That witcher trailer doesnt look all that good actualy. Even fairly close many textures are fuzzy low res and ugly. Watch the rocks ahead as he walks up those stairs. they arnt far away yet look like junk.

I do wish bethesda would do a slow walk vid so we could see how different areas realy look walking through them.

Except that that 720p (at best) on a 52" screen from 3M away should take about the same amount of your vision as a monitor from 1M away. And resolution isn't the only issue, there's texture quality and filtering, anti-aliasing, shader effects and newer technologies, so on and so forth. Resolution is the only issue you can sort of excuse by sitting further away, nothing else.
GT5 looks decent - at least, the cars do. The environments look terrible, but then, you're probably looking at the cars anyway. Same to U2, they sacrificed the edge elements for the things front and center. Console games can look artistically good - but PC games can be both artisticly and technically good. And for god's sake, 512mb of RAM simply isn't enough, that's not a graphical issue it's cutting into the gameplay.

U2 especially looks fantastic yes, but then it was designed soley for the PS3, now the developers stated that they pushed the Cell Processor pretty much to maximum and the game still looks pretty to play. It all depends on what you want, not many can afford a top of the range gaming PC, I used to upgrade every 2 years to keep up, now I can't afford to because I have a young family to think of and a mortgage! As a result I am running a 3 year old E8500 @3.16, 4 Gig of DDR1066 Ram and a GTX285, not too confident I would be able to run Skyrim in anything above my 22 inch screens native 1680X1050 Resolution at any rate!

There is something about relaxing on my sofa and playing on my 52 Inch Sony Bravia with a Surround Sound system that is just alot of fun no matter how I compare the 2. Each to their own! Been PC gaming since TES 1 Arena, bought my first PC, a 386 40 mhz with 4 Meg of Ram many moons ago now, but alas times change and PC hardware is still expensive, well gaming hardware is, time to move on Also I don't have to reformat my PS3 or worry about Driver issues, or meddle with Windows, couldn't get FO3 or Oblivion to run properly on my PC without crashing every 3 or so mins at least both worked well on the PS3... and before you say I didn't try hard enough I contacted Bethesda's support numerous times, reformatted my HD, loaded only the basics back on, tried a multitude of different driver configs and Forceware drivers, same thing happened!! Lets just say I am alot less stressed these days.

We will sadly only get a real next-gen ES game when new consoles are released. That is where their money comes from.

Til then I guess I can live with slightly upgraded Oblivion graphics...

Heck, I'd even be fine with graphics at the same level as Oblivion. (well, world wise. The NPCs need help. )


But that's because I can still look at Oblivion and think "hey, that looks great".


I'm not stuck in this (bizarre to me) mindset where graphics are only "good" if they include all the latest buzzwords - all these comments people are making about how "disappointing" it is, and how it needs to be "cutting edge", and how we won't get "truly next gen" stuff.... have we really gotten to a point where people can't look at something cool and say "hey, that's cool!"? Where they have to say "well, it doesn't include Nvidia Buzzword x/y/z, so it's terrible"?

That's sad.


(On the other hand, I'm eagerly anticipating the mental breakdowns that'll happen when there aren't any "better" graphics to make - at some point, there'll be nothing more you can do visually. How will the "gotta have new features!" people manage? :tongue: )



-------
Someday I hope to have a system with a "high end" card. So that I can actually see some of the stuff people keep drooling about. I've never run a game on "max", never used shadows/AA/AF.

And you know what? All these games I've played (Oblivion, Fallout 3, the Mass Effects, etc) have still looked great.

Oh, don't I know it, I certainly can't afford a top of the range gaming PC - you don't need one to have top of the range graphics, at least not any more. You've clearly had a bad experience with PC gaming, but let me tell you about my friend - let's call him matt. Started with a PS2 - that went fine. Upgraded to a 360 upon launch - a few months later it RROD'd, and he got a new one. The same thing happened - so he got a PS3, despite the pricetag. Worked fine for a while until it started being really, really slow. Had to replace the hard drive, it was about to die, then the console itself YLOD'd. Of course, I then reccomended he buy a cheap gaming PC, to which he replied "I'm not made of money!" - so I did a bit of research and handed him a list of components and prices. This was 3 years ago, and he yet to have any real problems.

Of course, this isn't a representative view - but neither is yours, of PC gaming. While consoles used to have the ease of use down, they're becoming far more complex - "clearing your cache" on both consoles is becoming an accepted debugging step, on a device who's very concept requires it to not require any debugging. PC gaming takes a little more research to get into, but that's it, right now it's a cheaper way (Pay slightly more for the hardware, but much less for the games and secondary services).

By all means play on console, for me to tell you you couldn't, or shouldn't, would be ridiculous, they're toys, and not worth getting worked up about. However, graphically? There's simply no competition. Where consoles have to skimp on some areas to produce decent results in others, PC hardware is powerful enough to allow significantly better results in all areas. As pretty as uncharted 2 can occasionally be, it can't even hope to compare to, say, Crysis, Just Cause 2, Metro 2033, or any number of other games. They're not competing, they're not even in the same league.

