yes it does

I'll be spending about 1000$ in a couple of months and http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229221 is what i'd get right now if i had the loot already.

hopefully the pc that i built last year will suffice, i might get a SSD or another 6GB of ram but otherwise i think i'll be okay

Indeed, a great disappointment. The idea of playing a game as detailed as a TES title, with graphical detail to match the world detail, gave me warm fuzzy feelings. Alas, it looks like my modded oblivion will look better that it, at least on release.
Super pity.

I love my Xbox. I have no problem with it being the inferior platform for skyrim. It is just a shame PC gamer's treat us like we need to wear football helmets and ride the short bus. I get it DX11 is the new "thing" and were holding you back from it I know. We don't all want to spend 1000$ plus for petty crap that offers little in the way of game play. Just remember crysis might be a benchmark but it sure as hell not a good game.

I have to agree with Tribal - I would have been more surprised if they had come out saying how amazing Skyrim looked on PC compared to consoles. Considering that the Xbox has the biggest consumer base (according to sales of their past games), it makes sense that they try to appeal to console users. Talking about how superior the game would look on PC could be seen as shooting themselves in the foot, marketing wise.

This is great news! Limits make people more creative, which is ideal for a flourishing mod community. Todd got it right. :yes:

This is bad news. Limits are frustrating on a PC, where every possibility must be open. A game like Skyrim could do great things with tessellation. Pls Bethesda, don't let us down, use tessellation for buildings, landscapes, roads, armor, and pretty much everything. And better lighting system too.

Actually, the best way to speed load times (after assuring you have sufficient RAM) is RAID 0.....otherwise known as data striping. One of my render boxes has a boot setup of RAID 0 as a test; and Asus mobo, a socket 939 Athlon II X2, and 4 gigs of DDR 2. XP-64 goes from power switch to desktop in -15 seconds-. All you need is a motherboard that supports RAID (or a PCI controller card for same), and 2 =identical= HDD's. And to remember that RAID 0 has =NO= fault tolerance. A drive in the array fails, then everything is gone. If you want a boot system with striping, then keep it solely to the OS and the few things like codecs you have to put there; all other data goes on a separate drive.

ow great, i was hoping for skyrim to be graphically brilliant, like oblivion when it came out. But no dx11? Man that new fog-thingy had better be RLY impressive...... I do hope they've got simple things like depth of field and such, i couldn't tell from screenshots. (no godrays either...)

I was wondering though, i was planning to upgrade soon anyways.

intel core i7-2600K 3.4 ghz
1 GB AMD-radeon HD 6870
6 gb ddr3 ram

should be more than enough to play this at max, right?

Agreed. That the game won't support DX11 is a non-issue for me. And the PC graphics will be noticeably better, if the previous gamesas games are anything to go by, as you can increase the viewing distance for various objects quite a bit and so on.

Oh come on... they gotta add the option to use Dx11

well i hope they don't stick with dx9, i want soft fog that doesn't clip through stuff

Saying all PC gamers is elitist is exactly the same as saying all console gamers are 12 year olds, just the other way around. Congratulations
And either way, it's like you're playing on a PS3 and every game that comes out looks and plays like a PS2 game - wouldn't you be a little annoyed?

Anyway, I spent the equivalent of 500 of your US dollars on my machine, and parts are cheaper over there. (And Crysis was actually quite a good game, it was certainly a departure from the generic corridor shooters that plague the industry. It might not be a fantastic game, but it was pretty damn good, with or without its oft-quoted graphics)

I don't get the "we can't have it so you can't either" mentality.

I spend a lot of money on my rig, I want my games to use it all, fully!

I'm sorry if the console is your only option, but don't limit (penalize) me due to others lack of decent hardware.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'll be pissed if they don't have support for it. They build a new engine, and cripple it right out of the gate by leaving it out? WTH? Makes no sense to me! You want your new system to shine on release day. Crippling it does not help to that end.

There is no reason for them to leave it out, none! Oh, except it may offend a part of the population.......SO WHAT!!!!

What's that saying, "get with the time or be left behind". If you can't "get with the times" (cost) enjoy what you get!

I get people don't have money to throw at gaming rigs but can we stop with the selfish "I can't have it so you can't either" mentality, please?

P.S.

I seem to have replied to this thread but it was concerning both this and another DX11 topic. So if a comment seems out of place that would be why.

I just hope system requirements will be same as FO3. If PC is not getting anything but a port from console without any graphical improvements except better AA and resolution I can't see why it would require more horsepower than FO3 (or if it does it tells how lazy Bethesda is with optimizing their PC ports properly...).

Those people replying with "Great, now I don't have to buy new hardware" have absolutely no idea what they're doing. Sliders are in almost every PC game for a very big reason. I'm sorry if you don't understand how to move one left and right. It gives you the exact same effect.

