climbin 4
The graphics
in the Fallout
derailer look
in the Fallout
derailer look
...
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
121 comments displayed.
#9
-
primeconduit (06/05/2015) [-] what do you do in fallout anyway I never played any of the fallout games.
#15 to #9
-
stolenobsolete (06/05/2015) [-]
Basically think if the 50's had a massive technological jump (lasers guns, nuclear powered cars etc) and then the planet had a nuclear fallout. Put that setting inside an open world RPG.
#37 to #15
-
lamboladdy (06/05/2015) [-]
They never invented the microprocessor, so they focused on the other huge development of the time, which was nuclear power.
#271 to #37
-
stolenobsolete (06/08/2015) [-]
Really? I didnt know that. Seems strange that they didnt invent that yet were easily able to create functioning robots (possibly A.I)
#273 to #271
-
lamboladdy (06/08/2015) [-] Keep in mind how behind all their AI was though, it was 2077 when the bombs dropped, so they were still quite a bit behind us with all the other things. But who cares? Hypetrain
#274 to #273
-
stolenobsolete (06/08/2015) [-] Woop Woop well i definitely can't wait too see what they say at E3. Fingers crossed a solid (and near) release date
#265 to #15
-
primeconduit (06/06/2015) [-] That does sound cool actually kinda reminds me of bioshock.
#272 to #265
-
stolenobsolete (06/08/2015) [-]
On top of what it is, its the choices you can make the game great. I remember one specifically from Fallout: New Vegas regarding a spaceship and certain group of Ghouls
#11 to #9
-
raccoonwithfruit (06/05/2015) [-] It's an open world RPG in the style of Elder Scrolls. done by the same people. Except it takes place in a post apocalypse America with a 50s aesthetic.
#263 to #11
-
primeconduit (06/06/2015) [-] So is it fun? I might try i usually listen to people on here on what game I should try next everyone kept saying how good bloodborne was so I tried it and liked it a lot
#268 to #263
-
raccoonwithfruit (06/06/2015) [-] Well, that's a subjective thing. I preferred Fallout New Vegas, due to the setting. But the draw of the game is how open it is. You can just explore and find things, OR you can follows quests. The game's lore goes deep, so if you want a game that you have to get invested in, then it's recommended. However, it is NOT a realistic fps, it's an RPG, so stats and equipment are far more important than your actual skill with aiming.
#264 to #12
-
primeconduit (06/06/2015) [-] I never got to play skyrim I wanted to but I got my ps4 before I could try it a friend of mine who has it says its cool tho
#36
-
lamboladdy (06/05/2015) [-]
Was Fallout really ever known for cutting edge graphics? Always seemed to properly put gameplay before graphics.
#102 to #36
-
jasonriner (06/05/2015) [-]
Yeah. Mods are what enhanced the graphical aspect of the game. And judging by Fallout 4 I'm assuming its using an updated Creation engine (like Skyrim) and Skyrim's graphics are hardly "bad". We don't even know the settings they used when making the trailer.
#184 to #90
-
foamytesquirrel ONLINE (06/05/2015) [-] If you care so much about graphics, play a painting faggot.
#93 to #90
-
gruntmastr (06/05/2015) [-] The devs of the Fallout games have always given a **** about it though, but people always **** on the graphics on a game just because it doesn't look like Crysis or the Witcher games, or if it won't look like it did in the trailer. People like that are ******* stupid though if they can't enjoy a game just because of the graphics, and even if the graphics aren't up to par with present times, mods will come out for people who want a prettier game.
#5
-
anon (06/05/2015) [-]
Everyone was complaining about The Witcher 3's graphics downgrade, but now that Fallout 4's graphics look **** , everyone's defending it!
#188 to #5
-
deviousluchador ONLINE (06/05/2015) [-] that's because the Witcher showed something that would not come. We know what minimum to expect with fallout now.
plus graphics don't really matter
plus graphics don't really matter
#85 to #5
-
anon (06/05/2015) [-] If the graphics are an issue there will be a mod to make them better, but Bethesda doesn't need to make a big flashy looking game. Their gameplay and story drive their massive sales of games. And the trailer shows the game and how it will look, and you'll get exactly that. No ******** , no cut corners, just a game company giving people what they ask for and being honest.
