I've already answer to that, post 110.

When you say we, about whom are you talking about? Who do think you represent?
The forumnites who say graphics don't matter?

I'd be willing to bet that what you imply as a monolith is in fact a spectrum of nuances ranging from people who honestly don't give a rat about graphics to those like yourself who do take graphics into account. Not everyone thinks the way you do, despite them saying graphics do not matter.
It seems to me there's an implied misrepresentation from your part that mirrors the alledged one:
Those who claim graphics do matter have not - as far as i've read their posts - made the ludicrous claim gameplay is irrelevant. On the contrary, those who have raised their voices for the importance of graphics have repeatedly stated we should take a variety of aspects into consideration.

As for Skyrim being ?far superior? at this point in time it mostly is a matter of faith, isn't it?

You seem to forget the PC version of skyrim is only getting AA, draw distance, and some textures so it's a far comparison. Now if they stated "DX10.1/dx11/opengl4.1" or something along those lines i would say hold off on comparisons until the game comes out.

It also runs like garbage, in my opinion. DA:O was an absolutely terrible, JUST TERRIBLE, port. It's perhaps the worst-looking game I've ever played on my PS3 and it runs worse than any other one, too. Multiplatform development hurts everyone to some degree, ports severely hurt the majority of everyone (2/3 platforms) while not affecting some of the people much, if at all (1/3 of the platforms).

It didnt even look anything decent on the PC; just a bad engine and some bad coding.

What was BioWare thinking, then?

Definitely not seeing the difference of lights...

Apart from the whole, one picture is taken from a snowy mountain forest, the other in a more darker, swampy forest thing...

facepalm; general lighting and shadowing doesnt matter were it's taking just the effect, also textures, also object detail ect ect ect.

The reason Bethesda isn't going all out with graphics on the PC is that they want all 3 platforms to look similar, so they won't "anger" 90% of the fanbase, however, I play console and I don't give a damn if PCs have better graphics, why should any console gamer get frustrated? That's what confuses me.

PC players need to accept the fact that Bethesda is going to cater to the audience that makes them the most money, ala the console players. But you then ask, wouldn't it make sense for Beth to make the game look better on the PC as to attract more PC players? This brings me back to my first point, in which Bethesda is afraid that console gamers would feel cheated, and Bethesda doesn't want to take that risk (Just imagine all the angry 12 year olds.)

Besides, they don't want to spend the extra money to improve the graphics on the PC, simply because they already have something that will draw most PC players to them anyways; The CK. Therefore, they'd put it upon the modders to make better textures for the PC version. It's like a bait, and quite frankly, that's a very smart move made by Bethesda in terms of marketing.

Man I hate typing on an Ipod..

Trees cast shadow over everything on both pictures so... nope don't see the difference.

As for textures, yes they are lower res on Skyrim, but it's less noticeable on other pictures.
As for object detail, the comparison is bad...

Actually if they sale 10 pc copies they make more money on that than 10 360 copes or 10 ps3 copies. Expecially if they sale them on steam/d2d/impulse ect.. Also 90% is an NPD number, not including Europe which is a huge pc RPG market, also not including digital sales which is a massive factor for bethesda games (notice when oblivion goes on sale it's number 1 on steam automatically).

According to NPD, Oblivion made up about 13 percent of all PC game sales on the week of its release.

^ really doubt the 90% number; unless bethseda execs post it at a stock holders meeting then it's a bit iffy.

Can you spot the superior lighting effects here? or I'll go hung my self! :brokencomputer:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/222/comn.jpg/


TW2 has some of the best lighting effects out there. Look at this.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/190/42552906.jpg/

Then why is Bethesda not going all out on the PC version then if it could make them more money?

Because they don't have to, the CK draws enough of them as is. At least, that's how I see it.

I've just come to terms that it's going to look mediocre at best compared to what PC's can handle. And don't give me that, "Oh not EVERYONE has a high end PC!" [censored]. PC games scale up and down, so it's easy for PC users to find the "Sweet spot" for their system.

Hell, it's hardly going to make good use of the PS3's cell CPU.

All because Todd is so worried about a bunch of 360 users being butt-hurt that Skyrim would look better on PS3/PC. Those kinds of people would already be pissed once they know PC users can have mods too. So why not just remove mod support with that logic?

I think it has more to do with priorities. Like, they hire more level designers instead of programmers or whatnot. Or they feel like they have so many more console players that the PC players aren't worth paying attention to in mind of their different hardware.

I wish things would have been different. Not completely, but a bit.
I personally wouldn't have just want graphics to look better on the PC though. I'd like it to improve ... just generally, on all platforms. And if Bethesda could find time and will to do something extra for the PC, that would be nice.
That would be ideal to me.

