Fallout 4 System Requirements

[JustATac0]

Thats a really high minimum

[JimboUK]

Thats a really high minimum

 

They've either pulled the figures out of their rear end, adjusted them so people think "wow look at those specs, the game must be the awesome" or the game is horribly optimised, being a Bethesda game I'm going with the last one.

[grdshedz75]

We haven't talked about the actual resolution yet.
Recommendations (by Bethesda's marketing) are a careful balance between to not scare away users and preventing complaints the game is unplayable in 4K.
And 4K is something you find in almost all benchmarks (at least in an option).
I, however, play in (nearly) 1080p. For this, you most probably won't have to fulfil the recommended requirements. It's just an approximation/orientation.
You guys should know, though, that - since we post this on nexusforums - adding mods always comes with higher requirements.
So from my personal experience, I'd recommend - above all - a graphics card with 3+GB video ram. And this might motivate people to buy an entire new rig.

One last thing: We're probably going to play this baby for 2 years again. So why not wait a little?

[Tony the Wookie]

Well, considering that a monitor to make it worth playing in 4k would actually cost more than a computer capable of handling Fallout 4 in 4k... I think I will shy away from that money pit for the next 2-4 years...

 

Maybe when I build my next rig, but for now I am totally cool if I have to turn the graphics down to 720p if I have to. I would rather play the game at a lower res and get high end lighting and shaders, which is what really matters to me.

 

 

 

I also don't install mods that use excessive texture sizes and the like. I just don't like them.

 

 

 

To me, Fallout 4 looks good on a fundamental level, where a game with a bunch of fancy texture packs doesn't amuse me. Just my personal preference really, but I just like the way the light hits things and the shaders render in Fallout 4. It looks a million times better than New Vegas ever could ever look with even the most fancy texture packs to me.

 

Fundamentals, not flashiness, are beautiful.

[Shinzou]

I am really amazed that people think the game looks like FO3 with texture packs. The polygon count alone is noticeably higher in FO4, by a LONG ways. The volumetric lighting is a big improvement. The character animations are more natural. There are cloth/hair physics now as well. Put the two games side-by-side and and you won't think they look the same. Other than the fact they are both Fallout games and have the same atmosphere.

 

The game will use more than 4gb of memory. It is a 64bit client. That I can assure you. One of the biggest reasons is the fact that interior/exterior cells are, for the most part, gone. It is all together now and seamless. This was mentioned during one of the early dev interviews. There are still some areas with loading but very few. The new lighting system was a big part of making it possible I would imagine. No more need for interior spaces with static lighting. Now the lighting comes from object which emit light and, of course, the sun/moon.

 

Regarding the engine. This is not "The same gamebryo engine they have been using since oblivion." The Gamebryo engine hasn't been used since FO:NV. Skyrim used the Creation engine, and FO4 uses an updated version of the creation engine, as stated by Todd Howard at E3.

 

I honestly was not surprised one bit by the system requirements. There was one scene which reminded me of The Witcher 3. Lo and behold, the requirements are almost identical to that game. The specific scene I am referring to is the Swampland one. It looks of the same quality as the swamps in The Witcher 3.

 

Regarding 64bit. Almost everyone these days uses 64bit. There is almost no reason to not upgrade to a 64bit OS. 32bit applications run on a 64bit OS just fine. I have been running 64bit since 2007 without issue. If you are worried about cost, welcome to PC gaming. Except this time you are paying for OS instead of(or in addition to) hardware when preparing for the next big game. The plus side is that you may not have to upgrade again for a while, since 64bit will last for years upon years. The only reason to upgrade the OS further is to get the latest directx. Only Windows 10 has directx 12, for example.

[bben46]

The creation engine used for Skyrim is just an updated Gambryo. If you do any modding at all, there is not much difference from Oblivion to FO3 to FO:NV to Skyrim - it is an incremental change and not a fundamental change in the engine at all.

 

As for it being a real 64 bit engine - I will not believe it till I see it. I can see the game being so much larger than Skyrim that it needs more of the first 4G of ram, forcing the need for a 64 bit system to run a 32 bit game.

 

My reasoning? If they really had an actual 64 bit engine they would be putting that in their marketing - it is that big of a deal - a 64 bit engine will be a game changer (pun intended) :pinch:

 

But even with what we have seen, a lot of people will be upgrading their computer to play FO4. :thumbsup: Maybe I should invest in Nvidia? :tongue:

[Shinzou]

Well they wouldn't be the first game that was using a 64bit client and didn't market it.

 

That's not to say that you are wrong. You could very well be correct. I just believe it is more likely than not that FO4 will be 64bit, rather than 32bit using more of the first 4gb of memory. We all know that Bethesda wants their games to be mod friendly. If the base game was 32bit and was using a lot of the first 4gb then it wouldn't really leave much room for mods. Todd Howard himself stated he is excited to see what people do with the game after the creation kit is released.

[Moksha8088]

https://youtu.be/ADLmbl-db2Y

 

Just rewatched that 22-minute clip from FO4. I am wondering if the minimum is too low. My guess is that the optimum will be a GPU that is a generation ahead of what is currently on the market.

 

There should be plenty of opportunities for modders. With all the building, crafting etc... FO4 looks to be something for those with an extremely high level of boredom. Bet mods with pre-built structure additions and complete weapons with all the features will be popular, at least for those more used to traditional role play and not so much into architectural creations. Even the more shoot'em up portions seem closer to combat games than Fallout games of the past.

 

I'm not even sure I like that talking feature. That is bound to limit new quest and character mods. If that is the case, FO4 will be a good for one or two playthroughs rather than the constant renewal of gaming fun that new mods provide. Mods have made the Bethesda PC games great, A lack of mods will put it closer to the limited range of console mods - although Bethesda is smart enough to know that is where the money is at rather than the PC community. On the other hand, PCs make up the adult share of the audience and will keep Bethesda fandom going well past the coming of the next Xbox or PS5.

[JimboUK]

Well they wouldn't be the first game that was using a 64bit client and didn't market it.

 

That's not to say that you are wrong. You could very well be correct. I just believe it is more likely than not that FO4 will be 64bit, rather than 32bit using more of the first 4gb of memory. We all know that Bethesda wants their games to be mod friendly. If the base game was 32bit and was using a lot of the first 4gb then it wouldn't really leave much room for mods. Todd Howard himself stated he is excited to see what people do with the game after the creation kit is released.

 

Yeah those textures look quite large, people already struggle to keep Skyrim and even New Vegas from running out of memory, if FO4 is 32bit then it won't take much push it over the edge especially for those running it at 4K, a resolution that is gaining in popularity.

[stilichos]

If you do want to upgrade your hardware and "think you can't wait" You can wait for a few months at least. Nvidia usually releases new GPU's in the early months of the year, which will drive down the costs of current graphics cards, making it more affordable to put money into upgraded parts, allowing you to either get something that packs more punch, or just save some money.

Myself, I'm sitting right around the recommended requirements, and anyone running with the AMD 8350 or similar shouldn't really worry about it, from everything I've heard, the 8350 is similar to the more "updated" chipsets like the recommended "9590" the main difference being higher quality materials being put into it.

I also find it interesting that the recommended CPU is the highest one that's out for AMD, which is also not really a surprise since it was released two full years ago, and wasn't a great competitor to intel at the time.

Anyways, what I'm saying is as someone who uses AMD for CPU, I'm probably going full intel next year.

Anyone else out there with a GTX 670? What do you think, are you looking to upgrade? I know the 970 is better, but... 300$ worth it better?