Waco Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Consoles might not have the CPU power to decompress on the fly? Who knows. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheGamer11 Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Uncompressed is less strain on the cpu I think, I think most pcs can spare some work for decompressing but for an open world rpg like this I think cpu time would be better used somewhere else, idk. It would be interesting to know what the devs did to make the game work on each platform  4096*4096 pls You are more than likely right tho, the picture of a desk I saw had pretty low res textures(it was a console version but I don't think it matters), lets just hope the pc version has options for larger texture sizes  that gif xd A day and a bit left, HYPE HYPE HYPE Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Ugh, I just realized Legacy of the Void launches same day. Goodbye social life... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bp9801 Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 The textures in Skyrim were 512x512, with some at 256x256, which I expect is the same in Fallout 4. Give it enough time and PC will have 2K textures or above, and potentially even the consoles if the mod is put on Bethesda.net. The Skyrim HD DLC was 4GB for just 1024x1024 stuff. The CPUs in the PS4 and XBO are pretty powerful for a console, but they are a low power PC CPU. It's all speculation right now on whether the consoles have compressed textures, uncompressed textures, compressed audio, uncompressed audio, or whatever else (uncompressed audio takes up more space than uncompressed textures). Bethesda is really damn good at reducing file size for its games, and even the ~30GB is less than something like GTA V. Sure, the size of Fallout 4 is the same as all past Bethesda games put together (before mods), but eh, it isn't something to be freaking out over so damn much. Â Besides, graphics aren't everything. The Bethesda RPGs are more about the story, the immersion, how it sounds, the things you can do, the ability to get lost in the world and forget your own, and so much more than just how it looks. It's still a gorgeous game, despite the idiots around claiming it being so poor. Remember, Morrowind was one of the best looking games around at one point, so was Oblivion, and Skyrim, and Fallout 3. The graphics are nice, but these games are more than that. The art direction is more important than how it looks, imo, and from what's been shown so far, the direction is fantastic. A refinement of what was in Fallout 3, with a ton of improvements from New Vegas, id's FPS cred, and so much more. To hell with how it looks; let it play great and immerse me is what I care about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheGamer11 Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 I'd rather not have to leave textures to mods tbh. Â If you say so ^.^ Both is better, graphics can be worse but if they start to detract from the world it's set in then it'll a problem too, hopefully it won't be though, especially with the capabilities of new consoles and such. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bp9801 Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 If you ever played Skyrim on PC, you know the textures weren't great. Mods brought that up to a high standard and beyond. If you want a game to ship with 4K textures and let it crawl on most every system, go right ahead. Skyrim with 2K textures can bog down for some, 4K and 8K is even worse if you're lacking VRAM. Â Graphics aren't the end all be all. You're not one of those people who look at the Fallout 4 leaked screenshots and go, "ugh, I played something better looking in 1997," are you? Because if so, it's a pretty poor attitude to have towards gaming. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheGamer11 Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 I played it and found the textures good enough with the hd pack. That's why they can release a hd pack for those who can run it  I don't see what that has to do with the game, but I do notice and compare differences in graphics to what's already out there, it's nice to see progress Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bp9801 Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Skyrim's HD DLC stopped at 1024x1024. The game itself was between 512x512 and 256x256. The Skyrim HD mod was mostly 2K textures, but went up to 8K. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheGamer11 Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 The consoles seem to be having a hard time keeping 30fps, that sucks for them http://wccftech.com/fallout-4-reports-severe-performance-issues-surface/ Â Can play the game in 25 hours on pc Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bp9801 Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 Well, like I said, the consoles are using a low power CPU for a PC. Both have what is effectively an AMD Kabini CPU, which are laptop parts, and are comparable to an Intel Bay Trail Atom. Granted the consoles have eight-core CPUs, but still, they aren't exactly on the same level as the Core i5 2300 or Phenom II X4 945 the PC has as a minimum for Fallout 4. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bp9801 Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bp9801 Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Review megathread on reddit, so when reviews start pouring in, you can view them all in one handy place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now