My PC has some pretty horrible specs, but they are above the specs of an Xbox 360. Yet I can't even run Oblivion on full settings. So I'm just not seeing how they are getting that view distance with that amount of distance trees with the textures they are running on the 360 to run so flawlessly with that FPS.

I've been watching the HD video downloads, the 3 part demo released semi recently, and it just amazes me. I'm watching this full HD video full screen and this thing just looks like a PC game. I can't imagine how it's working so fluidly. The grass draw distance is lacking, yes, but that's honestly not a huge Vram killer or a CPU killer by any means.

What IS a Vram killer and a CPU killer is that view distance, the tree draw distance, and the fact that it's generating AI for dragons literally 500+ feet away from the PC. All of this, on a 360, with flawless FPS, no dips at all, I just don't get it? If my PC can't even run OBLIVION that well, how can my 360 lmao?

Now, before the trolls get in here, don't take this thread the wrong way. I am not:

-Bashing Skyrims graphics, they look AMAZING
-Bashing the 360, at all

I'm just honestly genuinely surprised it can run this game so well. :shrug: It runs better than Oblivion. And Oblivion was inferior in almost every regard.

And all this, but just think how much better the PC version will look. It's going to be phenomenal.

It just seems to me that this game was optimized by God.

Incredibly long loading times? Not sure.

What gets me the most, however, is how dense the trees/shrubs/grass are. With all of that loading at the same time you'd think the 360 would just die. Yet it handles it with flawless FPS.
How?

Did Bethesda just ask Jesus how to optimize this game?

A fabulous Optimization, advanced knowledge of the hardware, Todd Brain...

Imagine the PC version!!! Like you say. It's going to be phenomenal... :user:

In my fantasy it runs at 60 FPS. However, I'll be glad if it runs at a solid 30. Expecting slowdown in certain areas like in RDR (Theives Landing area).

Games on the 360 usually run around medium graphics settings.

that's why.

Well I don't think it runs at 60 on the 360 at any point, but it's at least 30 in all areas of the demo. Which is fine by me honestly.

@ForestLurker, yet the game looks absolutely stunning. The only textures that aren't high quality are the armor textures. Everything else we've seen have really nice high res textures, especially the landscape, terrain detail, and buildings.

Have you seen the quality of the textures on the weapons? That steel battle axe and the glass sword look stunning. It's just the armor that has lower quality textures, and it's understandable.

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

Probably they are using every ounce of the hardware they can. I suspect most game makers just look at something and say "Eh, that's good enough." and they might use maybe 50% of what the machine is capable of. No matter the platform. Bethesda seems to have the philosophy of squeezing blood from a stone. And since they rewrote their graphic engine they get to squeeze a little more.

To be completely honest, I don't see all the hype surrounding the graphics in this game. It certainly has potential on PC, but the 360 version just doesn't look all that incredible. Very good, yes. Better than average, yes. But phenomenal? No.

I think bethesda just has better techniques on everything they do.

Well, people have different standards when it comes to graphics. For me, I agree with the OP, they look absolutely phenomenal.

If you read the OP, you'll clearly see where I stated the PC version will look phenomenal, not the 360 version.

The Xbox version looks 1 notch less than phenomenal. That's saying something however, considering it's an Xbox. And yes, the game DOES look absolutely stunning. Watch the HD demo videos and look at the density of the trees/shrubs, and the grass, that's quality work. Leaps and bounds above Oblivion. It looks 10x better than Oblivion in every regard, yet it runs smoother on the same system.

You're basing that on what high end PC's are capable of though, and that's not fair. Skyrim looks incredible on the 360 considering the systems limitations.

You mean on the Xbox side of things, anyway? Bethesda have not made such extensive optimizations for the PS3 and PC versions, I'm sure.

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....

2 words...

new engine

Install the disk to the hard drive.... Problem solved.

I'm glad to see someone is actually appreciative of the graphics, like me.I often hear things "OMG PS2 games have better graphics" or "Witcher 2 has much better graphics", really.

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.

indeed, its well optimized.
also, if you can't run oblivion good on your computer, its obviously not as powerful as a 360; my xps laptop runs oblivion better than my xbox does. and grass IS a terrible memory hog and reduces performance substantially. but another thing you may notice is the shadows on the 360 demo. they are crap.

so yeah the 360 has drawbacks, but i don't see how its so hard to believe this game runs well on it. just saying.

Whatever, and to be completely honest. I really don't care what they do with the PC and PS3 versions. Sorry, I just don't. I have a PC but if it turns out to not be as good as the 360 version I won't complain. I'll still have my game. Everyone else will have theirs. Oh well.

I truly could not care less about shadows in any game. I turn them off in almost every game I play, PC and console. I just don't care for them. They don't add ANYTHING for me, at all. If I had a 3000 dollar rig and could run Skyrim, Oblivion, AND Morrowind all at the same time with MGE, OBE, and Skyrim Graphics Extender EIGHT TIMES OVER at the same time, I'd still turn off all shadows. That's how little they do for me. :shrug:

But that's just me. I know some people just get upset irl over some shadows.

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.

The specific response to the original post's main points is that they handle level of detail control much more efficiently than they did with the old engine. It gives the illusion of stunning detail at a far distance, because it renders the things in the distance on a much lesser level but that doesn't matter since they do not take up enough pixels on screen for it to be easily noticed (well by most gamers).

The bit about longer loading times is false, as is the bit about most other games only using "50% of a console's power." They most definitely used the full power of the consoles in much less detailed games. They just used it less efficiently and got less work done with that same amount of computing power. Skyrim looks so much better because they got better at using that hardware more efficiently.

In my opinion that kind of early generation and late generation improvement was even more profound with the earlier systems like the NES/SNES/N64/Playstation. I didn't notice that kind of improvement with the PS2 for example with later games in its time as a flagship console. Check out Chrono Trigger vs. Final Fantasy IV, Chrono Cross vs. Final Fantasy VII, Super Mario Bros. 3 vs. Super Mario Bros., and such for even more examples. I suppose Final Fantasy XII vs. Final Fantasy X might count for the PS2 but that's more of a shift to more detailed textures vs. more polygons in that last case.

Also, in my opinion people highly exaggerate how underpowered the consoles are (well except for the Wii, and I love Nintendo so that's just a fact power wise not console war nonsense). It's not that the consoles lack power. They can do almost any game concept now, the main limits for the most part only applying to graphics. Modern PCs are many times more powerful, but that doesn't mean the consoles are "underpowered" in my opinion.