Fallout 4 high-resolution texture pack out next week

The official Fallout 4 [official site] high-resolution texture pack is coming free next week, Bethesda have announced. You’ll need a computer far beyond Fallout 4’s original recommend spec to make good use of the pack, mind. Can your box blast bonny Boston? Is your rig ready for the roof felt? Can your hog handle HD hats? Is your silicon-snorting framecrusher pumped for 60 reps of sand a second? Will your deck deck the decking? Read on for the system requirements.

Bethesda explain that you’ll need an extra 58GB of disk space (mercy me!) for the texture pack, which just about triples the size of the base game. On top of that, your cyberslammer will need to be packing this heat:

  • Windows 7/8/10 (64-bit OS required)
  • Intel Core i7-5820K or better
  • GTX 1080 8GB/AMD Radeon RX 490 8GB
  • 8GB+ Ram

Visit Bethesda for a full version of the screenshot showing high-res textures (‘s the bottom one). Historically, Bethesda have released these packs technically as free DLC, so installing (and uninstalling, if your hog turns out to lack the honk) should be as simple as clicking a checkbox in Steam.

Bethesda’s announcement also say that Fallout 4 will be “bringing new features to Mod content” next week, whatever that means.

I’m glad that Bethesda have the habit of releasing HD texture packs based on their own source textures. Fallout 4 strives for realistic-ish but parts are definitely stylised, and player-made packs often miss that as they amp up the grit and contrast. Some of ’em do look quite good, and I know some folks prefer that, but I’m glad the official option is coming for a better version of how Fallout 4 was intended to look.


  1. Pich says:

    >58 GB
    I think i’ll reinstall New Vegas instead.

    • welverin says:

      Less of an issue for me than the video card requirement.

    • phylum sinter says:

      That’s nice. You’re doing what about 1/10th of players might do, and then poo-pooing the more popular game in the series. Because that’s cool, buddy. Cooool. Just kidding of course, no harm meant, but really – say what you will about popularity, but Fallout 4 is about 10x more popular than Fallout New Vegas was.

      Take a look at how many users are playing each game on steam – link to steamcharts.com

      …and then remember that FNV never was released on the latest batch of consoles.

      Good on Bethesda for continuing support on an older game.

      • Nauzhror says:

        Are you being intentionally stupid?

        Steamcharts dates back to July, 2012. Fallout New Vegas is from October 2010.

        The chart starts when the game was 21 months old. Its peak playerbase since then is 30,309. Fallout 4 is 16 months old, and its 24 hour peak is less than Fallout New Vegas’s.

        What this means is that New Vegas had more people playing it after it was 21+ months old than Fallout 4 has playing it when it is 16 months old. Hardly evidence that Fallout 4 is ten times as popular as New Vegas.

        All you showed was that newer games are more popular. Not exactly surprising info.

        Fallout 4’s failure is more evidently highlighted by the fact that Skyrim is being played by more people than it is.

  2. Ghostwise says:

    I’m going to hack the cyber out this matrix like black ICE on cybertoast.

    Whilst wearing a black hoodie, obvs.

  3. Crusoe says:

    Playing an RPG certainly sounds preferable to playing Fallout 4.

    **This was supposed to be a reply to Pich**

    • Anti-Skub says:

      Where as to me, playing a game that knows where it strengths lie is preferable to New Vegas.

      What makes Bethesda’s games great has never been their RPG elements. It has always been a sense of exploration, adventure and freedom to do what you like. Fallout 4 might not be their best example of that formula, but it does it well enough.

      I have never understood this fanatical devotion people have for New Vegas. To me it seems obviously the weakest entry in the series, original games included. It feels like one of those amateur mods that try to turn a game into a different genre, like that one that tried to make Starcraft a hack and slash. It’s so rough around the edges, and not just in that way that Bethesdas games normally are, but in the sense that it’s core gameplay concepts like the factions, the survival stuff, the weapon modding and the plot all feel half baked.

