GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.
@J_P-: Agreed. I still really like Fallout 4. Especially the building aspect. I think the Witcher 3 had the best graphics and story.
On another note I am really hoping Bethesda announces a new elder scrolls game at E3 this year. I hope they move away from the online aspect and concentrate on graphics and story.
Obviously PC has the better graphics but there are all the same assets and textures so the improvement came from filters, framerate, resolution, stability, etc.
The game (apparently) is the same but is not, in PC we have the full game, as it was designed, with less bugs, full functionality including commands, and also full mod-ability (which is one of the biggest features of all Bethesda games).
If you don't have a PC to compare directly, you will not notice the lack of graphics in a console, but you surely will notice the overall limitations.
About graphics, just wait the upcoming 8k textures and repeat this comparison then, hehe...
@sigmact: I hate to tell you this, but while they graphics are very similar, they are still better on the PC. Even in the video the render distance is subtle but obvious. Also, let's not forget that the divide is only going to increase over the next couple years as PC hardware continues to improve and the consoles are left with outdated hardware. I can change the video card in my PC can you do the same with your console? Can you add more RAM?
@eventide: Remember GT5 which remained to be the best looking racing game until PCs are like 8 times more powerful than PS3?
Gaming doesn't require a GTX970, but now PC gaming requires that. You don't have a GTX970, you get console experience. And don't even start on budget PC builds shit, I have a 970 and I only get double the framerate at console level graphics. And the multiplats on PC are not even on par with PS4 exclusive AAAs in terms of graphics.
Consoles have outdated hardware because of the price point. You can't upgrade hardware because that's not the point. If Sony designed a $1000 PS4 it can nail most $2000 gaming PCs in actual gaming performance because of the more optimization done on console's end. But again, a PS4 costing $1000 is killing all the point of a PS4.
The thing is simple. You want more framerate at the same graphics level, you build a PC for more money. You want to play console exclusives or just want to experience a game itself, buy a console for less. I prefer 60fps over 30 any day, but sometimes I just find it too costly.
@liuby33: You buy a console for perhaps half or even one third less than a good gaming PC, but then you pay two times more, sometimes three times more, for each and every game you play on the console. I think you got duped into thinking of this backwards. Selling the cheap plastic water beaker that needs monthly refills of expensive filters...is the oldest trick in the book of business models. I'd definitely rather invest in a good PC that can be used for many others things besides gaming, and for MMO gaming, then buy games for it at reasonable prices for many years, than to waste money on a cheaper console that will always require more expensive games for years.
@liuby33: I have 970 with clock boosted 250 gpu and 150 vram and i get steady 30 fps on 4k. but \TBH fallout graphics is really BAD. like very bad. Bethesda f....d us over and thought - FU our fans if u wanna get good graphics mod it yourself. You did better job then us on skyrim anyway. Lol
there actually could be texture mods for console. modders have been able to sharpen and increase texture quality while down sizing files increasing performance.
The consoles seem to struggle enough with this game as it is. Maybe it's more optimized now idk, but I got it for my PC instead as the framerates got more and more unbearable on PS4 as I got further inside Boston and a lot happened on the screen at once. Bethesda games are best played on PC as usual and that is not fanboyism, it's how it is.
lol pointless to compare fallout 4 just because its got the worst textures for a AAA title... if they compared it with all the texture mods for pc then it would be night and day.
I wonder what kind of mods that will be supported on console? Will there be any graphically enhancing mods (doubtful)? Additions of weaponary? More pistols, armor and custom companions which are so popular among Bethesda games? I honestly can't wait to see what kind of mods we console players will be able to use :)
@_Judas_: Do you know how graphic enhancement mods are done? People physically redo the textures from scratch and run it through a program like photoshop. One would have to be able to pull the files off the console version, unpack them, find the texture files and then go to work. I do not know if a PC with a BlueRay drive can read game files of the console disc or not. If it can not then you will most likely be out of luck.
