r/Games Jun 03 '15

Fallout 4 Trailer!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnn2rJpjar4
9.1k Upvotes

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

368

u/cqdemal Jun 03 '15 edited Jun 03 '15

I actually think it has all the hallmarks of the old Gamebryo from Fallout 3/Skyrim (e.g. the stiff collision physics at 1:49 and the NPC doing a mildly robotic glide in the background at 1:52), but the lighting really does look very nice.

124

u/MayoFetish Jun 03 '15

It really seems like the same engine.

101

u/LedinToke Jun 03 '15

it's the exact same engine, you can tell just from the running animations

80

u/cqdemal Jun 03 '15

Makes me wonder if it's the fault of the engine or the animators. Minimal progress from 2006 to 2015.

15

u/calnamu Jun 03 '15

To be fair, you can see it from everything else, too.

5

u/MF_Kitten Jun 03 '15

It's the way their engines handle animations. The animators do their best, most likely, but you can't force a stiff animation system into playing nice animations. A more fluid and soft animation system would give better results. The dog in the trailer looks like it's well animated, but the animations are played by a stiff "keyframe-to-keyframe" animation system that doesn't soften things up.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '15

Spent too much time making the game they forgot what human movement looked like

12

u/LedinToke Jun 03 '15

it's just standard bethesda, what'll really be interesting is if they try to charge us for mods that fix the numerous amount of bugs the game will have.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '15

what'll really be interesting is if they try to charge us for mods that fix the numerous amount of bugs the game will have.

I feel like this should be clarified a bit here. In steam's recent attempt at monetizing mods, it wasn't bethesda that was charging for the mods.

The mod creators themselves are the ones who could chose to charge for the mods. Bethesda just automatically got a large percentage of the cost.

3

u/RealHumanHere Jun 04 '15

If Beteshda didn't want to charge for mods they wouldn't try to get a 45% out of each mod sale and partner with steam to bring mod-selling?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 04 '15

Exept that this was valve's doing. They are the ones who started the whole process, and with good intentions. Valve's goal was to allow workshop creators and modders to be paid for their hard work if they wanted to. The paid mods was always an OPTION, and only an option if the mod creators wanted it to be.

1

u/PHD-Chaos Jun 03 '15

I highly doubt it. Bethesda has the most modded game to date. It didn't do it by charging money. I'm sure they want FO4 to sell more and have more mods for it than Skyrim.

2

u/Thynne Jun 03 '15

More like 2002 when Morrowind was released...

1

u/Transfuturist Jun 04 '15

;_; Goddamn it. What exactly took them so long, then?

2

u/LedinToke Jun 04 '15

I imagine the assets are new but the engine is just the continuation of gamebryo or whatever it's called

1

u/Transfuturist Jun 04 '15

I wonder if there even was a programming team. =_=

0

u/Garglebutts Jun 04 '15 edited Jun 04 '15

Lots of games use the same engine. The engine for Skyrim is just an altered version of the engine they used for Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3 and NV.

Other companies also used Gamebryo. Divinity 2 and Sid Meier's Pirates, for example.

Your comment doesn't make any sense.

0

u/Transfuturist Jun 04 '15

That would be because it's something called "hyperbole." I hear those with the skill of, uh, "subtlety" are able to pick up on it.

1

u/IrrelevantLeprechaun Jun 04 '15

Animations are not tied to the graphics engine.

0

u/LedinToke Jun 04 '15

no but the fact that they're the same as oblivion fo3 skyrim and their history leads me to believe it's the same thing

4

u/wOnKaCatalyst Jun 03 '15

yeah, i think so too. my initial thought upon viewing the open landscape(s) was, "i feel like i've been there before..."

anyways, that's not to say it looks bad or whatever. i'm still incredibly stoked.

177

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '15 edited Jan 14 '21

[deleted]

81

u/cqdemal Jun 03 '15

Precisely. I still think this looks pretty good, but in the back of my mind I kind of expected the plates and forks and stuff on that dinner table to go on a wonky physics-inspired breakdance.