      Not just that but the one thing that makes Bethesdas games so appealing to me, their world design, is SO poorly done by Obsidian. That sense of exploration removed, and replaced a pokey little map where you can basically choose to go one of two ways, follow the road one way, or the other. That feeling of a world packed with secrets waiting to be found, replaced with large open expanses of fuck all.

      I just don’t get why people love it…it’s just so…bland.

      • Werthead says:

        I agree that Bethesda do – somewhat – give a good sense of exploration. There’s a wonderful sweet spot in Bethesda RPGs, certainly FO3, Skyrim and FO4 (maybe Oblivion to a certain extent), in the first few hours when you step out of the opening area, look around at lots of interesting places to explore, and off you go. You don’t know what’s going on, what factions are in play, and the first enemies you face are a genuine threat whom you have to defeat by using some genuine tactics and making use of a usually-restricted weapon selection.

        After about 5-6 hours that feeling starts to ebb, usually through a combination of the unrelentingly poor writing (Bethesda are getting better, slowly, but still really aren’t there), power levelling and the gradual acquisition of so many guns and ammo that challenges become fewer and further between. By around 20 hours in all challenge has disappeared, your character has become a walking demigod who is all but invulnerable with effectively infinite health, guns and money. To die at this point requires basically deliberately throwing away your weapons and armour and behaving in a moronic manner, aside from the occasionally poorly-balanced boss monster.

        If you had a really good story and characters to draw you on, this would not be a problem, but Bethesda have not provided a consistently good main storyline since the main quest of Morrowind, which is fifteen years old at this point.

        New Vegas, on the other hand, inverts this. The opening few hours are pretty poor. You’re given a poor introduction or motivation for what you’re doing, and waking up in a town with Colonel Tigh looking after you is a bit less impressive than the openings to Fallout 3 and 4. Also, if you walk in the wrong direction you end up in Cazadore Valley, which is awfully balanced and involves lots of death and distinctly un-fun combat against a very boring enemy.

        Gradually, though, New Vegas kicks into life. The story is far superior to any Bethesda RPG since Morrowind, it has more interesting characters and NPCs, and it has more involving moral quandaries (hamstrung as it is by the Legion storyline not being as fleshed out as it should be). It’s also much funnier, especially once you get to Old World Blues, and in Dead Money is genuinely atmospheric and creepy (if over-using the “taking away all your stuff” trope). The DLCs also ask challenging – if somewhat wankery – questions about character volition and responsibility.

        However, even all of that is somewhat secondary to the big problem, which is an utter lack of reactivity in Bethesda RPGs. You go through the world and become some kind of mass-slaughtering demigod and no-one knows who you are. Kill the dragon god Alduin and gain the ability to morph into a vampire and barkeepers are still asking you to run messengers halfway across the map for trivial amounts of gold. You can defeat the bad guys and win the game as a hero or…you can defeat the bad guys and win the game as a sarcastic arsehole. Great.

        In New Vegas, on the other hand, you can defeat the bad guys surprisingly early on (by going into their camp and murdering everyone), you can kill all of the good guys and allow “evil” to triumph, or you can kill absolutely everyone and then conquer the area with your very own army of laser death robots, and people will respond to what you’ve done and recognise you accordingly.

        tl;dr Bethesda make great exploration games where the goal is that you become an all-conquering god and nothing you do really matters. Obsidian make great narrative and character-focused games where the story is far more reactive and everything you do matters.

        • Anti-Skub says:

          I categorically disagree that New Vegas has a more interesting story. Giving you more choice and chances to affect how the story plays out only interests me if I give a shit about what’s going on, and I absolutely did not in New Vegas. Caesers Legion and the NCR are two of the least interesting factions that have ever existed in any video game.

          I’m not suggesting that 3 and 4s plots are particularly great, I just don’t think New Vegas’s is better. All of the choices and branching dialogue trees don’t alter the fact that I just find the whole synth/institute thing more interesting subject matter than whatever petty squabbles I was supposed to be invested in in New Vegas. Clearly 4 had some serious issues with scope, choice and just general story telling, but it’s an interesting story, poorly told…compared to the boring story, adequately told that was New Vegas. I know which I preferred.

