By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Fallout 4 Pre-Release Screenshot vs Release

Pre-order cancelled



Around the Network
DivinePaladin said:
Ali_16x said:


Except that you can't even get those graphics at max settings on PC as snyperdud showed. The Pre Release graphics aren't possible on any system because they don't exist lol.


There really wasn't a noteworthy difference other than in the one instance of lighting though. You're acting as if it's night and day, when it's marginal polish/optimization outside of the one aspect - one aspect that Bethsoft fans knew from day one was not truly showcased in-game. 

 

And again, mods. Bethesda explicitly stated mod support would be a thing immediately upon reveal. With all due respect, your argument is wholly irrelevant because of that, since they can just say "we used mods lol." They built in a failsafe from the beginning. Not that anybody was calling Fallout 4 good graphically, either. It's a poor looking game, which is to be expected because again, it's Bethsoft. Nobody is going into Fallout expecting Crysis, or even CoD. They're going in expecting an often glitchy experience with shitty graphics that they'll play for months because it's fun.

It seems pretty noteworthy to me, there is no such thing as one instance of lighting, if it's like that in one screenshot, it would have been like that throughout the game, which should be common sense. Even with that small picture, I can clearly see a difference in the lighting, textures and LoD.

And we're not talking about mods here, we're talking about the basic game. Even if it gets graphic mod support, it won't change this. There is no reason for PC developers to downgrade their games since they have so much power.



"There is only one race, the pathetic begging race"

OdinHades said:
Not this again...

Yes, ads look better than reality, it's nothing new. Go ahead and order a Big Mac. It won't look as good as in the TV spot. Just get over it already, goddamn!


Yeah but werent the fallout fans always saying, i much rather want to see a real representation than being latter dowgraded, dont worry about the graphics. Seems fallout 4 was still downgraded at the end



Ali_16x said:
DivinePaladin said:


There really wasn't a noteworthy difference other than in the one instance of lighting though. You're acting as if it's night and day, when it's marginal polish/optimization outside of the one aspect - one aspect that Bethsoft fans knew from day one was not truly showcased in-game. 

 

And again, mods. Bethesda explicitly stated mod support would be a thing immediately upon reveal. With all due respect, your argument is wholly irrelevant because of that, since they can just say "we used mods lol." They built in a failsafe from the beginning. Not that anybody was calling Fallout 4 good graphically, either. It's a poor looking game, which is to be expected because again, it's Bethsoft. Nobody is going into Fallout expecting Crysis, or even CoD. They're going in expecting an often glitchy experience with shitty graphics that they'll play for months because it's fun.

It seems pretty noteworthy to me, there is no such thing as one instance of lighting, if it's like that in one screenshot, it would have been like that throughout the game, which should be common sense. Even with that small picture, I can clearly see a difference in the lighting, textures and LoD.

And we're not talking about mods here, we're talking about the basic game. Even if it gets graphic mod support, it won't change this. There is no reason for PC developers to downgrade their games since they have so much power.

Bethesda is not just a PC developer. Going by their sales figures they're predominantly console by this point. So they put together a spiced up post-max settings shot and edited it in photoshop to make it pop, the same way every other company does with every other product, because it looks better on a poster than a screenshot at true settings. They (I'd assume they and not Obsidian because Obsidian has no reason to do a live cutscene when they're not the ones working to get sales) did the same thing with the "in-engine" New Vegas cinematic.

 

Difference is, they created a back door with mod support because they can say that screenshot quality is achievable with modding and that a team member put that together through his own mod. You don't seem to be following me there, but they covered their asses simply with the existence of mods. Not that they ever claimed that image was indicative of anything, though, so again it doesn't matter. It's the difference between graphically unimpressive and graphically unimpressive with a moment of "hey this might be 7th gen!"

 

I love the Fallout franchise but the games look like trash and anybody who at any point expected anything better than meh is clearly not familiar with Bethesda. That image never seemed to be something indicative of the final product either, especially since slightly before/after that image was shown they showed hard gameplay footage. It's not dissimilar to throwing a filter over a screenshot and using that as a main promotional image. It's not like Watch Dogs or Colonial Marines where there's promotional gameplay footage shown that's nothing close to the final product. 



You should check out my YouTube channel, The Golden Bolt!  I review all types of video games, both classic and modern, and I also give short flyover reviews of the free games each month on PlayStation Plus to tell you if they're worth downloading.  After all, the games may be free, but your time is valuable!

DivinePaladin said:
Ali_16x said:

It seems pretty noteworthy to me, there is no such thing as one instance of lighting, if it's like that in one screenshot, it would have been like that throughout the game, which should be common sense. Even with that small picture, I can clearly see a difference in the lighting, textures and LoD.

