anolysis, what Skyrim's Graphics are actually missing : V - Skyrim

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:33 pm

Eight months before release. Knock it off.

I don't think that.
The graphics are already great for a console. I think it will be like that except in PC, and I don't doubt they took away some reflections for performance, in Oblivion, we had to edit the ini to get access to some reflections in the PC version (tree, stones, creatures), why would people think consoles would have perfect or most reflections?

I'm 95% sure higher textures will be in the PC version. I just pointed it out.

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:25 am

DX11. PLEAAAAAAAAAAASE

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:31 pm

Honestly, Oblivion's graphics never once broke the immersion for me. There are a million other little things that could be added to this game in the time that would be wasted trying to make it look like Crysis.

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:47 pm

Why do this? Because the graphics are one of the only things we know about the game. As if that Battlefield 3 thread doesn't make Bethesda feel bad enough, here's some side http://ca.kotaku.com/5774861/epic-says-this-is-what-next+gen-should-look-like/gallery/

Anyway. What's really wrong with Skyrim's engine right now is two things.

A. Materials
Skin, metal, leaves, cloth, etc. These things move and reflect light differently. Modern games http://www.arena.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/MF_Lineup_Heavy.jpg, http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/engines/1/1/94/thumb_620x2000/Subsurface_Scattering.jpg, http://lostmoya.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/crysis-screenshot-3.jpg, http://unigine.com/devlog/080816-water.jpg, http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a131/aznpxdd/crysis642008-05-0114-48-55-14.jpg, and even http://vimeo.com/4304024 all look way better than what Skyrim has managed.

B. Lighting
Shadows woo! Except almost every major games since 2008 has had shadows. Since then games have added the ability to have http://vimeo.com/20088266, http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/18/17030/SSAO.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqeXuO2AlEE, and much better http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/ati/5970/Shadows.jpg. None of which, again, Skyrim appears to match.

Gameplay is more important, no one has to point that out. But that doesn't mean you can't have nice graphics either, it's not a mutually exclusive thing here.

Listen to people and please try and understand. DIFFERENT GAMES ENTIRELY

Think of the work involved in TES games. THINK!!!

Also those links are from a trailer hahaha. Also half the examples you provided don't look better than Skyrim, the snow in crysis and your water example look kack.

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:58 am

Listen to people and please try and understand. DIFFERENT GAMES ENTIRELY

Think of the work involved in TES games. THINK!!!

Aye lad....spot on :thumbsup:

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:32 pm

Lol, it really is never enough.

How many modern games contain the general depth of TES? Not linear, single-player ones. Name a non-linear RPG that has better graphics than Skyrim at the moment. I'm genuinely curious.
Not to sound like a jerk or anything, but I just can't see why everyone is complaining about the graphics based off of a two-minute trailer.

I think it's deeply unfair that Skyrim has worse graphic than the Avatar movie, it was also computer graphic and was released two year earlier. :bolt:

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:47 pm

Tessellation is really nothing but glorified LOD, also there is no way you could even tell that from the video, that has to do with preformance, not necessarily graphics

Dude! the difference between hardware tessellation and not, is poly count on screen can potentially be orders of magnitudes greater and rendered on the GFX card and cheaply for what it is. It's like the difference of N64 poly count and oblivion poly counts. LOD is a huge bonus. You make it sound like tessellation isn't THE [censored] or something. Once you have run a tech demo of it I don't know how you can go back to seeing polygonal silhouette ever again or cheap parallax shaders as a total substitute

While I am all for discussing skyrims graphics, and being honest about the level of detail it actually has, shaders, polycounts, texture resolutions, + modern graphics features and all that jazz, I don't think holding a picture of Crysis up is very smart, it's just not realistic to think that can ever be the case. It just makes me groan when I see an image of a crysis head in all it's glory in its fancy over the top renderer, and even for a second get your hopes up.

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 11:55 am

The people who compare Skyrim's graphics to other games spend more time on Skyrim's forums doing this than playing the aforementioned "AMAZINGLY GRAPHICAL!!!!!111" other games. Interesting.

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:25 pm

And you are basing these observations off of what exactly? A few magazine screenshots (which are never good) and a two minute trailer? Seriously. The game is still in development and months away release. Give this [censored] a rest already.

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:38 pm

I would gladly pay 40 bucks more if Skyrim had Crysis graphics, but wouldn't pay 10$ bucks more for crysis.
Graphics adds to the immersion, feel like a real world, and I want to be in Tamriel.

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:11 pm

Sure is people jumping on others opinions in here.

Honestly, just because the game looks "OMG EPIC AMAZING AWESOMESAUCE" to you doesn't mean it looks the same to everyone else. And likewise, just because someone doesn't like how it looks doesn't mean that you should try to force your opinion down their throats and say that they're wrong for thinking that when they're not. It's all a matter of opinion.

If you have a problem with their opinion, state it in a constructive manner, not "WELL, HERE'S WHAT I THINK, AND WHAT YOU THINK IS STUPID!!!" like everyone on here almost seems to be doing in response.

As for my opinion on the graphics, for consoles, it doesn't look bad, but could be better. For PC, all I can say is it sure is nice to be stuck in 2005... :rolleyes:

Also, just because the games we're comparing to Skyrim are different doesn't mean that the graphics have to be different. It's all dependent on the engine and renderer, not what type of game it is.

