Agreed, people are such nitpicks about what has marginally better graphics. Seriously the graphics look great, do people need to be reminded this is a massive world? They cant be as good as linear games that are set on a direct path without having a $1200 gaming pc. I would say the graphics are up to par with games like Red Dead Redemption even. The reason things look "better" in that game are because the camera is further away.

Anyway, top notch graphics, shouldn't be a issue.

Rage doesn't look markedly better than Skyrim, really. for one it's got a static skybox and baked shadows, while Skyrim's got volumetric clouds and full dynamic lighting - previewers have already complained about how the dynamic shadows cast from creatures look weird against the baked shadows cast by buildings. also, everything we've seen of BF3 is PC screenshots. i really don't think it'll be that big an improvement over Bad Company 2 overall on consoles.

Crysis 2 looks good but it's also corridors with a really low draw distance with tons of bloom to mask it and a lot of corner cutting (like making trash in water a 2D water texture). The Witcher 2 looks good but it's also corridors with a really low draw distance and tons of depth of field to mask it, and if it's ever released on consoles it won't be until next year at the earliest.

apart from maybe faces and animations, Skyrim's graphics are fully comparable to Red Dead Redemption, and that's pretty widely praised as a beautiful game even with all the LOD pop-in issues and weird texture streaming.

Yeah I think I can judge for myself
And when you search for Skyrim graphics on google, you'll see many others who think the same and just say "Yeah it doesn't look that good... but we got mods! Don't worry!".

If I didn't know anything about Skyrim and were to just judge the graphics and that only, I'd give it a 6/10. But that's me and my 100% honest and non-partial opinion. It's 100% for sure not a 10/10. That's Crysis 2 and BF3 and Rage and W2 level. Standards are risen. Graphics will bring down the ratings, more or less, that's for sure.

TES is by now oneof those series who'll get 9 and 10's no matter wha they do... so yea

9.0 - 9.5 most likely, they have improved on Oblivion which scored 94 so...
I doubt the reviewers will lower the score because the graphics doesn't look as good as Witcher's (a PC game), the same way they didn't lower Witcher's score because it's not open world or because the character can't jump despite the world being fully 3d
Any reasonable reviewer will compare Skyrim to the other games in this niche (Fallout and Oblivion).

those are PC gamers saying those things. i'm talking specifically the graphics in console games, because that is how Skyrim will be reviewed - as a console game.

i'm also not talking about "gamer" opinion, i'm talking about reviewer opinion, because this thread is about professional reviews, not amateur reviews.

No, any reasonable journalist will compare it to all the games in the same category ever made. If they only compared games to their own series all the scores would be 10/10 at some point because (almost) all the series are progressing in time.

I am expecting Skyrim to score lower than Oblivion, not too much, still around 90s, but generally lower because Oblivion came on new hardware and with impressive technical advancement over Morrowind (shiny technical features awe the press nowadays more than strong rpg mechanics or internal coherence) and that kind of improvement is not possible any longer due to hardware stagnation. Besides, some of the gaming journalists would judge Skyrim more harshly now that they know Oblivion scored higher than normal because the reviewers didn't perceive correctly at that time some deal breaking flaws like world scaling that are being demonized only now when they need to make Skyrim look better. My prediction is the legacy of Oblivion's high scores will backfire to some extent on Skyrim's scores, at least for the independent press.

I have a feeling Skyrim will be rated anywhere between a 7.5 and a 10. The reason is, we all know Oblivion and Fall Out 3 had some performance issues at launch such as crashes and minor glitches. I have faith in Bethesda''s Creation engine though, I hope they put a lot of time and effort to streamlining performance so it works great right out of the box. Oh, and I am by no means a hater...just stating some of the obvious.

Even if it svcks it will get at least a 9. That's how it goes nowadays.

What do you mean by "independent" press? The press is independent by its nature.

Dragon Age 2 has 82/100, that meakes me think Skyrim can't score lower than 90% by default.

I think most reviews will be between 9.3 and 9.8. Hard to say really.

Gaming websites that are not tied to Microsoft, the publishers, the industry in general by economic strings. There are quite a few of them.

Probably will get an average 9.0 out of 10 which is not bad but the Witcher is 9.2 out of 10 and I'm playing it now and has a lot of flaws as well, people close their eyes when reviewing if they are fans of the franchise.

The game will be so awesome they'll have to mark it out of 11.

Must be between 90% and 95%, but some sites will give it a 75%-80% because they are Bethesda haters.

9-10, you may see one or two sites that have a review in the 8 range although the people on those sites are probably Morrowind Fans or Oblivion Fans who wanted a sequel to their respective game instead of Skyrim.

Probably 9 or 9.5/10. Some extreme cases may show 8/10. Nothings perfect

Reviewers thought TESIV was 9.5/10 (metascore). Clearly they didn't play it enough.....

Since nothing gets a metascore of 10/10, I'd guess it's a 9.5/10. Assuming it isn't horridly buggy upon release.

Further proof that the scores are dependent on how much money the publisher of the game bribes the critics with. Morrowind is a much better game than Oblivion. But they had a bigger budget to spend on advertising (reviews) by the time Oblivion came out. So it got better scores. The entirety of gaming journalism is an embarrassment. It really svcks how I can't just depend solely on reading a review when deciding whether or not to buy a game. But I have to read a bunch of reviews while ignoring their scores out right to focus only on the words themselves. Most reviews hide complaints about the game but slap a 9/10 on the end like none of the issues that were brought up even existed for example.

Theeeen I have to waste time lurking on forums to witness what actual, real, uncensored gamers think of it. Weeding out the trolls and biased opinions. Start looking up gameplay videos on youtube from random people playing the game. Not the official ones that are teasers or smoke and mirror highlights of the best parts of the game trying to make it seem like the entire game is consistently that good. AND THEN I finally get a general picture to settle that purchasing choice once and for all. Demos help only to seal the deal if they're around but most of the time they aren't.

99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999/10 this game is going to be the s***. I've lost my life already just waiting for it.

It's going to get 9's and maybe a few 9.5's.

Basically the generic score for most great games these days.

I doubt it'll get many 10s though. 10s tend to go to inferior games with less content but a more polished feel.

It'll get 9's and 10's from everywhere no matter what the game is actually like. It's a big anticipated game published and made by a big studio, too many bad reviews hurt sales so there won't be enough to cause harm.