Did they (Bethesda) play it too safe with Fallout 4?

Avatar image for battlespectre
BattleSpectre

7989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By BattleSpectre
Member since 2009 • 7989 Posts

To start things off, for those of you who don't know me and for those of you that do (no one lol) Fallout 3 is my favorite game of all time. Yes that's right folks it sits at number 1 on my top 10 list. I'm not even sure I have a top 10 list, so that says a lot. Now my question is to all you fine gents out there, do you think that Bethesda played it too safe with Fallout 4?

Now don't get me wrong I loved Fallout 4, put about 30 hours into it before I even advanced further into the main story and by the end of the game I had close to 100 hours into it with a lot of areas still unexplored (most of the important side quests were done though). Now i'm just waiting for the DLC and then I will continue to explore most of the areas around the wasteland of Boston and see what hidden goodies I can find.

Having said all that I just can't help but feel that they played it too safe with this game, I mean sure it was pretty great but it didn't feel like the next big, bold Fallout game like the way it should have felt (or at least to me). One thing that left me underwhelmed was the size of the map I mean one side of the map was just covered with an ocean of water (rumor has it the DLC will be underwater) which I hope is true but I mean yeah.

Also I didn't feel like the areas in the game were as cool or unique as in Fallout 3 and in New Vegas, For example a city like Diamond City was big and full of life and the rest of the settlements just felt really small in comparison like Goodneighbor and the like. At least the content was good in those cities with some interesting quests to do which did make up for it in a way.

But yeah in conclusion the map in general just feels underwhelming and unlike other Fallout games once I was done with the story I didn't feel like exploring anymore, and finding new things so hopefully the DLC changes that a bit. I just felt like Bethesda played it too safe and held back a little with Fallout 4 and didn't go all out like they could have, do some of you guys feel the same way?

PS: Boston, and no snow sections on the map? Comeon mang!!

Avatar image for isaacfalls
Isaacfalls

143

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#2 Isaacfalls
Member since 2016 • 143 Posts

I liked the size of the map and I think the reason why they had only small settlements was because...well...it's the wasteland!

People haven't recovered from the nuclear apocalypse yet. It would kinda suck to have big cities everywhere IMO.

Regarding the DLC, I feel that they should release it NOW, because I can't be the only one running out of stuff to do in the game. After 60 hours, I have finished the main story and all side missions :/

I don't like running from building to building and killing everyone...

Avatar image for sukraj
sukraj

27859

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#3 sukraj
Member since 2008 • 27859 Posts

This is my first fallout game and I'm loving it I'm not too far into the game battlespectre.

Avatar image for tanerb
tanerb

1300

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#4  Edited By tanerb
Member since 2003 • 1300 Posts

It is not playing safe. It EA'sation. Basically publish half assed games with minimum effort and drive maximum profit out of it. Let's say instead of spending 3 years, spend only one and a half in development with 70-75% of sales. Less costs and less sales but overall higher margin. This works much better in sports and fps games that targets early teens and less on rpgs (hence the sinkage of dragon age and bioware) but EA never thinks long term anyway. Bethesda jumped in this car with Oblivion and later Skyrim. Fallout 4 is the latest entry.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

I was less annoyed by the size of the map and more annoyed by the lack of actual stuff to do. Like, the USS Constitution side quest was kind of cool. Sure, it basically boiled down to "fetch this, kill that" just like the rest of the game. But it actually paid off in the sense that something interesting or amusing actually happened at the end. To make an analogy, it's like a joke that actually had a punchline. Meanwhile, in my opinion, most of the rest of the game is all setup. Most quests are "kill this, find that, fix something". Which I'm not knocking, because that's basically how the whole game works. My problem is specifically that that's ALL that most quests amount to. It's all setup with no punchline. You do the work but it doesn't MEAN anything because ALL that one gets as a reward are experience points and maybe some cool weapons/armor.

