I like talking over steam bout' skyrim! Thats off-topic.

Anyways, yeah the differences are minor but distiguishable in half of the games. Stuff like Crysis2, Batman AC, and BF3 its very large.

But when it comes to mods and performance the differences are usually staggering in most games. I just can't stand 30 fps anymore, especially not with PS3's extreme stuttering on Skyrim.

http://skyrimnexus.com/downloads/images/225-1-1321332465.jpg
http://skyrimnexus.com/downloads/images/114-1-1321958164.jpg
http://skyrimnexus.com/downloads/images/114-3-1322009241.jpg
http://skyrimnexus.com/downloads/images/114-4-1322009242.jpg
http://skyrimnexus.com/downloads/images/114-3-1321719032.jpg




Tell me you see no difference, so I can recoommend a good eye doctor :celebration:




Before: http://skyrimnexus.com/downloads/images/329-3-1321455465.jpg

After: http://skyrimnexus.com/downloads/images/329-1-1321529331.jpg


It's obvious which version looks better and runs better. Lets not beat around the bush. That being said, yes both versions look great and have good art-style imo.

only a few thing in the pics have different textures.....minor difference lol

clearly and its obvious theres more than just the post process injector going on in the better pic. the mod took me from looking pretty good to really crappy. and thats all four presets. now if you have settings that sharpen the image and keep the original skyrim color scheme which looks amazing id go for it. other than that if i wanted skyrim to look like fable 2 id use preset 1.

the first pic is not a minor difference, and when you add them all up, + all the other stuff I listed, it actually ends up looking more than just "minor".

Again, its not a huge gap, but its certainly something one can easily notice. This is more true in motion, as one version stutters and another runs flawlessly.





Its your choice really. Either way it looks better w/ or w/out these texture mods.

Try looking at the FXAA on the nexus the guy linked. If you read it you will understand it has nothing to do with textures, it has to do with post processing effects. It is a simple fact you can get the game to run much better and look much smoother on a PC.

And the FXAA alone is a drastic difference, not to mention when the creation kit comes out and people have had 6 months to work on actual textures.

End of the day you can run the game with effects the PS3 or Xbox cant do at more than double the frame rate.

Some people cant tell the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS and some can. Hell my grandpa cant tell what the big deal with HD TV is say it looks the same...so I can understand why some people think there is little or no difference.

Of COURSE it's not as good as a PC. Duh. Ok, I"m not familiar with the specs for the PS3 but I am for the XBox360 and I assume they're fairly comparable. Any reasonably modern PC for which gaming was a consideration when it was being built better run circles around an XBox and thus I suspect a PS3 as well. For example, as I recall the XBox has 512 MB memory total for both CPUs and graphics. It's also firmly stuck in DirectX9, which was the latest thing when it was released but not now.

By modern PC standards, those consoles are pieces of junk. The fact that they do as well as they do is a testiment to some hard work by game programmers to cram modern games into them.

So I am not surprised at all that a PC can show better graphics then a console. I'd be disappointed if it didn't. So what? That PC also cost a LOT more then the console too.

Meanwhile the consoles do just fine. Even if the graphics isn't quite as good, it's still pretty freaking good considering what it's running on. If I never needed a computer for non-gaming activities I'd probably be playing on a console too.

P.S. It looks like the basic XBox is $200. For a gaming PC just the CPU chip by itself probably cost more then that.

Preset 1 is the best IMO (Preset 4 is too yellow).

Believe me, I don't feel like the colors are popping out and making the game over-saturated or that someone took a Crayola box to my screen.

Might as well give it a try. Just delete the files if you don't like it. You can enable/disable it in-game to give you an idea of vanilla vs. enhanced. Not only does it give some clarity to the washed out colors, but when the textures are sharpened it doesn't feel too unnatural and really brings the details out of them, especially at a distance.

Also, if you wanted to get a little more technical about it, you can change the values on your own (add desired sharpness but no color).

Why do people get all offended that the game looks prettier on a PC? The 360 is 6 years old, and the PS3 isn't far behind. The game doesn't look bad on consoles, it just looks better with what you can do on a PC. And this is coming from someone playing Skyrim on 360.