@Kiralyn; Y'know, I once agreed with you. AA? Who needs it, jaggy edges aren't that bad. AF? Well, the textures still look alright close up. High settings? It's the gameplay that counts. Shadows? Well, there's a sun outside.
Aaaand then I got a machine where I could actually experience them - and y'know what? I could then play games for both the gameplay *and* the experience. Games I'd already played became more fun - not because they were prettier, but because they were shouting "I'm a game! Look at the technology behind me!" less. It's a night and day experience - but if you never have experienced it, you can't really understand.

Watched the witcher 2 video and thought it looks good but Skyrim looks on par with it already and that's coming from an Xbox 360 rendered trailer. This still has several months of polishing to go and I know it will look better it always does from a Beta stage of production. The other thing that gets to me is the fact people on here moan about Skyrim's Low Res textures where it has already been confirmed to have them as default in the PC version of the game accompanied by Anti-Alaising. So that fixes a lot of the complaints that are riddled in this thread, yes some meshes don't look overly complex and maybe there is no hair physics. Well to me I don't mind considering the actual scope of the game and how much it would need to process, the witcher 2 is the only game that could go on level for a comparison in tech. Yet people compare Skryim to the likes of Rage or Crysis (sick of this comparison) and finally BF3. The thing that makes these different are this.

-Cryengine would maybe be able to handle the environment, but no the gameplay elements the quantity of NPC's and unique dialouge etc it could do the world but it wouldn't handle all the living breathing animals and world in it.
-Id Tech 5: Everybody says why didn't bethesda use this engine.....2 reasons
A) The engine does not suit large landmasses so it is basically not practical for Skyrim
B) The engine was developed about 3 years into Skyrim's cycle of development which is also not practical, unless you want it delayed till 2014

People on these forums compare this game graphical to too many shooters, we should all know they don't have the same scope as TES games, their not as large they don't have so many objects on screen nor as many NPC's. (If you would like to disagree with me I wouldn't mind your thoughts are appreciated but I am standing firm on this belief)

I think everyone here will be "fine" with the graphics as it is. But if we play a game like Battlefield 3 or another game with cutting edge graphics, then return back to Skyrim, I fear we'll be distracted and disappointed by the big difference in terms of graphics.

I think that Skyrim will still be a great game, but let's face it. Graphics is becoming more and more important, and it looks better for each year that passes. When a game with real cutting edge graphics come out, we everybody says "WOW", and when we look back at games with not that cutting edge graphics (like Skyrim, in my opinion - it's definitely not cutting edge for today's standards), we say "UGH".

That's how I think it is. In addition, we can't deny that amazing graphics help the world feel much more atmospheric and believable. When you see a stone or a tree you think it's real, and it amazes you.
When you see a stone or a tree in a game with less amazing graphics, you say "Ok, it's supposed to look like a stone or a tree, but it's doesn't impress me. So... ugh."

That's how I see the importance of graphics.
I really really really hope Skyrim will look better on at least the PC before 11/11/11. I don't wanna say "UGH", I wanna say "WOW" like I did with Oblivion and Morrowind when they were released. Because they were really "WOW".

It's a very big deal, because graphics are important in a world that tries to resemble to a low-fantasy world. As I said, atmosphere and believability. That's why it's so important in TES. And we shouldn't forget the how we all just love things that look beautiful , and finally, we might get distracted and disappointed graphics-wise after having played other new games with cutting edge graphics

I'm sorry, but no. The Witcher 2 graphics have been compared to DX11 games like DA2 and has blown them out of the water. It has amazing character graphics and animations, and beautiful terrain.

Skyrim, looks good. Great for a 360 title, but merely good on PC. Sadly, the PC version will be getting slightly better textures and that's it. Thats exactly what Bethesda said so everyone needs to stop pretending there is going to be a big jump when we see a PC trailer. If the PC graphics were that much better, they would have filmed the trailer with a PC!

In that Witcher video, would you be able to go off the path when in the wilderness, bascially access all you could see?

1) That's demonstrably untrue - does no one remember how far ahead Morrwind was of its time in terms of graphics? How much of a cutting edge PC it needed? Similarly, even though Oblivion came out a bit late after XboX 360 was released, it was still greatly appreciated for its graphics.

2) Even if it were true, does it mean that we should not think or speak about the graphics at all? :facepalm:

Sheesh.... why do people become so defensive about this? I'm all for paper-and-pencil D&D, or even text adventures, but when a http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_elder_scrolls_v_skyrim/b/xbox360/archive/2011/01/17/the-technology-behind-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim.aspx it's improved graphics, it's only fair that we wonder how improved they are....

Alright, I'll agree with people here. the graphics svck! I've never seen anything worse in all my life! I OBVIOUSLY DESERVE BETTER GRAPHICS FOR DOING NOTHING BETTER THAN COMPLAINING ALL DAY LONG!!! THEY OWE THAT TO ME!!!...