#137 to #111
-
anon (06/05/2015) [-]
Are you retarded? Consoles can run a lot of games just fine, it's no coincidence that Bethesda games are the ones not running 90% of the time. Hell, they don't even run well on PC for ****** sake, look at all the mods that fall under "fixing the mess bethesda won't" and try and tell me it's excusable.
#214 to #137
-
alarubra (06/05/2015) [-] I've never had a Bethesda game crash or bug out on me on console, and I've beaten Fallout 3, New Vegas, and Oblivion on the 360. Played some Skyrim, but didn't finish it on console. Have on PC, though. Played a bit of all of them Vanilla on PC too. Again, no glitches. I've only ever experienced any major glitches in a Bethesda game when playing it modded.
My best friend has logged even more hours than I have, and he's never experienced any either.
My best friend has logged even more hours than I have, and he's never experienced any either.
#100 to #5
-
mrwalkerfour (06/05/2015) [-] witcher 3 promised awesome graphics but didn't deliver : they lied to the consumer
fallout 4 is being honest with its graphics so what you see is what you get : truthful to the consumer
fallout 4 is being honest with its graphics so what you see is what you get : truthful to the consumer
#16 to #5
-
cozer (06/05/2015) [-] There was a downgrade as far as witcher 3 is concerned, but everything else about the game was exactly as how they said it would be and it's still a great game that looks good. Graphics never mattered in fallout 3 and won't matter in fallout 4. As long as we get good gameplay, interesting characters, interesting story, and interesting locations then it'll be good.
#250 to #5
-
anon (06/06/2015) [-]
Are you ******* retarded?
YEAH WITCHER 3 HAD A DOWNGRADE.
They showed amazing graphics BEFORE release, tricking people into thinking they would be like that.
Bethesda has been honest with us and SHOWN what the game looks like using untweeked in engine stuff, IN A TRAILER.
Are you ******* kidding me these situations aren't the same, you basically explained why we should be defending it.
YEAH WITCHER 3 HAD A DOWNGRADE.
They showed amazing graphics BEFORE release, tricking people into thinking they would be like that.
Bethesda has been honest with us and SHOWN what the game looks like using untweeked in engine stuff, IN A TRAILER.
Are you ******* kidding me these situations aren't the same, you basically explained why we should be defending it.
#106 to #5
-
wrpen (06/05/2015) [-] It's not the graphics that pissed people off, it's that they outright lied to people. They presented something early on, and told everyone it would look equal to or better than that in the final product. Come four years later, and it looks worse.
Truth be told, they're plastic, cartoony, and unappealing. I would say its **** , albeit interesting, if it's the final product, but given that it's not, and that graphics are tweaked the most between announcement and release, and that they really can't get much worse, I'd say it's worth a pre-order if only because Bethesda hasn't developed a game within the last 20 years that was irredeemably terrible.
Truth be told, they're plastic, cartoony, and unappealing. I would say its **** , albeit interesting, if it's the final product, but given that it's not, and that graphics are tweaked the most between announcement and release, and that they really can't get much worse, I'd say it's worth a pre-order if only because Bethesda hasn't developed a game within the last 20 years that was irredeemably terrible.
#24 to #5
-
herbolifee (06/05/2015) [-] The difference between:
Witcher: Look at these awesome epic graphics! Oh lol we're downgrading it again.
Fallout: Hey look, this is our new game.
Fallout never was a graphical next-gen masterpiece, they never said they were and it never mattered.
Witcher: Look at these awesome epic graphics! Oh lol we're downgrading it again.
Fallout: Hey look, this is our new game.
Fallout never was a graphical next-gen masterpiece, they never said they were and it never mattered.
#35 to #5
-
cornellexplain ONLINE (06/05/2015) [-] At least Bethesda didn't make some flashy gameplay trailer
#18 to #5
-
magicsasquatch (06/05/2015) [-] i think the problem wasnt about the graphics themselves but that it was advertised differently than the final product. if the graphics were the same in the first trailer as what was actually released people wouldnt have complained
#29 to #28
-
McDc (06/05/2015) [-]
the pepople bitching about graphic are a moronic pc masterrace subgroup, if the graphical level would've been at what they showed at 2013, 95% of people couldnt run it at highest settings (just like ARK is right now).That's one of the reason they downgraded in the first place(as well as that consoles make them a lot of money as well, since noone 'pirates' there).
