This video is a perfect example of the console struggle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k

Still. I think the game looks amazing on CryEngine 3 on consoles anyway...
Not as great as on the PC, but still incredibly good.
Imo, a whole lot better than Skyrim... if we are to compare graphics only. And only that. I don't like the looks of the lighting in Skyrim. Ever since I saw the first screenshot, I've thought it needs improvment/tweaking.

A very good point. It is the console that holds back multiplatform games just like the Wii would hold back and games that are released on Wii and PS3/360 (Not console bashing the Wii here I'm comparing the specs of it and 360 as I type this. It is a fact that the 360 is more powerful than the Wii.) But there is nothing we can do about it. But the main thing I draw from your post is that Skyrim is inferior to Crysis as far as graphics go. Which is also true. But Skyrim has more complicated systems like many items with physics and NPCs with complicated AI. but if you compare just the graphics Skyrim is inferior.

Your so anti-console come to the dark side young padiwan :thumbsup:

Saying that, thats not entirely true, games like Crysis are still very linear despite the view distance just because you can 'see' something doesn't mean you can 'go' there plus there are alot of natural barriers, TES games are entirely different. If you can see some mountain chances are you can go and climb it! Also game engines like Cryo don't like clutter, yes they do beautiful environments like no other, but most of what is in that level is non-interactive. Also the PC/Console doesn't need to worry about NPC's except for a few shooting at you, they have no routines so there is no Radiant AI. Like I said the Crysis world feels ... dead, almost like you are alone, a game like Skyrim is FAR more intensive.

Also Bethesda need to cater to what is the norm, they can't go and make a TES game with Crysis 2 graphics fill it full of clutter NPC's and quests, and have it playable only on Cray Supercomputers ! You can't tell me that a TES with Crysis graphics will run on a average PC or on a Console..

Crysis had very complex combat AI as well as having most objects being physically simulated. If you compare anything, technologically speaking, between the two, skyrim ends up inferior.

@Thorn; I can and I am, Crysis is a 4 year old game, we have more than enough power. Crysis is very open, for an FPS - but a lot of that is irrelevant, your area loading has nothing to do with your rendering engine, the two are separate systems. You can't go climb that mountain in a TES title, because that mountain is a low-detail distant land model that will be unloaded and replaced with the real thing when you get close - the same thing could happen regardless of how good the game looks.

I'm not saying bethesda should make a game that wouldn't run on consoles, I'm saying that if they weren't, it looking like crysis wouldn't be unthinkable. TES games have, traditionally, made huge graphical advancements and been at the cutting edge. Additionally, there are such things as quality settings, Crysis would scale down to run on very weak hardware, and there's absolutely no reason skyrim couldn't do the same.

I'm not anti-console per se, but I'm not going to dress it up - they're weak machines. This is a thread about graphics on PC, and bringing consoles into it is like bringing a pogo stick into a discussion about how high you can go, when everybody is talking about space shuttles.

Bethesda finally have shadows. They can't bake lighting like others. Besides shadows what else is going on in terms of lighting right now?

Frosbite 2.0 and Cryengine 3 will have RT global illumination. Crytek offers this in DX9 and consoles. Hope for Morrowind to get GI sometime around.

At this point Bethesda is behind them(they aren't out yet) but I'm glad we are finally getting shadows. In 2 years, all games will have RT GI.

Skyrim has a NPR look, imo. Non-photorealistic rendering. It looks like art. Maybe next time they will try photo-realism. We will get some technical wizardy, nevertheless.

http://cdn.zenimax.com/akqacms/files/tes/screenshots/CompositeMountain_wLegal.jpg

This just in: this thread is about how good the graphics in Skyrim will look, not about the importance of graphics in RPGs.

Consoles are weak only if programmers don't take the time to make it work as well as it can. How many PC games can you name over the years that have been poorly coded and run like a piece of @&@! no matter how powerful a PC you have? Then on the other hand we have the opposite, games that look fantastic and are still able to run at a great framerate due to clever programming and utilization of the gaming engine.