          I’m also not impressed when a game changes a line of dialogue to acknowledge that I killed a dragon or something. It’s a nice touch, sure, but I really don’t care enough for it to be a reason for me to put New Vegas on a pedestal and damn Fallout 3 to hell. Because at the end of the day, I had more fun defeating everything there was to defeat in Fallout 3 than I did in New Vegas. A barman saying “Nice job killing all that stuff” afterwards didn’t negate the fact that it just wasn’t as fun to do.

          And lastly, New Vegas has a serious problem with telling and not showing. So much of the story is just relayed to you by dialogue after the event has happened…and it makes it tedious. The world feels so static. Despite all the choices that allow you to change the course of the story, you feel uninvolved, because so little of it happens on screen.

          • Werthead says:

            Fallout 3 was a very fine game, certainly far superior to 4, and it had some great Fallout-esque moments, like the Megaton quandary. The problem is that nothing really comparable happened after that and you ended up helping the white knight paladin Brotherhood of Steel defeat the bad guys and woo hoo, everyone’s happy. Apart from the fact that you have to die for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

            Sure, they fixed that in a DLC a few months later, but Fallout 3’s narrative turned into a bit of a nonsensical mess there.

            With 4 they just inverted the motivation: you’re now a father looking for your son rather than being a son looking for your son. They also made the “twist” painfully obvious in the opening sequence, so when they made that big revelation about your son it completely fell flat. The rest of the story didn’t really go anywhere. You have all these factions acting at cross purposes for no real reason, although I did appreciate the Brotherhood being reset to their correct, lore-appropriate techno-fascist role.

            The thing about New Vegas is that it addressed your very complaint. Hate Mr. House, the NCR and the Legion? Fine, wipe them all out and conquer the wasteland yourself, end the game as King of Vegas and Lord of the Dam. That’s still pretty unusual in CRPGs.

            I do agree that New Vegas was a game that overreached itself in ambition. Bethesda clearly wanted a quickie, unambitious title to make some money and Obsidian created this massive epic they didn’t entirely have time to do properly, and there was some friction between the two companies over the issue, defnitely not helped by Bethesda screwing the pooch completely on QA on the game.

            Still, I’d much rather take a game that was experimental and reached for the stars over one that’s safe and predictable, and Fallout 4 is the very definition of safe and predictable. That doesn’t mean it’s not fun, but it is questionable if it is Fallout.

      • lemonhug says:

        Why would you want to waste so much time exploring a world where everything is the same as the last place you visited.

        • ZippyLemon says:

          I know stoners who basically seek out different and exotic places to get high. They do the same shit everywhere they go.

          They love BGS games.

      • SaintAn says:

        No. That’s silly. These games are adventure RPG’s and without the RPG elements they’re not worth it. Fallout 4 ended up being pretty much a Far Cry game instead of a Fallout game.

        • Werthead says:

          I enjoyed Fallout 4, but it should not have been marketed as a main-series Fallout game. It’s a FPS spin-off (with occasional dialogue choices), not an RPG in any meaningful sense. I enjoy FPS games, even the Far Cry games (even if 4 was just a reskin of 3), but they’re not what BGS do best and they’re not the best use of the Fallout world or lore.

          If it had been called Fallout: Boston and presented as a shooter spin-off, like Fallout Tactics was a combat-focused spin-off, I think the reception would have been a lot more reasonable.

  4. smeaa mario says:

    Is there anyone out there who still gets excited about news related to this disappointment?

    • Jane Doe says:


    • Kaeoschassis says:

      This news specifically? No. Flashier graphics do very little for me, and FO4 is plenty pretty already so long as you don’t look too closely at the characters (one day Beth will learn to do people, one day).

      But news about FO4 in general? Yeah, sure, why not. You might not have enjoyed it, but you don’t have to look far to see that a great many people did and do, and if you can’t see that you have a pretty blinkered perspective.

      Look, no, it sure aint for everyone. I like it, and even I will readily admit it has some stuff I am not pleased with. But it’s a hell of a fun game. To you and others like you who insist on making the same tired pleas to “proper gamers” on every article related to the newest Fallout or similar – I’m not going to tell you your opinion is wrong. I’m just going to ask you to let. It. Go.