And while I do appreciate fallout giving an ingame trailer, it really does look like **** , and 'graphics dont matter' argument is retarded, they do matter, why the **** are we not playing 8bit games if it doesnt matter.Let's just hope moding fixes that.
As well as I think fallout4 is gonna be a flop, since it's been WAY too overhyped, people expect a groundbreaking game, which will change the genre forever.It 's not happening.
And while I do appreciate fallout giving an ingame trailer, it really does look like **** , and 'graphics dont matter' argument is retarded, they do matter, why the **** are we not playing 8bit games if it doesnt matter.Let's just hope moding fixes that.
As well as I think fallout4 is gonna be a flop, since it's been WAY too overhyped, people expect a groundbreaking game, which will change the genre forever.It 's not happening.
#46 to #5
-
lwlarcopolio (06/05/2015) [-] They lied about the Witcher, which is what makes it not ok. It's the same as Watch Dogs and anyone that says it isn't is a retarded fanboy
#33 to #5
-
hellishpanda (06/05/2015) [-] Shouldn't give a **** about the graphics if the only thing that entertains you is the gameplay.
Bet anyone didn't play through Witcher 1-3 and all of the Fallouts and started making a fan-base around how many pixels there are on the screen.
"Oh hey lets completely ignore the gameplay and focus on how high our graphics settings are!"
Please.. You play through a game because of the content and the allure of the story. I can understand if you don't want to play something that looks like it's from MS paint but seriously these are minor downgrades at best and the people that are having a **** fit need to grow a pair and just play the ******* game.
No one should give a **** about either downgrade.
Bet anyone didn't play through Witcher 1-3 and all of the Fallouts and started making a fan-base around how many pixels there are on the screen.
"Oh hey lets completely ignore the gameplay and focus on how high our graphics settings are!"
Please.. You play through a game because of the content and the allure of the story. I can understand if you don't want to play something that looks like it's from MS paint but seriously these are minor downgrades at best and the people that are having a **** fit need to grow a pair and just play the ******* game.
No one should give a **** about either downgrade.
#88 to #33
-
anon (06/05/2015) [-]
No, that's total ******** . Graphics SHOULD be something that's valued in the game, everything in a game should have a decent priority.
It's the difference between "bad" and "lazy". Yes, it's obvious we shouldn't have another Order 1886 with little to no gameplay, but it should look like someone actually gave a **** . SO many games have had great graphics and gameplay, so why is it so awful to expect both?
Also downgrades should be **** on because they're lies and hype, if the game is promised to look a certain way then it should release that way. Better to show the game in it's downgraded form than release an amazing looking game and say "lol nope" when it launches.
It's the difference between "bad" and "lazy". Yes, it's obvious we shouldn't have another Order 1886 with little to no gameplay, but it should look like someone actually gave a **** . SO many games have had great graphics and gameplay, so why is it so awful to expect both?
Also downgrades should be **** on because they're lies and hype, if the game is promised to look a certain way then it should release that way. Better to show the game in it's downgraded form than release an amazing looking game and say "lol nope" when it launches.
#134 to #88
-
rollfourexplain (06/05/2015) [-]
**rollfourexplain used "*roll 1, 0000-9999*"**
**rollfourexplain rolls 9,342**
They didn't lie though. The downgrade was clearly shown and noticeable in the 30+ minute gameplay footages they release before the game launch. There was no bait and switch anywhere.
**rollfourexplain rolls 9,342**
They didn't lie though. The downgrade was clearly shown and noticeable in the 30+ minute gameplay footages they release before the game launch. There was no bait and switch anywhere.
#6 to #5
-
skyrimdovah (06/05/2015) [-] That's cause The Witcher fanboys and Fallout fanboys are two different kinds of groups.
#133 to #119
-
rollfourexplain (06/05/2015) [-]
**rollfourexplain used "*roll 1, 0000-9999*"**
**rollfourexplain rolls 2,418**
The combat is fine, it's actually an improvement from the first and second games. There's a whole bunch of QQing about graphics because a trailer that was released two years before the game released looked better than the final product.
Also to stop anyone from arguing this false point: the graphics for the current version of the game were widely known before launch. People were complaining about graphics the most pre-release. It's silly.
**rollfourexplain rolls 2,418**
The combat is fine, it's actually an improvement from the first and second games. There's a whole bunch of QQing about graphics because a trailer that was released two years before the game released looked better than the final product.
