Support NeoGAF

[GHG]

No, I mean no.

Something must be wrong here.

Old build perhaps, I can't believe Bethesda would ship a game looking like that in the year 2015.

Why spend money and time making it look nice when the modding community will do that for you and you can profit from each mod sale?

 

[SictorVullivan]

No, I mean no.

Something must be wrong here.

Old build perhaps, I can't believe Bethesda would ship a game looking like that in the year 2015.

What?

This looks completely fine compared to even the post apocalypse screenshot.

 

[kvn]

Alright thanks.

I'm not going to bother to quote all the other people quoting me but in general if the game isn't casting any shadows (instead of it being a problem with the time of day) what is the stuff in the other shots?

Are just trolling at this point? It has nothing to do with the time of day, but mainly with the ridiculously paired back draw distance (of shadows).

 

[Dictator93]

Can you manipulate every item in the environment in Witcher?

No, but what does that have to do with this game? You cannot exactly blow down walls or move static geometry here as well. It is not as if any and everything is physicalized.

BTW, a good example of shading vs shadowing in how they look in rasterized graphics is shown by this nice screen maldo made ages ago:
Shaded:

Shadowed:

 

[SirMossyBloke]

What?

This looks completely fine compared to even the post apocalypse screenshot.

Yeah I don't get it either. Looks fine to me.

 

[Rajang]

Hahaha.

Looks like a plastic figurine.

 

[Spirited]

No, I mean no.

Something must be wrong here.

Old build perhaps, I can't believe Bethesda would ship a game looking like that in the year 2015.

That looks like a plastic toy soldier.

 

[Durante]

Alright thanks.

I'm not going to bother to quote all the other people quoting me but in general if the game isn't casting any shadows (instead of it being a problem with the time of day) what is the stuff in the other shots?

It is casting shadows.

It's just that it seemingly stops bothering a scant dozen meters or so from the camera. At least in these shots, the comparison shot posted earlier from the trailer doesn't have this issue (and shows lots of shadows in the distance).

 

[vio]

Shadows sucks for sure, i guess on PC it will look slightly better.

 

[Warm Machine]

The last shot there has to be a mistake. They forgot to turn shadows on for some reason. Even Just Cause 2 on 360 would still be drawing shadows that far back.

 

[K' Dash]

How the fuck CD Prjkt with a fraction of the budget and staff made one of the best looking games to date is beyond me, shame on bethesda.

 

[Omadahl]

Why do people care how good or bad it looks? I never played Fallout or Elder Scrolls for their graphics. You play for content. Graphics are what mods are for. If you've only played those games on consoles, I guess I can forgive people complaining about graphics because they weren't going to be improved, but that's not an excuse this time since everyone will get mods.

 

[bomblord1]

Are just trolling at this point? It has nothing to do with the time of day, but mainly with the ridiculously paired back draw distance (of shadows).

For Fuck Sake can't I just try to understand something without being called a troll or attacked in some way. This happens way to often around here.

It is casting shadows.

It's just that it seemingly stops bothering a scant dozen meters or so from the camera. At least in these shots, the comparison shot posted earlier from the trailer doesn't have this issue (and shows lots of shadows in the distance).

I think I see what your talking about so they just stop rendering shadows after a very short distance short enough that you can't see them in the landscape shots. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Denton]

Are you implying the game looks like that because of the lack of power on consoles? The GTA5 remaster looks so much better than this in every form, this game better not be 30fps.


The screens you posted of Kingdom come, what's up with the texture of the post on that bridge, that game is not particularly impressive either as whole. Of course, more impressive than Fallout 4, but what AAA game isn't at this point. Why are these textures so bad in F4, the PS3 with limited Vram had better textures over the 360 version of Fallout 3, these consoles have 8Gb's of Vram and these are the textures we get, of course the filtering is awful too.

I was wondering how much KCD will get cutdown for consoles. I did not mean to imply FO4 looks terrible because of consoles, I think that's due to Bethesda's inability, not necessarily consoles.
You do not find Kingdom Come impressive ?
Check these screens I took:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=170901023&postcount=233
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=170904131&postcount=236
Personally I find it extremely impressive looking game.
Btw PS4 does not have 8GB VRAM, it has 5.5GB usable unified RAM that is used for both game data and graphics data.

 

[Steve McQueen]

Does not look too hot, but gonna play the hell out of it.

 

[Kezen]

He looks almost as plastic-y and terrible as the Collector's Edition Pip-Boy.

