
"Everything that we do is a balance", Bethesda marketing director Pete Hines told GameSpot. The publisher's upcoming open world role-playing game, Fallout 4, got a big showing at this year's E3, but there's been a lot of conversation regarding the title's visual prowess.
"We could make the best looking game possible, but we dial some of that back in order to allow for all of these other things," Hines continued, when asked about the concern over the post-apocalyptic adventure's graphics.
Now, we all know that great visuals can sell a game; to the more casual onlooker, seeing a title that sports outstanding graphics can sell the product, but that perhaps isn't the case with hobbyists like those of you who are reading this very article. Indeed, while many of us understand that graphics don't make the game, a release's visuals can obviously make it that much more appealing.
But Bethesda's never really been about graphical fidelity. Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas are both pretty grubby looking games on consoles, and while The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim arguably has a great art style, it still isn't a visual juggernaut. As such, we were never expecting Fallout 4 to look particularly good, even if we do admire its far more colourful world. Much like what Hines is saying, we've come to expect great gameplay from Bethesda's open world games, and if visuals have to be sacrificed so that the developer can create massive, sprawling worlds that are chocked full of content, then we reckon that's just dandy.
What do you make of this? Are you disappointed in Fallout 4's visuals, or do you agree that gameplay should always take priority? Drop some bombs in the comments section below.
[source gamespot.com, via mcvuk.com]
Comments 46
I can't say it isn't obvious
Its not the be all and end all from my perspective as I do agree that game-play should be a priority. It does make me wonder though what they will bring to sacrifice that much - look at the visual quality of the Witcher 3, size of environment and content too...
Graphics are always nice, but game play definitely comes first. They look good enough to me, I'll be picking this up in the first week, once I find out it's working fine and doesn't suffer from any game breaking bugs. Fingers crossed.
I'm definitely ok with this. I think art style more than makes up for graphics (I still love WindWaker's look) and prefer great art direction over hyper realism.
And I would rather have a better realized game world than hyper realistic graphics.
Good for you, Bethesda.
I think it goes without saying that gameplay should be front and center. I'm personally very apathetic when it comes to graphics, so I obviously wouldn't mind if it was balanced like they say.
Granted, I don't want to see a game look behind it's time (Hey Tony, how you doing?), but I certainly wouldn't mind if they dialed it back a bit so the game plays better.
@LieutenantFatman - I agree with you totally. But I will buy it day one, bugs and all....lol.
At least the graphics looked better than the "pre-announcement" video. The animation as well. But could it look better-(yes), could it stand with a few more frames of animation-(sure), but I've got a good feeling that it's going to be an outstanding game-(Hell yes)!
@Utena-mobile -I agree with you definitely on art style, it makes all the difference with creating the "atmosphere" and overall feel of a game.
This was my first thought when they showed that destruction and construction video.
"Oh, that's why the graphics aren't that good, b/c you can do all that stuff in the game".
I'm not talking about the guns, but the buildings.
Now can somebody please explain to me why Starfox Zero looks like an N64 game and it doesn't even have any multiplayer?
Well we all know what happens when you go all guns blazing on graphics (looking at you Order 1886!)
Give me fallout any day of the week
Hey, I'll take a little less graphical power any day of the week for Fallout 4 (and the bloody game still looks great!!!!!!!!!!) Just make sure it actually hits this year Bethesda....(I don't think I could survive this game getting delayed for 6 months...)
Off topic, Guerrilla is doing a Horizon livestream, in 45 minutes :
http://www.twitch.tv/guerrilla
There's a fine line between seeking that balance and being lazy. You may have good intentions but if the gameplay isn't up to scratch then 'lazy graphics' are that much harder to forgive. Unless there's a good art direction, I'm in agreement on that. Graphics are there to help deliver the vision and enable it to shine through; I do belive we will reach a point in time (soon) where graphics won't become much better and the battles will be fought elsewhere.
@Bad-MuthaAdebisi Eh no. I liked The Order thank you very much.
