Good argument buddy.

I find these forums quite funny (and embarrassing) at times. When you complain about graphics, people act like if you're insulting TES. Maybe you should think for one second that Oblivion was a graphical peak and pretty revolutionary for its time, and maybe you should think of the developers' own statements about graphics, before you're trying to make a general statement of your own of what is important and obnoxious or not. Please, wake up.

I'm guessing those who think graphics are unimportant wouldn't have anything against playing Skyrim like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2xa2r-0bTI
So according to that theory, if a mod to Skyrim came that made the graphics 8-bit like, you then wouldn't have anything against to install it. I find that very hard to believe.

well lets take in the fact that bethesda is still using the 360 and the ps3 technology thats five to six years old .so what did you really expect lets see how the next elder scrolls will look on the next generation consoles. and another thing there are not that many game franchise out there that are open world sandbox,rpg's that let you do anything you want within the game and are highly detailed letting you speak to everyone in the game or letting you go inside anyones house or even let you pick up almost everything you see in the game so when you compare all that graphix doesn't really matter.

I've said it in another thread before, that I've seen Witcher 2 on PC firsthand, and I don't know where or what these OMGWTFBBQ graphic are, because the whole thing looked just like Dragon Age 2. Hair still looks like it was cut from paper, blur and smoke everywhere, lightning and darkness done pretty neatly...
Then I look at the screenshots and video, I don't see anything less.

So I have no idea what is this next gen graphics everything is supposed to have because I just don't see it used anywhere...

I don't know, while Oblivion wasn't ugly really when it was released, I thought Shadow of the Colossus looked a lot better overall, which was released on the previous generation's hardware (PS2).

The only thing that struck me as "Revolutionary" in Oblivion, was the foliage generation, which wasn't even Bethesda's doing, it was SpeedTree licensed to them. I mean hell, Far Cry came out before Oblivion, and featured pretty well-realized trees and shrubbery. So I really don't understand where all this "Omg Oblivion was amazing and revolutionary" stuff is coming from, in terms of it's graphics.

The Skyrim screenshots are spectacular for us fans, compared to Oblivion they rock, but we must see the bigger picture as well, Bethesda is not aiming exclusively to the established fans who know what a TES game means and buy it anyway. They need to be competitive in all aspects of the game with the other 2011 titles, for the sake of the broad audience, because people read reviews, people watch videos on youtube and make comparisons! The graphics is the first thing they see.

Reviewers, common sense, common opinion. You know, stuff you know after playing the game after it's released. Oh, and yeah, the developers' own statements of when people have asked if Skyrim would be as big as a peak as Oblivion was for its time.

By that logic, the voicework in Oblivion was great then. Seriously, go watch any review. "Strong voicework overall", yet how come lately all we hear about sound design, is how "The issues with Oblivion's weak voiceovers have been addressed"? Hmmm?


Seriously, any "Day one" Reviews are not legit, are steeped in hype, and often have underhanded incentives to give positive reviews. Look 1-2 months later and the entire picture has already changed. Two of the biggest violators are Little Big Planet and Heavy Rain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zw8SmsovJc

Okay, probably not fair to compare Skyrim with BF3, but as good a game as we anticipate it to be Skyrim is not going to be cutting edge in terms of GFX. Artistry looks good and the games strengths are in other areas, so the overall experience should still be awesome.

But I'm really looking forward to BF3 and Arma 3 too, but for different reasons I suppose to Skyrim.

Getting old? But of course it's getting old! Everything is getting old, we are getting old each day! Let's remember what we are comparing here, please! All the screenshots we had so far are XboX pictures, some of them were old already! Have we seen PC screenshots so far? When we compare to Witcher, Do we forget that Witcher is a PC game while Skyrim is a console game ported to PC, courtesy of Bethesda? Should we remind ourselves more often what's the hardware capability of a XboX360 or PS3 compared to a 2011 PC? I think Skyrim looks incredibly good for the given circumstances, sorry.

As good as Battlefield 3 looks, remember it doesn't have to draw the world the same way as Skyrim. Battlefield 3 is a linear-space game that uses scripted events. Having such a "Quarantined" design is much easier on optimization. Skyrim, Oblivion and Morrowind all featured much more dynamic worldspaces, and much larger ones at that, than most First Person shooters. If there was a true "Open World" Game that looks as good as The Elder Scrolls, I'd say that's a better comparator.

Posts deleted. Discuss constructively and in a civil manner, no flaming.

I actually liked Oblivion more than Daggerfall or Arena, and I think so far it still holds up a little better than both. And for all its issues, I don't think it's fair to call it "Crap" as a game. Oblivion was just Trying too hard. It tried to push too many boundaries simultaneously, rather than just building one or two strong points around the TES formula, considering they were working with totally new hardware. I think they resorted to using a lot of the procedural stuff because it's a hell of a lot faster than building the world by hand, as Morrowind was. Procedural worked in Daggerfall, because of the enormity of the worldspace. Oblivion wasn't all that much larger than Morrowind. Again, you can really see the difference a hand-made world makes, particularly in Fallout 3. I'm not sure if all of SI was hand-crafted, I get the impression it was though.



