Now I have been playing the TES series on the PC since TES 1 Arena and up to Oblivion never had to worry about system requirements so I was wondering how Skyrim would look on my 3 year old PS3 since my gaming PC is now getting a bit long in the tooth. Now I know from experience that dedicated console games generally look better than their multi-platform counterparts simply because the developers have put all their eggs into the one basket and used the consoles full capabilities without having to worry about anything else. Recently I have bought games like Killzone 3 and Uncharted 2 which are PS3 exclusive games and both look fantastic on my 52 inch Sony Bravia screen.

Now last week I decided to go and get Crysis 2 for my PS3 since I was such a big fan of the first one on my PC, all I can say is Wow! Now I know that Crysis 2 and Skyrim are completely different games and use completely different engines (Cryengine 3 compared to Creation) however I am pretty sure that some of the middleware and effects that are used in Crysis 2 will also be used in Skyrim. For example, Bethesda have stated that Skyrim will use full dynamic lighting and shadows, well Crysis 2 uses these to perfection! The way the light filters through the tree's looks fantastic, not to mention the shadows that play about, often I have stood staring in Crysis 2 at the surroundings! Next, Bethesda have mentioned that the trees and plants will move independantly and sway in a realistic motion, well the same thing is true in Crysis 2! It is really quite amazing how just a seemingly small detail can really set up a scene or a landscape, it is often these trees and the light effects that have stopped me in my tracks and caused me to die because I am too busy looking instead of shooting (I have found cloak very useful in these situations)

Crysis 2 upscales to 1080p and really does look impressive, not really sure how they managed to get a multi-platform game to run so well on the PS3 OR look so damn impressive but this all gives me hope for Skyrim, if Crytek can do it there is no reason that Bethesda's team of 100 can't follow suit especially since they have alot more experience with PS3 and Xbox games now. Yes I will probably get Skyrim GOTY on my G73 gaming laptop I am getting in the near future but still playing in 52 inchs with surround sound is a blast too.

(please no PC gamer flaming I play both)

Crysis 2 destroys my hopes for PC gaming...

The lighting of all Crysis games is fantastic. I love Bethesda and they do so much great in their games that no other company ever could even think of doing. TES and Fallout gives me hope of a really atmospheric, "deep", free, detailed and expansive world with things like no other game ever have had.

But the way they do lighting is really bad in my honest opinion. It's not beautiful nor stunning or realistic, unlike Crysis's lighting. Crysis 1 and 2 gives me hope of there being almost completely realistic or stunning lighting in a video-game.
http://www.gossipgamers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/reallifecrysis-2.jpg
http://www.theoldbreed.com/imagehosting/68495b11b78f360.jpg

Couldn't help yourself could you? :facepalm:

Your just dissapointed that a PC only game like Crysis2 is running well and is available on all 3 systems, I used to be like you once apon a time, wanting games to be PC exclusive and if they wern't thinking that companies like Crytek have turned evil! Learn to accept that Crysis 2 looks great on all systems and according to numerous reviews, still looks sharper on the PC even though it looks good on all 3 so don't complain too much. If you play through to the end you will find you will stop and stare numerous times especially if you are playing on a big full-hd TV. It amuses me now how PC exclusive gamers think that if the game is released on all the platforms it just HAS to be dumbed down in some way, either gameplay wise or graphics wise, after-all arn't all console gamers 12 year old kids who don't care about graphics? :banghead:

No reason Skyrim can't do this too heck Oblivion still stops me in my tracks some times!

Personally, my opinion of the game is that it's both incredibly pretty, and incredibly well optimised. It's a clear step above the original in terms of graphics.