For a shorter game, that's fine. For a game of this length, that's potentially a problem. The game is a chore simulator. That's basically what I do: I run errands and do chores. That's not necessarily a problem, because if the game is short enough then it's easy to finish it before getting so sick of doing chores. But by 40 freaking hours, it becomes VERY apparent that that's all the game is doing and there is rarely gonna be any payoff. I don't expect the game to be meaningful, but they could at least do a better job of trying to give the ILLUSION that dozens of hours worth of chores actually means something. At least TRY to use the game's long ass time to show me something that I haven't seen before. That's not to say that there aren't some really clever and entertaining moments, but the number of times this game actually ENTERTAINED ME is depressingly low for how much time I put into it. I've been playing these games ever since Fallout 2. I didn't become a fan just because of the grinding and the killing, I became a fan because the developers did a good job of giving the ILLUSION that all of that work would pay off with something entertaining and memorable. Maybe that's just nostalgia speaking, and the previous Fallout games were just as boring. But I can say that after spending a buttload of time with it, Fallout 4 is boring.

Avatar image for so_hai
so_hai

4385

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 89

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By so_hai
Member since 2007 • 4385 Posts

Yes - PC gamers (and PC FPS gamers at that) are about the most conservative group there is. They will never alter Fallout much because the backlash would be insufferable. Same as GTA.

Avatar image for LuminousAether
LuminousAether

322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 LuminousAether
Member since 2005 • 322 Posts

I don't think so. I was glad that they introduced stuff like the radiant quests from Skyrim. I liked Fallout 4 much, MUCH more than Fallout 3, no contest. I'd say that each Bethesda game has been better than the one before it with the exception of Oblivion which just sucked beyond all belief.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#8 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@BattleSpectre said:

To start things off, for those of you who don't know me and for those of you that do (no one lol) Fallout 3 is my favorite game of all time. Yes that's right folks it sits at number 1 on my top 10 list. I'm not even sure I have a top 10 list, so that says a lot. Now my question is to all you fine gents out there, do you think that Bethesda played it too safe with Fallout 4?

Now don't get me wrong I loved Fallout 4, put about 30 hours into it before I even advanced further into the main story and by the end of the game I had close to 100 hours into it with a lot of areas still unexplored (most of the important side quests were done though). Now i'm just waiting for the DLC and then I will continue to explore most of the areas around the wasteland of Boston and see what hidden goodies I can find.

Having said all that I just can't help but feel that they played it too safe with this game, I mean sure it was pretty great but it didn't feel like the next big, bold Fallout game like the way it should have felt (or at least to me). One thing that left me underwhelmed was the size of the map I mean one side of the map was just covered with an ocean of water (rumor has it the DLC will be underwater) which I hope is true but I mean yeah.

Also I didn't feel like the areas in the game were as cool or unique as in Fallout 3 and in New Vegas, For example a city like Diamond City was big and full of life and the rest of the settlements just felt really small in comparison like Goodneighbor and the like. At least the content was good in those cities with some interesting quests to do which did make up for it in a way.

But yeah in conclusion the map in general just feels underwhelming and unlike other Fallout games once I was done with the story I didn't feel like exploring anymore, and finding new things so hopefully the DLC changes that a bit. I just felt like Bethesda played it too safe and held back a little with Fallout 4 and didn't go all out like they could have, do some of you guys feel the same way?

PS: Boston, and no snow sections on the map? Comeon mang!!

I can only agree here, Fallout 4 is a good game and i love the base building aspects of it, but in terms of the map and exploration they seem to have played it way to safe, they took the formula in Fallout 3 and NV and decided to go with a much smaller map.

Especially the map size is the biggest disappointment for me.

But hopefully the DLC will pick up and expand the map.

Avatar image for tanerb
tanerb

1300

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#10 tanerb
Member since 2003 • 1300 Posts

@LuminousAether: Heh for me exactly the opposite. Morrowind was a masterpiece. Oblivion was bad. Skyrim was awful, a snorefest with a boring plot. My god powered character one shotting dragons. I did not even bother to finish it. Granted, I did not play Fallout 4 and probably never will (Gamespot's 9 rating should normally make me play ) I can clearly see the direction Bethesda is going with their games.

Avatar image for battlespectre
BattleSpectre

7989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By BattleSpectre
Member since 2009 • 7989 Posts

@MrGeezer: Having said all that though, there were definitely some awesome side quests which some could argue were a little more interesting than the main story. I especially loved *Spoiler Alert* the U.S.S. Constitution side quest like you mentioned, and the Yangtze submarine side quest was really interesting (the Chinese ghoul inside named Captain Zao was the one to nuke the surrounding Boston areas). Oh and how can I forget that little ghoul child who locked himself inside the fridge to survive the explosion and then you need to find his parents.

