Support NeoGAF

[Lord Panda]

After the reveal at E3, I mentioned to a friend that Fallout 4 looked like Fallout 3 and things then got a bit tense in the convo.

Glad I'm not the only one who shares this impression.

To be fair, I loved Fallout 1 and 2 for the writing, humour, the gameplay, and it's overall art direction. The titles weren't exactly lookers. At least the combat looks better now in F4 - the power armour HUD is a nice touch.

Bethesda RPG games, with the weird exception of Morrowind, always felt kinda souless - they create these vast worlds but then let it all down with sketchy animation, crappy characters, crappy combat, average story, and so on. They brute force their way into high review scores. I've felt this way about their games starting from their early Elder Scroll titles and Daggerfall.

Guess I better switch on the flame shield now.

 

[danm999]

...never played a Fallout game but know the lore(thanks wiki). I have no strong feelings towards this news at all. I heard Fallout 3 is the GOAT

Depends who you ask. I've seen sizeable support for each different Fallout game in the series being considered the GOAT by different people.

 

[120v]

Bethesda RPG games, with the weird exception of Morrowind, always felt kinda souless - they create these vast worlds but then let it all down with sketchy animation, crappy characters, crappy combat, average story, and so on. They brute force their way into high review scores. I've felt this way about their games starting from their early Elder Scroll titles and Daggerfall.

i more or less agree... and i love bethesda games

way i see it these games are pretty much their own breed and can't really be "scored" relative to your average game. sure there are plenty other sandbox games out there but the games are about as "sandbox" as you can get aside from something like minecraft. that isn't to say they can't be criticized and shouldn't have standards, but it's a different kind of standard

 

[skelekey]

I've been thinking that this game looks completey underwhelming since the reveal. Many people seem ok with it. It's funny because many of the the same flaws that seem to be present here are a huge part of why I haven't been able to get into a bethesda rpg since Oblivion. The rest of the industry blew by by them on many fronts and they seem content to just do whatever.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

Graphics. Graphics. Graphics. Graphics.
Everyone so obsessed with looks nowadays.

Story...gameplay...narrative...items...
There is so much more to a game than graphics.

What story?
Bethesda's gameplay is clunky and buggy as hell.
The narrative created by your actions! Moral choices! You create your story! More PR buzzwords!
There are lots of items though.

I'm not sold on Bethesda Fallout games. I'll buy it later on if the reviews are positive, probably the goty edition with all the bundled dlc.

 

[RPGam3r]

No amount of negativity on this game can spoil my hype. Easily the game I will be playing for hundreds of hours.

 

[Emedan]

Good. Fallout 3 is Bethesda's crowning achievement.

Erm... Morrowind?


Honestly I'm starting to reevaluate my picture of Bethesda - I always revered them greatly after Morrowind thinking they were something really special, but it seems like that title was a one time thing, which is strange cause Todd Howard has been a center figure all the way through. What changed? What talent was lost after Morrowind?

Not to say I didn't enjoy Oblivion, Fallout and Skyrim, but in retrospect these games never reached the highs of Morrowind. Hmm oh well, yeah this game isn't pushing any limits that's for sure.

 

[Big-ass Ramp]

if they sacrificed graphics for stability, I'd be just fine with that.

 

[Kikorin]

We all know how it looks graphically, we have already seen a lot of gameplay, nothing new. But I think in 15 min he doesn't see a lot of a 400+ hours game, so I really don't understand what he's talking about.

 

[Tigress]

You know it's funny how people upset by this tend to be people who dislike Bethesda already.

Anyways, ever stop to think that Bethesda knows its crowd? That they already like the game and don't fix what is broken? It seems they are doing what they should be with a game that already is popular, refining on what should be changed and keeping around what people already like. Already people are worrying about the changes they did make (I will admit I have my reservations about them putting in voiced characters. But I am a little less worried about skills being gone after being explained the perk system more).

Most of us Fallout fans just want more fallout. More things to explore, more characters to talk to. New stories to find out. We like the game and that's why we want another one. Not just some totally new game just for the sake of it having to change. If I want that I'll find a new game .

Also, complaining about the computer terminals looking the same? Did whoever write that complaint in the article even think about what they were complaining about?! They should damned well look the same! We're talking about computer terminals that have been sitting for 100's of years and are old tech in the game world. Old tech doesn't just suddenly redesign itself to look more modern cause the year is newer (if anything it looks more aged). Does the original Windows have some sort of programming to auto update its own look to keep with the times? Do any OS's do that now (Without some one actually changing settings? Who is in fall out that would go around to all these computers and make sure they suddenly look different just for random scavenger that might find them?).

