Fallout 4: PC Vs PS4 Vs Xbox One

Fallout 4: PC vs PS4 vs Xbox One

Let's say you own an Xbox One, PS4 and PC, and you're looking at getting Fallout 4. How does the game shape up on each platform?

Like they did with Black Ops 3, Candyland have compared the versions of Bethesda's new RPG side-by-side. Unlike Black Ops 3, things are looking pretty good here! The PS4 and Xbox One versions look almost identical, and while you expect the PC to come out on top, it's not like it's miles out in front.



    You'd "expect" the PC version to look better. Than you realise they haven't bothered with 21:9 aspect ratio or unlocked fps, so why would they make the effort to add higher res textures?

    Bring on the community mods.

      There are already tweaks out there that unlock the FOV and FPS cap.

    PC version. Now with extra bush. :)

      I gotta say when I went back to play Skyrim on 360 I definitely missed all that bush I had going on PC....

    The XB1 footage looks blurrier, not sure if it actually is or just their capture setup.
    I'm probably going to pick this up after Xmas anyway, hopefully a patch or two will be out by then.

      Good news! A patch is out already!

      Don't fix nuthin' tho.

      Last edited 10/11/15 4:15 pm

      The XBone actually looks better than the PS4. Not sure why since apparently the PS4 has better hardware.

    Hmmmm.... Xbox One or GTX670 PC......

      Hmmmmm...PS4 or GTX Titan X.....

      Last edited 10/11/15 1:46 pm

        hmmmmm...potato or pc...

          Potato, of course - the PC won't run GladOS.

          Although, come to think of it, that may actually be an advantage to PC.

            At least PS4 users could run it out of the box. It took me 2 weeks and a new GTX970 to get it running on PC and not crash literally every 10 seconds. When I did, it was awesome, but for those two weeks I was pissed.

              While Fallout 4 (on PC) worked first time for me, there have been occasions when it failed to start (fixed by a Steam file check and system restart) or when the interface inexplicably screwed up.

              I still can't wear any stealth gear, because whenever I do I can't see my own gun.

              But it's from Bethesda. Quality Assurance does not seem to be in their corporate DNA. Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3 were all a bit janky on release.

      Pc, unless you have some 10 year old cpu it should play better on your pc with a 670.

    For the most part they look the same to me until you are outside where the draw distance for shadows and alpha maps take a hit on the foliage.

    Ahhh, the aliasing on that power line.... o_O

    Damn the PC really blew out the competition this time. Any reason why it appears to be locked at 30fps for the PC version?

      I dunno, the PC version doesn't look much different, even when sat side by side. I can't see it being all that noticeable during game play.


        Graphical parity all games MUST LOOK THE SAME ACROSS ALL PLATFORMS! that way they can lie about the fact that a console game looks as good as a pc game. I for one am tired of these lies and they have admitted it also.

          That link is about Indie games' release dates on the Xbone, not graphical performance.

          EDIT: Not only that, but that "rule" has been abandoned by Microsoft. http://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-ones-launch-parity-clause-is-pretty-much-over/1100-6429261/

          Last edited 11/11/15 12:18 pm

      Same reason as any other time really.... downgrading for PC. Build for console and port across. Developers can't be bothered to make things look better on PC these days because it takes more time.


    As usual it's all the shader stuff on PC that sets it apart.. fog, shadows, lighting etc.. yes, a little more foliage on PC.. but all in all, it's the shaders that set it apart.

      and the draw distance and modding and 60fps and everything elsethe potatos can't ever hope to handle.

      Last edited 10/11/15 3:48 pm

      I wonder what AA/AF they used on PS4. It appears to have slightly crisper textures on the whole, but there's some bad AA artifacting in one of the shots on PS4 that isn't there on the other two.

    More importantly to me is why I purchased a 5.2gb disc to play the game and the instant it goes in the drive it has to download 24gb of data...WTF!!!!! I get that they have to do updates and bug fixes..but 24 giggaboobs of data..ffs.

      Agreed, this is some absolute bullshit nonsense.
      My disc was delayed by the delivery company and I finally got it today and was keen to play it after I got home from work, but no.... I now have to download an additional 24GB after installing the game, so no game for me until tomorrow evening.

      At this point I feel like I'm just being punished for buying the physical disc version. It's just not on.

        24GB on my connection = 71hours.

          Yeah, that's gotta suck. Mine was fortunately done overnight and I spent the entire weekend playing it, so I wasn't in as shitty a boat as you're in. I feel for you, brother.