What I really love about the Fallout universe are the little details, the hidden messages and the little details that really make you use your imagination. That's what really makes Fallout what it is today.

@sukraj said:

This is my first fallout game and I'm loving it I'm not too far into the game battlespectre.

Sukraj glad to know you're enjoying it bro, I think Fallout 4 is a great way to introduce you to the Fallout world but I wish you would have played Fallout 3 when it was released (I still recommend it now but you may be shocked with the bugs and performance compared to Fallout 4). Feel free to message me if you want to chat about Fallout or if you have any other questions regarding the game.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

@BattleSpectre: Oh, I definitely agree that there were some great quests, I'm just saying that the number of times I have that happen are really slim proportional to the AMOUNT of content in the game. And like I said...maybe I've been looking at the previous games through rose-tinted goggles and these games have ALWAYS been this bad about that. All I can say about Fallout 4 specifically is that I very much noticed that the vast majority of what I do is meaningless bullshit. I'd take a smaller world with less content if it meant being able to write more fun and interesting scenarios rather than just have more "discover this, shoot that, earn this."

And granted, I understand that to a certain extent that problem is sort of a staple of the genre in the first place. I mean, that whole level progression thing is sort of inherently a way to keep people playing in order to get a reward that doesn't amount to anything other than a set of numbers. It's sort of like digital crack. You keep playing to get more experience, and getting more experience is just enough of a rush to keep you playing in order to get more experience. But they have to provide the ILLUSION that I'm getting something other than just boosted up stats, or else it becomes too obvious that I'm wasting my time doing nothing.

Like, I'm almost level 60 right now. I haven't felt any sense of ACCOMPLISHMENT since about level 35. Even if the game is just "kill shoot loot", where the hell are the REAL challenges that test a high level character? This is especially true given the lack of a level cap. There are no mega-bosses (that I've found) that test the limits of a level 50 character and then give appropriate rewards. Once you're past level 40 or something, no combat situation is challenging and most of the rewards are gonna be insignificant enough to not care about them. There's no level cap, but the sense of progress stalls fairly early. Discovery and progress felt satisfying early on, but once I got powerful enough it was like I still had half of the game's content ahead of me and yet it didn't feel like I was accomplishing anything new.

Avatar image for Macutchi
Macutchi

10360

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#14 Macutchi
Member since 2007 • 10360 Posts

@MrGeezer: that's pretty much how i feel about the game too. it was fun but underwhelming. and it didn't feel much like a fallout game, but that's another story.

@BattleSpectre: i'm not sure whether bethesda played it too safe, or whether they've just attempted to get away with a game that was primarily designed for last gen. supposedly the game was in development as far back as 2010. things like the small map, the poor graphics, the lack of ambition with regards to gameplay evolution etc. could be explained by that. just a hypothesis ;)

Avatar image for Toxic-Seahorse
Toxic-Seahorse

5074

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 Toxic-Seahorse
Member since 2012 • 5074 Posts

Nah, I don't think they played it safe. It's just Bethesda. They're good at making open worlds but struggle with meaningful content to fill them. They've never been great at writing, characters, story, and atmosphere. Fallout 3 & 4 don't come close to 1&2 and Obsidian's New Vegas is way better than both Fallout 3&4.

Avatar image for seanh
Seanh

203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16 Seanh
Member since 2015 • 203 Posts

I still haven't played since November 30th and I've only clocked up about 8 hours so far.

Personally, I think they did play it safe and it's resulted in a crap game.

Avatar image for sukraj
sukraj

27859

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#17 sukraj
Member since 2008 • 27859 Posts

@BattleSpectre said:

@MrGeezer: Having said all that though, there were definitely some awesome side quests which some could argue were a little more interesting than the main story. I especially loved *Spoiler Alert* the U.S.S. Constitution side quest like you mentioned, and the Yangtze submarine side quest was really interesting (the Chinese ghoul inside named Captain Zao was the one to nuke the surrounding Boston areas). Oh and how can I forget that little ghoul child who locked himself inside the fridge to survive the explosion and then you need to find his parents.