      Go play something else. Or don’t. Go have fun. Leave us to have fun too.


    • trueGamer says:

      Yes sorry I am. Revisited it just yesterday after a year with some immersive mods. It suffices very well at beeing some sort of free roam sandbox game. A HD texture pack is welcomed.
      I get that it isn’t much RPG but I get those fixes from the Wasteland games.

    • Stevostin says:

      Although it’s not as good as Fallout 3 or New Vegas I still prefer it to Fallout 1 and 2. Main quest has an interesting story and character. Game mechanics are in good shape. I am also curious to replay it on hardcore survival settings.

      Still disappointed by how it seems to think about fight as an obligatory way to solve… well… everything. OTOH, can’t think of any RPG that were more interesting. It’s free roam and first person view. Everything that isn’t that isn’t even starting to compete in my book. No matter how dull my character is in F4 or how interesting is the world (pretty interesting in that case actually), it’s me being there as if I really was there, and being more or less whoever I fancy to be. Forcing me to instruct a white haired monster hunter in a world i am seeing from a distance without ever being there offers no escapism to me, no matter how interesting are the choices offered to that Gerald guy.

      • ynamite says:

        Better than Fallout 1 or 2? But but but … to each their own. I pretty much disagree with everything you wrote.

        A better RPG than Fallout 4? I think Farcry is a better RPG :P

        And it’s Geralt, not Gerald ;)

  5. shaydeeadi says:

    Maybe they should put ‘installed on an SSD’ in their requirements. I guess if you are running a 1080/490 you would have one but just in case..

  6. thranx says:

    I’m excited. Then I view the image… yea not bad. Except the terrible terrible foliage. Like, all that and they couldn’t fix the foliage that looks like it was cropped by a third grade using the magic selection tool in PS? (top left of the source image)

    • Merry says:

      Thank you so much for pointing it out, else I wouldn’t have known what to complain about. Yes, it’s horrid; horrid. How can we live like this, with third-graders (what are they, actually?) drawing the foliage in the top-left of our game screens?

      So horrid.

  7. dagnamit says:

    RX 490? I was under the impression that AMD didn’t ship new GPUs anymore.

  8. Disgruntled Goat says:

    Can they patch in some interesting quests and story?

    • thedosbox says:

      IMO, Far Harbor qualifies under those criteria.

    • Shakes999 says:

      Would it matter? They could add a quest that was about fluffy rabbits racing manicured Wombats and it would still end in mowing all of em down with a minigun.

    • Anti-Skub says:

      The bit with the USS Constitution is the best quest that’s been in any Fallout game.

  9. emotionengine says:

    The RX 490 used to be the (presumed) name of AMD’s upcoming Vega chip, but it’s more likely that it will launch under a different name now (RX 5XX?).

    The mention of it here had me raise my right eyebrow higher than Mr. Spock, but sure enough it’s been already redacted on Bethesda’s site and they only mention the GTX 1080 now. PCGamesN has the scoop here: link to pcgamesn.com

  10. Vedharta says:

    After arriving at the Institute i just couldn’t get myself to continue playing, the story is just to darn lame and terrible.

    58GB of textures aint changing that.

  11. Premium User Badge

    Drib says:

    Guess my 970 is insufficient. But serious, 58 GB? I have the space to spare, but that’s still just offensively huge.

    • plsgodontvisitheforums says:

      I cannot believe that people are complaining about the size of a free HIGH RES texture pack. Seriously.

      • Ghostwise says:

        But it clashes with my socks !

      • Premium User Badge

        Drib says:

        You really can’t believe that people are complaining about something trivial, on the internet?

      • Holderist says:

        There’s a lot of very well done modder made texture packs that cover a lot of things and don’t need nearly that much space. So I’m a bit skeptical as to why Bethesda says all that extra space is required.

        • Stevostin says:

          Yeah because modders are so much better than skilled professionnal with so much more time to work on the same thing. It’s magical.

