Since optimizing has never been something as important as now when new consoles are out programmers will be better optimizers than ever so we will get stunning visuals that only take a small part of the actual capacity of the console wich will let the developers put in alot of content

Consoles are definitely showing their age. I never play console so I am used to the higher res PC screens. Most recent game I played on X360 was bad company 2 on a 42" 1080p. I wasn't very impressed. The small things just jump out at me! Lack of anti-aliasing is the biggest.

I hope (as some multi-platform releases are these days) that there are extra details placed in the PC version. We will of course have the basic graphics settings but I hope Skyrim is at least as configurable as Oblivion. We could edit the .ini to get enhanced grass effects and sweet water reflections that were not standard.

Here's hoping that Bethesda still keeps us in their minds while programming that beast!

... Yeah. I know... That'd be the point, mate.

PC gaming culture has a sense of elitism about it; It's never stated outright, but PC gamers do look down on console gamers because console gamers are allegedly more of a casual crowd and don't like more sophisticated games. According to the nerdrage that is PC gaming culture, console gamers only buy games because of the graphics.

I just find it ironic that PC gamers are now complaining about consoles holding back graphic advancements. The roles seem to be reversed. And no one stops to think that the neckbeard with a Cray supercomputer capable of handling the latest and greatest might be a minority. That there are more (PC) gamers today than there were 10 years ago, and that some of those people might get left out in the cold if every new game takes full advantage the newest advancements.

On a personal note, I'd rather more resources and time be spent in the gameplay department, rather than into an area that makes a game look shiny and cool.

Take a look at Minecraft: simple graphics; amazing gameplay.

I think it's pretty obvious what I'm trying to point out. :brokencomputer:



ONLY the facial capture tech. I bet it beats Skyrim's facial animation, so there is still room for improvement on consoles.

This is how I feel. I think with a couple mods, Morrowind, especially faces, looked way better than Oblivion. Which is strange because there were plenty other games in between that got it right.

Anyways...I don't care about specs. If it looks good, it looks good. From the screens I've seen so far, it looks good. If another game has "better graphics" then good for them. As soon as it has better setting, world, and gameplay, I'll look into it.

Animation-wise: There is plenty of room for improvement.

Detail-wise: Consoles have pretty much peaked in this area.

Honestly, I liked that style of graphics over the optimized, hyper-realistic, shiny surface look that blockbuster games like Black Ops use. I stopped playing the COD franchise when found BFBC2. The graphics weren't the reason though, it was the gameplay, which like the graphics, was grittier and more realistic.

I just hope the game doesn't look distorted at 2560x1600 like ME 2 does... it has all kinds of graphical glitching that makes my eyes bugger out. At least Dragon Age: Origins looked fine. Hell, PC games from the year 2000 typically look better at super high res than newer console ports.

Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 made use of film grain, which is really a simple solution to make low resolution textures look gritty and realistic. Skyrim will definitely have some improvements on console, but it won't be a huge significant difference from Oblivion more than likely. PC on the other hand will have an obvious difference.

why dont you ask them to add high res to the 360/ps3 game's?, and not make a big deal about it cause i think it look's btter then oblivion .


p.s i love oblivion one of my fav 's.

I am a PC gamer and I look down at the consoles, but not their users. I do not care who uses them, but a majority of the time developers will not put in the effort to optimize use of the PC format. This makes Gurk mad. When Gurk gets mad he turns green and smashes things with a hammer! Just like all of the Orcs I make in games.

Different art departments.

Console games have basically been using the same asset specs since 2006.

IF it looks better than oblivion and runs smoother I will be a happy man.........I dont care if it looks like crysis

It is quite silly to think you are going to get the graphics on the level of crysis etc. when they aren't games that have a huge open world like Skyrim or many of the other radiant features that Skyrim will have. Maybe on next gen consoles if there is another Elder Scrolls game this will happen, but you have to accept sacrificing in one area to improve in another.

Once I saw high res scans and realized the page 48 pic(best mountains I have ever seen in a game) was a screen I was very impressed, the game looks much better than OB, but I must say the forest in OB still hold up today its simply amazing how good they look, static shots of Skyrims forest don't look much better, but with the snow effects and real wind action the game in motion could be quite an improvement in this area. In OB everything else is showing its age.

most people would not run an open world, crysis RPG with randiant AI and Story game like they are requesting anyway.

Nice job stereo-typing PC gamers.

If you have a Ferrari, are you going to be satisfied with city streets?

Actually, I would rather have it like real life...some people look good, some are slim, but others are facially ugly, and some are lard@$$3$.

He's right about it to some extent. I PC game exclusively. I don't really look down on console gamers in a personal sense, but to some extent consoles have really been holding the game market back with their ancient hardware. If they released a new console system every 2-3 years I'd be less bitter about it.

That just sounds like a good way to get everyone to switch to pc. What, pay 300 every two or three years, or get a computer where you can upgrade smaller parts for less and make it last a good 10 if you really push it. >.> I know I wouldn't buy a new console that often.

I'm a computer science major, a philosophy major, and a pc gamer (built my first rig myself) since the age of nine. I all three of the modern consoles, and here is the thing; crysis came out in 2007 and could not be placed on the consoles because of the scale of the game. Same thing with Arm2, STALKER, and many other games. Looking at the current cycle which is console heavy most technological improvements in gaming have become static; the best looking game on any platform is FOUR YEARS OLD; this obviously shows how static things have gotten. Luckily things are changing the witcher 2, shogun 2, red orchestra 2, arma 2, STALKER 2, EVE, bf3 and hopefully crysis 2 will push Tech forward with some sweet sixy DX11 effects.

Also i love when people go "herp durp it's not about teh gfx its about the gameplay," graphics add to immersion and to the gameplay SO does the physics system, bullet system ect ect and so on.

Thank you! The engine is the canvas devs have to work with. If you limit that canvas you limit the game. Simple as that.

I still play some very old rpgs -finished redemption last week :rolleyes: so i don't really care about gfx but the screenshot i saw from V looks terrible for a 2011 game .

Of *course* PC gamers look down on consoles (the hardware, not the gamers themselves). Partially because yes, a PC capable of handling any game you throw at it is very cheap now, and additional power doesn't do much good. The often used example of Crysis still being one of the most technically impressive games ever made almost 4 years after launch is a good one, consoles are, however you put it, 6 year old hardware trying to compete with modern hardware. My /graphics card/ has more RAM than either console, and that's a midrange card. Cheap. Console hardware is laughable - it's like you have a 360, but the dominant console is a NES and every game you play was designed and built for that NES. Graphics are held back (and not in a "I want pretty graphics over everything else" way, in a "We have more than enough power to quickly make graphics look much clearer, and more accurate, and they're not used), gameplay is designed for a 2-button controller and not the vastly superior controller you have, so on. It's not a case of laughing at the casuals, it's a case of almost complete stagnation of advancement, both in gameplay and graphics. Did you know that full physical simulation of the world is more than possible now? And how much depth that could add to so many games? Why won't it be in any large-scale game?

Because consoles have 6 year old hardware, and it wasn't plausible 6 years ago. That's a loss to gameplay.

Sheesh, now that argument is going on again. It's not the consoles who are to blame. Most developers would LOVE to develop great looking games and take their precious time fleshing every element out to the best of their skills. But the MARKET does not want this, instead the highest profits go to those who can deliver as many best-selling games as possible.
That's the thing we should be talking about, not "console tards" or "PC elitists". The audience is not to blame for the market taking advantage of them.