What I really love about the Fallout universe are the little details, the hidden messages and the little details that really make you use your imagination. That's what really makes Fallout what it is today.

@sukraj said:

This is my first fallout game and I'm loving it I'm not too far into the game battlespectre.

Sukraj glad to know you're enjoying it bro, I think Fallout 4 is a great way to introduce you to the Fallout world but I wish you would have played Fallout 3 when it was released (I still recommend it now but you may be shocked with the bugs and performance compared to Fallout 4). Feel free to message me if you want to chat about Fallout or if you have any other questions regarding the game.

Thanks Mate if I'm struggling with a particular mission I will message you my friend.

Avatar image for battlespectre
BattleSpectre

7989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By BattleSpectre
Member since 2009 • 7989 Posts

@MrGeezer said:

I was less annoyed by the size of the map and more annoyed by the lack of actual stuff to do. Like, the USS Constitution side quest was kind of cool. Sure, it basically boiled down to "fetch this, kill that" just like the rest of the game. But it actually paid off in the sense that something interesting or amusing actually happened at the end. To make an analogy, it's like a joke that actually had a punchline. Meanwhile, in my opinion, most of the rest of the game is all setup. Most quests are "kill this, find that, fix something". Which I'm not knocking, because that's basically how the whole game works. My problem is specifically that that's ALL that most quests amount to. It's all setup with no punchline. You do the work but it doesn't MEAN anything because ALL that one gets as a reward are experience points and maybe some cool weapons/armor.

For a shorter game, that's fine. For a game of this length, that's potentially a problem. The game is a chore simulator. That's basically what I do: I run errands and do chores. That's not necessarily a problem, because if the game is short enough then it's easy to finish it before getting so sick of doing chores. But by 40 freaking hours, it becomes VERY apparent that that's all the game is doing and there is rarely gonna be any payoff. I don't expect the game to be meaningful, but they could at least do a better job of trying to give the ILLUSION that dozens of hours worth of chores actually means something. At least TRY to use the game's long ass time to show me something that I haven't seen before. That's not to say that there aren't some really clever and entertaining moments, but the number of times this game actually ENTERTAINED ME is depressingly low for how much time I put into it. I've been playing these games ever since Fallout 2. I didn't become a fan just because of the grinding and the killing, I became a fan because the developers did a good job of giving the ILLUSION that all of that work would pay off with something entertaining and memorable. Maybe that's just nostalgia speaking, and the previous Fallout games were just as boring. But I can say that after spending a buttload of time with it, Fallout 4 is boring.

There's more to the Fallout universe than meets the eye. I like the hidden messages left via notes or terminals and the backstory on the situations that happened, where you need to use your imagination. The exploring factors, the interesting characters you meet and the settlements/vaults that hide dark deep secrets that you need to reveal. I know you said you've played all the Fallout games but I can't help but feel like this game was never quite meant for you (I apologize if I'm wrong), if all you got out of the Fallout games was "fetch this, kill that" perhaps it never really was your style because the game feels like a whole other world waiting to be discovered.

Fallout 3 was my first Fallout game and I've never experienced a game that felt so unique, the characters were so interesting and I remember the first time I met the friendly bartender ghoul in Megaton thinking "wtf is this thing, will it try to kill me?". The settlements and the way the wasteland reacted just amazed me. Also I loved the dialogue system (another thing I dislike about Fallout 4 was how Bethesda dumbed down the dialogue system for Fallout 4). Anyways this is why I love the Fallout universe and why Fallout 3 is my favorite game because unlike many other games in this genre Fallout has a unique way in expressing it's world, it's the small details in the world that leave you there pondering in awe.

But I agree they could of done more with Fallout 4, hence this thread.

@Macutchi said:

@BattleSpectre: i'm not sure whether bethesda played it too safe, or whether they've just attempted to get away with a game that was primarily designed for last gen. supposedly the game was in development as far back as 2010. things like the small map, the poor graphics, the lack of ambition with regards to gameplay evolution etc. could be explained by that. just a hypothesis ;)

I never understood the complaints about the graphics, the visuals continue to amaze me in certain areas and I think it looks very polished. Perhaps people haven't fine tuned their TV's, or they are playing on tiny 20" screens.