Also to stop anyone from arguing this false point: the graphics for the current version of the game were widely known before launch. People were complaining about graphics the most pre-release. It's silly.
#10
-
soyfriedbryce ONLINE (06/05/2015) [-]
Its like people don't understand how this works. It needs to run on multiple platforms. What you were seeing it the downgraded 1080 version. BUT thats beside the point. If its map is anything the size of the previos games, the ground and textures themselves have a surprising amount of detail, and there are clearly dynamic lighting effects, which if you've ever modded a game, you'll know cause MASSIVE FPS loss. It looks ******* phenomenal for something of its size from what we've seen so far. The only thing that needs work are the actual character textures, which are a little bit fuzzy. Aside from that, the game looks amazing.
#181 to #10
-
twofreegerbils (06/05/2015) [-] The dog looks like its hair is a flat sheet. There were better graphics in 2008.
#75
-
PSpepper (06/05/2015) [-]
Who plays Fallout for the graphics (let's be honest, Fallout 3 looked pretty bad upon its release but is still an amazing game)? Besides, someone will eventually release a mod to improve the graphics for PC (which I imagine is the platform of choice for those complaining).
#104 to #82
-
jasonriner (06/05/2015) [-]
You shut your whore mouth! That game was my addiction back int he day. And now that I have it on PC it only got better. I used to play it so much I couldn't sleep at night.
#115
-
Zaxplab (06/05/2015) [-] If the graphics were really good, you'd all be bitching about how the trailer always looks better than the gameplay.
#147 to #115
-
darksideofthebeast (06/05/2015) [-] Nah, cause that's just a scripted in game trailer. If it was cinematic, it would have basically looked ******* real.
There is a difference.
There is a difference.
#64
-
zekeon ONLINE (06/05/2015) [-] Non-hyper realistic =/= terrible
There seems to be a growing trend among the big devs of stylizing their graphics in a subtle but effective way. A recent example would be Witcher 3, where they make it almost look painted, and it's very interesting to look at, and fits the theme of the game.
I would liken the graphics of Fallout 4 to those old ads from say, the 50s, just like the ones Bethesda made for their world. Sunset sarsaparilla in particular, and the "only you can prevent corporate espionage!"
There seems to be a growing trend among the big devs of stylizing their graphics in a subtle but effective way. A recent example would be Witcher 3, where they make it almost look painted, and it's very interesting to look at, and fits the theme of the game.
I would liken the graphics of Fallout 4 to those old ads from say, the 50s, just like the ones Bethesda made for their world. Sunset sarsaparilla in particular, and the "only you can prevent corporate espionage!"
#107 to #64
-
sniffythebird (06/05/2015) [-] Witcher 3 just looks flat and washed out, though.
Yet it requires more juice to stay above 60 FPS than seems remotely reasonable. Just played it for a few hours, and my room temperature is a bloody sauna.
Yet it requires more juice to stay above 60 FPS than seems remotely reasonable. Just played it for a few hours, and my room temperature is a bloody sauna.
#129
-
aabbccddeeffgghhii (06/05/2015) [-] If anyone thinks Fallout 4 looks good, they need their eyes tested.
If anyone expected the graphics to be good, they need their brains tested.
Fallout has basic graphics that do the job and anyone expecting to get a graphics power house from a Bethesda game are ******* stupid. You go to Fallout for the gameplay and story, never for the graphics. Its part of the charm I think, a fallout with Battlefield or Crysis level graphics wouldn't feel the same.
If anyone expected the graphics to be good, they need their brains tested.
Fallout has basic graphics that do the job and anyone expecting to get a graphics power house from a Bethesda game are ******* stupid. You go to Fallout for the gameplay and story, never for the graphics. Its part of the charm I think, a fallout with Battlefield or Crysis level graphics wouldn't feel the same.
#145 to #140
-
darksideofthebeast (06/05/2015) [-] They really don't look better than new vegas though.
#252 to #129
-
jokersaysamuseme (06/06/2015) [-] But good means fine?
The Fallout graphics are certainly satisfactory.
The Fallout graphics are certainly satisfactory.
#113
-
rollingpicture (06/05/2015) [-] **rollingpicture used "*roll picture*"**
**rollingpicture rolled image**
Wait, people thought they looked bad?
I mean, sure, its no battlefield, but I thought it looked great.
