About Fallout 4's companion system

@Black Angel
My advice: Don't bother replying or even speaking to Ignored Member (that's how its name appears on my screen, it's account name... I can't even recall it). It's apparently a troll mentioned by other members as being a relentlessly pathetic troll on the site that the ignore button is meant for.
To be fair, at least he's seemed honest in his intention for discussion now. I'm hoping it won't get any worse than a user I actually ignored because of repeatedly misunderstanding and misrepresenting my arguments.
 
You didn't even address some of the points made in those links, and you're bringing discussion to faces.

Take a look at this:
maxresdefault.jpg

and then compare it to this:
maxresdefault.jpg

Both of them are from YouTube videos of both games running on Ultra High settings.

I haven't, and will not, play Fallout 4, but from any videos I watched where the game supposedly runs on highest setting possible, everything looks like plastic (as mentioned by those Steam discussion). Having played New Vegas vanilla once, I understand those saying how everything looked like as it should be, despite using 'inferior' version of the engine.



Yeah, yeah, but again you still ignored the points made by those Steam discussion. If you want to make a point about graphics, instead of dodging the points you should counter it by providing screenshots to prove that overall graphics looks like intended (instead of looking like plastics as some of those Steam discussion claimed).

Hell, you even ignored the point of, "and still when it rains even faces look like they are covered in a plastic sheet." made by @Risewild. Why not try to counter it by providing screenshots/videos to prove otherwise? Instead, you keep insisting "Increased details, 40+ gigs, 'professional studio' = objectively better graphics" but can't show screenshots/videos to counter the points made by others, and instead drags the discussion to faces details, but still barely addressed the counter points made in return.

Also, this thread ain't fit for discussing graphics/things the game did good. You should post in this thread, instead.

Because the point to begin with didn't use screenshots at all?

You're asking me to assume word of mouth is better then screenshots themselves, and it's a bit difficult to do that, so I decided to use actual images instead of the first thing I could think of.

Still, you've got the right idea with expressing your view, but I just can't see how lower res textures are better then higher red textures with higher detail.

This just leaves me to conclude it's a matter of personal taste, so I guess using the word "objectivity" was wrong, but the bias present in viewing the different games on this site still does come into play,

I did think it was easy to believe that games on the PS4/Xbox One generally have better graphics then previous generations, but alas, I'll compromise: it's a matter of taste.

To be fair, at least he's seemed honest in his intention for discussion now. I'm hoping it won't get any worse than a user I actually ignored because of repeatedly misunderstanding and misrepresenting my arguments.

Bingo, I'm here for actual discussion and some bullshitting around.
 
To be fair, at least he's seemed honest in his intention for discussion now. I'm hoping it won't get any worse than a user I actually ignored because of repeatedly misunderstanding and misrepresenting my arguments.
Not from what I've read on my time here... I have heard of this particular user's attempts at discussion which devolve into Someguy37-esque behavior (based on the numerous amounts of vatted threads by it).

As for that user you're ignoring, he's not all bad (usually). If not talking about Skyrim or Fallout 3, he does seem to comprehend points though he does have an issue of dismissing points, misinterpreting them or brushing off points).
 
Last edited:
A higher Poly count means nothing when the textures look like plastic. It's an issue of animation and art direction. They put some cloth physiscs on certain pieces of gear which is the only thing they legit improved on in terms of graphics.
 
Except it didn't. You have to admit, surely a game that is 40 gigs+, made by a professional studio, can't be completely atrocious in almost every aspect, so Fallout 4 must have some good parts about it.
It has to be seen in context. Yeah, it's 40+ gigs made by a professional studio, but there is not a single aspect of the game that doesn't leave a lot to be desired. Are there good parts? There parts that don't suck and are good in the context of Fallout 4. But compared to other games they're mediocre at best. There is not a single aspect of Fallout 4 that does not suffer from half-assery and laziness.
Yeah, Fallout 4 looks better than Fallout 3 and New Vegas. The models have higher polygon counts, and the textures have higher resolutions. Judging from Youtube videos isn't really going to cut it, because Youtube always compress image quality. I don't think Fallout 4 looks like plastic, in most areas it looks just fine. However, the animations are still seriously bad, and the quality varies widely. Compare it to other contemporary games like Witcher 3, and Fallout 4 just doesn't cut it in terms of graphical fidelity. Hell, Fallout 4 looks worse than Crysis 3, a game made in 2013. Actually, scratch that, even Crysis 1 from 2007 looks better. Fallout 4 still can't do dynamic lighting and shadows properly.
Also, size doesn't matter. Rage's MegaTexture technology required huge HDD space due to the enormous texture size, but was it all good? Yeah, it had a lot of detail in the world, but the world was also static and it suffered from huge technical problems from the texture streaming.
 