Avatar image for Macutchi
Macutchi

10360

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#19 Macutchi
Member since 2007 • 10360 Posts

@BattleSpectre: or they've just played much better loking games this gen. it might look good on the pc but it's the worst looking game i've seen on the ps4. it reeks of last gen

Avatar image for battlespectre
BattleSpectre

7989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 BattleSpectre
Member since 2009 • 7989 Posts

@Macutchi: I'm playing on the PS4 and can not fault the graphics, especially when compared to Fallout 3 and New Vegas. But as a standalone game too I still think Fallout 4 looks great.

Avatar image for Macutchi
Macutchi

10360

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#21 Macutchi
Member since 2007 • 10360 Posts

@BattleSpectre: well obvs it's all opinions but how do you feel it compares against this gen games the witcher 3, mgsv, gtav, bloodborne, arkham knight etc?

i do think there are some reasonable looking locations and some moments that are quite easy on the eye but in general the graphics seem blocky, overly simplistic and lacking in detail, the draw distance is poor (and what's there is often hazy and blurry), there's regular framerate drops etc. the birds eye view when up in the vertibird in particular is laughable

Avatar image for battlespectre
BattleSpectre

7989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By BattleSpectre
Member since 2009 • 7989 Posts

@Macutchi: Of course, varied opinions can't be wrong and I always welcome them. To answer your question though, Witcher 3 is easily graphics king atm and comparing anything to it would just be silly. Haven't gotten MGS yet but played the demo and was quite impressed graphically tho it didn't blow me away. Gta V wasn't this gen but I do get what you mean I.e the remaster, Bloodborne isn't my cup of tea graphically and gameplay wise and Arkham knight had too much film grain for my liking.

As for Fallout 4 I still stand by what I said, I think it looks nice graphically. Although some areas can look flat as you mentioned but a lot of big open world games suffer from that with a few exceptions. Lets not forget witcher 3 was quite buggy too.

Avatar image for LuminousAether
LuminousAether

322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 LuminousAether
Member since 2005 • 322 Posts

@tanerb said:

@LuminousAether: Heh for me exactly the opposite. Morrowind was a masterpiece. Oblivion was bad. Skyrim was awful, a snorefest with a boring plot. My god powered character one shotting dragons. I did not even bother to finish it. Granted, I did not play Fallout 4 and probably never will (Gamespot's 9 rating should normally make me play ) I can clearly see the direction Bethesda is going with their games.

I don't see how you could claim that Morrowind was a masterpiece with a straight face when it had that combat. The Elder Scrolls franchise is an action RPG franchise and regardless of everything else, combat is one of the most important elements in ANY action RPG. Morrowind is no exception. You spend a LOT of time in that game in combat, and the combat is among the worst that I've ever seen.

The direction Bethesda is going is pretty obvious though, they are spending more time on creating better combat, better world design, and stronger gameplay in general.

Avatar image for capri2s
Capri2S

142

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24  Edited By Capri2S
Member since 2016 • 142 Posts

@LuminousAether said:
@tanerb said:

@LuminousAether: Heh for me exactly the opposite. Morrowind was a masterpiece. Oblivion was bad. Skyrim was awful, a snorefest with a boring plot. My god powered character one shotting dragons. I did not even bother to finish it. Granted, I did not play Fallout 4 and probably never will (Gamespot's 9 rating should normally make me play ) I can clearly see the direction Bethesda is going with their games.

I don't see how you could claim that Morrowind was a masterpiece with a straight face when it had that combat. The Elder Scrolls franchise is an action RPG franchise and regardless of everything else, combat is one of the most important elements in ANY action RPG. Morrowind is no exception. You spend a LOT of time in that game in combat, and the combat is among the worst that I've ever seen.

The direction Bethesda is going is pretty obvious though, they are spending more time on creating better combat, better world design, and stronger gameplay in general.

Yeah i agree, combat in most Bethesda games is pretty crap, i only started seeing an improvement since Skyrim, even Fallout 3 and New Vegas had crappy gunplay, the only saving grace was VATS so im glad the combat in Fallout 4 is more like what youd expect from a modern FPS and hope they continue to improve combat in the next Elder Scrolls game.