Yeah this is truly the shocking part. Fallout 4 is said to have PBR authored assets, that just does not right at all.

Here, the game looks really good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNfqQ7iJDg0

 

[Portugeezer]

E3 2015 Trailer (Gamersryde-Version)


Fallout 4 Gameplay Exploration Trailer (Youtube)



PS4-Version (?)



keep the compression in mind.

PC version it is.

 

[KZXcellent]

People calling shitty graphics shittty isn't toxic, it is deserved and needed. Bethesda has more money than anyone else making RPGs in the industry. If they step up their game as they should, gamers will have better experiences, including you.

I'd agree with you and the people in the thread that the graphics should be better. Hell, it should be running on a newer engine. As a player of these games I won't be disappointed in this game if it amounts to what's essentially a better looking Fallout game though.

As for my statements about this thread being toxic - To me it came off that way given the ridiculous amount of posts about how terrible it looks and the general attitude of those people. Of course me and others not jumping on the bandwagon of finding the screenshots unacceptable (which compared to other AAA RPGs they are) hasn't helped it. I still stand by what I said even more after reading through the newer posts.

 

[Turin Turambar]

So Dogmeat's official name is Hablar. Not sure how I feel about that. Other than that, these screens look pretty much the same as the promo ones.

As Spanish, that name confuses me slightly.

Technically, it's very ugly. There is no disputing that.

Artistically, it's also pretty average.

 

[Klossen]

How the fuck CD Prjkt with a fraction of the budget and staff made one of the best looking games to date is beyond me, shame on bethesda.

Because you're using a pre-rendered bullshot to make the comparison. Not saying TW3 doesn't look better though.

 

[Ghost Rider]

As someone who played FO3 and NV on PS3 (not sure why I didn't get them on x360), these look better enough for me. They definitely are not stunning but I can deal with that as long as I have a vast wasteland to explore.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Actually no, that is not well said. In fact it is a very stupid conclusion to reach from that illogical statement.

Game A looks good but it got bad reviews so therefor graphics doesn't make a good game?

No shit, having good graphics doesn't make a game good but it sure as hell makes that game very appealing to the eyes. We are not talking about gameplay here, we are discussing the screenshot posted in the OP. You can have good graphics and good gameplay and there are many open world games which look good and reviewed well and have good gameplay.

Fallout 4 looks terrible and that doesn't mean it won't review well or be a good game. It just looks like the last gen influence held it back in the visuals department.

Obligatory... Well said.

 

[Krusenstern]

Alright thanks.

I'm not going to bother to quote all the other people quoting me but in general if the game isn't casting any shadows (instead of it being a problem with the time of day) what is the stuff in the other shots?

What now, should we explain to you what draw distance is?

 

[texhnolyze]

Is this like that "lazy devs" thing that people say?

Do people honestly think that the FO4 team not do their best on this stuff?

Check my previous post here.
I'm not saying that the game looks ugly/horrible/etc, but I kinda understand why are people complaining. After years of development and Skyrim success, they expected more than this.

 

[Count of Monte Sawed-Off]

Wut

People think this looks ugly?

Game looks great. Way better than I was expecting

Bethesda threads man. They're 95% people shitting on how the game looks. But this is a thread on how the game looks so maybe they can be quarantined here.

 

[Jito]

How the fuck CD Prjkt with a fraction of the budget and staff made one of the best looking games to date is beyond me, shame on bethesda.

Nice pre release bullshot you've got there.

 

[Denton]

I'm fine with this. I play Bethesda games for the idiotic writing and terrible worldbuilding anyway.

*dead*

 

[JackHerer]

Why spend money and time making it look nice when the modding community will do that for you and you can profit from each mod sale?

Yeah it's pretty gross. I'm sure the team does their best but whoever calls the shots and makes the budget decisions sucks for not authorizing a new engine or at least a total overhaul. They need to ditch this gamebryo.

 

[tanooki27]

Those graphics are beyond poor. It's going to be one of the worst looking AAA games on ps4.

I disagree

 

[bomblord1]

What now, should we explain to you what draw distance is?

Yes talk to me like I don't make video game engines for a living. What I understand from Durante is the draw distance on the shadows is considerably shorter than it should be.

 

[sappyday]

Bethesda threads man. They're 95% people shitting on how the game looks. But this is a thread on how the game looks so maybe they can be quarantined here.

At this point we have to do what they did with The Witcher 3. Have a thread just for the graphics.

 

[K' Dash]

Because you're using a pre-rendered bullshot to make the comparison. Not saying TW3 doesn't look better though.

