Better? Some people go to far with crap.

Sad but true look at the outcry over Witcher which I think looks fantastic.

@starrman1985. My biggest problem with the Witcher 3 graphics was the global lighting in game. But, there's a mod in development that is bringing the cutscene lighting engine to in-game and it looks fabulous, so my only real complaint is now being taken care of.

I 100% agree both is better but for a Fallout game, to me, I'm not worried at all about the graphics. I personally do not think the graphics are bad. Others disagree, that is fine.

And let's be honest, the graphics are not bad, sure they are not The Order, Ryse, Witcher etc standard but they look great to me, the art direction really seems to scream Fallout. This world is massive, dynamic and ever changing, you cannot replicate that, the Witcher as stunning as it is, is not on the same scale as a Fallout game (size maybe) but not game world (everything is interactable, movable in a fallout game).

I appreciate your opinion and respect and hope you can still enjoy the game as I beleve I will.

As I said, can we not appreciate the game as it is instead of complaining about things? Every Fallout game has never been a graphical benchmark, why should we suddenly suggest Fallout 4 should be?

Maybe my love for the series is allowing me to see past the graphics that some dislike, which is fine for me, I can only speak for myself and I can only decide for myself if this game is worth the asking price but the graphics shown so far in no way put me off pre ordering this game.

Well for a game that I would be pouring many hours into I would like it to at least look decent. When you look at something and it makes you cringe (like those GameCube quality textures on that dog) it breaks immersion. I don't expect it to look like the Order or The Witcher but it should look better than a slightly improved PS3 game. They are not even making this for last gen and these new consoles have much more RAM. You would think they could at least do decent texture resolutions. The "jump" in graphics don't match the jump in console power and of course PC should be off the charts in visuals.

We have these basic expectations (better hardware=better graphics)so when they are not met we are disappointed that is all. I will eventually play it and get used to the lousy graphics, I hope the story and gameplay makes up for them.

I believe art direction is the main component of Fallout visuals and as long as they nail those there will not be a problem. From the trailer it looks amazing in that respect so far.

You seem to be dismissing this game purely on graphics which I find disappointing as Fallout games have never been about graphics.

Shovel Knight is probably my favourite game at the moment I am playing (also playing MKX and The Witcher) and Shovel Knights graphics, by your definition (current gen 'better hardware = better graphics") are horrible. Obviously Shovel Knights visuals are a clear design choice by the devs, which I beleive are near perfect, just as Fallouts visuals will be a design choice by the devs.

With certain games, graphics are one of the very last things to judge a game on, art direction and style are way more important to the immersion of a Fallout game.

Did the graphics of Fallout 3 break the immersion for you? If not, then there is no way Fallout 4's graphics can as they are better from what we have seen so far (disregarding the generation jump, as in this scenario it makes no difference)
I'm not disagreeing with your disappointment with the graphics shown, that is opinion, I am just trying to understand how the 'break in immersion' can occur when art direction and style play a much bigger part of immersion than resolution of textures.

Visuals are not all about resolution and textures, direction and style can just as much immerse a player into an experience.