So the same game engine that ran Skyrim, which looks awesome, is garbage and even with an updated version looks like garbage.

People are confusing art style with engine limitations. People don't like the brighter colors, and more "cartoony" look of everything. Which is fine, as I like the FO3 art style better personally. However I don't think it has anything to do with the game engine.

It looks like they were trying to change it up a little. People are complaining about something users can actually change. Every Elder scrolls/Fallout game since Morrowwind has gotten extensive mods to upgrade/change the graphics. Some as extensive as changing the weather systems. This game will be no different.

Bethesda has one of the best game engines around, with the radiant AI quest system, and the dynamic landscapes. Hell Skyrim at launch day was only a 6GB game install. That's craziness compared to similar games that were out at the time.

Borderlands proves that realistic visuals don't mean anything if the game is fun.

#@The_Mystery_Box: The unofficial gameplay videos are low quality. Even the person that posted them said the game looks better in person than in his videos.

If you are talking about the E3 gameplay, which part specifically do you think look shitty?

@alpha_unit97: I agree. I think most people are turned off by the brighter colors.

After the E3 live play through, no-one was complaining about the graphics. The only unofficial gameplay that leaked has been low quality so its hard to judge.

@nomadie: I'm sure they are probably using the latest release on the Gamebryo engine, which is ~3 years old. With how long they have been working with the engine, they could have we-written major parts of it over the years.

@str8killa007: The consoles this generation are almost identical to a Windows gaming PC. So the port should be fine. They started development by porting Skyrim to the X1, so they definitely know what they are doing.

Not like the devs that tried to port Arkham to PC.