isn't speculation?
I say it's natural to talk about graphics, there isn't much else to talk about that wouldn't just go in the speculation thread.
While the hate train regarding the graphics is annoying, I don't feel bad for Bethesda at all. Fallout 4 (if it releases this year) is going to be one of the top selling games of the year and will most likely sweep the GOTY Awards in the Media. When was the last time a BGS game came out and didn't sweep the awards in the media? Morrowind?
Trailer tells us very little / nothing about gameplay itself so graphics is basically what we can debate about. After E3 presentation, assuming they give us good chunk of gameplay, you can expect page after page of gameplay analysis and fighting
Fallout 4 is announced and the graphics are the only thing that can be discussed?
I thought after seeing this picture there would be tons of discussion about
Those weapons on the wall along with the covered gatling gun on the floor
The bobble head on the table
The work bench
The rack that's filled with what looks like skill magazines
The vault tech poster with all the perks
The power armor
And speculation about the garage itself. Plus the trailer has even more details that could be talked about.
I guess not.
Empyrean Heaven
Member
It's a simple addition, but it makes the trailer SO much better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McDo4XGnW_k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McDo4XGnW_k
Summer Haze
Banned
It's a shame that a separate thread had to be made for speculation, but here it is: http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1056456
FunkyPajamas
Member
I've seen those already discussed. It's not just about graphics.
Eh... it doesn't really work.
If the graphics are that painful to some one, why are they even playing Fallout or even interested in it? If you're playing Fallout for the graphics, you're doing it wrong.
Also, yeah, I would prefer they focus on more places to explore, getting better writing (characterization, story), focus on making what you do actually have effect on the world, more varied quests rather than a few series that have a line of quests in them, more dialogue choices, better gunplay (ADs please), that faction system that Obsidian used, oh, hardcore mode as well, better/more crafting (I loved being able to craft recipes in Vegas and being able to even make stimpacks and weapon repair kits). Pretty much everything Obsidian did to improve Fallout (I really hope Bethesda takes some lessons from it. I mean if I see even some influence from Vegas that is going to be great. ANd I really really really hope they put in hardcore mode). Oh, and maybe even make it run a little less janky (But I love Fallout so much I'll probably forgive them if htey don't. I mean i couldn't even finish Vegas cause it got unplayable and it's still my GOAT).
There's so much other stuff they could focus on to make it better that would have far better effect on making it a good game (That focuses on why people like the game and not just making it pretty) than making the graphics pretty. Stuff that is actually more related to why people love Fallout than the pretty graphics.
The game is still prettier than Vegas/3 and that's all I want. I don't care if it matches Witcher or whatever other game you want to compare. I don't play it for being a technical marvel when it comes to graphics (You want that, go play Killzone Shadowfall...). Once again, if you are playing Fallout for the graphics, you are doing it so wrong. And why did we have this many pages of people bitching about graphics on a game that never was known for its graphics in any iteration?! Sure, make some comments on it but it really should never have been this much focus of conversation! Graphics was never why anyone liked the previous Fallouts.
Fallout 4 is announced and the graphics are the only thing that can be discussed?
The best part is that actually looking at that shot reminds me how good looking the game is in reality after you strip away all of the sour-grape talk. Esp. considering the immense scope of the sandbox world.
If I were to read nothing but the posts complaining about the graphics before seeing any actual media first-hand, the only logical conclusion would be that the game looks something like this.
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
Those actually have been discussed, but got drowned out by the deluge of gamer graphics rage.
Skull_Splosion
Neo Member
That's.....just amazing.
Actually I would say GTA V plays hugely differently to GTA 3 if the comparison is Oblivion -> Skyrim, which is very close to being the exact same game besides graphical differences. The combat is improved in Skyrim but it's still bad.
And I have no idea why you mentioned Fallout 2, Bethesda had nothing to do with it.
triplestation
Member
No it doesn't..
Unaha-Closp
Member
Going on the trailer it doesn't look stunning by any means but I put 200-300 (if not more) hours into each of these games - Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas and Skyrim - and they weren't stunning looking either so I suspect I will be playing Fallout 4 for a lengthy amount of time and getting real annoyed at it crashing and whatnot like they always do but still counting it among my favourite games. Hopefully. Time will tell.
So because it's Bethesda we can excuse poor graphics and animations? There's no guarantee the game will run well. There's no guarantee the gameplay will be good. There's one thing we can judge right now and it's the graphics, which are subpar at best. Look at the first Skyrim gameplay trailer. Those graphics are at the same level if not superior. And that trailer was attempting to show the new gameplay as well. This Fallout trailer looks like an attempt to show off the graphics engine.
I'm not asking for photorealistim here. But I think it's proper to expect that the game doesn't look like a 2011 title, and fans ought to be disappointed that such a hugely anticipated game with a hugely ridiculous budget that will sell a huge amount of copies looks like this. I don't see the effort put into this. In addition to the poor graphics, they still have the same lousy animations and even in the trailer things look glitchy and janky.
I just want this game to be as good as possible. The gameplay will probably be phenomenal, story awesome etc. But we should push Bethesda to bring out the best possible product rather than continue to accept mediocrity based on the name of the company/franchise.
I'm not asking for photorealistim here. But I think it's proper to expect that the game doesn't look like a 2011 title, and fans ought to be disappointed that such a hugely anticipated game with a hugely ridiculous budget that will sell a huge amount of copies looks like this. I don't see the effort put into this. In addition to the poor graphics, they still have the same lousy animations and even in the trailer things look glitchy and janky.
I just want this game to be as good as possible. The gameplay will probably be phenomenal, story awesome etc. But we should push Bethesda to bring out the best possible product rather than continue to accept mediocrity based on the name of the company/franchise.
Summer Haze
Banned
This. Some of these comments and how the game actually looks to me just don't match up. All things considered I think it looks great. And the level of detail in that garage alone is amazing. I'm glad that Bethesda seem to be prioritizing environmental detail and interactivity above all else.
I hope they'll consider the song for an eventual future trailer or TV Ad.
As long as that rumor about them forcing you to play a male is wrong, this is exactly what I'm expecting (except I'm hoping them voicing the character won't ruin my immersion as I fear it will
. It's fine for games where you aren't making a character of a personality you have in mind already for it. Not so much in a game where part of the appeal is playing who ever you want).And honestly, the more I look at the pictures, the better it looks. It looks like there is far more details in the world than before. That's far better to me than higher resolution or the character models being hugely different (To be honest how they do their character models never really bugged me). I'm more interested in them making the world more interesting than making the graphics more impressive.
Did you really think Oblivion or Fallout 3 or Skyrim had an awesome story?
I would say the same about gameplay but I don't want to get bogged down in an argument about definitions, since I imagine people have different ideas about what constitutes gameplay. For me, Bethesda games are about exploring a world with decent lore and lots of content. Everything else is mediocre at best. Shooting and fighting is janky. Interactivity amounts to rooms filled with junk items you can move around if you want, which I'm surprised to see really means a lot to some people.