skyrim looks great on xbox and its going to look even better on pc, i really dont see why people are concerned and here i though RPing > graphics :rolleyes:

Still another My PC is bigger than yours and consoles no no PCs yes yes kind of tread.

I don't think Pete knows what he's talking about half of the time. He wasn't even in the loop about decapitation perks.

It doesn't have to be. Bethesda made those screenshots of the characters after the journalists were done with them, they could have transferred the savegames over to the PC for the shots. Could.

Considering Bethesda didn't even know what the 360's actual hardware was until the last six months of Oblivion's four year development cycle, it is impossible for Oblivion to have been designed for the 360. The lead technical platform was definitely the PC... and the 360 version is notably quite poor, really. It runs at a sub-HD resolution of 1024x600, has quite excessive loading times, has very little texture-filtering, has a poor draw distance, had plenty of screen-tearing, and generally just isn't all that well-done. The PS3 version, which was also a PC port, was outsourced to an outside company and actually turned out to be significantly better than its 360 counterpart. I think that definitely speaks about Bethesda's porting capabilities. The PS3 version had loading times that were literally half the length of the 360's, it has anisotropic filtering activated by default, it ran at 1280x720, it has V-sync activated at all times, it has higher-resolution textures, it used HDR lighting, and it had a noticeably farther draw distance. The difference between the PS3 and 360 versions of Oblivion is honestly one of the largest this console generation, strangely enough.

OMFG They didn't make Rage you moron

Actually, no. The first and third can be a part of photoshopping, but in are in no way the same thing.

Bethesda haven't specified which screenshots are PC, correct, they have merely stated that several are. So it is up to those with the technological understanding to scrutinize the pictures for indications of superior performance.

The mountain vista shot is clearly PC. The AA is far beyond the capacity of the Creation Engine on the consoles, and Bethesda didn't even attempt to hide the resolution proving it was PC.

The Draugr shot has superior texturing ( the armour, arms and face of the Draugr have quite high resolution textures, beyond most other shots with Draugr).

Lastly, the Bosmer has very good AA and the textures (most notably on the rocks) are far higher resolution. You are partially correct with regards to the character screenshots being derived from reporters's play through on the 360, yes - the characters were created on the 360, but Bethesda actually replicated the characters across all three platforms before sending the pictures to their respective websites.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't serious...

I like to think of this argument in context of investment.

My latest PC build cost me around $1700, excluding the case and power supply and other peripherals I had before it (monitor, keyboard and mouse, etc.) So essentially, just the "platform" I purchased and built myself cost me quite a bit of money.

Consoles on the other hand, cost $199 and are a great entry level kit for people to play video games and still enjoy the content given their investment opportunities.

A balanced argument is not "PC guys get mods, so if games look like crap on PC and/or are poorly crafted console ports 9 times out of 10, who cares?" My argument would be, if my investment cost 10-fold of what most people have spent, I not only should have access to added features, I should be entitled to them. It's good business. You don't sell a car (or any product for that matter) and dole out the same quality at all different ranges of price tags for those willing to spend more, as well as those willing to spend less. As a consumer, if I am spending upwards of $1500-$2000 on a gaming platform, even though it also acts as my primary computer for all other leisure, I shouldn't be experiencing a lower (or equal) standard of quality, etc.

I have no qualms with consoles as a product. I think it has been great for the gaming industry on many fronts, but unfortunately, at the same time it's monopolizing and turning a great idea into something that is mass produced where corners are being cut every day at the hope of more profits. This is just good business to these companies, who really could care less what the content is, they care about dollar figures and quarterly statements.

What we're truly arguing about is our piss-poor economy and business practices. That is what it comes down to, which is an entirely separate argument altogether.

It's money, folks.

Unfortunately people are always concerned about their platforms especially when the don't see gameplay of it but the pc seems pretty safe the ps3 owners are the ones who should be concerned


Unfortunately there is always one of us who doesn't take the hint not to insult other platforms...

You are confused. Pete never claimed the mountain vista was a PC screenshot. Pete has simply said that several screenshots have been PC. The website has two categories of images, screenshots and concept art, and the mountain vista sits in the first. It is a cropped, but otherwise genuine, screenshot. We therefore evaluate whether a console could achieve that quality: it can't.

On the pc version it would be called "TFC"; toggle free camera, it allows the camera to be positioned anywhere in the game world.

Lol ... don't tell me, the PC version has actually the same textures like the console versions. That would indeed be terrible.

Some Skyrim PC Screenshots would be nice.
A 60fps 1080p video with highest settings and 16xAF and 8xAA would be sweeet. ^^