I like that Fallout has a similar look to 3, it feels like Fallout. I liked 3, I liked Vegas even better. Vegas made Fallout the perfect game without even changing the graphics. As I said before, and yes it is relevant, people weren't playing and enjoying Fallout for the graphics in the first place (Not even 1 or 2. No Fallout has been known for the graphics and all have been loved, albeit by different people, for the game itself and not the graphics).

Honestly, graphisc really are the last thing they need to worry about in Fallout. They need to worry that it retains that Fallout feel, that the story needs improvement, but also that your ability to play your own character isn't compromised, that freedom to approach a situation however you want is mostly retained (I agree that sometimes it's not bad to say that some ways won't work but it shouldn't be railroading you every time), that it stays an RPG (and yes, it is an RPG to that person who insists that it's a shooter. You can't make dialogue checks in shooters. You in general don't get dialogue choices in shooters. You don't get to decide what personality your character has in shooters. You don't have skills that have nothing to do with shooting or fighing in shooters).

 

[Gator86]

After the reveal at E3, I mentioned to a friend that Fallout 4 looked like Fallout 3 and things then got a bit tense in the convo.

Glad I'm not the only one who shares this impression.

To be fair, I loved Fallout 1 and 2 for the writing, humour, the gameplay, and it's overall art direction. The titles weren't exactly lookers. At least the combat looks better now in F4 - the power armour HUD is a nice touch.

Bethesda RPG games, with the weird exception of Morrowind, always felt kinda souless - they create these vast worlds but then let it all down with sketchy animation, crappy characters, crappy combat, average story, and so on. They brute force their way into high review scores. I've felt this way about their games starting from their early Elder Scroll titles and Daggerfall.

Guess I better switch on the flame shield now.

I think the bolded is what is making me so skeptical of Fallout 4. I played a ton of 3 and Syrim because they were huge open worlds. Now, there's huge open worlds everywhere. And those world's aren't full of glitches, garbage animation, and shovelware gameplay. The Witcher 3 gave us a huge world, ridiculous graphics, great writing, interesting quests, choice, and fun gameplay. Long story short: for me, at least, the things that made earlier Bethesda games special aren't anything special anymore. They're par for the course now. Simply trotting out Fallout 3 with some graphics upgrades, gunplay upgraded to not complete shit, and minecraft nonsense doesn't blow my mind in the least.

 

[FullMetalx117]

People were begging Halo to be different. Now look at it....
Glad Bethesda is keeping things the same. I wouldn't mind another "fallout 3" type experience.

 

[Sarcasm]

So an apocalyptic world (which happens to be parallel to an existing historical era) should be graphically vibrate as a fantasy game like Witcher 3.

For me I am okay with the graphics unless it was suppose to take place two hundred plus years in the future.

Give me more fallout, more things to read, talk to, craft, explore and what not

Also with oblivion they totally have made me always set the bar of expectations low.

 

[sui generis]

This game will bomb. Nobody will buy it.











Wink*

 

[Conkerkid11]

People were begging Halo to be different. Now look at it....
Glad Bethesda is keeping things the same. I wouldn't mind another "fallout 3" type experience.

Who was begging Halo to be different? And what do you mean, "now look at it..."? Halo's still a great series, and 343i's been doing a fantastic job with the series despite Microsoft's eagerness to push out an unfinished collection that was broken as a result of rushing and outsourcing.

Fallout 3 didn't have impressive visuals when it released, and it's not going to 7 years later.

Has it been confirmed whether or not it will be 60fps on consoles? If it's 30fps, there's some weird fuckery going on here.

So an apocalyptic world (which happens to be parallel to an existing historical era) should be graphically vibrate as a fantasy game like Witcher 3.

For me I am okay with the graphics unless it was suppose to take place two hundred plus years in the future.

Give me more fallout, more things to read, talk to, craft, explore and what not

Also with oblivion they totally have made me always set the bar of expectations low.

There's a difference between retaining a similar artistic approach, and improving the visuals.

Last time I checked, apocalyptic worlds weren't known for low resolution textures and shitty animation.

I'm somewhat confused why people are comparing this to Fallout 3 when it makes more sense to compare it to skyrim.

lol, what

 

[CarbonFire]

I'm done with the Fallout and Elder Scrolls games until there is a big change in how they are made.

Bethesda won't make big changes until the games stop printing money for them. And considering they'll probably have paid mods (on PC and consoles), I don't think their license to print money will expire anytime soon.

 

[Mesoian]

I'm somewhat confused why people are comparing this to Fallout 3 when it makes more sense to compare it to skyrim. (Visually I mean).

There's a difference between retaining a similar artistic approach, and improving the visuals.

Last time I checked, apocalyptic worlds weren't known for low resolution textures and shitty animation.

Wut?

 

[Grazzt]

Nooooooo.
Fallout 3 was the weakest of the franchise.

 

[Conkerkid11]

Wut?

Why'd you remove my name from the quote, and what's confusing you about what I said?

