Fallout 4 Pre-Release Screenshot vs Release

[DivinePaladin]

Ali_16x said:

What are you talking about? Where did I say they were just a PC developer? Please show me. You said "Bethesda is not just a PC developer". Did I ever say that they were? Please stop saying "you're misunderstanding" because you have no idea what you're talking about. You're the only one misunderstanding, because you don't even know what you said. You seem to be going in a circle here.

"The game is relatively well optimized for console and the frame rate still chugs fairly often" You seem to be contradicting yourself there, if it's well optimized then why is the frame rate chugging?

The game was done before the game was even announced, the time before the announcement and upto the release, they were fixing the bugs in the game. That means the graphics that were running at E3 were running on a game that was basically at the final state. 

And now you're saying that the Witcher 3 is different from Fallout 4, lol. Not going to bother replying to the rest, everything you've been saying is ridiculous. You can reply, I won't bother even looking at it.

If you're not gonna do the work don't bother to keep it up. You refuse to touch anything else in the thread at this point and have outright ignored every point I've made besides the one you deem the easiest to dispute, and you refuse to go back and reread the chain of comments when you don't understand the path to where we are now.

 

I reference mods as their failsafe if somebody tries to question the bullshot -> "We're not talking about mods" and then you go on to say  "There's no reason PC developers to downgrade their games since they have so much power." -> Bethesda isn't solely a PC developer and haven't been since Morrowind and to a larger extent Oblivion. 

 

I have not said that you claimed they're solely a PC dev, but you can't argue that they're a PC dev when they're cutting power/limiting themselves/what have you to make the development for all three platforms easier and uniform. I've not once heard of CDPR cutting back the quality of the PC version in order to make the console versions of TW3 more in line. They made the game and then got it to run on console. Bethesda clearly made the game for three platforms from the outset, and made them to be identical outside of the graphics sliders. They even put mod support on the XBO version (allegedly), further showing that the game from day one has been about giving the same experience to all platforms for better or worse. They chose this path instead of making the console ports inferior visually by a mile - not that this would make the game look good by today's standards on PC - showing, again, my point that if there was any "downgrade" they chose to design that way from day one. This falsifies that part of your comment twofold: They have a reason to downgrade from what they could've done because they're not a PC developer. They're a developer who develops equally for console and PC - and at that, one who uses the PC players as a way to beta test the patches and pretty much nothing more. 

 

Now that we're hopefully on the same page for the chain of events, I can continue. CDPR does not develop with a bottleneck. They develop for one platform first and port down. Bethesda develops uniformly to the standards of the lowest platform and ports up. One of these is a trait for PC devs and one is a trait for multiplatform console devs. 

 

As for my optimization comment, the word "relatively" exists there. It's RELATIVELY well optimized on console but it's a game that's very hardware intensive. I only have experienced chugs deep in Boston proper, and I understand why that is; there's a lot to render there on top of keeping much of the game's data (character  locations, quest lines, RNG Raider attacks, random events, random loot in containers, etc.) active at any one point. That's a consequence of the development choice they made overall. As such, the game is optimized for what it is on console, but still chugs because they chose a uniform development and accepted the outcome of that even if it meant sub-15fps in extreme cases. Apologies is that came if that came off as a contradiction.

 

Onto the next part: Yes, you're correct, the game looks as it did at E3. That's literally exactly what I said. The last paragraph of my last comment exists to point out to you, the OP, that you're complaining about the single instance of bullshotting that this game has, but ignoring everything others have pointed out about how that same reveal where we got that press photo also showed us a huge chunk of unedited gameplay. This game was not, say, Watch Dogs, where we saw one thing and got something much different; we all saw Fallout 4 upon reveal, expected Fallout 4 up until launch, and got Fallout 4. Again, that photo that inspired the OP was a press photo, not dissimilar to how they marketed New Vegas with that CG video that looked sort of like the game but not exactly like it. 

 

So, there, I think I made everything clear enough so that there's no misunderstandings in my comment or misunderstandings about my previous statements. If there's any need for further explanation I can't promise I'll be willing to do so because I've made myself as clear as can be. So in summary: You've made a thread to create controversy without acknowledging the context of the image you focused on. Said image has never been considered indicative of the game, and we literally got unfiltered gameplay at the same event where that image was released. Fans knew what to expect beforehand, rendering the bullshot irrelevant. Moreover, they have the means to argue that the image in question is taken from the game if they wanted to, by saying they used some mods that a developer made pre-release, because they explicitly promised full mod support at the very same reveal. You have since come to argue that Bethsoft shouldn't have had to make the game look worse than that image or downgrade from that image (despite your stated knowledge that the E3 build is and has always been the standard) because they are a PC dev. However, going by how they develop equally for three platforms, focusing on the weakest and porting upward, they are not a PC dev, but a multiplatform dev first and foremost. 

 

I think that's just about everything.