**rollingpicture rolled image**
Wait, people thought they looked bad?
I mean, sure, its no battlefield, but I thought it looked great.
#148 to #113
-
darksideofthebeast (06/05/2015) [-] But battlefield isn't even that great...
Now, don't get me wrong, they're amazing. But the lens flare just makes me wanna puke everytime. They make it hard to appreciate the good graphics already there.
Now, don't get me wrong, they're amazing. But the lens flare just makes me wanna puke everytime. They make it hard to appreciate the good graphics already there.
#52
-
CloseEnough (06/05/2015) [-] I feel like way too many people are saying that graphics don't matter, only the story does and blablabla, but it's not true, graphics do matter and all of you know it. This is Fallout, not freaking minecraft. However, there's nothing wrong with these graphics, I don't get where the hate is coming from, people just like complaining.
#57 to #52
-
inudewaruika (06/05/2015) [-] I prefer games I can immerse myself with.
If the graphics are **** but I get involved with the story or feel for a particular character then I enjoy the game immensely.
But if the graphics are excellent but I can't be immersed in the game because of crap story and empty characters because all the time was spent focusing on the graphics then I'm more than likely to set the game aside because I can't fall for the game.
If that makes sense.
I'm all up for a game that is fun and enjoyable, with a story and characters I can connect with (not on a personal level, but more of a hey I really like how this character is turning out) and has great graphics, but they don't much matter to me in the end if I can't get into the game at all.
But then again I like more cartoony games and not a large fan of games like COD and MW.
Example: Borderlands was the first fps I played, and I cried when TK was hung because I enjoyed talking to him and running his missions.
But hey if graphics are the only thing that matters to you, then who am I to say you're bad for liking them.
To each their own after all.
If the graphics are **** but I get involved with the story or feel for a particular character then I enjoy the game immensely.
But if the graphics are excellent but I can't be immersed in the game because of crap story and empty characters because all the time was spent focusing on the graphics then I'm more than likely to set the game aside because I can't fall for the game.
If that makes sense.
I'm all up for a game that is fun and enjoyable, with a story and characters I can connect with (not on a personal level, but more of a hey I really like how this character is turning out) and has great graphics, but they don't much matter to me in the end if I can't get into the game at all.
But then again I like more cartoony games and not a large fan of games like COD and MW.
Example: Borderlands was the first fps I played, and I cried when TK was hung because I enjoyed talking to him and running his missions.
But hey if graphics are the only thing that matters to you, then who am I to say you're bad for liking them.
To each their own after all.
#91 to #57
-
CloseEnough (06/05/2015) [-] I agree, of course. Story and immersion is more important than graphics.
All the same, this is 2015, video games should have a certain level of graphics. It doesn't mean realistic graphics are the best, Borderlands doesn't have amazing graphics, but it has an awesome style to it, and that's great. But if you take a game like Fallout, and make it an 8bit platformer, then it's wothless, because it doesn't make the game any better. Skyrim looks amazing, and no one expects Fallout to look like it, it doesn't have the scenery to make it worth it, but if the game looks like it was filmed on a potato, then it's a waste of great potential.
tl;dr : Sure, immersion and story are more important than graphics, but it doesn't mean you should make your games look like **** either.
All the same, this is 2015, video games should have a certain level of graphics. It doesn't mean realistic graphics are the best, Borderlands doesn't have amazing graphics, but it has an awesome style to it, and that's great. But if you take a game like Fallout, and make it an 8bit platformer, then it's wothless, because it doesn't make the game any better. Skyrim looks amazing, and no one expects Fallout to look like it, it doesn't have the scenery to make it worth it, but if the game looks like it was filmed on a potato, then it's a waste of great potential.
tl;dr : Sure, immersion and story are more important than graphics, but it doesn't mean you should make your games look like **** either.
#94 to #91
-
inudewaruika (06/05/2015) [-] Well no, but it shouldn't be an I'm not getting this game because the trailer's graphics are not great"
And yeah it's 2015, but not everyone has a machine capable of running it on high to even bear witness to those graphics. My own computer plays Skyrim on medium, my husband's on low.
I can understand rage if the game releases and it looks like it should be a game released on ps1, but the graphics in the trailer look fine to me, yeah the hair looks pasted on the dog, but it looks entertaining which is what a game is about after all.