 

[Omnii-chan]

Stop trying to lower my Fallout hype.

 

[PaNaMa]

To me, graphics do matter. Graphics can help drive immersion, and suspension of disbelief. They don't have to be spectacular. Especially if the story is great, and the RPG systems and combat is rewarding.

But they shouldn't be distracting for the wrong reasons. In this situation, it is not unreasonable to expect a marked visual improvement over the last iteration. For a game sequel where a full console generation has passed, and the next gen is already mature...well, I expected much better. Maybe we haven't really seen the ultra setting PC version with all the bells n whistles yet.

It seems like Bethesda is leaving graphics up to the modding community with this one. Which is kind of shameful.

Anyways, day 1 for me. Unless the reviews turn out to be brutal.

 

[kamineko]

I'm worried about the systems stuff, not appearance. This article doesn't really affect my opinion one way or another

 

[_machine]

I haven't had much time to stay updated with the discussion, but seeing some footage up-close here at gamescom, I have to say that I totally disagree. The animations and their feel is massively improved, the reload animations for example looked brilliant compared to FO3 and seemed to stand against titles more focused on combat only. The character animations seemed more lively and hit reactions were a ton better, but they also added a lot to the encounter design by making the character reactions to the player better. Environments too were a huge step up and I really think that some of the volumetric light effects really looked good, even if it's not comparable to some of the more linear titles. At its heart though, I still seemed much like the same game, but I don't think it's a bad thing and I can consider myself hyped after seeing the footage first-hand.

 

[inked_illusion]

Typical Bethesda

 

[Tigress]

Nooooooo.
Fallout 3 was the weakest of the franchise.

Did you like New Vegas? If so, then it's not the graphics that made it the worst cause New Vegas pretty much didn't improve them either.

New Vegas was vastly improved over 3 because of other stuff. But the graphics were the same. And yet it still was a far better game.

You don't need better graphics to make Fallout better. You need to work on the stuff that is more relevant to why people love Fallout.

As for the person griping about graphics ruining immersion. I was really immersed for both 3 and New Vegas (and hey, I played 3 in 2013 and Vegas either '13 or '14 so they were already well outdated before I played them). I don't know why all the sudden I'd have a hard time immersing myself in 4 when I had no problem with those two games.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Fine by me. I could play story addons from 3 until I'm blue in the face. I was kinda hoping there was more.

 

[DocSeuss]

It's like vg247 doesn't really get what Bethesda does with its games. Graphics and animations don't matter.

Why is Boston surrounded by mountains?

Because level design > realism

 

[Game4life]

F3 an F3:NV were broke as hell when it came to actual gameplay.

This right here. Bethesda always gets away with creating trekking simulators with poor gameplay.

 

[mitchlol]

So the game is going to look janky and buggy like all Bethesda games.... And people are surprised because???

That reveal trailer looked liked the PC version of Fallout 3 with some slightly nicer textures but the characters still walk like they have a stick up their ass

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

Erm... Morrowind?


Honestly I'm starting to reevaluate my picture of Bethesda - I always revered them greatly after Morrowind thinking they were something really special, but it seems like that title was a one time thing, which is strange cause Todd Howard has been a center figure all the way through. What changed? What talent was lost after Morrowind?

Not to say I didn't enjoy Oblivion, Fallout and Skyrim, but in retrospect these games never reached the highs of Morrowind. Hmm oh well, yeah this game isn't pushing any limits that's for sure.

Ever since they made Morrowind they've been under pressure to create that game over and over. A game like that is such a big and complicated game that they can't really afford to go off track and try new things, so they just end up having to make the same game over and over. Even when they get the Fallout IP they just plug it into that formula. They don't get the luxury of yearly or every other year releases, it takes them 5 years to make a game, so they have to make it as safe as possible.

 

[Three]

It's like vg247 doesn't really get what Bethesda does with its games. Graphics and animations don't matter.



Because level design > realism

Ok but why set it in Boston in the first place

 

[DocSeuss]

Ok but why set it in Boston in the first place

Because the protagonist is probably a cyborg.

 

[doofy102]

It doesn't need to be anything different.

Let's not even pretend this is about the disappointment of Fallout 3 "recycling" because many great RPG series recycle. You guys just want to hate on Bethesda.

 

[magnetic]

I'm playing though FO3 and NV on my 360 right now for the first time, and when I first started NV (the first Bethesda game I ever tried) I almost fell out of my chair when I saw the terrible potatohead face designer, the crash test dummy running animations and the plastic looking environments.

From what I've seen so far, FO4 already looks worlds better. The face editor alone is like a night and day difference.

My guess is that the people who previewed the game simply forgot how shockingly awful the past two games looked. FO4 so far is at least moderately pleasant to look at - I had to start my NV save over after three hours and wrangle together another female clay head that at least partially looked human because I was so disgusted and turned off by my initial deformed creation.