It has to be seen in context. Yeah, it's 40+ gigs made by a professional studio, but there is not a single aspect of the game that doesn't leave a lot to be desired. Are there good parts? There parts that don't suck and are good in the context of Fallout 4. But compared to other games they're mediocre at best. There is not a single aspect of Fallout 4 that does not suffer from half-assery and laziness.
Yeah, Fallout 4 looks better than Fallout 3 and New Vegas. The models have higher polygon counts, and the textures have higher resolutions. Judging from Youtube videos isn't really going to cut it, because Youtube always compress image quality. I don't think Fallout 4 looks like plastic, in most areas it looks just fine. However, the animations are still seriously bad, and the quality varies widely. Compare it to other contemporary games like Witcher 3, and Fallout 4 just doesn't cut it in terms of graphical fidelity. Hell, Fallout 4 looks worse than Crysis 3, a game made in 2013. Actually, scratch that, even Crysis 1 from 2007 looks better. Fallout 4 still can't do dynamic lighting and shadows properly.
Also, size doesn't matter. Rage's MegaTexture technology required huge HDD space due to the enormous texture size, but was it all good? Yeah, it had a lot of detail in the world, but the world was also static and it suffered from huge technical problems from the texture streaming.

Fair point, I'm just thinking in terms of the Fallout series, not the industry standard.
 
It's not much of an achievement to have the best graphics when it's the newest game in a series...
Especially when it's even debated if it's actually that much better than its predecessor.

"F4 is dogshit and every single positive comment is a simple bait."

I was originally just responding to that, if you missed it.

I also assume this isn't hyperbole, which given what else is said on here, isn't too far fetched to think IMO.
 
Ghouls look worse than before

We started with this:
320px-FO01_NPC_Set_N.png


Then went to this:
242



To this?
242

(Why do a lot of ghouls have a full head of hair?) EDIT: Could be wigs but fuck me are wigs that easy to find?

That and there's too many Pre-War ghouls. I don't mind 3/New Vegas' take on ghouls, but they should look more fucked up like Set.
 
(Why do a lot of ghouls have a full head of hair?)
Because the tolerant Tumblr crowd that preach body acceptance and diversity would never write steamy, hot NSFW fanfics about ugly people.

If Hancock looked like a burn victim that was fucked over by an atomic bomb, how many 'gamer girls' would call him their senpai?
 
Because the tolerant Tumblr crowd that preach body acceptance and diversity would never write steamy, hot NSFW fanfics about ugly people.

If Hancock looked like a burn victim that was fucked over by an atomic bomb, how many 'gamer girls' would call him their senpai?
Please leave that shit in one of Mercenary Snake's threads...
 
Because the tolerant Tumblr crowd that preach body acceptance and diversity would never write steamy, hot NSFW fanfics about ugly people.

If Hancock looked like a burn victim that was fucked over by an atomic bomb, how many 'gamer girls' would call him their senpai?

I know you're joking, but there's a lot of people who had the hots for Charon. Trust me I've read fanfiction where the Lone Wanderer has kids with him.

I need a mind wipe please.
 
Feeling atracted to something that looks like a rotting corpse is necrophilia, regardless of how alive the guy actually is. Also Charon? The generic mercenary with no personality? That's what they had the hots for?
 
Feeling atracted to something that looks like a rotting corpse is necrophilia, regardless of how alive the guy actually is. Also Charon? The generic mercenary with no personality? That's what they had the hots for?
Nah he's well written because one time, I read this fan fiction and he was the main character and he was so fucking cool.
so cool
 
Feeling atracted to something that looks like a rotting corpse is necrophilia, regardless of how alive the guy actually is. Also Charon? The generic mercenary with no personality? That's what they had the hots for?

Yep. Just take a look at fanfics or even DeviantArt.
 
Back
Top