Gameplay-wise, though? Eugh. Now, I'm not going to blame consoles, because frankly that'd be saying that I think all console gamers are morons who couldn't see any tactic other than "run at the guys holding fire". There are certainly areas that have fallen that can be directly blamed on consoles - or rather, controllers - namely the lack of a lean that actually works and the complete removal of prone, and the overwhelming linearity could certainly find its reason there, but I find it hard to blame the basic gameplay on consoles. Unlike some of my fellow PC gamers I don't think console gamers are subhuman - which you'd pretty much have to think to blame most of C2's failings on consoles.

In any case, CryEngine3 makes use of a lot of very fancy technologies. A shadow is not just a shadow, there are a lot of different ways of producing "a shadow". And, of course, fancy graphics are what crytek does. It's their *thing*. They attract the best graphics programmers in the industry because their work is so well known, from far cry onwards. I certainly don't expect bethesda to be able to come close to the sheer level of optimisation CE3 went through.

I would recommend playing C2 on PC, though, graphically it beats the first one, and it runs better too. Even the lowest settings are higher than console settings - and almost any decent machine can run them, so it's worth playing for visuals alone.

Some of he worst gaming experiences I've ever had were on the PC. Playing a shooter against someone who plays for five hours a day on their 3000$ computer cracking quickscopes and 180 headshots? How is that fun by any means? If I want to play a singleplayer First person game I'll use my pc, but multiplayer is far superior on a console as an overall experience.

I got Crysis 2 today from my friend. If you want Skyrim to have graphs from Crysis 2... I can go kill myself. Well atleast Skyrim has mroe GRAPHICS OPTIONS than CRYSIS.

Yeah, nothing like having the game aim for you because of controller limitations and low frames per second. LMAO hard coded auto-aim, huge hitboxes, and magnetic-aim in every MP game.

Once you get good with kb/m(which you obviously didn't try), it's way way more competitive and superior as its all your skill and no aim assist.

Also, $3000 pc? This myth is getting out of hand. I may as well say xbox/ps3 require a $5000 1080p-3D-HDTV.(sadly the most console games don't even render over a lowly 720p, money down the drain)

This. The online community for multilayer games is terrible overall.

Hear hear. Now, I would go into the various reasons as to why I think Crysis 2 is a disappointing game for the PC besides it offering the prettiest looks that only DX9 can afford (which even there it fails in some aspects), but that's a whole new topic all together.

As for this topic, while I think the lighting and other graphical features in Crysis are absolutely stunning, something tells me it just wouldn't fit the atmosphere of an Elder Scrolls game. Crysis strives for realism, while most Elder Scrolls games are usually made with a nice mix of realism and fantasy. I believe the devs should just continue on their current path and, instead of striving for MAXIMUM REALISM, should strive for something unique. Something that sets Skyrim apart from other games, yet has it stand out and possibly over them.

If you're talking about how the devs should just ditch their current middleware and use Crytek's, then I hope you don't mind the game being delayed another year or so while they revert off of all the hard work they did over the past 5 years re-writing nearly everything for the Creation Engine.

And besides, if you're getting it for PC and want it to look more like Crysis/Crysis 2, then you can just mod it that way. I'm quite certain that Skyrim having DX11 support, no matter how limited it is, will open all kinds of possibilities for graphical mods.

You make very good points :thumbsup:
It's kind of strange Crysis 2 only has DX 9, but I guess Crytek have their reasons. They know a thousand times more about economy, running a big company and how to make graphics and games than we do.

Whether Crysis 2's lighting would fit for Skyrim, I say this: Of course TES should have a unique lighting. It's Tamriel, not Earth. BUT, the core of how lighting works should still be like Crysis's. To enhance a certain tone or feeling fitting for a region (like Skyrim) is best done by colour gradings and such. How lighting works (where it's supposed to be bright and where it's not supposed to be bright, how brigh etc...) should be the same. Skyrim is low-fantasy. The sun is still acting like a sun. And how that reacts to objects should still be the same. But as I said, the tone and atmosphere should be much more different through colour grading and such.