And we're not talking about mods here, we're talking about the basic game. Even if it gets graphic mod support, it won't change this. There is no reason for PC developers to downgrade their games since they have so much power.

Bethesda is not just a PC developer. Going by their sales figures they're predominantly console by this point. So they put together a spiced up post-max settings shot and edited it in photoshop to make it pop, the same way every other company does with every other product, because it looks better on a poster than a screenshot at true settings. They (I'd assume they and not Obsidian because Obsidian has no reason to do a live cutscene when they're not the ones working to get sales) did the same thing with the "in-engine" New Vegas cinematic.

 

Difference is, they created a back door with mod support because they can say that screenshot quality is achievable with modding and that a team member put that together through his own mod. You don't seem to be following me there, but they covered their asses simply with the existence of mods. Not that they ever claimed that image was indicative of anything, though, so again it doesn't matter. It's the difference between graphically unimpressive and graphically unimpressive with a moment of "hey this might be 7th gen!"

 

I love the Fallout franchise but the games look like trash and anybody who at any point expected anything better than meh is clearly not familiar with Bethesda. That image never seemed to be something indicative of the final product either, especially since slightly before/after that image was shown they showed hard gameplay footage. It's not dissimilar to throwing a filter over a screenshot and using that as a main promotional image. It's not like Watch Dogs or Colonial Marines where there's promotional gameplay footage shown that's nothing close to the final product. 


Lol, Bethesda is 100% a PC developer, they always have and they even consider themselves that. They make PC their priority. Just because the sales are higher on consoles doesn't mean they've suddenly turned into console developers, not sure how you would even get to the thought. Nor does it mean if a game has higher PC sales than the console version, they're suddenly PC developers. That logic doesn't work. Actually you can tell that they're PC developers by how different the PC version and console versions are in terms of graphics, they put more time into the PC version.



"There is only one race, the pathetic begging race"

Around the Network
asqarkabab said:
I got the game how is it
Should i give it a try ?

Yes you should it's awesome. I've got almost 3 days worth of gametime into it already.



Bullshots are nothing new. Even on absolute max at 1440p, it looks nothing like the promo shots, as is to be expected. It still looks good, just not fantastic, and that's fine.



OdinHades said:
Not this again...

Yes, ads look better than reality, it's nothing new. Go ahead and order a Big Mac. It won't look as good as in the TV spot. Just get over it already, goddamn!


Well that basically is the problem, they shouldn't be advertising it to be something different from what it actually is . It's funny that you explained it with the Big Mac example because I once saw this video of a guy going around at some Fastfoods and comparing their hamburgers to the ones they advertise for.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrZFM2nvLXA

 

Seeing how helpful the employees showed to be when asked to make a better hamburger made me wonder if they know that maybe they can be sued or something for advertising a VERY different product from the one they give you...



Ruler said:
OdinHades said:
Not this again...

Yes, ads look better than reality, it's nothing new. Go ahead and order a Big Mac. It won't look as good as in the TV spot. Just get over it already, goddamn!


Yeah but werent the fallout fans always saying, i much rather want to see a real representation than being latter dowgraded, dont worry about the graphics. Seems fallout 4 was still downgraded at the end

Don't know about other Fallout Fans, but I personally don't care about the graphics of that game at all. I would even have bought it if it had still Fallout 3 graphics, because it's just so damn good when it comes to gameplay. Oh, and all those folks screaming for a new engine for Bethesda? I strongly disagree! That would take at least 5 years for the next game to release! I don't want to wait that long, just use the old engine and give me more Elder Scrolls or Fallout! They can do a new engine after the next game, then it will be ready for Next-Gen. But building a new engine NOW so that it's probably done around the time this gen dies? Doesn't sound very promising to me.



Official member of VGC's Nintendo family, approved by the one and only RolStoppable. I feel honored.

OdinHades said:
Ruler said:


Yeah but werent the fallout fans always saying, i much rather want to see a real representation than being latter dowgraded, dont worry about the graphics. Seems fallout 4 was still downgraded at the end

Don't know about other Fallout Fans, but I personally don't care about the graphics of that game at all. I would even have bought it if it had still Fallout 3 graphics, because it's just so damn good when it comes to gameplay. Oh, and all those folks screaming for a new engine for Bethesda? I strongly disagree! That would take at least 5 years for the next game to release! I don't want to wait that long, just use the old engine and give me more Elder Scrolls or Fallout! They can do a new engine after the next game, then it will be ready for Next-Gen. But building a new engine NOW so that it's probably done around the time this gen dies? Doesn't sound very promising to me.

The new engine needs to be done one way or another. It's embarrassing that at this day and age the game runs like if it was from last-gen on both PC and consoles. I know the game is awesome, but it would be even better if it ran properly. I'd wait a bit more for another Fallout if a new engine would make it run better across the board.