      • emotionengine says:

        People with monthly data caps and/or slow/shoddy internet may find it burdensome to download such a large amount, only to find out results weren’t as good as expected or that they couldn’t take the performance hit.

        But that aside, there was the general grumbling about Fallout 4 being an unoptimised mess and too taxing on the hardware while failing to deliver the visuals to justify its appetite. These rather excessive space and hardware requirements (a hexacore CPU, really?) just reinforce this perception of the devs as being incompetent and/or lazy and not even bothering to optimise their work. I’m not saying that is necessarily the case and the jury is still out on this new texture pack, of course.

    • thedosbox says:

      “offensively huge”

      The sad thing is that if it had been smaller, I suspect people like you would have complained the textures weren’t of high enough quality.

      • Premium User Badge

        Drib says:

        “People like you” being based on this single offhanded comment about a ludicrously large download?

        So I guess people who complain about large file sizes? People with data caps? People who make offhanded comments?

        Or maybe you’re talking out of your ass, mate.

        • thedosbox says:

          Hint – it’s going to be DLC. As in it’s not a mandatory download. Don’t have the kit to run it? Then you can freely ignore it.

        • Merry says:

          “People like you” being based on this single offhanded comment about a ludicrously large download?

          I think you’re confusing your counter-attacks. thedosbox isn’t making any assumptions about the people who are “like” Drib, but using “People like you” to mean “people who have this opinion”. That is absolutely fine, even based on a single sample.

          I do have to say that Drib is rather silly, and I am not “like him”!

  12. dystome says:

    Yikes. Were they trying to aim at that sort of hardware or did it just sort of get out of hand? You could by a whole PC capable of running the original release for the price of a GTX 1080.

    (PS, that’s not a robit, it’s a dude in armour)

  13. Quimby says:

    I’ve just bought a new, admittedly entry level, gaming PC to replace my failing golden oldies. It just shook it’s head and laughed when I told it those specs. If only money was no object when it came to a new rig…

  14. Stevostin says:

    I am kind of severly disappointed by the specification required.
    1080 isn’t seriously an option to the vast majority of players. It’s a 650€ GPU at the very least, aka “that silly priced GPU no one buy until it has dropped at least 33%”. OTOH orignal F4 does suffer from relatively LQ textures. We needed something for the standard GPU, aka 970.

    The update on this is nearly entirely wasted IMO. Very few player will have any use for it.

    • Merry says:

      Dear Stevostin

      I think Bethesda have done exactly the right thing. They have released an original version which works for nearly everybody, and enhanced graphics DLC for those whose equipment will support it, for free.

      What would you have them do? I think they’ve been lovely, and to tie those people whose rigs could support improved graphics to the original specification (including the 58GB disk space) and release nothing would be unfriendly at least.

      If you’ve been playing Fallout 4 and enjoying it then, as far as you’re concerned, nothing has changed, and I don’t see that as a reason to complain.

      You’re hugely unlikely to get an update that will give you a significant increase in resolution while requiring no better hardware than the base game. Surely that’s obvious?

      It’s a free update after all, and I hope you understand that we can’t stretch to increasing your allowance to this extent?

      One day!

      Your friend Meredith

      • Anti-Skub says:

        How about a version that uses the power of the currently popular cards like 970/1060. You know rather than having two versions, one which leaves most people graphics cards underutilised, and another than most people wont be able to run.

        Seems like an odd choice.

      • Stevostin says:

        I will just be rephrasing what was in my post in case this time you understand from start the thing you didn’t think through.

        Check out Steam Hardware survey. They literally made an update for 1080 (0.95% of users) and 490 (none. the bloody card isn’t even on the market yet). That’s a gift to less than one percent of PC gamers, leaving 99% behind.

        Second, you’re reasoning is only sound if they’re already covering the current gear efficiently. They don’t.
        Fallout 4 recommended configuration is for NVIDIA GTX 780.
        That’s GTX 7x. Generation, released in 2013 with 3Go memory. 10x is not one, not two but 3 years later and 5 extra Go. Ultimately it’s a game that’s passing on mainstream PC gear (way above of its league) and try to “look” modern by requiring artificially high end card.

