That I will agree with whole heartedly. So far the art is great, reminds me of Morrowind. For instance, the weapon design is alot more crude and deadly looking less like fancy toys and more like tools of war, and those draugr look grim and gritty, not...slimy and HERP A DERPIN like the zombies in Oblivion.

While I haven't looked into the specifics, assuming CoP wasn't seriously dialed down from Shadow of Chernobyl, A-Life blows Radiant AI out of the water in that respect. RAI has schedules, A-Life makes them up on the fly. It's the driving force behind the unpredictability that makes STALKER such an excellent game - a group of hunters will leave to hunt animals not because they're told to, but because there are animals nearby. Why are there animals nearby? Not because they were spawned for hunters to hunt, but because they wandered in from wherever they used to be, probably in search of food. A-Life is what Radiant AI /wanted/ to be, before it was cut back for Oblivion. Not just AI schedules, but full simulation of all living creatures in the world, right down to non-local gunfights that aren't based on dice rolls.

This! While this game WAS only PC it still shows that the concept is one that CAN be done on current hardware. And I believe it could have been ported to the consoles in DX9 the developer simply didn't want to do it at the time (however STALKER 2 will be on consoles).

STALKER does not have the depth of TES. Also, Skyrim looks way better than RDR. Just my opinion of course.

Yes we are, that t-shirt looks a bit lumpy.

"Depth" is not computationally expensive. For all intents and purposes, the two are comparable.
Large, free-roaming world? Check. (While STALKER's world is split up into large chunks, lack of streaming loading is more of a design decision than a technical thing - both keep the world around you resident in memory, that's all that matters)
Character attributes? Check. (While STALKER does not feature levelling, specific details about your character are tracked seperately and can be enhanced with items)
Large array of items? Check. (STALKER with less clutter, but again, design decision - objects are still physically modeled. Being able to store an object reference in your inventory is not more resource intensive)
Many NPCs? Check. (STALKER goes way above and beyond Oblivion, in this case. Way. The two aren't even comparable sort of way. STALKER even computes animals in the background)

So why aren't the two comparable, then? Being able to level up is not a technically demanding feat.

It's good enough. Can't wait for it.

thats not quite right... hmm... how about this one

http://i515.photobucket.com/albums/t351/asdasdasd111223344/crysis_irl.jpg

It's the classic crysis vs real life picture he linked to ^^
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v502/Einhanderkiller/comparison018mx4df.jpg

Well, we're getting there. :celebration:

Amen!
I find most if not all of this ?the two are not comparable? talk just a defensive reflex.

Now I can see it. Before it said something about you taking someones bandwidth and not paying for it?

I copied the image webadress and apparently it was to something fishy for you two, when I tried to click the linky i provided the first time it worked fine for me *shrugs*

A dev stated not too long ago that they do in fact affect eachother. No defensive reflecting here.

I'm talking about the popular ?the two games are not comparable?.
Most if not all of the times, that's just a defensive reflex.

My bad. I thought you were talking about gameplay and graphics.

They do. But not to the extent some people seem to believe.

Wow, you are demanding - I think the graphics are awesome, and they are better than the average/good game out there.

Point is that some people argue that they don't affect each other at all.

Problem is that others believe they affect each other linearly - that better graphics make for a worse game.

It can. It's not always the case, but it can happen.

Lemme do my Graphics speech...*clears throat* The Game Itself IS NOT ABout Graphics, it's about gameplay! I could play ANY Game on Low and i would still be a avourite. The only thing I sometimes change in graphics is the texture quality, though that doesn't matter. Now Go! Before I call thy pepole who say "The Better The Graphics, The Better The Game" stupid. But the game is about it's feautures, It's gameplay. Not some graphics. Geez, soem pepole play games like Starcraft 1, though it is old and doesn't have "good" graphics compared to the ones now. I, Myself have a pretty weak computer, but I can still play thy newest games.

Nobody said graphics are more important than gameplay,the thread was about graphics and how they look.
And yes graphics do matter to some extent(but still gameplay>graphics),if there was a game where everyone and everything was a grey blob I'm sure you'd care about graphics.

Wrong on a general idea, maybe right on a personal idea (read below):

Skyrim could have as amazing gameplay as possible with tons of way to interact with the environment and tons of things to do, but it would almost definitely svck if it had 2D graphics or Mario-sounds or some cheap blockbuster lore.

If you think you'd enjoy Skyrim just as much with 8-bit graphics, Mario-sounds and some cheap blockbuster lore, just because of it's gameplay (which is what exactly? It's the combat, the jobs you can do, partly the quests, the leveling system, etc etc etc), then go ahead - YOU successfully think the game is about gameplay. If you can't honestly answer that question I just asked positively, then the game isn't about gameplay for YOU.

Also, you might want to consider what Bethesda thinks about their own game. If Bethesda thought graphics didn't matter at all for instance, they wouldn't have said that in their interviews. Nor would they have tried to graphically improve it since Oblivion. I personally think Bethesda knows more about what their games really are about than you do.

i'm not saying they're bad, just not up to other standards set by similar games. COD has huge detail, especially in the facial area