How can the game run this well on the 360 with those graphic : V - Skyrim

» Fri Oct 14, 2011 5:45 pm

And what exactly are you basing that off of? If they are doing it for the 360, they are doing it for all systems. I know you have this huge chip on your shoulder about the PS3 version, but seriously man, calm down. It will be amazing on the PS3 version. This is coming from me, someone who will never play the PS3 version, and doesn't care if it svcks hardcoe one bit or not, but trust me, I have faith in Bethesda and you should too. Bethesda didn't port the PS3 version of Oblivion, someone else did.

It's in house this time. It'll be top notch.

That'd be extremely helpful..if 360 HD weren't 8 thousand dollars. :rolleyes:
Micro$oft can seriously just get bent.

You asked a question and I shall answer it. It looks this great on the 360 because it was designed as a 360 game, not necessarily as a multiplatform game. They are porting this game to the other platforms and Oblivion, the one that was outsourced, actually turned out well on the PS3. It was Fallout 3, Bethesda's in-house PS3 title, that had problematic technical issues... especially post DLC release. Anyone can see Bethesda's blatant favoritism for the 360 and that's part of the reason why the 360 version will be performing so well. The game was designed for the 360 and ported to the others, not designed as a multiplatform game from scratch hence they were able to push the 360 to its limits. Speaking as a PS3 player who's actually witnessed the short end of Bethesda's "give a damn" meter, I assure you this is a factor. This game's engine was designed to push the 360. I should have no faith whatsoever in Bethesda and have first-hand experience justifying my vilification of their treatment of their PS3 fanbase.

» Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:07 pm

Well, I'm not playing Skyrim for the graphics, however they look 9/10 if I had to rate it.

I wonder how loud the Xbox is going to be running this game disc....

9/10? Is there a 360 game with better graphics than skyrim's? Really? I think it should get 9.5/10 because 9 is too low and crysis 2 is the only game on 360 that can beat it with a 10/10... Crysis has the option to play 3D if you have a 3D tv and I'm telling you I played it with the glasses on and it was [censored]balls amazing! nothing can compare to that. But 9/10 for skyrim? It's at least 9.5 for 360.

» Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:12 am

I'm running on a 4gig MU. I wasn't about to dish 400 out for an Xbox that I'll be replacing in 3 years with the new Xbox whatever.

That svcks!

I only dished 200 for a 60g one back in 2008. Perhaps buy a bigger hard drive? I'm sure you could find a cheap 60 or 100g HD somewhere.

» Fri Oct 14, 2011 11:47 am

You asked a question and I shall answer it. It looks this great on the 360 because it was designed as a 360 game, not necessarily as a multiplatform game. They are porting this game to the other platforms and Oblivion, the one that was outsourced, actually turned out well on the PS3. It was Fallout 3, Bethesda's in-house PS3 title, that had problematic technical issues... especially post DLC release. Anyone can see Bethesda's blatant favoritism for the 360 and that's part of the reason why the 360 version will be performing so well. The game was designed for the 360 and ported to the others, not designed as a multiplatform game from scratch hence they were able to push the 360 to its limits. Speaking as a PS3 player who's actually witnessed the short end of Bethesda's "give a damn" meter, I assure you this is a factor. This game's engine was designed to push the 360. I should have no faith whatsoever in Bethesda and have first-hand experience justifying my vilification of their treatment of their PS3 fanbase.

Wrong. You have the people who actually ported the game to the PS3 to thank for the horridly optimized port that was done extremely badly.

But you must understand something. Oblivion was horrible on the 360 as well. And by horrible, I mean just awful. That game was the most horrendously optimized piece of trash I have ever seen on this planet. It's like they just GUESSED at EVERYTHING and allocated more memory to things that didn't need it and less memory to crucial aspects of the game. It was a MESS.

» Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:17 pm

Double post, Ignore.

» Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:16 am

Best looking game i've ever seen. Simple as that.

» Fri Oct 14, 2011 6:36 pm

They use an illusion spell on every copy of the game. The game actually has Morrowind graphics and the dragons are tiny.

A... are you saying that the primary enemy in this game are illusion-enhanced cliff racers?

» Fri Oct 14, 2011 6:31 am

Wrong. You have the people who actually ported the game to the PS3 to thank for the horridly optimized port that was done extremely badly.

But you must understand something. Oblivion was horrible on the 360 as well. And by horrible, I mean just awful. That game was the most horrendously optimized piece of trash I have ever seen on this planet. It's like they just GUESSED at EVERYTHING and allocated more memory to things that didn't need it and less memory to crucial aspects of the game. It was a MESS.

That was Bethesda. They created the PS3 version of Fallotu 3 in-house and made all their pathetic and unpatched failures with Fallout 3's technical side... particularly the GOTY edition's.

Exactly... and the difference is, this time around, the engine is designed for the 360 rather than ported to the 360.

» Fri Oct 14, 2011 10:26 am

That svcks!

I only dished 200 for a 60g one back in 2008. Perhaps buy a bigger hard drive? I'm sure you could find a cheap 60 or 100g HD somewhere.

I can't speak for anyone else but myself, but I'm using an Xbox 360 Slim with the 4 gig built in memory that you can't save games to. It svcks horridly. And the only legal HD's you can buy for this thing are one hundred and fifty dollars. =/

Best looking game i've ever seen. Simple as that.

I would most certainly agree.

What's the only game that looks better than Skyrim?

Skyrim...for the PC.