You are forgetting that I will get both versions of Skyrim but I am defending consoles too because I have one and have seen how many many games look and run! If you are a graphics entusiast and want to run everything above 1920X1080 good on you, good luck buying a gaming PC that can run games like Cysis 2 and Skyrim in that sort of resolution! If you are made of money that is great, if you want everything to look like real life then that is great too, but the fact is a large majority of gamers DON'T have money to throw away, and don't have PC's that are capable of this. So all this pvssyr is irrelevant when it comes down to it, we don't have the specs for Skyrim, we don't know what sort of textures they will include, so it really doesn't matter. What we do know is it will run on both consoles and the PC, I myself don't care if Skyrim doesn't use ridiculously high textures as I am gaming from 3M away anyhow and in 52 inchs, and I see there being alot more to a game than Crysis 2 graphics !

Like I said each to their own but you need to go and get a full-hd 52 inch screen or above, turn up your surround sound system and give some consoles a go

I'm far from made of money, I assure you. If I had my way and Skyrim was the prettiest game ever made, I wouldn't be able to run it on full - I'm absolutely fine with that. I have a PC that's mid-range at best, that does not mean I don't want nice graphics. For the record, I found Crysis 2 to be highly underwhelming, and in many ways worse than crysis 1.

As for your suggestion, I'll pass - your 52" TV may be big, but with a low resolution and no/little anti aliasing, playing games for the graphics would be idiotic. Give me a halfway decent pixel density please, I'm not blind. I do not speak of consoles through ignorance, I assure you I know their capabilities quite fine. They are very weak machines by modern standards. While low resolution, low quality, low framerate graphics may be your idea of "fantastic", I prefer something a little less rubbish. I'm afraid you're not going to change my mind on this one, console graphics are absolutely nothing worth talking about, even for games like uncharted 2 or GT5, which as far as I can tell sell themselves on their graphics (Because unlike many console games, UC2 isn't fun, and GT5, being a racing game, ain't my jam).

In closing, I should probably make clear that because we're in a thread entirely about graphics, the scope of my posts is limited thus. Skyrim is looking to be a great game regardless of how it looks - but graphically it's looking highly subpar.

Yeah I'm glad we FINALLY have dynamic shadows. It should have been in Fallout 3 though, imo,... if you compare to when most other games got it.

I also agree that Skyrim has this non-photorealistic look. It looks unreal. It's pretty nice... but as you said, almost like art. I was hoping for photo-realism though... :confused:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YHNWj8HmWwQ

Modern PCs are lightyears ahead. That's what modern gamers don't realize. Not only can they do more with graphics, but they can have added functionality in all areas of development. There's fewer limits if developers choose so.

Can't wait for the next batch of consoles. That should help correct this issue. However, we've gotten some impressive engine technology out of this cycle. If anything, we've learned to push software to increase what hardware can do. Now, pair the software increases with better hardware, and you have a real winner.

I think the next generation of consoles will last longer than this current one will. It will have a lot more capability.

Edit:

To reiterate further, here is an MMO (Archeage) that is using Cryengine 2: (Basically, it can handle an RPG no problem.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNZpjrjd0S8&feature=related (Gameplay)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv5862eaGPM&feature=related (Environments)

But at the same time, technology isn't going to stop advancing. 6 years after the release of the next console generation we'll be in much the same position, with the 720 and the PS4 holding back, like, holograms or AI synth, and we PC gamers will be calling their UltraHD resolutions small. Technology moves forward, and that will always leave a static set of hardware behind very quickly.

Just remember that calls for 'photo realism' stand an excellent if not guaranteed chance of sliding off the road and right into the uncanny valley. There is a reason why stylistic characters are far more appealing than those that too slavishly try to imitate a human being.

You know what's going to be awesome? Elder Scrolls VI is going to be even more impressive than when we first saw Morrowind and Oblivion. Morrowind and Oblivion both came out during the first year of the console cycle. ES VI will come out 3-4 years into the next-generation console cycle.

