Don't get me wrong- I'm not whining about anything or trying to stir up trouble. I was only trying to pose a question about the development of skyrim with regards to the current situation. Nothing wrong with a little intillectual discussion is there?

Right, because all companies that make PC exclusives have tiny teams and budgets. :rolleyes:

As for TES V not existing at all without consoles, this is ridiculous. The series was born on PCs and gained a pretty big fanbase on PCs before it even touched consoles. Maybe it would've gone in a slightly different direction after Daggerfall, however that could've been for the better.

First post, a friend recommended me, what i've noticed on forums is that people don't do any research or think carefully before posting in alot of cases (not all) for example someone said blizzard manage to make money on pc only games but what you're disregarding completely is skyrim is entirely different to WoW for example and WoW, starcraft etc do not require a high-end computer build to play especially when compared to what skyrim would, and another thing, (i'm using crysis 2 as an example) crysis 2 on PC is greater specs-wise than the console equivalent, take frame rate for example the frame-rate on PC can reach 200Hz or so whereas consoles are limited to 60hz in this case have consoles slowed development, no; which brings me to my next point the coding on PC and 360 is very similar for cross-platform games because they use the same high-level programming language the only differences being input (easily changed) and some of the output coding which is also easily changed as most is set up, on the other hand PS3 uses a different language however it is very similar and with a team working on it easily ported across and optimized as with each individual system, so quite frankly to say consoles slow development is stupid especially when more funding means more staff can be hired and more experienced staff at that, they also have more money to fund a new engine to be designed etc also bethesda unlike activation do not restrict the time limit on release as much, this means things such as the heap of crap that came with black ops won't happen with skyrim consoles or no console.


Another thing i had missed with regards to the OP bethesda themselves have said that it is much harder when working with a new system which is why they can do so much more with skyrim then they could with oblivion so in that sense we're more likely going to enjoy a more polished experience with skyrim on current systems than if it was on a new system, which is why there won't be as many bugs and glitches in skyrim as in oblivion, it's a common misconception that these were due to map size/ vastness of the game however despite this being a factor it isn't a large one, especially not as much so as being limited by your knowledge of the system, take for example that oblivion was released before bethesda got any real idea of what the system was capable of and it's limitations.

This. Even Todd said most people that play TES games are playing them on console.

no becuase bethesda wants everyone to play the game and believe it or not but people have crappy computers, and bethesda wants them to play

Around 90% in fact.

It's not always a huge obstacle to design for a new console judging from various developer interviews. It's more that some consoles such as the Saturn, N64 and PS3 were not developer friendly when compared to other machines that were designed to be easier to work with.

Such a sad, sad fact if true. All those people not experiencing Oblivion at its best... :confused:

I never really thought that consoles slowed development. I dont think skyrim uses all the console power as no game uses up the ps3 beyond addition. And not all of the game is rendered at once. So I think they've done what they could and to get more features beyond completely console capability would require more time.

This is true in some aspects but not others the main trouble is not being harder to work with themselves it's that the syntax is different to what you're used to which means preforming tasks alot less natural and therefore more difficult, it's generally regarded however that C++ (ps3's language) is alot messier/ more complicated than C# (xbox and pc language for skyrim) and so C# is regarded to be easier to work with, it amazes me the amount of people who think that games aren't written in code or believe that code is easy to write and they couldn't be more wrong especially when designing a game as large as skyrim.

Yes, I think they are. The PC is capable of so much more, but companies focus on consoles and so the PC cannot achieve its full potential.

Stating opinion with no facts to support it, well done.

Mods?


This "true potential" isn't that much really... The only real difference between an average mid-range PC and consoles is the RAM. At most they can show more things on the screen and it won't lag as much.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1185567-improved-pc-featuresinterface-blah-blah-blah/

All I can say, if it wasn't for consoles, I wouldn't be playing TES games anymore. Just like Morrowind, and Oblivion, I don't have the computer that would run to play the game. Just like now I don't have the specs to play Skyrim for the PC so it will be the 360 for me.