        I am saying artificially because compared to good looking recent games (Dishonored 2, Doom, The Witcher 3 etc.) F4 looks really a bit dated. It sure features nice art which makes it all the more sad when it’s displayed with blurry textures and overall dated rendering.

        Sure this is better than nothing and I am sure, 3 years from now, this will always be better if you plan to go back to that game. But they will be far less player doing that then than there would have been for a more democratic system target for that pack. Moreover F4 isn’t a game like New Vegas or even F3 that will benefit from significant words of mouth to get a long tail of players.

    • vorador says:

      Well, they just future proofed the game for a few generations. Sure you might not have a 1080 card now, but in 5 years you will have likely have something far surpassing it.

      This texture pack is made for that moment.

    • fish99 says:

      It’s recommended, not required. I’m sure a 1070 will run this without a major drop vs the original textures.

      The game just runs flat out bad anyway though in dense areas like Boston city, all related to the shadows.

  15. vence333 says:

    I would be excited for this, except I’m playing a real RPG called fallout new-Vegas.

    • Anti-Skub says:

      Hate to tell you this man, but New Vegas is a “real RPG” the way American style slices are “real cheese”.

      • montorsi says:

        There’s a few Obsidian fanboys in every Fallout thread. It’s OK. Their games bounce off me for whatever reason, generally because they feel overwritten and tone deaf, but at least some people enjoy them.

        • vence333 says:

          Stop calling people fanboys just because they don’t agree with you, grow up.

      • ynamite says:

        Not a big fan of New Vegas myself (never could get over the bland start) but what is a “real” RPG in your opinion?

        Personally I think if you immersive yourself enough pretty much any game can be a role playing game.

        • Anti-Skub says:

          Right, for a start, RPG is a genre with a specific definition. It’s not just any game where you pretend to be the character in your head, in the same way that Doom isn’t a real time strategy if you plan what you are going to do before you do it. That’s not how this works.

          What people are referring to when they call New Vegas a “real RPG” is the ability to make decision that change how the story unfolds and how your character plays with dialogue and stat choices.

          They think 3 and 4 are too much shooter and not enough RPG. However in my opinion, 3 and 4 are actually not bad shooters even if they aren’t great RPGs. New Vegas on the other hand, focuses on trying to be an RPG and doesn’t really succeed, and ends up being a crappy shooter because of it. Which makes it not really a good anything.

          • Someoldguy says:

            I think it’s more like people arguing about what kind of music is best. You can only say what is best for you. Most JRPGs are just too boringly grindy despite the good but linear storylines for my taste, although FF VII and VIII are exceptions. Fallout 3 was a good game but emphasised gunplay over variety and railroaded you to a shitty ending. NV made big efforts to offer lots of quests where shooting people in the head and stealing their stuff was not the only, or best solution. You had real choice about how the story ended and which factions came out on top. Probably why it won RPG of the Year in 2011.

            I don’t regret playing any Fallout game, but I’ll certainly be happy if the rumours of a Fallout New Vegas 2 turned out to be true – except of course it would push other potential Obsidian RPGs aside and I would like Tyranny 2 to be worked on sooner rather than later.

          • Anti-Skub says:

            Yes, it is like people arguing about what music is best…and like those arguments, some people can tell the difference between personal taste and objective quality while others can’t.

            With games, as with music, if you know a lot about the subject, you can identify what are good and bad examples of a genre, even if you aren’t particularly interested in them.

          • ynamite says:

            Right, for a start, RPG is a genre with a specific definition.

            And what is this specific definition you speak of? Not trying to be funny here, but afaik there isn’t a strict, specific, agreed upon definition. But I’m willing to learn ;)

            Also, by your definition what a “real” RPG is, it seems to me that F:NV fits that category perfectly well. Just because you think it’s not a “good” RPG does not make it a “non/fake” RPG either. Or am I missing something?

            With games, as with music, if you know a lot about the subject, you can identify what are good and bad examples of a genre, even if you aren’t particularly interested in them.