That means

1. Bethesda will already know the hardware.
2. The game will look several generations ahead of Skyrim. As if they had skipped an entire Elder Scrolls game.
3. No more complaints about the graphics.

My finger is twitching about the lock button. Some comments got deleted.

Do not get into petty platform bashing.
Do not accuse people of trolling, or you will be issued a warning/
Do not avoid the auto-censor

I find it odd that this screen looks vastly superior to any other we have seen, including the gameplay trailer.
The small font at the bottom suggests some severe resizing and thus a super-sampling effect, but still ..

I'm tempted to think this is a PC screenshot with high res textures and whatnot.

That screenshot is NOT PC...why? I'll tell you why,because there is a shadow from one of the rocks that looks slightly blocky,that is a classic example of what shadows can look like on xbox.
That shadow would not really be like that on a PC screenshot. Also the last part of the trailer ( the view at the end ) looks as good to me,i still don't know how they have pulled this off with the consoles,especially xbox. I say xbox,because the trailer was from xbox footage.I don't care what anyone says for a machine that has tech 6-7 years old 512mb of memory...it looks outstanding...it really does. But,to me that is a gameplay screen shot and not PC,a PC would do better shadows than that.
Look at the picture again,if you don't see the shadow i'm talking about,i'll highlight it through paint.

Here is the shadow in question/what i mention.
http://s1225.photobucket.com/albums/ee394/St-frantic1975/?action=view¤t=Frantic.jpg
The bit highlighted in yellow is why i believe some think the picture is fake/or not gameplay etc.
It just looks realistic,the lighting is different.As for the rest of the pic,to me it looks like a game screen shot.
I believe that screen is real,and is xbox/or at least a console shot.

But I never worried about anti-aliasing, you see playing in higher resolutions I never saw the point! And I wouldn't call 720P or 1080P low resolution, especially when the highest I can play on my PC is 1680X1050 anyhow. If you knew exactly what you are on about you would realise Framerates arn't an issue either! Just played through Killzone 3 (which looks fantastic btw and has ALOT going on all of the time including great particle effects and vistas not to mention huge firefights with upwards of 40 NPC's at a time firing with full effects) with NO slowdowns or hiccups or even 1 Crash! COD Black Opps upwards of 60FPS throughout, GT 5 the same and in 1080P, the list go's on... no I am not sure you do know consoles capabilities, I think you think you are well educated on the facts because you do alot of reading on the net, I am not sure how much you have actually put this into practice though, but like I said it isn't any big deal!

Do you have a 52 inch Full HD screen? Do you have a PS3 or Xbox? I am sorry but it sounds alot like sour graqes, which I have heard about and read about alot in recent years since the PS3 and Xbox came out. You see PC fans feel threatened by them, as did I a few years back, but you move on eventually when circumstances change and you realise they are not the all-encompassing evil most PC gamers think they are! And you are wrong UC2 IS fun, infact its the most fun (next to Mass Effect 2) that I have ever had in PC or Console gaming, and yes the graphics ARE spectacular no matter how much it hurts you to think so. The reviewers agree do you want me to link you just a few from the leading game review sites? I think you need to catch up with the times son, bite the bullet and welcome a new age in gaming, I did and I feel alot better for it ! (to be honest I felt like Crysis feels empty, pretty to look at but boring to play in practice, much like a nice painting!)

Does this all mean I have left my PC to collect dust? Not at all I will still buy Skyrim for it and hope one day my wife will alow me to buy a new I7 or at least an upgraded video card, although the GTX285 still does a marvelous job in Crysis Warhead and the latest games surprisingly! Yes I still play them, to look at and say gee that sure is pretty, haven't tried Crysis 2 yet but to me it looks alot faster paced and more involved?