Always about graphics. Very annoying
If sacrificing some graphic fidelity means the game won't freeze every four hours, I'm happy.
I think the graphics look great! If people really have that big of a deal with it, then download some mods since the console versions will support them now!
This is very good news! Bethesda games are never the best looking but always the most fun
Bethesda RPG's have always been a little clunky gameplay-wise tho....
I have a slightly off topic question. I enjoyed gtav on both ps4 and ps3 (story mode and a bit of online). But I never played any fallout games. How did fallout 3 compare with gtav and should I bother with fallout 3 or is it likely to disappoint (ie has it aged badly?). I much prefer open world games to games like uncharted so I'd probably buy fallout 4 when it releases (depending on reviews, that is). Just wondering if buying and playing fallout 3 now is likely to make me want 4 more or might actually put me off?
@Pipr Fallout 3 is still decent, although combat is a bit clunky when not using Vats. You may be able to pick up the GOTY edition relatively cheap On Ps3 these days to give you all the DLC
Please tell me you are sacrificing the bugs too.
@rjejr
My bet is that SF is getting those graphics on purpose, for nostalgia effect. 64 is still regarded as the best Starfox game, and we both know that as underpowered as it is, the Wii U is capable of better looking graphics.
Regarding multiplayer http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/06/17/e3-2015-star-fox-zero-may-get-co-op-more-control-options
Bloody graphics, the one thing to ruin great gameplay is graphics, I'll never understand how people can say this game is ok in the graphics department, I think they are great, witcher 3 style, no of course not, but if the world is actually massive like Skyrim, which I'm assuming it'll be bigger, and if there is a lot of things to see and do then I'd rather poor graphics any day, I've read somewhere that the game is 400 hours to see everything, so I'm made up. Of course if they could get the order graphics and still have everything gameplay wise now I'd prefer the graphics, but ONLY after the gameplay is nailed.
I say thank you Bethesda! I am sick of beautiful but boring games. I love the Elder scrolls and fallout games because of the freedom and variety they have. They allow you to really role play and get into the world of the game. Yes you need some visuals for that but it is more about the gameplay, the way they let you explore and do your own thing. I can still get into skyrim on my 360 and it is 4 years old already! Thank you Bethesda for knowing how to make great adventures. Just make it work better on PlayStation this time please.
i agree with everyone. gameplay is 1st priority then graphics. but judging from the e3 demo i honestly think the graphics are awesome! the character models are a bit on the unnaturally robotic side but certainly good enough for me. the environments looka pretty great imo. cant wait!
Lol just get the PC version if you want that.
It looks alright. What it lacks in graphics it will more than make up with gameplay.
In between the ea and Ubisoft presentations at e3 - Jeff Keighleys coverage focused on fallout 4 - you can have 2 conversations at once in the game.
So you can start a conversation with npc a move away and start a conversation with npc b. Then join back in with a on two separate subjects.
The npcs also stop talking if you don't pay attention like in real life, the camera angles and talking animations looked superb.
I don't understand why it isn't commonplace to do the thing that the Hi-algo mod for PC Skyrim does.
For those who don't know, it allows the game to render at 20 fps when there isn't a lot of action on screen, instead choosing to render everything at 1080p.
But, when the action heats up (or you decide to fling the camera around like some sort of madman) it speeds up to 60 fps while dropping the quality down a bit (I think mine only goes to 720p, it does still look too clear to be 480p) so you can concentrate on playing.
A sort of best of both worlds (that your PC/console can process, at least) that honestly would go a ways to making consoles comparable to PC, visually at least.
Then again, I'm not a programmer, maybe such a thing is a pain or a nightmare to program...
Another BethSoft fan glad to hear they went for stability. So much invisible math happening behind the scenes (physics, dice rolls, moved items, etc.) taking up all the resources other devs usually apply to graphical fidelity. People break their TES/FO save files by having too many active (unfinished) quests; just focus on completing as many as possible before finding more, and your frame rate will thank you😉. I'm stoked for the better lighting engine, it'll make a big difference. I trust my PS4 to run it well. (I got a Pip-Boy Edition!) 😆
Not on PC thou
Come on modders, do your job.
