I think choosing which one is better is kind of like asking which part of a car is the most important. Realistically they all are important as it's about them working as a unit to complete their function rather than one part being king of the hill. Take out the motor and you have a hundred pound (plus) paper weight. Take off the wheels and you can't go anywhere. Cut the fuel line and you won't have gas to go to the car.

What I'm trying to say is that in the grand scheme of things, I believe it's more important that both of them work together towards one cohesive product rather than focusing on one particular feature. That's why this is a never ending debate; because there's advantages to both. Angry Birds sells well because it has good gameplay and effective (albeit simple) visuals; one compliments the other.

Just want to point out about the debate that the people that work on graphics are different to the people that do the story line and the game play, so we should be able to have both. It doesn't work, because you still have to employ the people to work on each part. So, if you have finite monies, then you can't just hire as many people as you like to do every job.

As I can tell so far, everything just looks to be higher quality and more surreal. The raw graphics setup isn't that much better than oblivion, but it looks like they've done a good job with what they have. The faces are 1000x better than Oblivion (not using facegen anymore?) and for the most par the bodies are looking more proportionate and realistic. The environment models look to be very well done.

Your answer should be here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjTJR80rWng&feature=player_detailpage#t=113s

It is possible to have decent graphics and a good storyline and not break the budget, however I agree that it would be unrealistic to expect fantastic graphics as well as a spectacular storyline...at least without breaking the bank.

Artistic landscape =/= good graphics.

I'd rather have a fun and unique world than something that looks amazing and is just blah. I don't necessarily want pretty, I want believable. The falling snow, for me in a northern climate, is a very positive move, but I also want to see some frozen lakes!

Anyways, while I've been playing games since the 90's and they seemed to be fun back then despite the terrible graphics, I still seemed to enjoy my time with them. I really appreciate a good looking game, I would sleep until sunset in Oblivion and go crazy with screenshots. I also heavily modified it and also Morrowind to make it the best looking possible.

Despite this, I am still in the gameplay > graphics category but I want believable gameplay as well as graphics. If that makes any sense

I agree,the difference between those pictures is huge,like worm said.
Considering skyrim is made on the same ( outdated as some say ) console/consoles as oblivion was on,skyrim looks awesome.
It's a big improvement.I mean yeah,compaired to most PC's console tech is a bit dated,but in my opinion still good enough for games like skyrim and others.
Sales of consoles alone tell you that.
Also don't forget,they are always finding new technique's to squeeze more out of these consoles.
And not all PC's could run oblivion at full.
I'm no expert on this,far from it,but when people say consoles are holding things back....well it's true,but couldn't the same be said for older PC's too.
Bethesda has to take that into account too.
Yes you can upgrade them,but does everyone have the money to do that?....no.
PC users also have the luxury of enhancing their graphics etc,via mods and so on,console users aren't so lucky,but at the same time are satisfied with what they get.
Just my view.

Except that isn't the real problem. Bethesda has pretty much unlimited monies(over 1 billion dollars grossed since MW was released). The real problem is the 32bit run time. That is the real reason for not being able to have Crysis level graphics in a Bethesda open world.

@barretsfloyd



Even if the did allow it the ceiling has been reached, there is no where to go.

I agree.
Also can i add, It's not the "console users" ( that most people say ) that are to blame for this...it's bethesda themselves.
Why....because it was their choice to bring the elder scrolls to consoles ( multiplatform it ).
The console users,just buy the games and enjoy them,it's not their fault at all.
Besides,making the elder scrolls multiplatform,especially with oblivion, put the elder scrolls and bethesda firmly on the map. ( or more so,because of it ).
My view.

Graphics aren't irrelevant. If that's what you're saying, then I agree.

However, I will still play - and can still love - a game with only decent visuals (I'm not talking about Atari or NES here, for a game released today at least, obviously) if the content, gameplay, depth, and atmosphere derived not from graphical fidelity but from design and stylization, are all there. Conversely, I will not play - and cannot love - a game with phenomenal, cutting edge graphics that does not have appealing gameplay, sufficient depth, and atmosphere derived solely from its graphical effects.

Except they don't need to make it so older PCs have the highest possible graphics. Older PCs can set quality to low and still play, while moderns PCs can turn it up. Then as more people upgrade their older PCs, they can turn up the settings too. This is why Crysis/CryEngine 2 still looks exquisite today, despite being able to run on aged hardware at its release a few years ago (as long as you're willing to turn down the graphical settings). If you're targetting the game for consoles, though, you do things according to its hardware capabilities, and getting better hardware results in no real improvement.

If they were targetting newer PC hardware, they could make the game look absolutely stunning. Older PCs and consoles could have their settings turned down to still be playable, and still look good for the hardware it's run on, while people who have newer PCs can get their money's worth with increased graphical fidelity. But as it seems to be with Skyrim, owners of SLI'd GTX 580s are no better off than owners of a Geforce 9600.

The fact of the matter is that if you have the best graphics at the time and amazing lore and gameplay at the time, then the game has the best replay value. Thus is why all the other TES games are so great, they always had the best graphics of the time and amazing lore.

I think it's because of the absence of the sense of depth, it feels separated from the main body.

I am from the camp GAMEPLAY > GRAPHICS also. That is why I still play Morrowind. And with some of the grapics improvement mods, I am in 7th heaven.

Gameplay is FAR more important than graphics to me. The success of Minecraft is a great example of this. I can still play The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past and say it still stands as one of the greatest games of all time, in my opinion. That game didn't need fancy dancy bells and whistles to immerse me.

Once we hit PS2 era graphics I think the "good enough" barrier was hit for sure (in my opinion). The fact that some people call the likes of Oblivion "bad" graphics wise shows that the advancements in graphical technology have horribly spoiled people when it comes to how a game looks, in my opinion. I like great graphics, but I'd be perfectly happy if no future game looked any better than the PS2, the least powerful home console of its generation. I can play a game like Descent still without the graphics distracting me. It takes graphics on the level of the SNES Star Fox for me to need to get adjusted again (when I last tried to replay that game the short draw distance did indeed distract me at first). Overall though I couldn't care less about graphics as long as the game play is solid.

A great game with horrible graphics is still a great game. A great game with great graphics is still a great game too, but the graphics are like adding the cherry on top of the sundae. The sundae would still be delicious without the cherry.

A poor game with the best graphics ever will never be anything more than a poor game. Such a game is like shoveling raw expensive ingredients into your mouth compared to eating a well prepared meal with more modest ingredients.

Obviously I have trouble relating to people that actually value graphics as something that's very important. I understand not everyone shares the same opinions though.

I am a firm believer of Gameplay>Graphics. That being said, I still think they're important. So far, the screens I've seen have been pretty good. And also keep in mind they are older screens. It will probably look better when released.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

graphics = video

gameplay = game

graphics + gameplay = video game

Don't argue with me, argue with the definition.

If gameplay was all that mattered, we would be playing black and white versions of Skyrim that look like this: http://www.videogamecritic.net/images/2600/adventure.jpg

Without graphics, video games couldn't even exist.

even the 5 year old game "lord of the rings online" has DX11 features.
if skyrim, being a 2012 game, doesnt, then ill seriously second guess bethesda's choices.

They are very important.. If not, then I guess you wouldn't matter to play Skyrim (a game who aspires to reach a certain degree of realism and suspension of disbelief) on the original Doom engine, wouldn't you?

As I said, there are games where graphics are unimportant, because they're aimed for pure fun and gameplay, and there are other where they're essential, as they're aimed to create a new world and/or some degree of realism. The higher degree of realism you want to create = the higher graphics you need. Period.

Having said that, I think this discussion is rather pointless. It's like a choice between chicken with fries and chocolate icecream. One is good for meal. The other is good for a dessert. And if the two of them are good, and you combine (eat) both of them, all the better

If you want a game that's all about gameplay and not about graphics go play ADOM or one or the many other excellent nethack clones.

Or just nethack - over ssh you even get nethack from any PC you use!
I won't reply to every post, but I will reply generally: Graphics will never make a good game bad, much like how eating better ingredients won't taste nicer than a cooked meal. But if you make that cooked meal out of better ingredients, it may be the same meal, but what you have is enhanced. Nethack doesn't have bad graphics - it has the graphics that were being aimed at. It uses ASCII characters properly - Skyrim should use light and shadow properly. It's 2011, we can make much more accurate approximations of this now.

I specifically cited PS2-era graphics as what I consider good enough for ANY modern game. Note that doesn't mean draw distance or game world size. Fancy dancy tessellation or even having shadows *at all* is icing on the cake to me.

Heck N64 graphics are probably good enough for any video game concept to fully function normally (note I mean the graphical style not all of the hardware constraints of that era). By saying PS2 era I was actually being very generous. Yes, video is required for a video game to function... that doesn't mean the video must be fancy dancy top notch for the game to function. I'd be lying if I said I didn't like great graphics, but that's nothing but a bonus.

I don't need super graphics for immersion, and I'm not going to have a suspension of disbelief for a video game. I know it's not real, and that doesn't stop me from being immersed in it. Really I'd be worried if I had a suspension of disbelief while playing a game. From the way people talk you'd think it was impossible to get immersed in a game like the original NES Zelda, much less the plethora of top notch SNES era games. To think people call Oblivion's graphics so bad that they just can't get immersed in the world seems very picky to me (no offense).

This is why I have both PS3 and Wii games and the PS3 does not get an overwhelming amount of support from me over the Wii. It's all about the game content and a game like Super Mario Galaxy 2 or Donkey Kong Country Returns stands just fine on game play and decent graphics alone compared to the outstanding graphics (in comparison) that the PS3 can deliver.

In short: Again, basically any video game concept can be adequately implemented with PS2-era looking models and environments. That's pretty much a fact. Everything else is bonus to me. Oblivion completely blew me away with its graphics and physics. If Skyrim equaled Oblivion for graphics I'd be happy. As it stands it's likely going to look better, so I'm happy! And yes, I think everyone can agree that both together is awesome.