Now if only they can release a game thats not broken and full of bugs i might be able to take them seriously.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

The thing about Fallout 4 looking "nice" is that these days it's just expected for games to look "nice". Even games that look BAD still sort of look "nice". It's sort of like how even a bad pizza still tastes sort of good. Still doesn't mean that Pizza Hut and Little Caesar don't suck.

But yeah...Fallout 4 looks "nice". But I'm not gonna pretend that it's good by current standards. By current standards, Fallout 4 doesn't look very good. And hey...I personally don't mind that too much. Its graphics get the job done, and when the rest of the game is firing on all cylinders I'm not gonna knock it just because it looks dated. Hell, I still go back and play stuff like classic Doom every once in a while, so I'm definitely of the mindset that bad graphics can be okay if the gameplay makes up for it. But I'm not gonna pretend that Fallout 4 looks good for a game released in 2016.

Avatar image for wiouds
wiouds

6233

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 wiouds
Member since 2004 • 6233 Posts

The leveling system if you can call it that is horrible. There is no real role playing in the game. Any RPG where you start off being the master of the all weapons and only get better is not a good RPG.

They played it safe for those that do not want a RPG by removing the most important role play elements.

Avatar image for LuminousAether
LuminousAether

322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27  Edited By LuminousAether
Member since 2005 • 322 Posts

@MrGeezer said:

The thing about Fallout 4 looking "nice" is that these days it's just expected for games to look "nice". Even games that look BAD still sort of look "nice". It's sort of like how even a bad pizza still tastes sort of good. Still doesn't mean that Pizza Hut and Little Caesar don't suck.

But yeah...Fallout 4 looks "nice". But I'm not gonna pretend that it's good by current standards. By current standards, Fallout 4 doesn't look very good. And hey...I personally don't mind that too much. Its graphics get the job done, and when the rest of the game is firing on all cylinders I'm not gonna knock it just because it looks dated. Hell, I still go back and play stuff like classic Doom every once in a while, so I'm definitely of the mindset that bad graphics can be okay if the gameplay makes up for it. But I'm not gonna pretend that Fallout 4 looks good for a game released in 2016.

It looked good to me playing on nearly max settings. Art design is more important than anything else and Fallout 4 has incredible art design, the game just oozes atmosphere. Especially in the heart of the city, with the towering skyscrapers, mossy power lines, and decrepit facades.

I had no complaints with the visuals.

Avatar image for neoprime
NeoPrime

287

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 NeoPrime
Member since 2016 • 287 Posts

@LuminousAether said:
@MrGeezer said:

The thing about Fallout 4 looking "nice" is that these days it's just expected for games to look "nice". Even games that look BAD still sort of look "nice". It's sort of like how even a bad pizza still tastes sort of good. Still doesn't mean that Pizza Hut and Little Caesar don't suck.

But yeah...Fallout 4 looks "nice". But I'm not gonna pretend that it's good by current standards. By current standards, Fallout 4 doesn't look very good. And hey...I personally don't mind that too much. Its graphics get the job done, and when the rest of the game is firing on all cylinders I'm not gonna knock it just because it looks dated. Hell, I still go back and play stuff like classic Doom every once in a while, so I'm definitely of the mindset that bad graphics can be okay if the gameplay makes up for it. But I'm not gonna pretend that Fallout 4 looks good for a game released in 2016.

It looked good to me playing on nearly max settings. Art design is more important than anything else and Fallout 4 has incredible art design, the game just oozes atmosphere. Especially in the heart of the city, with the towering skyscrapers, mossy power lines, and decrepit facades.

I had no complaints with the visuals.

I agree, graphics are more then just resolution and polygon counts and special shiny effects.
Art design is pretty much the most important thing, and i always thought F4 looked great. I love the lighting the game has, how everything looks wet and shiny when it rains, the way explosions look and the way your pip-boy light illuminates stuff around you looks great.I love looking far off into the distance and seeing buildings and hills that are miles away, and i love watching the light show from the Glowing Sea from a distance as well.
Sure, its no Witcher 3, MGS5 or AC: Syndicate or Arkham Knight and the engine is showing its age but it doesn't look bad, or even average by any stretch of the imagination, at least not to me and its certainly a gigantic step up from F3 and NV, and if you say it isnt go back and play those games on console right now and compare, its like night and day!
Graphics were never the most important part of a game anyway, its always been game play and immersive worlds and stories that were most important and F4 has them in spades.
I do wish Bethesda would start beta testing their games before releasing them however, and kept in touch with the community more often and kept us informed like CD PROJEKT RED does.