And yeah it's 2015, but not everyone has a machine capable of running it on high to even bear witness to those graphics. My own computer plays Skyrim on medium, my husband's on low.
I can understand rage if the game releases and it looks like it should be a game released on ps1, but the graphics in the trailer look fine to me, yeah the hair looks pasted on the dog, but it looks entertaining which is what a game is about after all.
#96 to #94
-
CloseEnough (06/05/2015) [-] That what I said in my first comment, the graphics look fine, I don't get why people make such a huge deal of it.
#97 to #96
-
inudewaruika (06/05/2015) [-] I must have got lost in translation (from brain to text) lol, I meant that I agreed but from my point of view, sorry about that.
#59 to #51
-
inudewaruika (06/05/2015) [-] I think it's because so much is expected from a triple A developer.
The name is well known so they have to produce outstanding games, at least what some people think anyway.
The name is well known so they have to produce outstanding games, at least what some people think anyway.
#76 to #71
-
hydraetis (06/05/2015) [-] Well by far the worst thing is the engine. Going over 60fps with Vsync disabled = skyrocketing animals, loose interior objects vibrating fast enough to make a girl orgasm in 3 seconds, water flashing on screen, etc. Also the lighting source limit makes it hard to really make anything look pretty without lights flashing on and off (particularly inside inns).
There was also the Markarth bug (Skyrim) that went unfixed for quite some time (at least it wasn't fixed by Bethesda for a while) where after you beat the Marauder quest the guards would continue to try to arrest you, and so you had to kill every guard in the town every single time you came in to do something.
If you enjoy the games, that's fine. I'm just getting tired of Bethesda being constantly hailed by the community when it's really not much better than any other game company out there.
Touching on another game, New Vegas is notorious for crashing, even when playing with little to no mods enabled.
There was also the Markarth bug (Skyrim) that went unfixed for quite some time (at least it wasn't fixed by Bethesda for a while) where after you beat the Marauder quest the guards would continue to try to arrest you, and so you had to kill every guard in the town every single time you came in to do something.
If you enjoy the games, that's fine. I'm just getting tired of Bethesda being constantly hailed by the community when it's really not much better than any other game company out there.
Touching on another game, New Vegas is notorious for crashing, even when playing with little to no mods enabled.
#77 to #76
-
Kairyuka (06/05/2015) [-] Again I've experienced neither of those. Does anyone actually play at above 60 fps? Can the human brain even tell the difference at that point? I mean obviously for games that TRY to break the boundaries of graphics it's important, but Bethesda are about gameplay, not triple-A graphics. Always been like that.
#80 to #77
-
hydraetis (06/05/2015) [-] Sure, people probably don't play Skyrim at over 60fps, but that's only because doing so completely breaks the game. And not being about graphics does not excuse being ******* lazy by basing the ****** physics engine off of framerate.
Though since you bring up the gameplay point, that doesn't really work for skyrim either considering it is the most dumbed-down AAA rpg in existence that I know of.
Though since you bring up the gameplay point, that doesn't really work for skyrim either considering it is the most dumbed-down AAA rpg in existence that I know of.
#83 to #80
-
Kairyuka (06/05/2015) [-] I kinda see your point with Skyrim, but then again, I've sunk around 100 hours into it so it's doing something right. Again I don't give a **** what a game does at above 60fps, and if it just had a framerate locked at max 60fps nobody would give a **** anyways. Bethesda games aren't for benchmarking your graphics card.
#61 to #60
-
inudewaruika (06/05/2015) [-] Oh no lol, I agree with you, just saying people expect great things from well known developers and indie developers can get away with lesser graphics because "they're indie".
I've seen some excellent indie graphics. I've seen some ****** indie graphics.
Same for the triple a developers.
Powder sugar is icky. Like fondant. Ew.
I've seen some excellent indie graphics. I've seen some ****** indie graphics.
Same for the triple a developers.
Powder sugar is icky. Like fondant. Ew.
#73 to #51
-
shyyguy (06/05/2015) [-] There are imbalances in both cases though. Generally triple-A games have a higher budget than independent game developers, so it's expected that graphics be on par with other triple-A games.