Alot of what you say here makes sense. I have seen on many games forums that PC users are pissed because PC only games have now come onto consoles. Developers have had their heads turned by a dominant platform,which is console. And alot of PC users don't like it. I have nothing against PC's ,but i feel consoles in general deserve credit. If a company just made games for decent or high end PC's nowadays,they would be left behind and would not grow as they should. There are advantages to consoles,all of them have the same rig/setup,this in turn makes things easier for developers,and there is many other reasons.
Remember xbox came out in 2005...thats 6 years ago,but the tech...like the GPU,memory etc is even older than that,all that stuff was planned way before it came to shelves,which makes the tech about 7-8 years old. Now think about that,then look at games like halo,unchartered,skyrim,gears of war,crysis 2,it's amazing they have done what they have done if you bare all this in mind.
The sales of both PS3 and xbox show people are happy with the standard of graphics for now,they don't have to woory about OP systems,and [censored] loads of background tasks that a PC has to worry about. Like i have said i been alot of other game forums,and some PC users are worried about being left in the dark,because of consoles. Please do not say this isn't true,because it is.

When the next gen of consoles come out,things are going to be even better. Not only are the PS3 and xbox a good games machines ,they are also good all-round entertainment systems.
They are getting closer and closer to doing what a PC can do,and the next gen of consoles will do this even more,with the added bonus of everything tech wise being the same across the board,and not lots of different rigs here there and everywhere. Pc gaming is great,but it can also be very,very frustrating.There is much more going on in PC's in general,hence why they need more memory and better tech.Consoles don't have to worry about that,and the are getting closer to PC's while having the bonus of playing games without conflicts and expense.

All platforms deserve credit. But consoles are here to stay,and they are only going to get stronger,they dominate,sales suggest that. Games companies are NOT going to miss out on that growth potential,no way in hell. All this competition with games companies and platforms,makes everything better for everyone,because it keeps people motivated,Thus increasing standards everywhere.
I am not trolling....just stating facts,and what happens in the real world. The sooner people accept this better for everyone.

That's quite a bold statement. Some of us don't want to join the "dark side"!




Yes, it's true. We are being left in the dark.
That doesn't mean we don't want anyone to enjoy their console. We just want the best for our system, just like everybody else. :sadvaultboy:

If I am so made of money, what would cause me to be jealous of consoles? Your position is conflicting.
You have quickly turned this into a battle of opinions, and fighting that is not something I am interested in. I have no doubt consoles are the future of gaming - but just because something appeals to those with no interest in the hardware, no time for research, and no knowledge of such things, does not mean it is a better way. It's a simpler way, and nothing more.

I have neither a 52" TV nor a console - two decisions made through choice. I know what a console looks like, I know what one looks like on a 50" TV, I have no wish to enlarge a low quality image - despite what CSI has told you that results in decreased image quality, not the other way around. If you want to go backwards, that's your choice, but go backwards away from threads discussing serious machines. Perhaps there's a "Mediocre graphics on toys" thread you could go to somewhere, it sounds more what you're looking for. Myself, while I'm in a thread purely about having good graphics, will talk about having good graphics. Feel free to disagree all you like - but don't expect me to change my opinion and suddenly think that 6 year old technology is acceptable in a discussion about modern capabilities.

I have both a PC and a PS3. the PC has a 20.1 inch 1080P monitor, the PS3 has a 32 inch 1080P Television, the TV costs far more then the monitor and the PS3 costs a fair bit too, admitably still not half the price of the computer but near to that point. I get a MUCH better image on the Monitor then I do the TV, this is because the TV blows up the images, essentially you lose image quality and given the TV has a lower DPI then the monitor. There is also the issue that not all PS3 games even run at 1080P Many still use 720P which means even more enlargement. Also anti-anolysing improves image quality A LOT, it is noticable going from 16x Anti-anolysing to 0~2x (0 being none), however there are many other things that a PC is better at then a console too. When a Console comes out, it's graphics come out about a year and a half behind current top end cards, even with the PS3 and X-Box 360 this is true, because these machines have been in development for a fair amount of time and changing the graphics chip set late on in the development process is rather tricky. Then once developed these things need to be produced in very large batches what takes time and then distributed to suppliers before release, which also requires a game library to be developed for it.