For the record, I still enjoy them a lot, but the character options in particular reminded me of late-90s poser models.

 

[PFD]

That's exactly how I felt when I watched the reveal trailer

I'll buy Obsidian's superior version if they make one

 

[StrongBlackVine]

I'm glad I was able to fully customize my weapons and build my own settlement in Fallout 3. Truly Game of the Generation.

This is filler to to me and actually a negative if I HAVE to build settlement. Don't care for that level of micro-management.

 

[MattyG]

Ok but why set it in Boston in the first place

Why not? The mountains were created due to seismic activity when all the nukes went off during the Great War. They probably liked the setting, had a good idea for a story there, and needed a way to wall the player in, so "hey, the Great War caused mountains to pop up here!"

This is filler to to me and actually a negative if I HAVE to build settlement. Don't care for that level of micro-management.

You don't have to. Todd said during E3 that it's completely optional.

 

[djshauny]

Its simple really. If you dont like the look of something then dont buy it.

 

[Conkerkid11]

It's like vg247 doesn't really get what Bethesda does with its games. Graphics and animations don't matter.

But that's largely what this article is about, so why would this change your opinion on the game then if those don't matter to you?

Its simple really. If you dont like the look of something then dont buy it.

Okay?

 

[Lord of Castamere]

Why not? The mountains were created due to seismic activity when all the nukes went off during the Great War. They probably liked the setting, had a good idea for a story there, and needed a way to wall the player in, so "hey, the Great War caused mountains to pop up here!"

It doesn't need an explanation imo. Definition of nitpick. "Why couldn't they use a different imaginary world border? "

 

[Wynnebeck]

Its simple really. If you dont like the look of something then dont buy it.

If this is your attempt at trying to stifle criticism, then you are doing quite poorly.

 

[Overside]

Send complaints to:

Robert A. Altman
Chairman & CEO

Ernest Del
President

Jerry Bruckheimer
Jerry Bruckheimer Films

Michael Dominguez
Managing Director, Providence Equity Partners Inc.

Leslie Moonves
President & CEO, CBS Corporation

Cal Ripken, Jr.
President & CEO, Ripken Baseball, Inc.

Harry E. Sloan
Chairman and CEO, Global Eagle Holdings, LLC

Robert S. Trump
President, Trump Management, Inc.

 

[Nameless]

The scale of the world, the depth of the choices & quest structure, the amount of freedom to forge unique experiences, the range & variety of the combat & AI, the customization options, the writing. These are the things that will determine how good this game is -- who gives a fuck if it looks like higher res Fallout 3?

 

[Emperor_Uriel]

The most important question still hasn't been answered yet: Are interiors still separated by loading screens?

If not, I'd say that's a pretty major step in the right direction for Bethesda, and a huge boon to my personal hype.

 

[Conkerkid11]

who gives a fuck if it looks like higher res Fallout 3?

A lot of people?

The most important question still hasn't been answered yet: Are interiors still separated by loading screens?

Pretty damn sure they are.

 

[Solid Samus]

Pretty damn sure they are.

Based on what? It's been suggested that the majority aren't.

 

[OrlanisWorks]

Most games sequels are recycled content, mixed in with new and improved.

I do admit that I think Bethesda always drops the ball on animations and improving their engine. If it looks like Skyrim, I am personally satisfied. Animations may be clunky, but I've pretty much come to terms that Bethesda is no near a leader in such an area. Likely never will be.

Like the most of you I want Fallout 4 to replicate the the good times of Fallout 3 (and to some extent New Vegas), but with the step-up to a new generation of hardware I’m expecting more. “More” could be a set-piece, or an engine upgrade, or jaw-dropping scenery, or new perks and weapons that will make me bark with sadistic pleasure.

Keep dreaming.

 

[Nipo]

Its simple really. If you dont like the look of something then dont buy it.

Yeah, heaven forbid people discuss what they dislike about video games on a video game forum!

 

[Luq]

I really want to love this game, God knows I do ... but seeing more and more of it, it just seems more and more obvious that we are getting sandboxy-shooter with RPG elements rather than RPG with sandbox and shooter elements.

"You dont like it? Dont buy it then" approach is only partialy right - I love Fallout, but since Bethseda "won" the brand over my only hope for getting something in this universe is slowly drifting away. Yeah, sure - I could play some Wasteland or go back to first entries but you know it's not the same.

Long story short - Fallout is becoming (or has become already?) mass product, and if there is "mass crowd" involved then it's rarely something unique and ambitious.

 

[MiguelItUp]

Honestly I'm completely okay with this, especially with all the details and content that's in it. It sounds like they're really doing quite a bit with it. Which would also make sense as to why it doesn't look much better. Regardless of what happens, I'm sure I'll love the final product and that's all that matters.