Avatar image for tanerb
tanerb

1300

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#29  Edited By tanerb
Member since 2003 • 1300 Posts

@LuminousAether: Skyrim combat was as worse as Morrowind. It was not improved at all. Morrowind was a good RPG. Skyrim was an attempt at an action game but did not make it. What you say in Bethesda's direction is comical. They are streamlining their games allright but they are not better at anything other than simplifying it for teenager target audience.

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

Maybe that's the problem. I can't speak for the PC version, I've been playing on PS4. But yeah...on the PS4 this game looks pretty bad.

And again, not complaining or anything. I never bought Fallout games for the graphics in the first place, and the PS4 graphics are still good enough to get the job done. But I definitely would not call this a good looking game (on PS4).

Avatar image for LuminousAether
LuminousAether

322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By LuminousAether
Member since 2005 • 322 Posts

@tanerb said:

@LuminousAether: Skyrim combat was as worse as Morrowind. It was not improved at all. Morrowind was a good RPG. Skyrim was an attempt at an action game but did not make it. What you say in Bethesda's direction is comical. They are streamlining their games allright but they are not better at anything other than simplifying it for teenager target audience.

No, streamlining isn't the appropriate comment. They have removed some spectacularly stupid stats like acrobatics, but that's just smart design. Skyrim is a radically more complex game than Morrowind from a gameplay perspective. Also, Skyrim's combat was DRAMATICALLY superior to Morrowind's combat. Try and be reasonable.

Also, MrGeezer, no games look good on the PS4. They all have terrible performance and issues with standard graphical elements. Fallout 4 definitely looks much worse on the PS4, but so does every game. If you are interested in good graphics at all, PC is the only way to go. Console is a joke this generation. Sad but true. I used to love Sony consoles but the PS4 is laughably awful. PS3 was too.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
Jacanuk

20281

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#32 Jacanuk
Member since 2011 • 20281 Posts

@LuminousAether said:
@tanerb said:

@LuminousAether: Skyrim combat was as worse as Morrowind. It was not improved at all. Morrowind was a good RPG. Skyrim was an attempt at an action game but did not make it. What you say in Bethesda's direction is comical. They are streamlining their games allright but they are not better at anything other than simplifying it for teenager target audience.

No, streamlining isn't the appropriate comment. They have removed some spectacularly stupid stats like acrobatics, but that's just smart design. Skyrim is a radically more complex game than Morrowind from a gameplay perspective. Also, Skyrim's combat was DRAMATICALLY superior to Morrowind's combat. Try and be reasonable.

Also, MrGeezer, no games look good on the PS4. They all have terrible performance and issues with standard graphical elements. Fallout 4 definitely looks much worse on the PS4, but so does every game. If you are interested in good graphics at all, PC is the only way to go. Console is a joke this generation. Sad but true. I used to love Sony consoles but the PS4 is laughably awful. PS3 was too.

You´r last comment and lash against consoles are just laughable and nothing but BS. you may not like consoles but just look at Arkham Knight, The Division and many other games. Fact is that they are made for consoles not PC and that yes while graphics could be far better , they are not since they are held back to fit the console.

Avatar image for csward
csward

2155

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#33 csward
Member since 2005 • 2155 Posts

@tanerb said:

@LuminousAether: Heh for me exactly the opposite. Morrowind was a masterpiece. Oblivion was bad. Skyrim was awful, a snorefest with a boring plot. My god powered character one shotting dragons. I did not even bother to finish it. Granted, I did not play Fallout 4 and probably never will (Gamespot's 9 rating should normally make me play ) I can clearly see the direction Bethesda is going with their games.

This. Bethesda, despite being more successful over the years, hasn't done anything to push their games forward. They just make the same game in a new setting. That's fine I guess, but I become less interested with every new Bethesda game.

Fallout 4 suffers in the early game. Once you get Valentine it gets better, then end game it goes downhill again. Oh well, maybe Fallout 5 will use a new engine :).

