Overclock.net › Forums › Video Games › PC Gaming › Fallout 4 Information And Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fallout 4 Information And Discussion - Page 20  

post #191 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredgunner View Post

You need eyes with good vision, and you need an eye for detail which these reviewers don't have. They, like most gamers, don't know what they're looking at. Blindly following what they say isn't proof. With that being said, Fallout 4's graphics seem to be inconsistent, with some areas looking much better than others. This guy posted good screenshots for reference.
Point out some of this poor model detail, world detail (what exactly does this mean?), and animations. You're just pulling these things out of your ass. They might actually be true, they might not, you didn't even evaluate before saying this. TAA can be very nice, post-sharpening may be required and it may actually be included for all we know. None of the Fallout 4 screenshots I've seen have been excessively blurry, unlike Witcher 3 with its chromatic aberration.

Also, post an example of Fallout 4 having repetitive lego-like environments due to its tile based construction. What do you mean by "custom, fluid, and cohesive?" These are all blanket statements. The game world of Skyrim and Fallout 3 are some of the most detailed; texturing could look more detailed at least in Skyrim and Fallout 3 because of the tile-based nature like you mention, but textures aside they put a lot of detail into every square inch of Skyrim, Fallout 3, and hopefully Fallout 4. You won't find areas that are just blatantly empty, every interior location you find for example is uniquely detailed and tells something about events that transpired there and/or people who were once there. No other open world game does this so well.

- EDIT: Let's evaluate these two screenshots. In this one there aren't any models to look at up close, although the tree on the right looks very good, as does the overall lighting and post processing of this area. Grass looks more or less average by 2015 standards. Now in this one we really see that classic Gamebryo view distance LOL. Pretty nice lighting effects (look at the lit barrel), awful textures and flat 2D windows on the buildings to the right, wow. So yes, some very large, obvious models look 10 years outdated (those buildings).
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredgunner View Post

So you knew it wasn't a story/character driven game before playing it. Therefore, you have only yourself to blame for the disappointment.
I hate Witcher 3's gameplay although that's not necessarily because it's bad, just totally not my style. Although it is bad that it has only about one style while Skyrim has dozens. The Witcher games have the most dumbed down "RPG" gameplay so I would never call it superior to anything. You did pass over what Bethesda's games are actually about, and that's sandbox role playing which The Witcher has none of.

No time to reply to all statements above, but check out ENB developer site, where ENB creator states just how ugly Fallout 4 graphics are. Therefore, if you still think Fallout 4 looks good and as good as or better than Witcher 3, then that means casual gamers, critics, reviewers, and graphics experts + modders cannot distinguish eye-candy graphics from ugly graphics (of Fallout 4), but only you can. You can have your opinion, but it will not change the fact that Fallout 4 looks ugly to most people, be they casual gamers, pro gamers, game reviewer, graphics expert s and/or modders. All that (vs. your opinion) paints a clear picture about Fallout 4'd poor. graphics.
post #192 of 192
Not sure how we missed this but let's keep the discussion to the official thread.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1517133/official-fallout-4-information-and-discussion-thread/0_100
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PC Gaming
This thread is locked  
Overclock.net › Forums › Video Games › PC Gaming › Fallout 4 Information And Discussion