@Fade2black001: Yes, I understand. I guess I just have "high hopes" for the mods we console users will be able to download. And I certaintly hope the selection will be better than "Carry 50 more lbs"-mod, "Max Special Stats Start"-mod , "God Mode"-mod, and such.
I don't know if it is do-able, but it would be awesome if Bethesda browsed through the created mods for PC, and made the most popular/most demanded mods available for consoles somehow. Don't you agree?
Me myself; I would love a fairly simple mod that makes a short-barreled short-stocked hunting rifle into a "pistol", and the same for the short-stocked sawed-off shotgun. I wish for many different mods, like mildly graphically enhancements, added weapons, more animations (like the silly "Immersive" animations mod), added hair and armors.
@_Judas_: the PS4 will get its own set of MOD tools. Did you not know this? PC mods and console mods will be separate from each other. Bethesda will most likely not do much of anything. They released a buggy game (as always) and they expect MODS to clean up their work. THis is just lazy work and should not expect too much from them. Would it be cool? Sure but the chances of that happening be less odds of getting struck by lightning.
@Sabre: If you have like an 80 inch screen you can certainly tell the difference lol. I'm in the market for a new monitor but I'm thinking the widescreen 2560x1080 curved monitors may be better for gaming especially if refresh rate is 144hz. 144hz + 4k monitors go for over a grand.
@Zero_Maniac: 1080p is not plenty unless you're anchored to a console. Visually, the step up beyond 1080p is so dramatic I would never go back. If you like pixelated graphics then stick with 1080p or below. If you want truly stunning graphics then you'll want to venture beyond 1080p. Also, Nvidia G-Sync technology is game changing!
@Sabre: jeez man? 1080p is pixelated and anchored? I think I must need to get my eyes tested? I think playing at 1080p looks frikkin incredible. Ok I've seen the Witcher 3 running at high end on a 4k screen and my socks almost blasted off across the room it looked so good. Sure id prefer to play every game at that level, who wouldn't right? But the huge amount I'd need to pay (and I do mean huge!) To be able to do so is ridiculous. I love games and they have always been a solid hobby of mine but it is that, a hobby. I have to buy food and put gas in my car. Until playing games at the stunning 4k res becomes realistically viable, I'm more than happy playing at the current stunning level of 1080p..... bearing all that in mind, yeah, I am disappointed at how fallout 4 looks, I remember Skyrim blowing me away after Oblivion, as much fun as I'm having in fallout 4, it feels like a missed target.
@Zero_Maniac: 4k is very practical if you can handle it. 1080P is 2.7m pixles and 4k is like 8.7m pixels. The difference is massive and makes a noticeable difference. Not to mention having a 4k monitor is VERY nice for just windows itself.
@Zero_Maniac: gotta agree bro. Like I posted above, 4k looks stupid gorgeous but I'm not re-mortgaging my home to build a system just for games. That's a little to far at the moment.
@genuineXeal: Seriously, for a video game/tech site this is hilarious. GameSpot is the only site in my library that requires Flash. Having Flash even installed on your system is bad enough to start with, not even going into how it actually performs once you have to use it.
Dear GameSpot, switching to HTML5 is really not that complicated and costs next to nothing.
Hard to tell which is which. For me it's all about draw distance and vegetation detail, but in action you hardly pay any attention to anything that's too far away..
Speaking of frame rates... The game engine is tied to frame rates! WHAT?! So for instance, if you're getting 120fps (not on a console lol) then your game is running twice as fast as 60fps (still console players wish)! This includes movement of objects, running, melee etc.... The list goes on. Thanks Bethesda for another ridiculously buggy game on ALL platforms!
@onmybikedrunk: I dont think console gamers care as much as you think, otherwise they would have pc's. ANYONE can build a gaming pc. Your not special man..
Can anyone really tell the difference with these quick scenes? There is room for improvement in these videos, such a pausing and zooming in with boxes that show up close differences among the platforms.
@GT_APE: Yeah, they're pretty horrible. Whatever player they use needs to be updated... Needs to feature 60fps+ to make it relevant. Consoles only get 30-60fps while PC gets as much as your GPU(s) can handle. PC always wins.