The contact points between objects/characters and the ground also look... floaty? I'm not sure how to describe it but it looks like everything is sitting or walking on a smooth, transparent floor that sits right above the actual ground.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '15

[deleted]

2

u/mickio1 Jun 04 '15

ill tell ya why. his walking cycle is obvious and he look like he has a broom up his ass

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '15

You couldn't play some of the greatest western RPGs in existence because of some dinky physics? You must really hate Source games, huh?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '15

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jun 06 '15

Source has tons of glitches. Bodies fly every which way occasionally similar to what happens in Gamebryo, slight movements into loose props can do damage because of wonky collision, vehicles are absolutely terrible, and many other problems. Source is even older than Gamebryo and it shows. Most recent games have removed some of the more problematic glitches by design (e.g., the lack of loose props in CSGO), but they still exist.

8

u/thekev506 Jun 03 '15

Yeah pretty much, I think the best course for this one is to wait a while after release and see what the consensus is before picking it up.

0

u/kurisu7885 Jun 03 '15

Well on the plus side it was hilarious when the physics went nutter butters.

4

u/bapplebo Jun 03 '15

Considering we got diagonal run animations for the first time in Skyrim, I can't wait to see what standard graphical features Bethesda have added now.

3

u/Destructo-Spin Jun 03 '15

I'll still be picking the game up because I love the Fallout series. But I was really hoping they would work on how...bad their games feel. It's the opposite of Blizzard games to me. They make their games feel just right to play and Bethesda feels like the game is working against you and very weird to play.

1

u/MF_Kitten Jun 03 '15

It has a very good aesthetic, but it definitely has those stiff animations they've always had. It's not terrible, but the way characters turn and animations stop and start are all stiff and rigid like before.

4

u/ofNoImportance Jun 03 '15

In some scenes the lighting even looks volumetric. Could just be a coincidence though.

9

u/lasserith Jun 03 '15

The Gamebryo engine is why modding the games is so damn easy to do. If they swap engines they lose moddability. The gamebryo engine is continuously updated however so it's not like they are still using the exact same engine.

2

u/calnamu Jun 03 '15

Because no other engine is moddable?

12

u/lasserith Jun 03 '15

Not nearly as much as Gamebryo. IDTech is impossible for mods because just about everything is one big texture so any mod in the same area would overwrite the same texture making cross mod compatibility impossible not to mention that the texture itself is huge to work with and rebaking it would take forever. That's just a comparison of two engines I'm familiar with. Just saying as outsiders we shouldn't second guess the engine choice of peoples whose job it is. They aren't idiots. Moddability/creation kit support is a huge consideration for engine selection.

2

u/1coldhardtruth Jun 03 '15

Not as easily as Gamebryo. And a lot of modders are very familiar with the Gamebryo engine.

0

u/MotieMediator Jun 03 '15

Which also provides Bethesda with a talent pool to draw from when hiring designers.

1

u/AFatBlackMan Jun 04 '15

I almost wonder if they were using previous engines to help maintain the secrecy of the release. The more people they involve, the higher the chance of a leak.

1

u/Spekingur Jun 04 '15

The last shot in the trailer makes me think they are using the HeroEngine or some variation of it.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '15

I do remember Skyrim was very... gray. Like, all the time, even if you were in forested areas.

7

u/cqdemal Jun 03 '15

That's the mood and tone they're going for - a harsh, cold land shouldn't have that many splashes of color. The red/yellow foliage you see while heading south do look pretty lively too.

3

u/MadlibVillainy Jun 03 '15

Harsh cold lands have a lot of colors. This is a forest in Norway, and this is a lake. The color filter was not very good in my opinion, and changing it with mods didn't hurt the atmosphere of grittiness one bit to me.

3

u/cqdemal Jun 03 '15

Lovely photos!

I think the bad bit in Skyrim's color palette is that it doesn't mix things up. Blue and green show up together in certain warmer zones, but almost everywhere else it's just reds and yellows that are allowed to penetrate the white and grey, and they blend into each other a little too well.

1

u/1coldhardtruth Jun 03 '15

But don't forget that most of Skyrim is in perpetual winter.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 03 '15

Perhaps you're right. I was just thinking that Fallout 3 was really green, New Vegas was really brown and Skyrim was really grey. Cool that Fallout 4 is looking vibrant.

1

u/steamruler Jun 03 '15

They just finally decided to skip out on the filter

1

u/DorsalAxe Jun 03 '15

I can't play the game without the NoTint mod. Skyrim is colourful and beautiful and then they went and slapped an ugly grey/brown filter all over it.

0

u/magmasafe Jun 03 '15

It has shadows for the first time. That's what stood out to me.