Professional game revivers was impressed by the Skyrim video. Non of them complained.

Main reason for DX11 is probably the long life of elder scrolls games, people will still be playing it in 5 years even 10, also that they will use the new engine on multiple future games.

Please play Skyrim first before saying it's less of an open world game than the Witcher 2 is before you make such a bold assumption.

we don't need to compromise overall game quality for graphics, if you go out in the woods, take a picture of a leaf and use it in your game, you certainly wouldn't have much more work to make it a high resolution texture
some shaders aren't hard at all to implement, tessellation is kinda of automatic from what I know

[censored], people ask for spears, crossbows, werevultures, argue about mysticism's gone, with guards realising your're there because a feather dropped, war tatoos in the face... and graphics we can't make suggestions, even it being the main thing we see all the time?!

I want to play skyrim for all its rich content and sometimes, just contemplate the great views, with great graphics, sun glare, hdr, birds and life, to make it even more epic

Better to concentrate their work on quests, gameplay and design, graphic can be better done with mods, but right now Skyrim have nice improvements in compare with Oblivion in graphic.

Skyrims graphics are eye candy, is that not good enough?

I cannot recall how many times Ive read the smug "this" on these forums. The graphics to me look great but of course not everyone will like them. There could be improvements but hey, as long as it looks significantly better than Oblivion, I'm happy.

Others may not agree of course, so no use fighting over it like its a serious issue. Let him make his suggestions

In my opinion, Skyrim looks much better compared to Oblivion in terms of graphics. It looks stunning already.

However, if you're pushing for Crysis-like graphics you might as well have a look at this game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpdPWVfaBQs. Bear in mind though that even this game was linear.

On the whole, the opinions of many on this forum seem to share a few elements:

1) The game is perfect
2) Any accurasions of imperfection are invalid because the game isn't finished yet
3) Graphics are the devil

Topics like this go ridiculously badly. This is 2011, we have the technology to make truly awe-inspiring visuals and create a really memorable world. That we're not getting that is sad.

It's sad. Not dealbreaking. I can be sad about something without thinking it's the worst thing ever that it's not in. I'm not going to not buy the game because of it - but why does that make my opinion less valid? It seems to me that some people don't want to see any criticism at all, and to those people I suggest the schoolyard might be a better place to find it.

THIS THIS THIS!!!1 I mean in Battlefield its easy to make better graphics for maps that are combines 1/5 of Skyrims area

Oh... graphic [censored]s are sooooo annoying.

The game looks fine on Xbox 360 and it will look better on PC.
The game is huge, with tons of characters, spells, weapons, dialogs, etecetera.

This would be easy if TES was a linear game that you go from start to finish in 4 hours or so.

Yes. It's sad that it's almost impossible to have constructive criticism here because somebody will always feel like he has to defend Skyrim, no matter what.
Guys, don't forget we are all here because we love TES. We want it to be the best because it deserves to be the best.

On topic, I think that most graphics-related criticism comes from PC-gamers. In 2011, we expect to have better graphics on our new machines than on 5-6 year old consoles, but Beth hasn't thrown us a bone yet. Depending on what they want to add for the PC, one could say that PC gamers haven't seen a single screenshot of Skyrim yet. That's very, very frustrating!
That's why I'd like to see a tech demo of the Creation Engine next, and I hope Beth will reveal some info on how they plan to improve the PC version of Skyrim.

I think as long as they improve textures slightly they are fine.
I believe they should focus on quests and gameplay mechanics as these are what will keep me coming back to this game, graphics shouldn't be an afterthought but if they have a choice then graphics should be a low priority.

We've already seen an improvement in graphics from Oblivion, It's a given they will improve animation so in that respect I am happy with it.

I agree with the philosophy that if you accept mediocrity you will receive mediocrity, however there is also the idea of asking for too much.

Except it is not lacking, so what does that make the argument? The graphics looked great I thought considering polishing, adding hi-res PC textures, etc., is the last thing they will do before going gold. It isn't something they are worried about 8 months before the game is released.

Also realize this is also a console game, comparing Skyrim graphics to PC only games is apples to oranges. If the consoles weren't holding the game back I'd agree, maybe.

What does that have to do with anything?

Many of the effects skyrim is lacking are entirely GPU based, and contrary to popular opinion having more content doesn't mean [censored] to the GPU, it does its job and doesn't ask questions. It doesn't care if you have 18 different kinds of sword unless you ask it to render them. Similarly, it doesn't care how many towns there are, or people, or dungeons, or playtime, because you're asking it to render a scene and not a thing more. Yes, that the game has to fit all of its world-detail into a paltry 512mb of RAM is an issue, but that doesn't mean it couldn't look better. It might require better resource management than a closed off corridor shooter, for sure, but the moment we, as consumers, start telling developers "It's ok, you never have to make a single advancement, those who want that are just haters" you're selling out future-you.