It does look better than that on my PC.

 

[arts&crafts]

Looks like a slight upgrade over FO3 however I dont mind that much. I am not a graphics snob and as long as the game is fun I will forget about the graphics. Maybe its because I mainly play indie games on my laptop.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

I think it looks fine, and certainly a far cry from Fallout 3. Y'all need to replay that game, honestly.

 

[Dangoesforth]

It is. They claim it's not, but it is.

ND still using the same engine as 8 years ago. Iterate and improve

 

[sense]

i probably won't blame vg247 if they mistake this for fallout 3

Spoiler

i am sure someone already made this joke. right?

 

[MegaMelon]

If you've only played those games on consoles, I guess I can forgive people complaining about graphics because they weren't going to be improved, but that's not an excuse this time since everyone will get mods.

Ah yes the good ole 'Mods will fix the graphics for bethesda' argument.

 

[thelastword]

Texture filtering looks great to me, much better than GTAV.

You think, the filtering on some of these shots looks worse than others to me.....Maybe it is we need more shots, but generally IQ in this game leaves a lot to be desired.

They don't. They have 8gb of unified memory, so only part of it would be serving as vram, part of it is reserved, and part of it will be used for other game purposes than simply vram alone

I'm aware, whatever is not reserved is still much more than what is reserved, and that is more than enough to net us quality textures in open world games, especially one which has poor looking char models and many other cutbacks and missing effects apparent to everyone.

 

[K' Dash]

Nice pre release bullshot you've got there.

I already said it looks better than that on PC, sorry to hit you with reality.

 

[JoseLopez]

Looks good, witcher 3 was a buggy mess at launch yet people seem to ignore that. Also witcher 3 reuses so many character models and assets. people saying this looks last gen are blind.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

I think it looks fine, and certainly a far cry from Fallout 3. Y'all need to replay that game, honestly.

Just typical graphic whoring. Comparing two totally different games on totally different scales with totally different engines.


We are looking at the GOTY right here and people need to accept that.

 

[Clairvoyance]

Bethesda threads man. They're 95% people shitting on how the game looks. But this is a thread on how the game looks so maybe they can be quarantined here.

More like 50% pointing out how ugly the game is, and 50% fanboy posts upset that not everyone laps up the ugly, bug-ridden messes that Bethesda tosses out for consoles.

 

[ISee]

PC version it is.

Without any doubt.

 

[Iorv3th]

Why do people care how good or bad it looks? I never played Fallout or Elder Scrolls for their graphics. You play for content. Graphics are what mods are for. If you've only played those games on consoles, I guess I can forgive people complaining about graphics because they weren't going to be improved, but that's not an excuse this time since everyone will get mods.

Yet I remember being impressed by the graphics on Morrowind on xbox and Oblivion on 360. Nobody plays any game ever for graphics, but it's nice to have them.

Graphics are not what mods are for. Sure you will be able to mod the graphics on the PC version (doubt there will be much on the console version).

This line of thinking is odd to me. It's like all developers can just release shitty looking games and then the fans can come in and say "well I never played x game for graphics anyway". It's like a defense mechanism or something. We aren't saying we won't play the game, but it's ok to ask for a company as big as bethesda to invest in making their games look better.

 

[Jito]

I already said it looks better than that on PC, sorry to hit you with reality.

I never doubted the game looked great, just disingenuous to use a bullshot to make your point, throwing that reality right back at you.

 

[legacyzero]

HOLY SHIT that looks AWFUL.

Is it missing a day 1 patch or something??

Surely that's not 1080p?? Fucking Bethesda.

 

[Marvel]

Waiting for this to drop in price.

 

[sappyday]

Looks good, witcher 3 was a buggy mess at launch yet people seem to ignore that. Also witcher 3 reuses so many character models and assets. people saying this looks last gen are blind.

You think this won't also be the case for F4? You think Bethesda will at least put in the same amount of effort and free stuff that CDPR did for The Witcher 3 post launch?

 

[Klossen]

It does look better than that on my PC.

I don't doubt you on that. It's just that the trailer that footage was based on turned out to not represent the actual game at all. Especially not on consoles. And since these images are for PS4, it would be unfair to use anything but in-game pictures of the PS4 version of TW3.

 

[vio]

Gameplay will be great, which matters most on end, but after all the Fallout and Elder Scrolls, players deserve a bit better. I mean, Skyrim alone sold 15mil copies right? Invest some in tech?