It is at this point the consoles are closest to challenging PC graphics and even then they are lagging, the architecture of the new consoles is not well known by developers yet and so the games are less able to take advantage of what graphics a console does have to offer, while a PC is relatively standardized to a style that developers have been familiar with for decades. Go on a few years and a console's graphics improve slightly as developers can take more advantage of a system but by this point PC graphics move on to a point where even mid-ranged PCs are over taking the console... Also Crysis is one anecdotal game, I found heavenly sword to be a bit of a bland basic game in some respects, just another hack and slash... pretty boring, then again, I honestly find most console games to be very thin on substance and generally lacking longativity... you complete them and that's it, you move on to the next game, many PC games have more replay value, more so considering the modding communities that do things to add to games... which TES will naturally have a lot of since the construction set is given to the community.

Frankly I do not think it matters.

How long did it take for Oblivion to be provided with high-resolution textures and other graphically intensive mods? Not long.

The modding community will spit-shine Skyrim for the PC. Bethesda has taken on the multi-platform challenge, and catering to the lowest common denominator is the obvious result. I used to be sour about this, but hey, it's a way to make money and keep them in business making great games. Unlike certain other unnamed platforms, the PC release can be changed and improved upon after release.

It really doesn't look that good. And lest we forget that The Witcher has linear map design (not map flow, map design) area's are enclosed for optimization, presumably with tight portal control. Skyrim expands out in all directions and is totally non-linear, you can pick a direction to walk in and walk for (probably) half an hour.

Oh that's easy! It's because the weak outnumber the strong! I think it's better to turn that argument on its head and say it like this: "Why should the strong exclude the weak?"

I think it's great this console generation is lasting so long. It lets people get far more time out of their hardware and reduces the overall hardware cost on the customer over time, both on the PC and on consoles. By forcing developers to develop good games within hardware limitations, they are focusing more on game play than ever more pretty pretty graphics. The games will still look better with fancy dancy expensive new hardware, but thankfully millions of more potential customers will be able to run the game than if they shot for high end PC graphics.

In my opinion we are hitting a point where better hardware is more about graphics than actual game play now, meaning in my opinion that better hardware is far less important to make a better game. Surely there will be better game play advancements as hardware improves, but I think it's long since slowed down. We already have 3D worlds with a ton of detail compared to early 3D games. Sure they can look prettier, but the game play itself is what matters most in my opinion. I hope the current situation goes on for at least 1-2 more years. That way when new consoles come out they can fully take advantage of the technology of today, without being exorbitantly priced. That will unleash the floodgates for new multiplatform games too.

I agree totally well spoken

It is amazing what they can do with older technology although the PS3 Cell Processor was thaught to be an innovation at the time it hasn't really caught on in terms of PC's anyhow! Yes PC gaming IS frustrating I complained about that in an earlier post with my experiences, and yes PC's do have more going on than needs to be, that is Windows for you, it really is amazing to have a look at how many background processes are running on the average rig! You see seems I have my PS3 hooked up to my Surround sound and a big screen, I use it to play Blu-Ray movies, went and bought the remote for it too, I play my MP3's through it and even use the cool free program that comes with the PS3 to sort and view my Photo's which all my family was very impressed with, it really is an entertainment system that you can also game on

Some would say why not just move your PC into your loungeroom? Why should I have to? The PS3 takes up far less room and doesn't use Windows Therefore I haven't had to deal with any of the problems I have had on the PC. never underestimate how much stress PC issues can cause!

It shouldn't be a war we should all learn to get along, Consoles arn't the enemy they are our little friends, console kid online gamers on the other hand.... arggghhhh
Seriously though there is still a place for both and I will always use both even if I replace my ageing desktop with a gaming laptop one day! You see that is the advantage, compactness, I love laptops for this reason, while not as powerful as their desktop counterparts they are easy to operate and move about.

Make peace not war!