The two pictures above (from KingofTime), I've seen it happen (PC version). It's a location on the map called Thicket Extractions (I believe, it's a mining symbol on the map, not very far from Concord). What is shown is in fact the textures simply not loading properly. When they do load it does NOT look like that. To fix it you need to completely quit the game and restart it, then everything is fine. I'm NOT 'defending' Bethesda nor the fact that they're still using GameBryo * coughs, clears throat * ...excuse me, I mean Creation Engine (yeah it sounds better, if anything). But at least on PC, and on Ultra settings, the game does NOT look like a PS2 game, for crying out loud. Are people going CRAZY comparing it to PS2-era games? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
Were Some of You Even Alive Back Then To Remember What PS2 Games Looked Like ?!
In the name of Space Hamster.
Anyway, more on-topic... what BioWare can learn from Fallout 4? To be honest, not much (but there's a few things nonetheless). The production quality of BioWare games is - generally speaking - very high. They're not perfect, of course, there's been exceptions (Dragon Age 2, and the obvious rushed ME3 especially towards the end). But really now, with this said, if there's one thing I've learned from Inquisition is that BioWare sure have a LOT to learn about open-world games specifically, especially from Bethesda. We all know that Inquisition 'felt' (pretty much was built) like a mere MMORPG in its regions, there's very little to do and discover (not saying there's nothing, just saying there's really not that much, most maps feel barren of life and rely on triggered events and there's very little in terms of needed exploration to find what there is to discover).
I absolutely loved the maps themselves in Inquisition (no sarcasm here), the layout, graphics and style of each one was superbly-crafted (well maybe except that desert Hissing Wastes map... ugh, what a pain), but the content within them was very meager. The few animals 'roaming' around didn't do much on their own (and often spawned right in front on you, like those Fennecs I think they're called), there were no random enemy encounters (all enemies have a fixed spawn point for questing purposes, and they don't interfere with wildlife, or vice versa) and basically everything within Inquisition's regions was in a 'fixed' state (Dragons don't roam around either, they fly in a pre-determined path and go back to their lair/nest), didn't feel alive and breathing (well ok, Hissing Wastes and Exalted Plains didn't exactly needed to be like that due to their setting and context but still... for game-play purposes they're just nearly dead maps), etc. So basically the amount of possible activities to be done and the general replay value of Inquisition maps were just thin enough to allow us to complete our quests, almost like a one-time only venture in them. Sure, we can go back, but once everything is done in each one of them what's left to do? Essentially nothing.
But BioWare games have good (or decent) main stories (well most of the time), codexes (backstories), complex lore, superb characters (and their own respective story), great voice acting (that's probably on the top three qualities of BioWare games along with their created companion characters) and well-done cinematic-style scripted scenes. I mean, BioWare games - and this isn't a secret - are great and better at being story-driven and mostly linear. And that's fine, that's how BioWare games should be in my opinion, unless they prove us with Andromeda that they CAN in fact do fun and content-filled open world maps. But until proven otherwise (perhaps Andromeda will be "the one") I can safely say that Bethesda games have much better open worlds. But that's not really fair to say, however, and that's simply because BioWare only had ONE single go at it so far in their entire history (being Inquisition, and no I'm certainly not counting Old Republic for open world maps), when Bethesda are veterans with open world games (Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Skyrim and now Fallout 4, and that's not counting their official expansions and DLCs). So, sure, BioWare should NOT be ashamed or shy from looking at their games to take some (well, many) examples from them. I would even suggest them to go meet Bethesda employees in their studio(s) and have constructive conversations and knowledge exchanges together between fellow games developers (but yeah I know, pride... competition, won't happen).
On the other hand, Bethesda could learn from BioWare too (definitely). Most Bethesda games are poorly-written (be it the main story arcs, or side quests, or simply dialogue from random or important NPCs) although each one of their games do have their "moments" (still, all of this is subjective, some really do love everything about their games, fine, to each their own) and certainly DON'T have interesting nor memorable characters, and definitely NOT companions that you'll be talking about for the coming years nor make fan fiction about. Their games are fun to explore and 'mess around with', but they're far from being examples of good story telling and pacing in the gaming industry. But, in my opinion, after playing Fallout 4 for a total of 16 hours so far I can see VERY noticeable improvements in writing AND voice acting (not just variety, but quality... and oh God it was about damn time they managed to do ONE game in their history like this). So it might have taken them nearly 13 years, but they're finally catching up on the big ones out there (such as BioWare) for story (writing) and characters quality (and voice acting, too, as mentioned).
So yeah, BioWare can learn (and should take examples of) at least from Fallout 4's open world content. But I DO believe that Andromeda will probably be a good step forward compared to Inquisition. And... Jesus Christ guys, stop comparing Fallout 4's graphics to PS2 games, that's just imbecile.
Retour en haut
but he does get in the way at times but not as bad as other Bethesda companions.