Still looks great. I'll take it. The story, exploration, atmosphere, and gameplay mechanics are the real appeal of Fallout games, not graphics.
They sacrificed graphics? I couldn't tell at all from the gameplay videos.
Won't lie. I love top of the line graphics, but if a trade off needs to be made so the gameplay experience is better, so be it. At least the game doesn't look hideous.
Wow i cannot believe everyone is falling for Bethesda BS yet again, the fact is Bethesda in house dev's are not the best in the industry. You can look at everyone of the Fallouts on the PS3, Skyrim and how it took them over a year to get the DLC working. In the end Sony stepped in and did there job for them, and all there comments about all this should be still on the Internet.
Graphics don't make a game true, but i really don't believe a word Bethesda says nowadays.
@Gamer83 Yeah I agree. Game looks fine to me anyway. Not everything in life needs to be photorealistic.
Nope the ps4 is a powerful machine so I expect great graphics and gameplay. So looking at the E3 demo the graphics are great but what I think Bethesda are saying the finished game won't look as good.
@Pipr You can't really compare Fallout 3 and GTA, as they are nothing alike besides the fact that they are both open world games. But I'm sure you'd be able to pick up a GOTY version of 3 for like $20 these days. It will probably look relatively muddy and the gameplay might feel a bit clunky, but it's a fantastic game and if you haven't played it then I really couldn't recommend it more.
@banacheck what's your favorite game, then, COD? Uncharted?
Who has the best in-house dev, then, Ubi? EA?
No, Bethesda worked hard on getting a long-established PC series' engine to run on a crappy 256mb machine designed in like 2002 (remember the PS3 launch titles?). 8 years later, I was very glad to wait a bit to get the Skyrim DLC for half price, that way I didn't have to buy Legendary edition on PS3 (stellar on a fast PC). Not fanboy-ism either, I genuinely respect their artwork as a production studio and that's why they've earned so much of my money over the years. Just sayin!😎
@StaffyDog I'm not sure, but I took it as meaning that they had already lowered the polygon count in favor of frame-rate and stability, not that the video shows better graphics than will ship with the game. The dog fur for example didn't have a million hairs (like Sully from Monsters, Inc.) but looked kinda "jelled-back" and spiky
Can't help but think is this, tho:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108539-Bethesda-People-Who-Say-Graphics-Dont-Matter-Are-Usually-Lying
Well,sprint is confirmed -which was my biggest concern for F4 ..that and general functionality..anyways i'm in.
you need at least decent graphics that meet at the very least current gen consoles. Fallout 4 does meet that, so I don't see a problem at all.
Only an idiot buys a game for graphics. I love stunning graphics, but graphics in a game is like story in a porno; if that's what you buy it for, then your priorities are way off. You buy a GAME for the GAMEPLAY. If you want super-stunning visuals above all else, go watch an action movie.
I still think it looks perfectly fine...if you wanted latest graphics: buy Doom.
I think it looks really nice, don't see what the fuss is about. Tired of graphics-first releases which run like a dog.
@charlesnarles I would just like to piont out other dev's have manged it on the PS3 (RPG's), your saying Bethesda are some how the exception? Not only that but it was with Sony's help they got the DLC working on the PS3, remember there own engine which Bethesda built a new engine for Skyrim.
@banacheck "new" engine as in another half upgrade from TES4 to Fallout 3 to NV to TES5... PS3 was a poor platform regardless of dev.
"Pretty" games like ME, TLOU, FC, BF, even GTA have substantially smaller save files than BethSoft titles. Says it all. 256mb memory running 2gb saves could never be effective, especially considering PS3's game disc and hard drive disc read speed restrictions.
I'm playing Skyrim on PC right now and it's perfect. Not an exception to AAA titles sporting top-not graphics in any sense, you'd just probably need around 8gb of like DDR5 or something crazy like that to play one of their games comfortably with AAA graphics. 😉
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...