Those are some Fallout character face models if I've ever seen them.

[Kрис]

How hard can it be to make decent looking human faces in 2018?

[Draza]

Originally posted by Hobo Misanthropus:

Originally posted by NeverSleeper:

Small budget
Small dev team

Microsoft is known for being really poor.

And if I'm not mistaken, two developers are credited... what do we know about this other development team? I'm betting it's probably just an Art Farm, like what EA/Ubisoft does, but I don't know.

Microsoft has nothing to do with this, Obsidian was only bought recently while the game has been in development years before. Notice how Microsoft isn't listed as the publisher.

[PocketYoda]

Didn't Bethesda just fire the Prey devs? Maybe they went to Obsidian?

[raubrey]

Originally posted by Bansheebot:

Originally posted by raubrey:

Skyrim is 7 years old!

Graphics don't advance that linearly these days. In fact as far as that goes it's not even a limitation of technology, but the art direction.

Even then, 3/NV looked/looks fine. Even Oblivion only looked as "bad" as it did because of the awful textures that robbed their facial features of any definition. People seem to think those games were aiming for realism when there was always a caricature look.

The most wrong I see with the character models in what we've seen of TOW is the lack of flexes, specifically around the eyebrows. Not as bad as borderlands though, which had literally none, which was *really* noticable in the sequel when they tried to pull off all of those dramatic cutscenes.

Skyrim and FO4 went for realism and failed miserably.

That's your opinion. You're still comparing to a game that is 7 years old. Look at the last couple Assassin Creed games, and compare them to the older ones.

Oblivion was great. It was never about realism. (Edit: Ok you understood that)
(The omg it isn't Morrowind is not the issue).

Bethesda games are fine -- considering the world quality, interactivity and scope --if you have the PC to run Godrays and appropriate lighting.

Edit: I can concede FO4 characters aren't super realistic but again, I consider the sum of the parts to be far better than a pretty world you can't interact with or is small and has nicer looking people.

Also if you mod FONV, you'll know it isn't fine. Same with FO3 -- my favorite, but the lighting is really poor.

[TakenStew22]

Yeah, the lip syncing and face models aren't very good. My only truly negative thing about the game so far.

[raubrey]

Originally posted by Bansheebot:

Originally posted by raubrey:

You're still comparing to a game that is 7 years old.

Well I could compare them to a game that's 9 years old if you want. Resident Evil 5's character models are both highly detailed and expressive.

Originally posted by raubrey:

Look at the last couple Assassin Creed games, and compare them to the older ones.

What, like the old assassin's creed games that still had better looking models than skyrim?

Skyrim's character models were ugly because they were made that way. They didn't hit some grand barrier.

You are still not accounting for the world graphics. There wasn't nearly the load on Resident Evil (or AC)-- all there was was the people and a lot of static environement or Parallax type stuff. But in comparisons you can see that there has been a tad bit of progress in 7 years.

[Bansheebutt]

Originally posted by raubrey:

You are still not accounting for the world graphics. There wasn't nearly the load on Resident Evil (or AC)-- all there was was the people and a lot of static environement or Parallax type stuff. But in comparisons you can see that there has been a tad bit of progress in 7 years.

Skyrim's world is not terribly detailed at all, and suffers considerably in draw distance.

That's not really how render pipelines work either. A large world is not inherently harder to manage than a small one.

Often it's the opposite, because you're only using high detailed assets in the surrounding area. Everything in the distance of the "massive world" is a barely textured cardboard cutout, if rendered at all.

The only thing an open world engine needs to manage is real time streaming of assets as the world. They're not allowed the luxury of a load screen while the player is traversing the world.

[raubrey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtS7Hzw9y8g

vs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rhFY1BTC-s

[Bansheebutt]

Dunno what you're trying to prove with random clips and a *mod* showcase.

[raubrey]

Originally posted by Bansheebot:

Dunno what you're trying to prove with random clips and a *mod* showcase.

The mod showcase shows the vanilla. If you can't see and appreciate how well Skyrim is compared to Resident Evil, and yet also comparing a 7-year old game with today, I can't help you. The evidence is there.

[ΛΞL™⚡]

To be fair at least their animations are better compared to the robotic stuff made for the creation engine, nowdays i expect animations to be better than graphics we kinda reached the graphical apex in most games but often animations look horrible and robotic which breaks immersion.

[Bansheebutt]

Originally posted by raubrey:

also comparing a 7-year old game with today, I can't help you. The evidence is there.

It's not 7 year old technology that made skyrim's characters look blocky and ugly, it was their art direction. As previously mentioned, Fallout 3 and oblivion's characters looked fine, and they'd still be acceptable today (if the latter gets better textures.)

Originally posted by ༺⚜️G92⚜️༻:

To be fair at least their animations are better compared to the robotic stuff made for the creation engine.

Ehh, if there's one thing I would say didn't wow me in the gameplay trailer, it was definitely the animation for combat actions. Very stiff.

[puppet74]

This is a small double A team at best, if they spent all there resorces on making amazing graphics the game would end up being tiny. This games engine is mostly there to just give out the great rpg elements that obsidian are known for. If thats not enough for you then id go elsewhere. Plenty of flashy amazing looking games out there with no substance and depth for you to choose from.

[PocketYoda]

Originally posted by raubrey:

Originally posted by Bansheebot:

Graphics don't advance that linearly these days. In fact as far as that goes it's not even a limitation of technology, but the art direction.

Even then, 3/NV looked/looks fine. Even Oblivion only looked as "bad" as it did because of the awful textures that robbed their facial features of any definition. People seem to think those games were aiming for realism when there was always a caricature look.

The most wrong I see with the character models in what we've seen of TOW is the lack of flexes, specifically around the eyebrows. Not as bad as borderlands though, which had literally none, which was *really* noticable in the sequel when they tried to pull off all of those dramatic cutscenes.

Skyrim and FO4 went for realism and failed miserably.

That's your opinion. You're still comparing to a game that is 7 years old. Look at the last couple Assassin Creed games, and compare them to the older ones.

Oblivion was great. It was never about realism. (Edit: Ok you understood that)
(The omg it isn't Morrowind is not the issue).

Bethesda games are fine -- considering the world quality, interactivity and scope --if you have the PC to run Godrays and appropriate lighting.

Edit: I can concede FO4 characters aren't super realistic but again, I consider the sum of the parts to be far better than a pretty world you can't interact with or is small and has nicer looking people.

Also if you mod FONV, you'll know it isn't fine. Same with FO3 -- my favorite, but the lighting is really poor.

No they really aren't Bethesda Astroturfer.. Oblivion was horrible and it did poorly at release..

[Ray]

Real question. Which is stupider: comparing these faces to anything in fallout or comparing any modern graphics to the PS2 era? Close call.