    DISK PARITY was the BANE of gaming with XBOX int he past now they have a licencing claus that stipulates GRAPHICAL PARITY. all games MUST look the same across all platforms if they want to release it on XBONE. look it up you legal types I am not making this up. Xbox has really outdone themselves this time. how can they force this on PC gamers ? how can they get away with this int he first place and now the xbox liarmachine I mean marketing will continue to lie to us saying that their console is as powerful as a pc and truly next gen. I for one have had a gutful of the lie and BS sub par games I have been playing games for 25+ years and consoles are killing it big time for pc games. its gotten to a point I'm too old now and just sick and tired of the lies. games look and play worse than they did 2 years ago.... how is that possible? please legal eagles do the snooping and look up graphical parity. its about time the truth came out instead of them paying everyone off to lie and not say anything.

      I can't find any info about this - so no-one is talking about it, or it doesn't exist?

      That some earlier Xbone games were clearly lesser than other platforms suggests that this just isn't true? Happy to be proven wrong, but I can't seem to find any info about it, other than studios talking up graphical parity for (what appears to be) marketing reasons.

    In “Downplaying expectations of PC performance” news, it looks like the developers of upcoming game Evolve, created by Turtle Rock Studios (Left 4 Dead, Counter-strike: Condition Zero), will achieve graphical parity across the PC, PS4 and the Xbox One. This is according to an interview with Official Xbox Magazine US, in which they make some truly perplexing statements.

    Phil Robb of the development studio:

    For once we’re in a position where PC and consoles are going have parity on how good they look, so that’s pretty good. I don’t know if I can say if there’s anything specific about Xbox One versus PS4 that is really going to stand out – they’re both good consoles and we expect the game’s going to be awesome on both of them.

    They are still working on hitting that magical 1080p resolution and 60 FPS throughout each version of Evolve, however, but it is, “Too early to start making those sorts of promises.”

    I say that these statements are perplexing because they just don’t make sense. Whether it is the PS4 or Xbox One; neither of them are nearly close to capable of reaching the graphic fidelity of a PC built when any of Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo’s recent consoles were released.

    It shouldn’t even be necessary to remind readers that there massive differences in the capabilities of the consoles alone. The PS4, while still lagging behind against expensive PC’s, still greatly outshines its competition in terms of its GPU TFLOP/s and system memory (plus memory speed). Pretending that there are no differences between any of the consoles themselves, let alone between consoles and PC’s themselves, is disrespectful to the consumer’s intelligence.

    This means that Evolve will look pretty much the same across all platforms for no reason other than to make somebody happy. Whether it is Microsoft, Sony, the publishers at 2K Games, or the development studio themselves; it sets up a circumstance in which the game’s fans on at least one of its released platforms are not going to be happy. Especially if their version would be capable of hitting 1080p and/or 60 FPS if it weren’t for graphical parity.

    The PC is better, especially if your Video Cards costs more than the Console it's competing against. I think a better question is how does it look on a more modest PC with only $200 worth of Video Card?

    I think I'd be happy with the game on any format, it's a great game. But I think these comparisons are a waste of time. PC is always going to win. It's like testing the new Corolla against a Top Fuel Dragster in quarter mile Drag Race.

    As to where I'm buying the game, PC it's cheaper, Mouse and Keyboard and will probably look about the same as it does on Consoles going by my PC specs.

    I have a gtx 580 with 16gb ram and I m running around 50-60fps on high settings.

    How are the loading times for everyone? I installed it on a ssd but it still takes a good 5-8 seconds to load between maps. It's actually quite painful since im not used to waiting do long.

      Not sure if serious or trolling. >_>

        I guess i should explain it a bit more :P I've spent a lot of money on my pc and loading times in games are usually instant if i have the game installed on my ssd. After some more gameplay last night i noticed the load times are significantly longer then i stated; upwards to 25seconds. Just wondering how it compares to ppl on console or who have the game installed on a hdd.

        Fast traveling between settlements getting the right junk to build certain things in another settlement is a grueling task which usually results with more downtime and waiting then actual gameplay. Would love to see a shared workstation mod.

          Hmm... that does seem odd. The experience on my beast rig so far is that the game will take its time during the initial load of my save but fast-traveling and area loads are usually pretty snappy, but then I guess I'm not timing it to the second and/or expecting it to be seamless. It's pretty early in the game's lifecycle and I suspect Bethesda will be fine-tuning performance, visuals and gameplay in the coming months so things are no doubt bound to improve.

          I guess at a certain point I simply started thanking my lucky stars that the game ran in a playable state at all (graphical & gameplay bugs notwithstanding).

    I am really the only one who can never tell the difference between these comparisons? They all look the exact same save for maybe a slight variation in color.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now