Your opinions of the Witcher 2 are as subjective as those of Skyrim because you've never installed and played either of them. I've watched the same videos for W2 as you have and what I see is a game just like any other game. One that sacrifices details in one area of the game to provide better details in another. It's distant LOD is remarkably un-detailed especially for a PC only game as are the characters that all look alike. It's not a true open world the corridors are just bigger. Your giving the W2 way too much credit because it doesn't even come close to the level of detail in a Bethesda open world game. No game has...ever.



No that has not been confirmed.


Actually no, not as is it won't. It has to be reworked for each game and while they have it in pieces rewriting the core game play mechanics they will slightly alter and improve the other pieces before putting it back together.


There are 2 important factors at play here as well that no one ever considers.

1) The Creation Engine and it's predecessors are built around a modularity that allows user modification on a massive scale. No other engine has that distinction. None.
2) Bethesda tries to out do themselves (not others) with each game and given that we are in a stalemate position with the current console market if they go all the way to the top then that leaves them with no where to go after that.

For all intents and purposes Skyrim only needs to be moderately better than FO3 graphically in order for them to best themselves and from what I've seen Skyrim is light years beyond and yet they still have room to get even better on the current generation.

The only sad thing here is you acting like Skyrim is already a disappointment in terms of visuals. You see one trailer of an unfinished game and you already assume it will be disappointing?

I think you should hold off until you actually see the game in motion from the players POV before you call it a disappointment. You can't call a movie disappointing unless you've experienced it yourself. Same goes for people who are calling Skyrim perfect. Neither sides really have any validity yet.

Be that as it may, I think people prefer to see optimism over pessimism here. Why not? Why is is necessary to think so negatively about a game you've barley even seen yet? What are you expecting? TES V: Crysis Edition? So far, Skyrim looks to be a huge improvement over both Oblivion and Fallout 3 in terms of visuals. That's not good enough? :violin:

Skyrim looks more than good enough for me. The graphics don't really matter to me though. The fact that they look great is just a bonus.

The only thing that Skyrim graphics are actually missing is a new generation of consoles. I don't really think you can do much better than this for this type of game on the current generation of hardware. I think that the graphics are of a reasonably high standard, and considering that the game includes a fully developed toolset, all it takes is the addition of a couple of graphics enhancing mods for them to look really great.

The game is beautiful as is.

This.


Of course, I come from a viewpoint where, if something could ever be said to have "good graphics".... then it will always have "good graphics". Just because something better comes along, doesn't mean that everything before it suddenly becomes crap. (Example - I think Oblivion and FO3 are really pretty. On low-mid settings.)

Another one of these graphical threads (I swear they are all together and apart of a graphical clan or something and support cyrsis) as many people have stated in this thread already you expect the game to be like Crysis. Yes that game looks beyond amazing but it is a generic linear FPS shooter. Skyrim on the other hand looks amazing (running on xbox 360 as well) and is as well being in Alpha stage I am plenty chuffed with how it looks, TES to me is all about gameplay/story/quests first and graphics second, yes they are eye candy and Skyrim to me has plenty. We have another 7 odd months till this game comes out and it is also been stated that the game has Higher res textures on the PC version. I don't care about higher polys etc because if you look at it, it is a significant improvement which is to be expected. I am proud of bethesda's work and I can see it getting better in the months to come, if it looks like that and stays like that I for one am not complaining.

No, you appear to have misunderstood me. Skyrim isn't dissapointing, it's just less than it could be. It *is* possible to not think something is perfect without think it's bad, you realise?

Well, part of the disconnect is that many of us can look at the Skyrim trailer and graphics and think that, yes, it does look "truly awe-inspiring".

Not everyone has the same crazily high standards.



Kind of like in music - there are people who get a darn good stereo and can listen to music and think that it sounds great..... and then there are "serious audiophiles" with high-end turntables, custom speakers, incredibly expensive gold-wound wiring, and listen to classic vinyl and can only think "the audio quality on those three notes in verse two is terrible."

Seems kind of sad to live that way, honestly.

You are assuming it's less than it could be. Are you working at Bethesda? Do you know how to make a game as big as Skyrim and still have it look "as it could be" in your eyes?

Why would you assume that Bethesda isn't doing everything they can to get Skyrim looking as great as it can without sacrificing any gameplay elements or performance?

:confused: