Seriously, Skyrim came out 4 god damned years ago. Isn't it a little dumb for this bitch's hair to be glued to her head, and for awkward skipping to be occurring between animations after all this time? The shadows are an admitted improvement, but jesus FUCKING christ, why does Bethesda always have to be like 5 years behind the curve in terms of aesthetic? How many years will we have to wait before characters move and act believably in their environments, like Witcher's?
I can deal with the crappy character models, they are sort of Bethesda's thing now, the real problem to me is the awful looking and delayed voice over animations.
I don't understand why they look so bad and have a 1 second delay on the animation, even Skyrim looked better I don't know how they managed to make it even worse.
I hate how nobody ever makes decent vanilla hair overhaul mods though. You get millions of special snowflake anime hair packs but nobody ever bothers fixing the game's awful default hairs which means all the NPCs are still walking around with bird nests glued to their heads.
It's bullshit that we have to rely on mods for a tolerable aesthetic experience. These guys are a hugely profitable studio with years and years between franchise releases -- even then, their products are consistently riddled with bugs.
Why are we paying 50, 60, 70 bucks to clean up the messes all the time with our own blood sweat and tears? What the hell are we paying them for?
Can't be helped, some devs are just shit at certain things, and Beth is shit at many things.
The new system for CC is way better than previous, it's just that their character artists are incompetent mouthbreathers who can't put together a reasonable facsmile of humanity without making it look like it was modeled by a fucking body snatcher.
Check out the stream that got posted on /fog/. While I don't think the graphics look bad at all, what we should really be concerned about is the writing, and from what I've seen so far, it's a hell of a lot more competent than Fo3's. I'm still disappointed with the new dialogue system, but at least they gave them interesting shit to say. It's really not looking too bad.
I didn't follow it much, but remember it being hyped by how impressive the graphics were. I remember thinking the graphics were pretty good back when it came out, but I also don't think Fallout 4 looks like shit so
You really don't think Fo4 has a "tolerable aesthetic experience"? What games have come out this year that have totally skyrocketed your expectations for visual design to such a degree that it not only doesn't look good to you, it's not even tolerable? Literally offensive to the eyes?
Witcher 3, with a budget of $80 million, looks graphically comptent, with special attention to PC specific features like high quality textures.
Fallout 4, with a budget of over $150 million, looks worse than Alpha Protocol, which released in early 2010.
fallout 4 is set in a desert and modders always fix the textures
the lighting is objectively better than tw3.
fallout 4 is a bigger game also.
it's a quarter of the game.
Seriously, Fallout 4 has worse textures and animations than a game released with a quarter of the budget over five years ago.
I understand that it's an engine limitation, and I understand it's a massive open world, but with their budget being much higher than Witcher 3's, I expect at least decently competent graphics.
But let's refer to what he posted: Fallout 4 does not have a tolerable aesthetic experience. He cannot tolerate it, it literally looks so bad that he can't play the game as a direct result of this. I'm not arguing that it looks better than Witcher 3, it doesn't, but you don't think that he, along with the majority of this board, isn't slathering himself in hyperbole a bit? This is coming from somebody that put off paying for rent a week so he could purchase a $400 GPU and not deal with jaggies in his vidya. In comparison to Witcher 3, it looks worse, but not absolutely abysmal to the point that it's not playable. That is an asinine thing to say.
You know hate to sound this much like a shill, but of those 2 I'd say F4 looks a good deal better.
Mainly because the default MC looks pretty good instead of potato people like most NPC's.
Look at the hair. You can't possibly tell me the hair on the bottom picture is superior. It looks like straight clay. It's horribly textured for a 2015 game.
Keep in mind, top picture was released over five years ago, with a fourth of the budget.
>fallout 4 is a bigger game than the witcher 3
A lot of the western RPG companies are terrible at people. Bioware, Bethesda, etc. There are exceptions but they're fairly rare. If you want decent animations, decent looking character, and high end customization, from an RPG, you'll typically have to go toward an eastern game like Black Desert.
Because they choose too and also consoles, mods prove that this games can look G-Tier as fuck but Bethesda and obsidian whoever makes the game are just lazy fucks or limit the graphic cause of console.
>company focuses on graphics over gameplay
>"this shit is bad, focus on gameplay and content!"
>company focuses on gameplay and content
>"Fuck this shit, its ugly and dated!"
If you want a focus on graphics, go play something else.
Wrong. I beat Witcher in about 30 hours including most of the sidequests, excluding all of the shotty gear quests that fail to level with you.
The Witcher is almost entirely overworld. Skyrim has tons of dungeons that are over an hour long.
>Wrong. I beat Witcher in about 30 hours including most of the sidequests, excluding all of the shotty gear quests that fail to level with you.
You're a lying cunt it's actually so obvious
>bethesda still sucks at animating
>bethesda still sucks at designing humanoids
Be less blatant with your bullshit. Game takes around 25 hours skipping through dialogue and rushing only the main story, faggot.
That's what mods are for. All Bethesda has to do is use their engine properly and stop putting into "measures" which make the game far less stable than it should be.
>It's bullshit that we have to rely on mods for a tolerable aesthetic experience.
What is bullshit is that you will whine like a manchild about what every company puts out but will never pay a cent for the game. The games don't need better "graphics" because they provide the tools for people to do whatever they want. What they really need is to properly support the game engine and stop fucking around with it. The next Fallout and Elderscrolls games would be better of released as a vastly upgraded Creation Kit on the cheap so we can make a game that they are too lazy to do.
Comparing a linear game like The Witcher to a sandbox game like Fallout 3 and onwards is pretty much apples and oranges. People who are into role playing and all that jazz have spent thousands of hours in the previous two Fallout games. The Witcher isn't really designed for that sort of thing because it is focused the narrative of the source material. Do you know what the "RP" in "RPG" stands for?
i'm starting to think you don't.
Take vanilla skyrim to vanilla TW2. What has a wider array of RP elements to it, obviously excluding you want to RP as a fem-cat or whatever.
But it's cool, I guess we could refer to it as a "sandbox" except there's not much in terms of variability of the environment or anything really sandboxy of the sort.
Idk why i'm trying to convince a shill to stop shillin