I see your point, but I never used any mods for Oblivion or Morrowind at release and I intend to do the same with Skyrim... I like games as vanilla, though I wish Skyrim is going to have dx11.

If it doesnt support though, I guess I'll give the modders a fair chance.

no the nvidia 200 series only supports dx10

Boo-hoo, that hasn't prevented other (lesser) Devs from including it in their PC releases; DX modes aren't mutually exclusive, one engine can support DX9-DX11, no problem, as many already do (heck, the Xray 1.6 engine supports DX8-DX11).
Cryengine 3 has DX11 support, but it still uses DX9 on consoles. Restricting one group of people to no benefit for another isn't an equitable solution, but a spectacularly poor one, particularly as Bethesda have invested the time and money into making an inhouse engine, to think that it would only support the tailend of technology which is, realistically, ~6 years old is to presume that Bethesda are just terrible at business.

Which they demonstrably aren't.

So no DX11 for them. Hope this helps.
I don't believe new engine will be limited only for Skyrim, next generation of games can also use it in future.
Having engine with large potential built-in for future plans and cannot capable to be correspond today's technology looks strange do you think?

if they are putting in decent weather this time, i want my volumetric fog, that doesn't clip through terrain.

The difference is, Crytek wants to license their engine to other companies. Pushing the graphical limits of each respected system is the whole selling point. Beth isn't looking to do either. As Todd stated, the game will be equal across all platforms. They do deep RPGs with lots of detailed gameplay, not the other way around.

Now cheer up, laddie. Dry those delicious tears.

Except as they've shown in the past, bethesda rather like recycling their engines, and not writing a new one to take advantage of current technology, and stay 6 years ago? Well, they may as well stick with their old one if they're writing something using the same resources for the same end. I wonder what you'll be saying in 3 years time when we're still playing games that could have been done in 2005.

Like vanilla oblivion, how we can miss thats awesome features like a nice big GUI, excellent leveling system, better hotkeys, large magnificent cities, even NPC was so unique not like before.

Still crying without mods? Skyrim will have some sweet achievements for you.

11-11-11.. DX11... Of course it will be included. They'll always be using the latest tech, even if they're making the game for old consoles - DirectX is backwards-compatible.

Same thing I say when I play great games for the NDS and Wii.

Wildeyes: "Gee, this is a fun game! I'm glad developers are focusing on creativity rather than being forced to reuse the same tired gameplay - primarily because they have no choice but to focus all of their limited resources on keeping up with something trivial and fleeting like the latest tech."

Yah, something like that. oo:


Agreed. It twas a huge step up from Morrowind. Well, the NPCs weren't quite up to their E3 promises. But that's about it. :twirl:



Whatcha talking 'bout Willis? I'm playing on the PC.

I'd love to find out which inside source allows you to predict Bethesda's business strategy for the next few years... particularly with the recent release of New Vegas, where they licensed an IP out. Considering Bethesda didn't actually own Gamebryo, you can't exactly tell what their plans are when this is the first time we've seen an engine from them since they've become such a sizeable company. I'm going to point out, for the thousandth time, that artists and graphical programmers are not the staff who will be working on gameplay. People (with that elitist, non-compromising 'GAMEPLAY> GRAPHICS' chant, as though they believe themselves revolutionary polemicists) still somehow seem to be under the delusion that the videogame industry is the perfect model of labour mobility, when in actual fact it is much more so engaged in the division of labour, as is the case with almost every modern business.

You can quite easily have both gameplay and graphics, the most potent argument for which would be that the best looking games often end up being fantastically well designed also. Honestly, it's as though people are still reeling from the 'shock' that Doom 3 wasn't quite up to scratch. Morrowind was touted as gorgeous before its launch, might I remind you, and so was Oblivion. ( Crysis was also an exceptionally good FPS, you might wish to note.)

I'm going to point out, also, in no malice, that in your second sentence you would wish to substitute 'respected' for 'respective', and in your final sentence, you ought remove the final phrase 'not the other way around', as in context it sounds as though you mean that 'Bethesda make detailed RPGs full of deep gameplay'. Rather than that Bethesda make games which are exclusively (read= their unique/ singular notable feature would be that they are) complex.
Which is, to anybody who has played Morrowind, quite untrue.

