Fallout 4

+


Like these? :nice:
 
Watched some of the leaked footage. The lip syncing and voice acting...



The gun play looks the same as FO3. For the first time I'm feeling sad about this game.
 
Last edited:
Lot's of flack going for the visuals, I think they're pretty good, lots of dense vegetation, more buildings so that Boston actually looks like a city, and not like DC when there was comparatively very few buildings, there is actually colour in this game too.

Also in terms of gameplay there are a lot of tweaks from the looks of it, it's hard to reinvent the gun, you shoot them they eventually die.
But if you look at the animations, they react to where they get hit really well, animations are for the most part smooth, the 3rd person turning still looks a little ugly and skatey they should look at some more TPS games to learn how to make a better third person experience (Mainly because that's my preferred perspective).

Bethesda games have never been pretty up close, but all the items in the world make up something pretty, lots of vistas and environmental impact.

Like I've been saying all year however, I feel that TW3 may cause me not to like this game quite as much as I'd like, but I am sure once I am 200 hours in I will have forgiven it's missteps, I'll judge it when it drops providing my poor internet can download 30GB's overnight.
 
I'm concerned with my sanity about collecting rocks, flowers and scraps AGAIN.
As if I didn't do it enough in ACs, Arkham, TW3, DA:I, TPP. Hundreds of hours of looting random garbage or collectibles in "vast open world" games.
:sadtriss:

A new job for CheatEngine I guess.
 
I'm concerned with my sanity about collecting rocks, flowers and scraps AGAIN.

There will probably not be many flowers in Fallout 4. Plenty of scraps, though.

Bethesda games have never been pretty up close, but all the items in the world make up something pretty, lots of vistas and environmental impact.

Low resolution textures, and models with low polygon counts could be improved eventually by modders. Perhaps the game was originally planned to be released on Xbox 360 and/or PS3, and there are still low quality assets because of that.

Edit: PC graphics settings vs. Skyrim:
 
Last edited:
Low resolution textures, and models with low polygon counts could be improved eventually by modders. Perhaps the game was originally planned to be released on Xbox 360 and/or PS3, and there are still low quality assets because of that.

Edit: PC graphics settings vs. Skyrim:

I'm not sure about you, but I tend to judge not only on texture size and what options you have in the graphics settings; but on the actual game, it's locations and it's visuals in context rather than just some words in it's launcher or some low res texture on a pile of wood or something you may look at in passing for a split second, I'd rather have a playable game, with good framerate and nice visuals as a whole than some really good looking textures on said pile of wood and less than 60 frames per second.

Complaining about graphics is detrimental to video games as a medium, because then you get the Star War Battlefront treatment, all the games budget is pumped into getting the game looking pretty and none of it goes into the gameplay or worldbuilding, you cannot get everything, one of my personal favourite games, Mount & Blade Warband looks awful, but as an experience it is a great game, outstanding gameplay and a lot of depth, but even on release it's visuals were sub-par.

I am going to wait until I can see these ungodly low res textures for myself before judging, and it doesn't matter too much, Amidianborn or one of the texture modders will probably have a good texture pack out in no time, so as long as the gameplay and world are good I am fine.
 
Top Bottom