That's a terrible anology. Daggerfall is a pseduo 3D engine similar to Doom. Morrowind is a true 3D direct3d 8 engine made nearly a decade later and Oblivion is a direct3d 9 engine an entire generation ahead.

Skyrim is most likely a direct3d 9 engine and based upon what we know it's most likely an enhanced fallout 3 engine (not truly a new engine). It's intended for the exact same console generation as Oblivion and the screenshots are not at all leaps and bounds better than Oblivion. When comparing a late generation console game to its early generation there is always going to be a noticeable difference in visual quality, but never ever ever has say a late NES game looked like a early SNES game or a late PS1 game looked like an early PS2 game, etc. The longer a console generation pans out developers will always learn better tips and tricks and squeeze out better visuals but you can't squeeze out that much.

Also keep in mind that microsoft once had a rule that all games had to be 720p, something they lifted so devs could make somewhat better looking games at a lower resolution framebuffer. Red dead redemption might look really good at times, especially in screenshots or from a distance, but the framerate is 25fps average which is less than what used to be considered the minimum playable framerate (30fps) and often it goes into the teens. Plus the PS3 version (and maybe the 360 version) has a 640p framebuffer.

^THIS

Im honestly betting that Skyrim will be one of the best looking games we've seen

I think Oblivion's landscape and buildings still looks nicer than allot of newer games out. On the PC at least, I'm not sure about the console versions.

consoles will eventually cause the extinction of the human race, true story.

but all in all I don't give a rat's patoti about graphix, as long as people don't look like trolls and they move more smoothly then I'm fine with it

I agree with this, it might be 5 years old but it still looks great on PC. I admit, never played the console versions and only seen screenshots. But on PC even vanilla Oblivion with high resolutions and anisotropic filtering has beautiful landscapes and buildings compared to many modern games.

BGS's games always look better in motion. I'd wait for that.

So it's been in development for almost 3 years.
What have they been spending all their time on ?
It can't be graphics (not that impressive imo) but what else could it be ?


What if it's just oblivion with a better story/quests, slightly better graphics, and more user (console) friendly ?

Nice thinly veiled PC vs CONSOLE debate.
It doesn't matter what system you game on as long as you enjoy it.PC's have the command console and mods, that's fine great for the PC guys, I don't need that capability.
There are games that I have played on the PC but mainly because they are exclusive to it. In the the case of TES I play on console in large part because of the comfort factor.
PS3 has a blue-ray player, cool but I don't watch video on my consoles as it only increases wear on the disk drive. There are some games I would play on the PS3 if I felt it was worth the $300 investment.
Yes, I game on the 360. imply because I like the available selection of games on it. And the comfort of my couch and massive flat screen TV.

So have fun with whatever you game on... now if you'll excuse me, I need a cigarette.

Alot of valid points, I like the com fort of console and couch too with a nice flat screen graphics dont make a game in my opinion but they do help some what draw you in. I think we will contiue to be amazed at what the developers can do graphically when I was younger I thought nothing would look better than Mario, I think we can still come a long way in this department...

A few of my Just Cause 2 screen shots:
http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/108190736-4.jpg
http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/108378019-4.jpg
http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/108320903-4.jpg
http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/108320830-4.jpg
http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/108222853-4.jpg
http://screenshot.xfire.com/s/108320120-4.jpg

Not that impressive.

How better can it look? Check out LA Noire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYRxzGzdFFc&feature=watch_response

*sigh* this again?
Graphics don't matter that much. Skyrim's art direction is much more important.
And another thing: Some people don't upgrade their PCs every 2 months. It's a good thing that consoles are limiting the technology, at least for now. Games should stay stagnant for around 5-7 years before going through a major graphical update.

Optimisation. It all lies in the code. Console devs have to work with what they have and can't shoehorn it with need for stronger hardware. Just look at Summoner for the PS2 and God of War 3. That's how much better it can get.

Oblivion was a first attempt with brand new, untested hard-ware.

With Skyrim they know how to milk the hard-ware for every drop that its worth. I think you might be surprised.

PS: Some gamers might be "main-stream" but that doesn’t necessarily mean the consols or consol users are.

Hell, the Xbox 360 didn't even exist when development started on Oblivion. All you have to do is look at the shots in the GI mag to see how much better it can look. If you can't see that it already looks leagues better than Oblivion, I think you need to go play Oblivion again.

Still not good enough.

The lighting is crap, and the textures need alot of work. Not one game I have ever played has even come clsoe to realisitc lighting. The best looking/realistic game I've seen is either Stalker COP (with mods), Crysis (3 years old now), or Half Life 2.

I wouldn't care if it looked like oblivion honestly.


As long as it plays good.

I think it'll look a lot better and be a lot more efficient with the hardware.

You have echoed my sentiments about the JC2 images you posted. The textures look horribly cartoon-ish. Texture shadowing is a technique who's time has passed. Give my photo realistic textures with dynamic lighting and leave it at that.

I have to ask what kind of rig you are running that on. The 360 version looks a fair bit better than that,

BTW, Oblivion was probably so laggy on consoles because of the coding, not the graphics.
Mass Effect had the same problem: in the first one, you had lags, late-loading textures and such. in the second one, the graphics are even better, and it runs smoother.
it IS the coding that makes the difference.

and besides, we've come to a point in gaming, where even 2 consoles later it won't look THAT different. why? because now the details that change are really smaller than say, ps1 VS ps2.

And, honestly, I'm happy with the looks. I could understand if it was a FF game, that people would want more realistic than reality, but for TES, I like it to look slightly unreal anyways. not unreal as in not detailled, but unreal as in the colors being slightly different than reality, for the style

You know, for all of PC users' elitism over the "silly console players who only like shiny things," they sure complain about graphics quite a bit!

They complain about games being made that fail to take advantage of the capabilities of their machines.

BESIDES the facial capture tech, the game looks normal. And the facial capture is so revolutionary that you can even tell when the actors are overacting.