Are any of those facts actually true?

I agree with you though - PC gaming isn't dying.

Is anyone getting the feeling that the new engine is a bit 'the emperor's new clothes'? I.e. not all that amazing or different to previous games?

I'm probably totally wrong and it's breathtaking seen in action, but right now the screenshots look like Oblivion, just with "Unique Landscapes"-style rock walls and generally cooler design.

No DX 11 support, plus I seem to remember some quote along the lines of:
"Would you license the engine out?"
- "We would never do that."
...tells me that they weren't really aiming for a world-beating engine?

Which is fine by me (as long as it's not an awful console port like GTA IV, and doesn't have a completely unsuitable interface like PC Oblivion), it just seems strange that they make such a big deal out of the Creation engine.

Make no mistake, if it's a toss between better landscape design (which seems to be in the game, from the few screenshots we've seen) and more advanced graphics, give me the better design any day. It just seems strange for an Elder Scrolls game not to be graphics-intense... both Daggerfall, Morrowind and Oblivion made the PCs of their day work hard.

If you include the casual market, then all of them are true. If you exclude that, then I believe only the latter two are. (In that, there are more PC-only games and people have been calling the imminent death of PC gaming for the last 20 years)

The lack of DX11 makes me cry for my HD5970 that will go to waste, though I guess this means my laptop will max it.

Thanks for the link. I didn't know there will be a new http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfKQCAxizrA game. A timeless gem, I'm still playing it.

I think Populous is a great example of what we were spoiled by then and how high our expectations reached and how much time we had to wait for an update.

13 years.

PS. I hope they have space view. I mean how can you have lower graphics than a '98 game? :wink_smile:
PPS. Duke is another example. If DNF was out in 2001 the whole FPS genre would be a different place right now.

on topic:
DX11 means nothing by itself except some optimization and some features which would mean nothing if not programmed by developers. There are no switches for awesome graphics.

Even Crytek is trying to match graphics of consoles to the PC version. This means workarounds to enable Global illumination on PS3 and XBOX360. The same thing is done probably in DX10-11 mode for extra performance on PC but in other ways on consoles. Consoles let developers to use hardware directly so they are not bound by DX9.

And "alike" gives so much room for improvements. And "want to" means PC is superior right now, they are trying to match consoles to it. And for the "AA and high resolution", it is funny because it is true. :teehee:

Honestly, it's the other way around.

In the event vanilla Skyrim does not include hi-res textures, DX11 support, etc., and we end up having to install a crap-ton of graphics and texture mods, the end result is that you will need a much more powerful computer to run the game well.

For example, with the best SSD on the market (I have dual Intel SSDs in Raid 0 which are lightning fast), with a lot of mods, the load time for Oblivion is increased 10x - 20x (from almost instantaneous to 30 seconds wait). Vanilla Oblivion frame rate is constant 60 fps with vsync enabled. Heavily modded version is more like 40-45 fps, and I have a pretty good DX11-enabled GPU.

Honestly, I think Skyrim looks beautiful. The graphics are a step up from FO3. Maybe not as big of one as from Morrowind-Oblivion, but that's because graphics are reaching the point where it's more about what you do in the world than what software you use to render it.

Dynamic fog, snow, better animations, better faces, better trees? Yes, please.

Skyrim looks gorgeous. If Beth can make it run well and make it look good on "obsolete" hardware, what's the point in NOT doing it, when all you would be doing otherwise is cutting off a large portion of your consumer base?

With the graphics as good as they are, I'd rather Beth codes in better mechanics, better features, and does more with what they already have than possibly waste time adding support for hardware only a sizable, but not overwhelmingly large, group of people have. If it looks and runs good, what's the point of having it on better hardware when you could spend that time working on Radiant Story, combat, and other things? Graphics HELP make a game, but a game can look beautiful and still be utter crap because the mechanics are off. Likewise, a game can look like utter crap and still be fantastic because it's mechanics are so well laid out (Dwarf Fortress, Minecraft).

So far the screenshots don't look more impressive than a heavily modded Oblivion. They do have better lighting and better looking models though.

As for the top 10 console user responses:

1) Who cares about graphics?
2) Graphics don't matter.
3) I'm glad I won't need to upgrade.
4) Thank god for DirectX 9.
5) Are you blind? It looks fantastic!
6) It's fine the way it is. I'd rather they spend money on gameplay than graphics
7) An open world RPG can't possibly look as good as Crysis
8) We haven't seen PC screenshots yet, why are you complaining?
9) I see shadows everywhere.
10) If you don't like it, go play something else.

Did I miss any?

But like someone said above, it all just keeps sounding like "If we can't have it, no one can and they better not waste time on it. We are the majority and you're selfish elitist spoiled people! Shame on you!" :shakehead: