When Fallout 4 was finally revealed earlier this year, one of the major criticisms was that the graphics just didn't look that good. Sure, they weren't as bad as the negative Nancies made them out to be ("they look like a PS3 game!"), but yes, they felt incredibly dated and the game wasn't even out yet, though of course, many defenders took a "wait and see" approach, as there was still months of dev time to polish things, right? Well, behind the glitches, the most common issue is that the game doesn't look great. Sure, the addition of more colour to the wasteland is incredibly welcome, but FO4 has been taken to task for its "plainly framed scenes and basic animations" (Gamespot), human characters that "still look a little terrifying" (Polygon), "frequent frame rate slowdowns well below the target of 30 when simply walking around the world" (IGN) and that "framerate stutters and dips are fairly common in larger firefights and within densely populated city areas" (Game Informer). Eurogamer added that the graphics, "look far better than previous Bethesda games while still falling short of what most people will expect from "next-gen" systems", and PC Gamer succinctly concluded that "the age and limitations of Bethesda's engine are well apparent". Sure, no-one should expect a game that looks like MGS V when the world is so much larger comparatively and there are so many more moving parts, but even accepting that gameplay trumps graphics every time, the game just looks OK, and the frame-rate issues don't help. At the time of review, even just using the scope on the PS4 version of the game was reported to cause substantial FPS drops.
Stay at home dad who spends as much time teaching his kids the merits of Martin Scorsese as possible (against the missus' wishes).
General video game, TV and film nut. Occasional sports fan. Full time loon.