Looking at the graphics from a technical standpoint Skyrim is no better then Fallout 3 or Oblivion at all. DX11 features would have blown Skyrim today out of the water on any platform now. Sadly the chance of DX11 patch arriving from beth let alone a mod is slim to none. Graphics of Skyrim overall look the same as Fallout 3 from faces to armor to environments are very comparable.

With that said they are decent and excellent on PS3 and 360 with their ancient hardware (with many expenses) but overall they are mediocre especially with the technology we have today.

Needs more bloom. If I don't get burned retinas every time I step outside they're not doing it right.

I love nonsense comments like this one.

The Xbox 360 is ancient, it wasn't always $200. If I wanted to build a PC to run this game on medium and at 720p you can bet your [censored] I wouldn't need $2,000.

You barely need $800 to max it if you shop correctly. Until heavy mods that is.

Bad or not, it lacks atmosphere and that's just as bad.

Indeed, but even $800 would be spending a lot to play this on med and at 720p unless you're including a nice monitor and kb/m setup.

You most likely were aware of that when you mentioned it though. I just thought I'd throw it out there for people who seem to forget PCs can connect to TVs and even use a game pad, because in arguments like this console users seem to assume we have to include a ￡500 monitor in the price but they get their 60" plasma for free because "they already have a TV".

I could probably build a system that would play this game at console-level visuals for about ￡200-300. That's dearer than an Xbox 360 at current prices, but it'll do a lot more than one too, and it'd probably still manage to run the game at 1080p just because VRAM is not a problem like it is on consoles.

6 pages of PC gamers claiming that their graphics and infinitely superior to consoles, and only one person has posted a PC shot of the OP's picture. Instead, all of you are posting completely unrelated pictures that do nothing to prove that the PC version looks better. Seriously, take a picture in the same location as the original picture, without any mods, and post it in the topic. It isn't that hard, just press F12 (or whatever the Steam snapshot key is).

The game doesn't look that much better on PC, and the game lacks dynamic shadows on many objects, causing the world to look somewhat flat.

Its very good looking on console too.
On my Xbox 360 it looks as High settings on PC. I have it for PC as well and have compared.
Only shadows and some distance drawing is worse, the rest is very good.
Also I dont have the texture bug some have on the xbox.

Beyond a certain point, graphics aren't important. The graphics on Skyrim are great on any platform. Anyone who says otherwise is just a graphics [censored] and cares nothing about the gameplay.

Are u using a n old tv?
Like most games these days,Skyrim is geard for HD Tv's,so it can look a bit crappy when on an old tv-screen.

Theres no reason to lie, I didn't see such claims for 6 pages. We just said Skyrim looks better, not infintley superior, which is true.

Then I linked some texture mods that make it look better by an even more noticeable amount.

Some similar screenshots:

Ultra (stock):

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4750/screenshot20082.png

Ultra (FXAA injector mod):

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/5275/screenshot20030.png

Ultra (stock):

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/172/screenshot17922.png

Ultra (FXAA injector mod):

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4373/screenshot17984.png

Ultra (stock):

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2052/screenshot19090.png

Ultra (FXAA injector mod):

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9458/screenshot19039.png

Ultra (stock):

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/3188/screenshot19334.png

Ultra (FXAA injector mod):

http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/9016/screenshot19398.png

Ultra (stock):

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/6739/screenshot20970.png

Ultra (FXAA injector mod):

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/5618/screenshot21047.png

Ultra (stock):

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/715/screenshot22991.png

Ultra (FXAA injector mod):

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/3038/screenshot22935.png

Ultra (FXAA injector mod):

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4007/screenshot13765.png
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/8567/screenshot14544.png
http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/668/screenshot5051.png
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/1595/screenshot5401.png
http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/3217/screenshot5688.png

Doesn't the ps3 render this game at 720p? OP's shot is 1600x900, or am I thinkin wrong.

WTFPWWWWWWND

PC doesn't look better at all looking at those PC screens provided by the others.. Maybe even worse.

This. For an aging console, the graphics look fantastic on the Xbox 360. i`d rate Skyrim`s visuals as better than nice looking games like Two Worlds 2 on the 360.