I'm glad Bethesda is doing their own engine. It's something to be proud of. It's definitely not perfect (you can see that from how lighting works imo...), but it's a really good start. No engine is perfect from the start, and it will be interesting to see how future BGS games turn out with it. It will be interesting to see the Creation Engine improve bit by bit. Cryengine 3 is really good, but if you look at some other games which use it as well, they definitely don't look as stunning as Crysis 1 and 2. So I believe that a lot depends on how you use the engine and it features, even though the engine itself matters too of course.

It's good that Skyrim has DX11 support. DX11 makes the lighting slightly better. It can also really improve performance, allowing us for us to max out more before starting to lag. I just want to clarify though that even though Skyrim got DX11 support (without really taking advantage of it... ), it would take years before a Skyrim Graphics Extender come. It might even never come. Timeslip made the foundation for both MGE and OBGE as far as I know. I'm not sure what has happened to him, but I do know he's really good at stuff like that. Perhaps some of the OBGE team can make things work as well. But surely will take time and many bug-tests.
It's not an easy task to add in DX features into a game as a modder, as you basically have to hack it. Tessellation is probably something we can forget about. When I asked shademe about it, he said (if I remember correctly) it would take way too much time and would need to change very single texture/mesh in the game for it.

Look, I'm a 'hardcoe' PC gamer and I don't like the direction that Crytek took with Crysis 2. It is so much more linear. Graphics are OK but we aren't going to be using it as a benchmark in a couple years while we still use crysis 1.

Anyways, I don't play consoles but it's good to know that crysis 2 was possible on them. It did have reduced textures and resolution but when the screen is bigger it looks nice. I hope Skyrim runs great for you console folk and at the same time hope us PC guys have a game that pushes our hardware.

And for the record, my 4 year old $1100 dollar computer (self made non-overclocked) can run crysis 2 at a solid 30 FPS on 'hardcoe' or the highest graphics settings. This is partly the reason some guys don't like it. The previous game used their new hardware. I can't even run Crysis 1 on very high lol! Don't tell me I need an expensive computer!

It's shiny, I'll give it that, but aside from that I don't care all that much for Crysis. It seems like the game that you play just to prove that you can.

I am looking forward to their upcoming fantasy game though.

I play on PC exclusively, but I think it's great that Skyrim (and other games - Rage apparently achieves a steady 60fps on the consoles, and I mean, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH7hqR-qYWk) can and will squeeze so much out of the PS3 as well.

Todd's said that Skyrim should look the same on all platforms, which is perhaps most relevant when comparing the Xbox 360 to the PS3. And since the gameplay trailer and screenshots are captured with the Xbox 360 version (most likely, perhaps confirmed?), it's a safe bet that the PS3 version will look at least as good as the currently released media suggests. :thumbsup:

Rage look really good. One of the best-looking games of 2011 I'd say.

Anyway, can I ask an open question that I've always wondered about here? Kind of off-topic, kind of on-topic.

We all know Todd said all platforms should look the same, that's what Todd wants.
What I wonder is, why? Why do Todd want to force all platforms to look the same, when in reality, we all know that the platforms aren't the same themselves. The PC can push the limits much further. So.. why do he want to force this equality? Anybody got any ideas?

The cynical side of me says "Because why bother putting effort into the PC version when people will buy it just the same amount anyway", the hopeful side of me says "It's marketing speak for no man gets left behind - different platforms will play to their strengths, but none will get so much development time it harms the others", and the realistic side of me says it's probably a mix of the two, and that the PC version will be able to be pushed harder, but we'll not get a Just Cause 2 level port.

What do you mean?

Okay, I understand, but what about this http://www.oxm.co.uk/26489/bethesda-people-who-say-graphics-dont-matter-are-lying/

What I mean most is the part where Hines says "When you boil a game down, somebody flips through a magazine, like OXM for example, and you may or may not get them to read page five of Mike [Channell]'s 16 page coverage of Skyrim - page five is awesome by the way, so don't skip it.
"But they will look at a screenshot and make a snap decision: 'that looks awesome', or 'I'm not interested'. So if you can make something look amazing just at first glance, it's so much easier to get them."


We know graphics sell (even though they don't make a game great alone, of course. What I'm saying isn't about gameplay vs graphics). At least according to Hines, who should know, being in the business, right?
When people, people who may not know much about TES or haven't played any TES before, see screenshots and pictures and trailers... the graphics is what meets the eye first. That's the first impression. And that makes them more interested (especially in the case of magazines and such).

So why couldn't taking full use of a PC's power be because of that then? Why force it to be equal and look worse, when it can reach a higher potential and look better, therefore making people more interested and possibly more buyers (especially people who aren't familiar with TES)?

JC2 was rather pretty.



That's true, but I can't help but feel that if you're marketing that to the coolbro class players who wouldn't know a computer from a toaster (as is implied - I imagine fans of deep open RPGs might become *interested* due to the pretty graphics, but you'd never make a sale entirely off it) then that might come back to bite them. That's not, of course, to say I wouldn't love a pretty game - I would - but I can't help but feel like that's the sort of thing that people start disliking companies for.

In any case, DX11 support in some fashion, and larger resolution textures are confirmed. I'm sure we'll be able to raise shadowmap resolutions if that's not already done for us, too, so the game will still likely look significantly better. It'd be nice to have something other than crysis to make my graphics card hot, though.

JC2 seemed redundant to me. Same open plains and the amount of interiors and NPC interactivity was sorely missing compared to TES.

Well, it wasn't an open world RPG, just open world. it was just very pretty and ran very well - they'd put the effort in. Whatever you think of the game, it's difficult to argue that it's at least technically impressive.

This is pretty much my interpretation [of the situation] as well.

Of course we're not -- and purely for the sake of Bethesda's attention to developing visuals, shouldn't be -- taking into account mods. We shouldn't take them for granted, but the TES modding community has a pretty impressive record of making the games look vastly better over time.

I just saw the Morrowind Overhaul-Graphics and Sound mod for the first time last night. That is incredible. Just think what Modders will do with DX11 support years from now with Skyrim.

Crisis had a good engine, a OK story (which would be like a 65%) which is bad, and god awful Textures..... I believe the Elder Scrolls V on the other hand will has a decent engine, No or minimum physics :sadvaultboy: , might have a good story because they've been working on this title for 5 years, and textures look OK.... Lastly, learn to tell the difference between FPS's and RPG's, this is the reason Crisis 2 could run on the consoles and cause of this makes it a console port to the PC.... Not meaning FPS's in general are easy to run, but if you've played Crisis 2 you'll notice that the areas are small which makes the game easier to run... And lastly Elder Scrolls V is an open world RPG.... So Crisis's engine will never be able to run a Elder Scrolls Game but more small environment games are better for it...

I think you're missing the point. A lot of what the OP is talking about is the lighting and that is far from FPS / RPG dependent. Really good lighting isn't dependent on the genre. It's dependent on tweaking, time, some nice writing, and some good eyes for what looks visually stunning and realistic within its boundaries.

This hasn't much to do with this thread, but from it seems (I haven't played Crysis 2 so correct me if I'm wrong), the world do seem very open and detailed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCDAzGciRYk
The view distance is pretty much as long as Skyrim's (based on what we've seen), and it got no cell seperation, making much much more objects being rendered. How a game run and look is not automatically dependent on FPS / RPG in the way you're saying. The way an RPG could influence in these terms is that an RPG like Skyrim is much much bigger and got more quests and locations and dialouge and etc. This isn't this thread really about so I think we should stop here... The reason I mentioned it is because you mentioned it and I thought I should clarify that an FPS (in this case Crysis) is "easier" to run. Personally, it's a wonder Crytek have made Crysis look so good with so little restrictions so far, and work on all platforms.