            I kind of disagree with that, as with your previous statement you’re dealing in absolute truths and things seldom are. I’ve been playing computer- and videogames since 1982. I’ve played table top games, fantasy books, you name it. I can confidently say I’ve played a LOAD of RPGs, big and small. Now I could tell you what I personally find to be a good RPG, but someone just as knowledgeable might still disagree with me, doesn’t mean that they’re wrong though.

  16. Anti-Skub says:

    On a scale of 1-10 how pleased with yourself were you when you thought of “deck deck the decking”?

  17. racccoon says:

    These devs are way to slow! its been uninstalled for ages, & its not coming back online for me.

  18. Someoldguy says:

    Well I pass the OS and Ram check. That’s good, right?

  19. montorsi says:

    Awesome. I’m with you Alice in that I feel like a lot of texture packs don’t understand some things need to look a certain way for thematic or design purposes (for example, ground textures aren’t meant to be stared at so please spare us your filters and sharpening on gravel).

    OTOH, I do really appreciate a lot of the work that’s done to spiff things up, especially from modders who go to great pains to ensure their work looks exactly right in the game world. Off the top of my head, some of the collectibles and consumables look significantly better with higher res textures. They help reduce the number of “was that texture borrowed from Fallout 3?” occurrences.

  20. iinRez says:

    So this is where the dev team has been pouring all of their time…….instead of, I dont know……..Going through the code to fix the random map location crash bug that prevents completion and has been plaguing countless players on all platforms since *before mods* even started rolling out. Beth’s really got to work on their priorities…..skeezy SoB’s.

    Here the fanboys come to save the day!!!

    • Premium User Badge

      subdog says:

      Yeah those Texture Artists really should have spent more time fixing crash bugs. How skeezy of those SoB’s!

  21. SaintAn says:

    A fresh shine for this massive turd.

  22. Kefren says:

    What’s the Fallout 4 inventory system like? I had to stop playing Skyrim because it was such a chore, is it better in FO4?

    • ynamite says:

      It’s almost identical to the one Fallout 3 used, a teeny bit better. I actually found Skyrims Vanilla UI better than Fallout 4s, even if the latter offered some more options for sorting etc. if I recall correctly.

      Meaning you’ll most likely hate it just as much ;)

      • Kefren says:

        Thanks Strangely, I didn’t mind the list thing in FO3 – probably because the interface was meant to be a list in a PipBoy. It made sense, and I had no alternative expectations (even FO1 and FO2 just used lists).

        But for Skyrim it just felt totally wrong, as well as being a waste of screen space. For fantasy games I want a drag-and-drop inventory, where I can clothe and equip the character (or feed/bandage them) by dragging items on to him/her/it: Morrowind, Might & Magic, Dungeon Master etc. (Maybe even STALKER). I play a lot of games and just found the Skyrim UI and controls to be abysmal when I tried playing it a few weeks ago. I don’t think an interface has ever annoyed me so much, and pushed me out of a game so quickly. Again, probably because it was such an opposite to my expectations and preferences.

  23. Niente says:

    Great news. Looks like I picked the right week to buy a new PC with a GTX 1080.

  24. Isendur says:

    But, but… HOW will they release Fallout 4 Special Edition in 4 years if they release the textures now? What were they thinking?! Bah!

  25. Digital Femdroid says:

    Bethesda’s Rich & Famous
    Fallout 4 High Resolution Texture Pack
    The D. Trump Version

    I would be thrilled to own a current High End Gaming Machine, but I don’t. Mine is 5 years old, and back then it was High End.

    The only piece of hardware that I’ve been able to upgrade to is this past Christmas 2016 when I got a Nvidia 1070 with 4GB GDDR5 VRAM.

    My Intel I7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz isn’t enough to meet the recommneded req’s as well is neither my 8 GB of memory. Too bad I don’t have a sweet supply of funds laying around somewhere so I could enjoy this upcoming Fallout 4 High Resolution Texture Pack.

    Maybe Bethesda gets a cut of profits when Intel and Nvidia sell High End components to those that can afford them so they can utilize this Fallout 4 Hi-Res Pack.

    I say grrrrrrrrrrr. Off with their heads!