Actually, I don't believe that. If you look at the Core gameplay, a lot was improved. Particularly around Combat. However, what I believe is the true "Core" Elder Scrolls gameplay experience, is exploration. That's pretty much the point of having a huge worldspace to explore. Oblivion took a lot of the thrill of exploration and dungeon diving away, with the procedural generation of the content. Vvardenfell, being handcrafted, was just much better designed, and more fun to explore. Everything had purpose, and was designed with intent. Oblivion just attempted to fill the world with "Content" rather than meaning. The simple fact that you can find "The best" gear anywhere, and virtually everywhere, means there is very little incentive to explore. Most of my friends would just repeat the "Imp Gall" cave near Bravil over and over, to get an Amulet of Swords/Axes. Or just spam the Aylied Ruins near the Imperial City for Daedric/Glass armors. Look at Shivering Isles though, even though it had that god-aweful scaling, at least it gave you proper incentive to explore various ruins and such for the Madness ore/Amber resin. But, on the better side of the spectrum, is Morrowind (as always, right?), even though the dungeons are static, exploration (especially the first time) is so rewarding, because of that contrast between the rewards in certain Dungeons. One tomb could have nothing but bonemeal and some scrolls, another could have the Mentor's Ring. One dungeon could have weak smugglers, the other could have a bandit king decked in an Ebony Cuirass.

I don't expect a game like this to have high end graphics. Honestly, if a game is the best graphically, people will complain because their computers can't handle it, and if it ISN'T the best, people will say it looks outdated. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. There aren't many open world games that have the greatest graphics available because there's so much to process, from what I've seen the graphics are fine, but that's going off of the dozen or so screen-shots we've seen. We don't have enough information to even talk about this definitively really.

Yeah, that looks "technically advanced".

But, honestly? I didn't like it. There was something unattractive about it. Partially, it's got that CGI "hyper-realism" thing going, "more real than real". Which ends up looking somehow, unreal. The other thing that bugged me about it was the lighting - the beginning part was way too contrasty.... between the super-bright brights, and the super-dark shadows, it just made my head hurt.

I have no desire to ever play a fantasy game with graphics like that. Seriously. (I could probably up that to "ever play any game with graphics like that", but there's probably a few genres where it wouldn't make me want to immediately turn the graphics down.... car racing, perhaps.)

Yeah I know what you mean about the lighting, and also I'm not sure if Iraq is that devoid of color in RL either. Still, some nice features on display such as the animations which show what could be possible in some respects (and it was an alpha demo).

I think I follow what you are saying about the realism factor, it kind of wouldn't work in a fantasy setting. By it's very nature a fantasy setting needs to be mysterious and at times indistinct. Lovecraft wrote a treatise on supernatural horror in literature that explained how true horror was implied rather than explicit, I think fantasy settings are quite similar.

Actually now that I think about it, there was a screen shot on another thread somewhere of some mountains from Skyrim that I found intriguing. It looked pretty good technically, but what made it stand out was the combination of mist and shadows which gave them a mysterious and foreboding look (even as a 2d image, I can't wait to see what the effect is like in-game). It made me want to explore them and discover what secrets lay beneath the mist, but also hinted at hidden danger and need for caution.

Yeah, so long as the graphics are horrible I don't mind them. And for open world RPG's, Skyrim will have the best graphics out of any other one released this year. Not satisfied? Go play another game.

They look fine. Only bits of the trailer I didn't like were some textures, like the ones on the dragon's wings, and some wonky-looking animations. Are those suddenly-Roman-again guards doing a military march or trying to hold in their explosive diarrhea?

Well they could change a thing or two.
Perhaps the pc version could have better textures and/or shaders,and perhaps Nintendo's Project Cafe might be able to depict better graphics..
Well we still got many months in front of us,so many things can happen,you never know.

Hey guyzzz..

I know a cool game with the best realistic graphics...

Its called the window..... You don't play anything but it has the best graphics evar.

I am waiting for the sequel "Going Outside".

you people do know the trailer/ all screens are running on a 360 right?

its >600p upscaled to 720p with no AA or v-sync ect

The pc is going to look much better than that, no doubt about that in my mind, and im wondering why people think it looks so bad from 2:54 of gameplay


yes they will change things, yes the PC will look better, and no, the wii 2 / project cafes specs are published, it basically a 360.
EDIT: 3 core processor, GPU built on AMD R700 architecture. slightly more powerful than a 360

Really ? I read somewhere it will have a hd4870.. :mellow:
Anyway,E3 is just in 2 weeks and I think we will have the opportunity to learn more about both Skyrim and Cafe too.
We just need to wait!

Well, to me the graphics look amazing. No, it's not a graphical revolution, and I think that is what people see as a problem. you suddenly can't make a game that's in the standards, you absolutely have to get better graphics no matter the cost. THIS MENTALITY svckS!

sorry, rant over now.

Seriously though, I know other games look better, but I don't give a damn, I won't be comparing them while I play, as I'll only be playing one game at a time... and to me it looks fantastic anyways

(and before you ask, I know that some things aren't looking that great. It's just my overall impression)

O.K.,to be more serious I have to say that graphics couldn't be far better than what they are,not in this generation.
Yeah Crysis 2 managed to fit all that graphics and make them run in our consoles,but each level of Crysis 2 was 1/5 of a Crysis level.
Skyrim will be a huge game. The processes that will have to run at the same time will be more,and thus the overall resources required are more. I think that Bethesda is doing the best possible thing to make a game that can run an all hardware.
As a PC gamer I'd like something extra in that department,but even if it won't happen I'll be happy again.
:)

don't know what you guys are talking about the graphics look great to me and they still have a couple months to update graphics if they need to.

It's easy to have current gen graphics with games with low substance, like FPS or RTS, a game as rich as a open world RPG takes so long to develop that by the time it is released the world has moved on in graphics. Thankfully it doesn't make or break a game