Of course it doesn't need DX11 to be successful. It doesn't need shaders, or predefined textures, or spoken voice, or shadows, or distant land at all. But it would remove the jarring transition, which is still there to a lesser degree in FO3. Oblivion was successful, the game doesn't need to be any better to be successful, so why bother making any improvements? Just shoehorn in a new world, right?

If everybody took the stance of "Well, what we had 6 years ago works decently I guess, let's never make any advancements" we'd never have computers at all.

How is DX11 overkill? It will add a lot of awesome modding possibilities, and make the game more future-proof.
Why save it? Why should Bethesda hold back on features that will greatly enhance their game for a large amount of their users?

Your exaggerated generalizations fail drive any point your trying to make. Absolutely everything has been improved over Oblivion already without using DX11.

But it could be improved so much more.

The game could look worlds better in every single aspect if it was used.

Indeed, while Morrowind and Oblivion both looked good at their release, neither of them pushed the technology race forward. In both cases they pretty much used the tech that was available at the beginning of the development and just used that. Instead of adding more and more tech and get a new Duke Nukem Forever.

After following the development of several gamesas games I'm certain that they follow their initial design doc very strictly, and barely add/change anything. And for the multiplatform games they never added a big feature on the PC that doesn't work on the other platforms.


Yeah, the vast majority of people don't care about what tech powers the game, they just care about the gameplay.

DX10 was quite hyped and lots of people asked about it back when it was new, and some developers added quick DX10 support just to become a part of the hype, but after DX10 was released the hype died rather quickly and some developers just went back to DX9. For example, Assassin's Creed was a DX10.1 game that got patched down to DX10 and then the sequel was just a DX9 game, but noone cared. If you look at the If you look at the Assassin's Creed forums (or some other multiplatform game forum like Fallout: New Vegas or Mass Effect 2), how many there complained about the lack of DX11 support? Noone.

LoL.



Exactly.

Worm82075, why wouldn't you want DX 11 to be in the game?
As I understand, it's not the biggest thing in the world to accomplish; the technology is already there. And when DX support is added, it might as well be the newest.
At the end of 2011, I'd say it would be an "underkill" not to include it. The newest tech is always the standard. It's always the best. That's just it.
There's no doubt that DX 11 would make the game even more sucessfull, lol.


@Freddo: I'm pretty sure A LOT of people would complain over New Vegas if they saw a comparison pic of DX 9 with poor performance and DX 11 with much greater performance in general, and with full tessellation on.

Absolutely everything? I'll believe that when I see it, which I assume you haven't either. Falling for unbased hype is never a good idea.
My point was, you can't ignore new things just because old things work almost nearly as well. Such a mentality leads to total stagnation of advancement.

Well actually I'm a big fan of both Fallout and people did want Directx 10/11 in it and were disappointed when it was not included.

Is it 100% needed? No of course not.. Would it be greatly appreciated by the PC community? It sure would.

I just don't see why they don't add it into Skyrim, unless it's going to take them hundreds of hours of a dedicated team to get it working right. (Which it may do, as I said earlier in the thread I'm not sure about how hard it is to implement)

No one is going to complain TOO MUCH when the game comes out and it's not included but almost all the PC gamers with Directx 11 capable computers will speak up and show their gratitude if it is included.

As I showed before with this video, The difference between Directx 9 and Directx 11 is just absolutely huge. I really think it's an oppurtunity that shouldn't be missed.. I don't want to wait another 5 years to get a Directx 11 capable Elder Scrolls game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGPrSKG0iUA

If you consider that the creation engine is intended to be the basis for at least two BGS games, and likely more, the idea that the latest in graphics tech isn't included in it's design doesn't make a lot of sense. By the time the next elder scrolls game is released the current generation of consoles will be obsolete. (Assuming they take another five years to develop it.) Those gamers will have gobbled up the newest consoles and then be gripinging that the game doesn't take advantage of their new toy's features.

For this reason I believe that there will be some support for the latest graphics software. Whether it's implemented in Skyrim or not is another thing entirely.