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

@LuminousAether said:

Also, MrGeezer, no games look good on the PS4. They all have terrible performance and issues with standard graphical elements. Fallout 4 definitely looks much worse on the PS4, but so does every game. If you are interested in good graphics at all, PC is the only way to go. Console is a joke this generation. Sad but true. I used to love Sony consoles but the PS4 is laughably awful. PS3 was too.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that Fallout 4 on PS4 looks pretty bad even by PS4 standards. I'm not picky about graphics at all, hence why I use a PS4 in the first place, and yet I still can't deny that the PS4 version looks pretty bad even for a PS4 game.

Avatar image for LuminousAether
LuminousAether

322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35  Edited By LuminousAether
Member since 2005 • 322 Posts

@MrGeezer said:
@LuminousAether said:

Also, MrGeezer, no games look good on the PS4. They all have terrible performance and issues with standard graphical elements. Fallout 4 definitely looks much worse on the PS4, but so does every game. If you are interested in good graphics at all, PC is the only way to go. Console is a joke this generation. Sad but true. I used to love Sony consoles but the PS4 is laughably awful. PS3 was too.

You're missing the point. I'm saying that Fallout 4 on PS4 looks pretty bad even by PS4 standards. I'm not picky about graphics at all, hence why I use a PS4 in the first place, and yet I still can't deny that the PS4 version looks pretty bad even for a PS4 game.

Sorry, you just don't get a say about graphics if you're a PS4 gamer. Of course you're going to get bad graphics, that's how it works. It doesn't matter if it's bad for PS4 or not, all PS4 games perform poorly and look awful except for remasters of PS3 games because that's all the PS4 is capable of running.

Avatar image for LuminousAether
LuminousAether

322

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 LuminousAether
Member since 2005 • 322 Posts

@Jacanuk said:
@LuminousAether said:
@tanerb said:

@LuminousAether: Skyrim combat was as worse as Morrowind. It was not improved at all. Morrowind was a good RPG. Skyrim was an attempt at an action game but did not make it. What you say in Bethesda's direction is comical. They are streamlining their games allright but they are not better at anything other than simplifying it for teenager target audience.

No, streamlining isn't the appropriate comment. They have removed some spectacularly stupid stats like acrobatics, but that's just smart design. Skyrim is a radically more complex game than Morrowind from a gameplay perspective. Also, Skyrim's combat was DRAMATICALLY superior to Morrowind's combat. Try and be reasonable.

Also, MrGeezer, no games look good on the PS4. They all have terrible performance and issues with standard graphical elements. Fallout 4 definitely looks much worse on the PS4, but so does every game. If you are interested in good graphics at all, PC is the only way to go. Console is a joke this generation. Sad but true. I used to love Sony consoles but the PS4 is laughably awful. PS3 was too.

You´r last comment and lash against consoles are just laughable and nothing but BS. you may not like consoles but just look at Arkham Knight, The Division and many other games. Fact is that they are made for consoles not PC and that yes while graphics could be far better , they are not since they are held back to fit the console.

Haven't played The Division yet, so no comment there, but Arkham Knight ran like crap on the PS4. 30 fps cap, frequent dips. That's terrible performance. That's the kind of performance that gets me to request a Steam refund.

Avatar image for xantufrog
xantufrog

17875

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#38 xantufrog  Moderator
Member since 2013 • 17875 Posts

I think they played it safe, but I think it was a step forward from FO3. FO3 was very small and had very few unique locales IMO. Mind you, I liked it a lot. But I think FO4 is bigger, more interesting, and has more to do in almost every way.

But I do think they could have done more to move it forward. It definitely feels iterative and not a big leap forward in the experience. But I'm loving it

Avatar image for xantufrog
xantufrog

17875

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#39 xantufrog  Moderator
Member since 2013 • 17875 Posts

@LuminousAether said:

Sorry, you just don't get a say about graphics if you're a PS4 gamer. Of course you're going to get bad graphics, that's how it works. It doesn't matter if it's bad for PS4 or not, all PS4 games perform poorly and look awful except for remasters of PS3 games because that's all the PS4 is capable of running.

Save the System Wars stuff for SW please. You're actually putting down someone who AGREES with your perspective (i.e., disappointing FO4 graphics on PS4) because they own a PS4? Pro tip: when someone is corroborating your world view, run with it