I agree with your other post. Amazing gameplay should always be the primary focus. We all have played games that have good graphics, but the gameplay is crap. (looking at the in-betweeners like Dishonored and Rage)
I agree with your other post. Amazing gameplay should always be the primary focus. We all have played games that have good graphics, but the gameplay is crap. (looking at the in-betweeners like Dishonored and Rage)
#26
-
thechosentroll (06/05/2015) [-] It could have downgraded graphics for all I care. All I want is for the story to be good and the characters memorable, like in New Vegas. Learn from your past mistakes, Bethesda! And hurry up! I need my fix.
#34 to #26
-
oxidoferroso (06/05/2015) [-] > I want is for the story to be good and the characters memorable
Bethesda is developing son, all hope is lost.
Bethesda is developing son, all hope is lost.
#55
-
awesomegigabyte (06/05/2015) [-]
People complain about the graphics. Just buy it for PC and someone will MOD it to look better. For consoles you're just ****** .
#255 to #55
-
jokersaysamuseme (06/06/2015) [-] " ****** ."
Yeah, we're so screwed. How will we ever enjoy a game that doesn't look exactly like real life.
Yeah, we're so screwed. How will we ever enjoy a game that doesn't look exactly like real life.
#189
-
noschool (06/05/2015) [-]
>tfw i don't care about graphics because i'll be setting them on the lowest settings just to run the game.
#175
-
jordoguy (06/05/2015) [-] Almost every big game that comes out now people piss and moan about ******* graphics.
I hope one day when a big developer releases a game that everyone's been waiting for and all it is is one extremely amazing looking room with flawless textures and FPS but there is no gameplay and no story, all you can do is move around this amazing looking room and all the developer has to say is 'well people only care about graphics so we've given them what they want'. Hopefully that would get these dumbasses to stop complaining and realize how graphics are only PART of a game.
I hope one day when a big developer releases a game that everyone's been waiting for and all it is is one extremely amazing looking room with flawless textures and FPS but there is no gameplay and no story, all you can do is move around this amazing looking room and all the developer has to say is 'well people only care about graphics so we've given them what they want'. Hopefully that would get these dumbasses to stop complaining and realize how graphics are only PART of a game.
#192 to #175
-
itssakamoto (06/05/2015) [-] I will find a company that wants suggestions and tell them this
#249 to #195
-
silentark (06/06/2015) [-] I'll be honest, the idea of a graphically amazing room made me laugh for a full minute, you are correct though, graphics are nice, but i'll take good gameplay over graphics anyday Think about it, if graphics were that important, games like minecraft and super meat boy wouldn't have won awards and become as big as they did. .
Gotta bear in mind with huge open games that you need to drop the graphics a little for the sake of processing the huge amounts of stuff in an area, to keep the game playable on most modern PCs And also most places aren't going to make enormous visual leaps between console and PC, though I suspect some "PC master race" nut will argue this . No point is selling a game on PC if only a people with solid gaming setups can play it; not enough market coverage.
And lastly yea people usually do bitch when they having little other than pre-release trailers to go on, there's always gonna be people looking to bitch about something and trailers don't give much to whine about. Personally I've always enjoyed the fallout trailers because they usually use something close to in-game graphics, probably not the best thing when using early graphics, but hey, better than seeing movie-tier CG and getting your hopes up.
Gotta bear in mind with huge open games that you need to drop the graphics a little for the sake of processing the huge amounts of stuff in an area, to keep the game playable on most modern PCs And also most places aren't going to make enormous visual leaps between console and PC, though I suspect some "PC master race" nut will argue this . No point is selling a game on PC if only a people with solid gaming setups can play it; not enough market coverage.
And lastly yea people usually do bitch when they having little other than pre-release trailers to go on, there's always gonna be people looking to bitch about something and trailers don't give much to whine about. Personally I've always enjoyed the fallout trailers because they usually use something close to in-game graphics, probably not the best thing when using early graphics, but hey, better than seeing movie-tier CG and getting your hopes up.
#262 to #249
-
jordoguy (06/06/2015) [-] Just imagine the room game gets released and not a single PC douchebag will be able to say "where's the gameplay" because honestly I've never seen any one of them say anything about game play unless they're yet again complaining that it's a port and the controls aren't very good. I'm just sick of what gaming culture has become and usually I'll avoid it and not saying anything but since a lot of my friends have become PC gamers and I stayed with console It's actually started happening to me IRL. Friends constantly bitching about how **** the graphics are on my XBone when I couldn't give less of a **** . I completely refuse to play The Witcher 3 whenever they're around cause I dont wanna hear their whining.