Precisely Watson, it's silly and they are missing out on a huge opportunity if they decide not to include Directx 11 with the creation engine.

Can you get dx11 on an alienware laptop

25% is a large enough percentage to warrant the exclusion of such a late addition to the game engine. It could very well end in a train wreck if it was attempted and I think Bethesda is smart enough not to risk a 10-15% hit in sales from borking the PC version with unneeded hardware support.


That worked out great with Havok huh? My turn to laugh. :rofl:


Unbased?(not a word btw) I'm working with all the facts at hand including all releases and development decisions made since Morrowind.




Yeah I know what your point was and you still fail to drive it with exaggerated generalization. Not including a new tech in it's infancy which happens to come out half way through a development cycle, hardly qualifies as a mentality leading to stagnation.

beth have confirmed that they will use the skyrim engine for games in the future. Would be pretty bad not to support dx11 in future games too?

Alright, "Baseless". English is a flexible enough language that you should be able to see "based" and "un" and figure that one out for yourself. Working with the little amount bethesda have released gives you no basis in which to say everything is better. Hell, anything bethesda could say does not give you the ability to say that, as no PR team would ever say "Yeah, Oblivion was better sometimes".

I'm not exaggerating generally, I'm taking your stance to its logical extreme. You say the current system is fine, I say tessellation is better. It's not "in its infancy", the theory is very solid and the only reason you think it's new is because DX11 and DX11-compliant hardware can now do it with very little performance hit (That's 8800 onwards, so the technology isn't new either). Tessellation has been done for a long time /not/ in real time, it's just that we can do it in real time now. To call Havok a new technology for a game released in 2006 is laughable - is your idea of tried and tested technology things that have been around for decades? Should we still be using DOS, because Windows isn't tested enough? Havok was well known by that point, and Oblivion's often unrealistic physics were not due to the inaccuracy of Havok, rather the technical difficulty of simulating an entire room of items on relatively (at the time) underpowered hardware compared to what they'd been developing for.

The DX11 capable market share is more than enough to justify having it in their long-term engine, and non non-DX11 capable market share is more than enough to justify making the engine scalable enough to not use it. There is no disadvantage to having it, and the time it takes to implement is dwarfed by the time it takes to implement *an entire game engine you plan to use for years*.

So tell me, why shouldn't DX11 be in the game?

They tailor the engine for each specific release so DX11 can be added at any time during the beginning of a development cycle and probably is being incorporated into the FO4 engine as we speak.

then why not tailor it in skyrim? and everyone gets happy and we'll stop threads like this to appear on the forums because clearly, its a wanted feature among pc gamers.

Many people wrote it here but I want to do it again:
DirectX 11 has nothing to do with better graphics. Its damn easy to implement. In fact, its just a few new lines of code.
DirectX includes a language to speak with the graphics card (and other languages for the keyboard, mouse, sound, ...).
DX9 also included a language, but a simple one.
Now with DX11 you can talk to the DX11-graphics-card in a simple, DX9-way or in a complex, DX11 way.
So its absolutely possible to add DX11 support and have the same visuals as in DX9.

DX9 is at its limits. DX11 not. And a completely new engine, that maybe should be implemented in future Bethesda games, will be at least prepared to support DX11.
Maybe we won't see DX11 in Skyrim, but sure as hell the Creation Engine is prepared to support it.

The main problem why they may not implement it, is that most gamers want to see better graphics in a game labeled with "DirectX11 compatible".
And Bethesda may not implement much better shaders only for the pc version. But they could at least implement DX11 so that the fanbase can spice up the shaders and add new ones.

Adding support for DX11 will damage sales? I don't see the logic.

Also, adding DX11 support does not need to be done in the start of development. There are games that have been patched to have DX11 support after release.

I just want to ask how easy it is to implement DirectX 11 for a game scheduled to release within 9 months. Adding a heavy feature within so limited time might not be worth it IMO.

Personally, instead of implementing DirectX11, I'd rather have them use the time to make the most out of QA team. They're already far enough in development

Havok was far better than the alternative, in case you didn't realize that

And since when is DX 11 unneeded hardware support?
Do you even realize what DX 11 even means?
And how would implementing DX 11 end in a train wreck? You make it sound like it's the hardest task in the world and that DX 11 is just so hard and risky and costy to implement, while DX 9/10 is so much easier and more profitable.
Maybe you should think an extra thought about that... just saying :rolleyes:

I did understand hence the "btw"


I've seen and heard enough of FO3 and of the new game to know without a doubt that Skyrim will crush OB in every way.


Fits the definition of exaggeration quite well.


Development of Oblivion began in 2001 and Havok was born in 2002. Any advancements made to Havok in 2004-6 (which was hardly anything at all) couldn't be applied to OB anyway. Same situation here.



Never said it shouldn't have DX11, i said it doesn't need it and it doesn't.

I am both a PC and PS3 (since I got one free with my 52 inch Sony Bravia anyhow) gamer but I have been playing the PC far longer infact since Arena arrived on Floppies. Now during all these years I have been an avid gamer so I have been upgrading my PC over and over and over again spending thousands of thousands of dollars! Now I know for a fact to run games in DX11 with anything above 1680X1050 you need a pretty decent PC, a top-notch Video Card with a decent I7 to back it up! Now that is all great for those with indisposable incomes, but many of us have commitments and can't afford to keep upgrading to keep up with the latest games! In my case I have a Wife and a 1 and a half year old girl, we are trying to save up for a house, my PC is fairly decent for its time (E8500 @ 3.16. 4 gig of DDR 1200 Ram, GTX285 Video Card) but I am not really sure it would run Skyrim in DirectX 11 with any sort of stable framerate anyhow! So do I have to put up with sub standard DX9 graphics for Skyrim on my PS3, most probably but to me it still looks pretty damn good, heck I recently bought Mass Effect 2 and was amazed at how great it looks in 52 inch's even in 720p! And for those who say the PS3 has crap graphics you need to look around at some of the more popular titles, GT V , Uncharted 2 for example?

As for the off topic sales discussion, why is the PC range at all my local stores shrinking? It used to take up 2 shelves then one now its half a shelf, the Xbox, PS3 and Wii range take up the rest of the store!

Simply put the consoles are generally simpler to play you put the disk in turn it on and it works, no reconfiguring, no blue screens of death, no corrupt drivers or system errors, and this is coming from a long-time PC gamer! Heck I couldn't get Oblivion to work on my PC without it crashing every 5 mins, I reformatted and still the same, spent days reloading everything back on only to find it didn't do anything yet most of my other games worked fine! Never had any issues in 3 years with my PS3!

So bring on DX9 you would be amazed with their updated engine what Bethesda can do with the graphics, why else would people be amazed and dumbfounded at the screenings so far on the console versions if it looked like crap?

A game doesn't need good graphics either. Doesn't need a new engine either. Gamebryo would have worked.

None of these things are needed. Why do you think Bethesda has improved them, especially for Skyrim? Has that thought ever occured to you? :rolleyes:

After doing some research in the last hour and reading the posts on here, I've discovered Directx 11 is extremely easy to implement and wouldn't be very hard/much work for Bethesda at all.

It also does not mean that people can not play the game in Directx 9/Directx 10 mode. Both of those are still options.

I'm guessing you are just arguing for the sake of it because of how you are saying it will "completely botch the PC release" which makes no sense whatsoever.. Is it possible that by some horrible twist of fate the programmers stuff up and Directx 11 support doesn't work until they can get a patch out a few days after release? Yes that is possible, but it is not possible for them to botch it so bad that the entire release is botched and the game can't be played in Directx 9 or Directx 10 mode. Do you know what Directx 11 is? Do you have it confused with something else? You talk about it botching the PC release as if it is something that is actually capable of doing that, which it isn't.

After my research I've concluded there is literally no good reason for Directx 10/11 to not be supported for the PC versions of Skyrim. It's so easy, they could even patch it in after release if they run out of time before then. It takes a very small amount of work on their part.

Everyone wins, nobody loses. Whats the problem?