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:22 pm

I still belive that people who complain about graphics just want to show-off with their expensive graphic card...

I mean, what other game is there with DX11? That comes out this year? And it's not BF3 or Crysis 2?

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 11:13 am

I would gladly pay 40 bucks more if Skyrim had Crysis graphics, but wouldn't pay 10$ bucks more for crysis.

Straight up. :icecream:

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:15 pm

Sure is people jumping on others opinions in here.

Honestly, just because the game looks "OMG EPIC AMAZING AWESOMESAUCE" to you doesn't mean it looks the same to everyone else. And likewise, just because someone doesn't like how it looks doesn't mean that you should try to force your opinion down their throats and say that they're wrong for thinking that when they're not. It's all a matter of opinion.

If you have a problem with their opinion, state it in a constructive manner, not "WELL, HERE'S WHAT I THINK, AND WHAT YOU THINK IS STUPID!!!" like everyone on here almost seems to be doing in response.

As for my opinion on the graphics, for consoles, it doesn't look bad, but could be better. For PC, all I can say is it sure is nice to be stuck in 2005... :rolleyes:

Also, just because the games we're comparing to Skyrim are different doesn't mean that the graphics have to be different. It's all dependent on the engine and renderer, not what type of game it is.

This, mostly. :thumbsup:

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:32 pm

As someone said earlier, name one game that has the amount of depth that TES has AND has great graphics.

I'm curious if someone can answer this.

The Witcher 2. Graphics are gorgeous, story has almost too much depth to it, and not to mention it's more open world than Skyrim is and only has 4 loading screens in THE ENTIRE GAME.

And with how scalable the engine is, I wouldn't be surprised if the future console ports of it look the same as the current screens of it.

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:26 pm

Is it just me or are the same topics being repeated over and over again and virtually no new arguments are being mentioned?

So...whats the point?

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:31 pm

Is it just me or are the same topics being repeated over and over again and virtually no new arguments are being mentioned?

So...whats the point?

There's five housing threads currently active. I feel ya man.

And to the person that mentioned the Witcher 2. Let's wait for he game to release and see the performance and reviews and then see if it becomes legendary or just merely average.

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:10 pm

not to mention it's more open world than Skyrim is

Really? The first wasn't. Do you mean to say they have taken of the path way/corridor approach of the first one. You could exactly run into a river the first.

2005 games = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_in_video_gaming

Don't see the comparison with Skyrim myself

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:02 pm

Is it just me or are the same topics being repeated over and over again and virtually no new arguments are being mentioned?

So...whats the point?

I concur. Same topics, followed by the same answers. If it's something slightly positive about Skyrim, people chime in with extreme gratitude, happiness, and excitement. If it's something slightly negative, people chime in with extreme hostility.

The Skyrim Forums. Where we take things to the EXTREME!!! :spotted owl: :tongue:

@Average Lord, yes. They did away with the "checkpoint" and the corridor system of the last game. And as for the 2005, I was talking about the fact that the PC has had visuals like Skyrim since around 2005. So while the current screens of Skyrim may look good on the console, they look extremely dated for the PC. And knowing Bethesda's track record, they aren't exactly going to improve the graphics that much on the PC version from what we're seeing here. The textures may be a bit more "crisp", and we may be able to play at a resolution of higher than 1280x720, and we may be able to mess with AA, but that's it. Nothing else.

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:02 pm

Yeah... your forget that Skyrim is a fullworld running at once where EVERY SINGLE npc has a schedule and very exact detail in what to do. Not to mention each creature and all the other dynamic things. Most large world games that use the most advanced lighting like AC:Brotherhood, randomly generate NPC's that have no real meaning and really are basically there to fill space. They have like 2 dialog lines, and their only AI is to mill about, or run if theres a fight... They are all very shallow and none are as detailed as each one in Skyrim. So...yeah.

» Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:11 am

I can't believe anyone is complaining. They still have eight or nine months of development to complete before release. Calm yourselves.

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 11:46 pm

Yeah... your forget that Skyrim is a fullworld running at once where EVERY SINGLE npc has a schedule and very exact detail in what to do. Not to mention each creature and all the other dynamic things. Most large world games that use the most advanced lighting like AC:Brotherhood, randomly generate NPC's that have no real meaning and really are basically there to fill space. They have like 2 dialog lines, and their only AI is to mill about, or run if theres a fight... They are all very shallow and none are as detailed as each one in Skyrim. So...yeah.

No. I remember. And in fact, going back to The Witcher 2, it has all of those things. Advanced AI, intuitive combat, and everything is immensely detailed.

Also, Skyrim will have NPCs whose primary purpose is to "mill about" as you put it. Think of Skyrim's NPC system to be a lot like Fallout 3's. The only NPCs that you will engage in conversation with are ones that are deemed "important" and not everyone off the street.

» Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:27 pm

I can't believe anyone is complaining. They still have eight or nine months of development to complete before release. Calm yourselves.

Releases in eight but they realistically only have about seven months of dev time left since they have to bug test and ship for a worldwide simultaneous release.

» Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:15 am

Releases in eight but they realistically only have about seven months of dev time left since they have to bug test and ship for a worldwide simultaneous release.

More like 5-6 months of Dev time.

» Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:11 am

More like 5-6 months of Dev time.

This.