I don't think consoles are slowing down development at all. If companies wanted to make super spec required games for the PC they would. You can't blame the consoles for this at all. Alot of PC people love to blame the 360 for it but it is not true. Bethesda CHOOSE to use the 360 as it's back bone, They DIDN'T have to, but CHOOSE to, so it's not the consoles fault at all.

I just wish Skyrim was cosole exclusvie sometimes, because it gets a bit tiring the SOME PC players claim the consoles are at fault for some reason. If it wasn't for the consoles, there most likely would not even be an Oblivon or Skyrim at all.

No consoles are not to be blamed. How can you blame a console for slowing development down? It's the companies choice not to exceede the PC platform, it's not the consoles fault for companies making that choice.

:facepalm:

I meant mods. The extent to which they can improve Elder Scrolls games is unbelieveable at times.

It is the age old question, "Which came first the chicken or the egg? Consoles feed off of tech developed for PCs and PCs feed off of software developed for consoles. =p

That's because I don't need to use facts.. its pretty obvious that PC's are way more powerful than consoles.

I could waste my time with a 5 paragraph post on why and how they are more powerful but CBA because I'm about to go to bed...

His opinion was perfectly valid and didn't need facts to back it up. It's just common sense that if more developers pushed the boundaries with PC exclusives, that market would grow.

This is so true just remember consoles brought gaming to the masses gaming is no longer reserved for the elite in most cases without this wide audience we wouldn't see the wide plethora of games we have today, quite frankly if skyrim was PC only there wouldn't be such a wide community and it sure as hell wouldn't be as friendly as it is now look at the attitude of people on certain PC only community forums (consoles can be elitist too btw) i find in my experience that they can often be un-willing to help out newbies or the unexperienced often forgetting that everyone starts somewhere or valuing their own ego over the good of their community.

The chicken obviously, something had to lay the egg, while the chicken evolved from the long beaked winged killer ant.
And then it laid the egg.

How about we use and enjoy existing technology, push it and optimize it to the best of it's capabilities, and then worry about the next stuff when it's actually announced and released? Maybe I think this way because I started playing games in the 90's, and still enjoy playing some of those games today. It's always nice to think about what we'll be able to do in a few years, but we would never get anything done if we kept holding our projects back until the next best thing comes out, use what we have now, and make the best out of it, I say.

:user: / :brokencomputer:

WRONG! the egg came first because reptiles were around long before the species 'chicken' no where is that philosophical question does it specify it must be a chicken egg, lateral thinking win

I'm not sure why some people buy ridiculously expensive PC hardware and then expect the game industry to develop for them and the tiny minority of people that dumped so much money into PCs like they did. Buying preemptively is a horrible idea for PC hardware. If you like to do it that's fine, but don't expect the game development world to throw profits away by developing games that only run well on extremely expensive machines. Even a decade ago the most successful PC games were games that ran on a wider variety of machines such as Rollercoster Tycoon, Myst, and the Sims. That has not changed, looking at World of Warcraft being a smash hit while Everquest 2 a graphical powerhouse at the time barely competed at all. Limiting potential customers just to cater to a minority of PC enthusiasts isn't a smart thing to do. In my opinion the 5-7 year console cycle is perfect. In that time the average PC a PC gamer has gets better, allowing better looking PC games that can appeal to a larger market of PC users as the next console generation starts. The next console generation isn't going to be using the top of the line GTX 580s or whatever of today, but that's fine. They don't need to, and if they did they'd end up like the PS3 did for several years: profitless with small userbases.


I was talking more about architecture. The Saturn was designed to use quadrilaterals rather than triangles for its 3D geometry (and this explains a ton about Tomb Raider's design, originally a Saturn exclusive). I don't know why the N64 was a pain other than using cartridges but I've read it was. The PS3 has a relatively slow read speed from its BD-ROM drive and its SPEs in the Cell processor are supposedly a total nightmare to take advantage of. This is contrasting to the Xbox 360's single unit of RAM and general purpose three core design (and Nintendo's new machine rumored to follow with a processor with general purpose cores as well). Sony advertised the Cell processor a ton but in the end it probably hurt the PS3 having it rather than just using a stronger GPU and a multicore general purpose CPU. I'm no game developer, but this is the impression I get reading the various interviews.