*facepalm*

Seriously...EVEN if you complain, they're not gonna change the graphics NOW. That's what they are. They aren't extraordinary, but they're good looking anyways.
Besides, WHEN YOU CONSIDER WHAT IT HAS TO RUN ON, I think it's actually extremely good-looking

A bad game with good graphics like Crysis its now a bad game with normal graphics... Named Crysis 2 (why DirectX9 and not DirectX11?)

Now i don't care about graphics... If it have DorectX11 i will be very happy! But if not, i will happy too because the game (come on! Its a new elder scroll game!).

Graphics doesn't matter to me ... It has to be good, but not as in Crysis and others.
Morrowind had svcky graphics, still, its one of my favourite games.
Oblivion had much better graphics, but still, not the best one. - My most favourite game.

Morrowind had awesome graphics when it came out. that plus it being in an open gameworld blew me away.

gamesas admited recently that the graphical improvement from OB to Skyrim isnt as impressive as the one from DF to MW, or the one from MW to OB.

It shows. But they are fine even so. Am I a little disappointed, yes, but my life doesnt revolve around videogames anymore, so I just shrug it off lower my expectations in that department. Life goes on, and I'm still eagerly awaiting the game for everything it has to offer. Including the graphics.

TES has always aimed for being these big open worlds where you can do whatever you want and be whoever you want. That's their motto.
Graphics have been feeling like a second motto in my opinion. Why? Because they have been really really good for their time (OB and MW), and they make the world more believable and stunning.

In my opinion, it goes like this:
Gameplay, story, quests, locations, environments, etc... those things add to the game. They create the game. They give a meaning to the game.

Graphics... that makes everything in the game more believable and enhances the experience as a whole. It allows you to feel like you're really in this world they have created, rather than watching it on your screen.

That's how I see the connection to graphics, and partly why it has been done so well in previous TES titles.
Combined, it's an amazing experience. To have one part flawed feels bad. And by looking at the trailer and screenshots, it looks like the graphics have been left a bit behind the line of today's standards, which is, after all, how we measure what's believable.

I guess I'm still completely out of sync with attitudes like...



...being said about a trailer that, to me, looks like something you could brag about the graphics on.


All the people saying "well, it's ok, because graphics aren't the most important thing". Which is implying that, yes, they're not good graphics.



Are modern gamers so incredibly jaded, that they can look at that trailer and think it's not good graphics? Seriously, that's really incomprehensible to me.



...so confused. :sadvaultboy:

Yeah, that's the thing that actually bugs me. I mean, of course, it's not Crysis, but it still looks real good!

No it did not prove anything of the sort. All it proved was that Bethesda's height map, meshes and textures looked good on the CryEngine. So where's the rest of the game? Oh, that's right it won't fit.



I noticed massive texture popping in both the foreground and background. Horrible distant LOD.



Rightly so too because your belief happens to be a little known fact.



Nope.

Sure it would, content streaming and graphics are separate problems that have very little bearing on each other. The scope of the game has nothing to do with local-area graphics, the GPU doesn't care how big the world is, it only cares how much it's asked to draw.

I've heard that before but it's meaningless because GPU's don't read HDD's. All of the information that the GPU renders is loaded to it's RAM to by the CPU.

I just want DX11 implemented. That's all, just give us that...it'd look SO GOOD.

Imagine playing Skyrim like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F6zSgtRnkE

Yeah, immersion would SKYROCKET.

For those who say graphics don't affect gameplay:

Not trying to start a war, but picture this: 8 bit silent hill. It just. wouldn't. work. Graphics add to the immersion, the feeling of playing, and the fact you're on an epic quest. Not by any means saying Skyrim's gonna look bad, but the better it looks, the more immersion you have, the more immersed, the better the game feels.

i don't get why people think this video looks so good. it doesn't. it has generic art direction and pretty standard lighting, foliage and weather effects. Morrowind has better DOF.

the only thing that video shows off that's in any way impressive is the tessellation, and the effect it has is so subtle it's not even worth showing off. there are much better demonstrations for what it's capable of doing. a video showing roads that look impossible to walk on without immense blisters is not one of them.

I don't understand why you think that refutes my point - it doesn't.

Alright, I'll rephrase.

The GPU doesn't care about the world that could be read by the CPU to the RAM from either the hard drive or chosen optical media depending on your install status and console of choice, because the GPU only renders what it is asked to render from either VRAM or RAM depending on console by the CPU which is currently executing the relevant rendering routines in order to draw a local scene to the primary output device (if attached).

GPU don't know what GPU can't see. GPU don't care 'bout what GPU can't see. GPU is as GPU is, nothing less and nothing more.

@might be a couch; If you think the effect of tessellation is subtle, I suggest you grab a copy of the benchmark and toggle tessellation on and off. It's far from subtle, the entire scene is tessellated (and it is glorious)

Additionally, the very concept of watching a high level graphics benchmark on youtube seems somehow... wrong. I mean, it doesn't even offer a 1080p stream, never mind 60fps without lossy compression.