Ok. Ok. You guys can have your DX11. :goodjob:


oh...



Has it really come down to this? Are we going to insult parents next? Please refrain from petty flaming. Are you saying the PC, PS3 and 360 aren't respected platforms which have proven their worth in this exceptionally long generation cycle? Because that's exactly what I was going for. As for 'not the other way around', I'm obviously referencing Crytek. It's not a single sentence. Context applies to the paragraph. Now quit the pettiness or dear Freddo will have to close this poor thread. How selfish of you.

If we go by this logic, then consoles would be holding us back for a very, very long time. Its just a fact of the technology, they are 6 year old architectures. They are old. They are aging. They definitely do not look as good as a top of the line PC. Console players accepted that when they bought their consoles. Its a trade off between usability and performance, and they chose usability.

If it came to a contest between gameplay and graphics, I'd agree with you - but it doesn't, game design and graphics programming are completely separate areas, one does not detract from the other. If we can have highly detailed environments, fog that doesn't clip horribly with everything, and decent damage effects, with no downside - why wouldn't you want that?

I know. It svcks, but the industry just can't keep up with the latest tech. It's too expensive. I want amazing graphics too, but I have to be realistic.

Here's a great article on this very thing:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-01-19-thq-new-consoles-would-be-horrible



Whoa, that sounds awesome!

oh- i should add this to my op because its true

'in no malice'?

And what on Earth did anything I said have to do with parents, it was just a small correction, not an insult, no need to go all hyper defensive on me; I was just pointing out some clear idiomatic errors which made your post read poorly. Transparent, posthumous alteration (read: retconning) is hardly mature now is it? Neither, really, is trying to be patronising ('Now cheer up, laddie.')

To think I've resisted the urge to legitimately flame you so well throughout my post, only to be accused of it just because your entire populist 'argument' has fallen flat on its face, and you need to pick on the most innocuous, passing comment which I made to try and regain some ego. I don't think you retain the right to call me 'selfish' in such a puerile manner without any hint of hypocrisy.

Apology accepted.

As far as I'm concerned, the original failures of the xbox 360 and PS3 (and they did fail, badly. The Wii is still winning by a large, large margin) to make profits are holding the majoriy of the game market back, because those companies will refuse to make new consoles until they finally make a good enough profit on these. Just look at what one step lower in graphical power ( the Wii), ends up with. Barely any games, because developers don't want to touch such a weak machine.

The hard truth is that consoles ARE old, and the ARE holding back graphical development within the market. We're just going to have to wait for PC gaming to explode (and I can easily see that happening, thanks to business models like Steam which are already WIDELY successful) or for the next generation of consoles to finally come out, and then the process repeats.

I think its important to note that PC gaming has never died, and it has never crashed as a market. It is a very stable market and also one that is very exploitable if you have a good business model. Some of the best selling games of all time, like World of Warcraft and Starcraft 2, are PC exclusives (well, and Mac). You can't look at me with a straight face and claim this market isn't profitable.

Excellent points all around. :goodjob: I agree with everything you've just said.

LOL! Best argment! :lmao:

Skyrim must have DX11 support!

:ahhh:

I think this will not happen until a new draconian DRM becomes standard

I sure hope so, as Bethesda will propably be using this engine for the next decade :lmao:

Ah. So that's why Battlefield Bad Company 2 can use DX11 on the PC, while using DX9 and OpenGL on the Xbox 360 and PS3 respectively.

And an even lesser example. Just Cause 2 using DX10 on the PC, while using DX9 and OpenGL on... you get the point.

Also, Faulgor's response hits home as well. :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, I don't see Bethesda leaving DX9 behind until the consoles do as well. So I'd expect all of Bethesda's future games to not use it until the Xbox 720 and the PS4 are capable of using it. And seeing as their not like Valve with their mastery of DX9, I really don't expect much graphically wise for Fallout 4 if it's releasing this current generation.

I would love to see dx11 support for skyrim. :wavey: