Eh, as someone who has played a lot of older games, its all about expectations. If a game's graphics aren't worse than you expect from a game *at the time* then its fine. People who played those old text adventures thought they were the bomb, because they didn't expect any better. Do you really think people who played games on the Atari 2600 complained about the horrible graphics?

No, its all about expectations. I look at the screenshots and I just can't relate to all the complaints. Seriously, people are just spoiled.

W2's linear gameplay does impact graphics incidentally, since as I understand it it means they can limit the number of polygons that need to be rendered. Its similar to the difference between rendering, say, the Temple District of IC and rendering the view from Dive Rock.

CD Projekt is the publisher CD Projekt red is the developer; so those 300 employee's most of them weren't even working on the game. CD projekt also manages GOG's so many of those employee's handle that service as well. The budget for the witcher 2 was somewhere around 10 million i don't even want to know the huge lump sums of money bethesda has for Skyrim.

just to clarify

Okay, how about you do that comparison again, only this time; scale down the graphics to Med.-Low settings, because those screens you posted of Skyrim are all from the Xbox. Unless you already did, but I barely notice a difference (especially in the 3rd one.)

What difference?

Apart from the resolution and the AA I don't see much difference...

This.
At last.

graphics matter BIG time. I want this game to match its gameplay with its graphics.

i dont see how console gamers could possibly be upset if they made the PC version to its fullest potential. all but the most diehard console fans know full well that they are playing with primitive technology and should be aware that the game will not look nearly as good on their system as it could on a mid range PC. there is no reason they couldnt make skyrim look much better than it does now. the only screenshot i was really impressed with was the autumn forest one. but that entirely depends on whether or not they still have those floating leaves that are constantly facing you no matter what direction you looking from. the rest of the screenshots have fantastic art design but only so so graphics.

You're right about the employees! It seems 80+ employees worked on Witcher 1. I'm guessing around 100 on Witcher 2, around the same for Skyrim.
That's really really impressive then, what they've done with the budget!

Could you please elaborate on that ?

Last time I've remember Tod Howard said Skyrim will be the same in all platforms and look the same, pc will get only higher resolutions. If you don't see a difference go to a doctor for yous eyes.

Also considering this mod for oblivion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoTFPoAjTq4&feature=player_embedded#at=154

Yeah....yeah....thats all i can say. Also that mod looks great.

Once again, I agree. I mean, http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/adventure/heavyrain/images/0/14/?tag=thumbs_below%3Bthumb;14


Cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor, cell processor...

This + if you compare Witcher 2's low/medium graphics to its ultra graphics, the difference is not that big. The game looks stunning on all settings, which I find... very very rare. Look at Crysis very high vs low and you'll see what I mean.
Here's an example: http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/the-witcher-2-assassins-of-kings/artikel/the_witcher_2_assassins_of_kings,44750,2322215.html

So you prefer every other rpg but Tes, thanks for sharing.

The cell processor is not that powerful compared to 2 year old PC hardware. If the cell processor is so powerful than explain the fact that every multiplatform game the pc version always looks better than the PS3 version when going by "CELL PROCESSOR LOGIC" they should look the same?

As for linear vs nonlinear it doesnt matter. Skyrim uses Cell's to load locations the witcher 2 uses streaming to load maps 20x the size of any ES cells, THUS Witcher 2's maps are bigger. Same thing with games like CRYSIS 1.

Actually, upon researching more carefully, I'll have to retract my previous statement about travel in W2. I was misled by a bad source.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said it that way (first gameplay, then graphics if they have time). What I meant more so is the fact that graphics and sound take up most of the room on a disc for storage. I'd rather more storage room be taken up for gameplay instead of high end textures. I still wonder what happened to Sutch in Oblivion and the idea of becoming Count of Kvatch. They nix those ideas because they didn't want to have to put it on an extra disc?

missing the point and trolling.

I see a difference in art, not graphics. Maybe you need to check your eyes and understand that art =/= graphics. Simple concept.

Honestly, the graphics in Skyrim look great, I dot get why some people respond to the statement of graphics don't matter with "Hur hur, i guess u want Arena graphicz lulululz!!1!!1" Uhh..Way to take it to the extreme. Obviously we don't want bad graphics, and Skyrim's graphics are not bad. I'm willing to bet a million bucks that Skyrim's gameplay will be far superior to TW2. So when we say Gameplay > Graphics, that doesn't mean we'd be happy with Arena graphics. I don't know why some people can't understand that.

For one thing, I never said the cell processor was better than up-to-date, good PC processors. However, there's a misconception among PC players that all console gamers are getting all they can get, but that's false. Multiplatform developers fail to actually utilize the cell processor most of the time. Of course the 4 1/2 year old processor in a $300-$400 platform isn't going to outdo a good PC processor, but it is more capable than a lot of PC gamers seem to give it credit for. I doubt they even know it exists, much of the time. What is this "CELL PROCESSOR LOGIC" that you're referring to? The truth about the matter is the PS3's processor is capable of more than most multiplatform games (including Skyrim) actually get out of it. To actually see it in use, look at Killzone 3. Let's even compare linear games (Did you even click on that link?).

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/adventure/heavyrain/images/0/14/?tag=thumbs_below%3Bthumb;14

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/thewitcher2/images/0/2/?tag=thumbs_below%3Bthumb%3B2

Yes, The Witcher 2 on max settings does look very noticeably better. I agree that it does, but I truly believe you would be a lier if you didn't think Heavy Rain was at least decent-looking in comparison. It's certainly more advanced than what a 360 processor is capable of, by any means.




Vsions had something to say about that linearity affecting graphics, comment... something that flat-out states that you're wrong.

Do you ever hear the term: textures/lights? if you see only art in the pictures i can do anything about it.

Of course when speaking about better graphics the consoles are sort of stuck were they are and we are speaking about the PC end of things.

Disk size doesnt matter when you have a RAM/Vram limit.

Have you ever heard that screenshots/gameplay of Skyrim that was shown thus far have all been on the Xbox, and you're comparing the textures/lightings of those to a PC exclusive game? Okay then.

Its also a differnt graphics engine. one specificaly made for PS3 the other made for PC.

In the case of DAO its engine was made for the PC. when they ported it over they had to turn the graphics down to low just so the 360/ps3 could handle it.

I think he's talking about graphics IE: lighting, textures, AA, tessellation <---you know measurable things that aren't up for opinion.

As for
gameplay>graphics

Different departments handle this so better graphics doesnt impact any other department (with skyrims sort of funding).