I dun care about graphics, as long as the gameplay is good, I would go back to Daggerfall and Morrowind any day if the Skyrim gameplay turns out to be svckish.

Consoles are very limited hardware, and they are designing the game around that hardware and then slightly scaling it up for PC.

You can't expect 2006 hardware to have open world and look like Witcher2.

It is open but with a difference. With Elders Scrolls game when you get outside everything is spread out in front of you and its not separated by chapters. In The Witcher2 the areas is separate by chapters and you cannot go back to the last chapter. You must finish a chapter or quest within a chapter to go to in another area. Also depends what choice you make during the game to go into a particular area. In The Witcher you cannot jump and swim. In the Witcher2 the towns and forts they are separate by doors and don't have loading screens to go into them because they are not that big. In one town it has doors in it with no loading screens said for one if you go through that door for a quest. If you go through that area in the other way its open. Most of the buildings in the game has a separate cells.

@ Arxagelos post 58 and 84.

There is a difference alright.
One from a video which any damn computer can run. I bet a 10 year computer can run that.
The other is from the game itself that most computers can run without a problem. A 10 year computer start smoking and die.
To make it count, the picture have to come from the two games themselves.
So those you posted dose not count.

I HATE these compare posts. I really do. Like I type from different post, I like The Witcher2 because I played it. I want to like Skyrim but I cannot because I have not played it. I wonder why? Oh that's right its not out. Oh how about Oblivion? WHAT!? Oblivion is a 2006 game and you think that Skyrim is another Oblivion and I say you are nuts. Sykrim is Skyrim. Oblivion is Oblivion. The Witcher2 is The Witcher2. Thank goodness that we are not all the same, if we all the same everybody on this planet drives Holden Commadors. What a boring world this is going to be if thats the case. Thank goodness that we can chose.

The best games are built around gameplay. Once the gameplay design is solid, then comes all the embellishments, like graphics. However, I would lie to myself if I say that graphics don't matter under these circumstances. The increasing level of detail in the graphic area has become a signature to really look forward to. Like many here, I would be happy with the total package, with nothing lacking and the enhancements that would elevate Skyrim into a worthy successor of the series.

Oh come on! At least try to find a better screenshot for Skyrim. Not in quality, but something that shows off the lighting more. In the Witcher 2 screenshot, the light is coming from the right side, casting dynamic shadows through trees onto the close by buildings. In the Skyrim shot, the light is coming from behind and the sun is quite high (middle of the day) casting very little in the way of shadows. It's not a quality problem, the lighting just isn't that dynamic in the Skyrim shot. It's not a fair comparison.

Call of duty has had the same game engine and graphics for the past... what is it.. 4 games? And another one in developement with yet again the same thing, maybe even worse. But people still buy and love it.

That would just prove his point.

Skyrim will look (roughly) the same on all three systems. If you have to turn down the settings of a PC game like The Witcher 2 to match what we've seen of Skyrim so far (which will not be that much better for the PC, no matter what you think), that just shows that the Skyrim's PC version graphics are not where they could be.

I find Bethesda being rather hypocritical. The graphics we've seen so far are decent, but they're not what I'd say are "good" for what's possible these days. This is counter to what Pete Hines said, that anyone who thinks graphics don't matter are fooling themselves. If graphics did matter, they wouldn't be setting the bar to the lowest common denominator.

Also, that "mountain composite" screenshot isn't something you'll see in the game. Not at that quality, at least. It's multiple screens stitched together, then downscaled (the 360 version is using a vertical resolution of 720; that shot does not have a height of 720, and the width is much larger than anything else we've seen so far). The downscaling introduces an AA-like effect and reduces the pixelation, making the eye think there's more detail than there really is.

Why you are keep saying that skyrim is an open world game when everything from dungeons to cities are closed to cells and don't communicate with each other like in Morrowind? Morrowind was true an open world game, oblivion&skyrim aren't, that's why levitation spell is gone.

Look at vanilla oblivion with low res textures at 1280x720

Then install Qarl's 2048x2048 textures and increase display resolution to 1920x1080 or higher

completely different experience. Is watching a well-mastered blu-ray on a decent 1080p TV or projector not "MUCH BETTER" than watching a DVD on low res display?





That is just marketing BS to avoid making any console buyers angry.

Even in the extremely unlikely scenario where there is absolutely nothing different about the PC version other than high res textures and high res display options, that alone makes it a night and day difference between playing on a low res console vs PC with hi res display.

what?

Call of duty
graphics

Pick one?

Call of duty
gameplay (balance)

pick one

Also it runs on the quake 3 engine....aka this game which is the pinnacle of deathmatch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRV0tclxXMQ&feature=related