Also, as long as the graphic quality doesn't ruin my ability to immerse myself into the game play and story, I'll be good. From what I've seen, it looks like the graphics and engine are doing what Bethesda envisioned, and actually complement the games story and artistic vision. As long as it does what the developers have intended it to, we should be happy and try to enjoy what they've worked hard on to create, and if we end up not liking it, so be it, that's art.

You HAVE to otherwise devs will get lazy and everyone knows what will happen next...

I'm glad that the game has an artistic style to it, that way it will stay looking amazing for ever and ever.

The person who posted it states that that's exactly what it is: a photograph with some very heavy Photoshop filters applied over it.


Your "old knowledge" is not and has never been correct.


Demon's Souls runs at 720p.

Though there is a fine line to motivating them, and being ridicules.

True.

Well the Paint comment was just a suggestion to those that don't have photoshop ( I have photoshop CS3, I'm pretty sure it is still at the standard of quality of resizing of the industry but I could be wrong) so that they could try the resizing exercise for themselves. It doesn't make it impossible to judge anything but it does dilute the graphics enough to not be able to make a definitive judgement on whether or not it's graphics are as good as something elses.

Yeah, Oblivion was great, but there was just endless GREEN! Skyrim seems to have that creative variation that will make it more fun and interesting to play and explore.

[looks at box]
"**** hes right"
and my "Old knowledge" comes from someone who has not held an xbox since it died in my arms. sorry if im a little rusty.
my point stands that the screens from skyrim Should WOULD look better if they were demoing the game on a hi-end pc.
and if this game was developed with pc gamers as the priority, and scaling back from there.

Not really. There are cases where it becomes harder to judge - Red Dead Redemption seems to have better graphics from what I've seen of Skyrim, but given the scale of the game it's entirely possible that Skyrim looks better on the whole. It most definitely doesn't outdo Crysis or Metro 2033, though. I don't need high-res screenshots to be able to judge a gap that large.

But great graphics doesn't hurt. If the story, gameplay and ambient sound are perfect and the graphics are incredibly beautiful also, it adds even more to the immersion. But yeah, we both are in agreement that no one can make a final judgement on the graphics until a high resolution, digital screen shot and gameplay video come out. When I see these in full screen mode on my 1200p resolution screen I'll make my final decision. IF they really are meh, it won't affect how I love the game if the rest of it is perfect.

Actually that is wrong PlayStation 3 has the power and space of a blue ray disc that is why it can run most games uncompressed some 1080i pixels the Xbox 360 can't
that is why most games are 720p instead of its max 1080p because of that it's software is easier to develop then literally every console on the market including wii.

but it lacks the raw power in Hz and disc memory space to really render some amazing stuff despite it's lack of difficulty to develop but it sadly never reach that potential.

bottom line PlayStation 3 has 550 mega hertz of graphical processing the Xbox 360 has 500

Blu-ray can hold up to 50 gigabytes DVD only hold 17.08 GB

you should know how this "small difference" can set two computers apart since you clearly don't have knowledge for any console hardware next time comment on things you actually know about.

soooo, immersion?

immersed [??m??st]
adj
1. sunk or submerged
2. (of plants) growing completely submerged in water
3. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) (of a plant or animal organ) embedded in another organ or part
4. involved deeply; engrossed

I think any great work of art, be it in the form of a game, literature, music, or paintings should have that ability to pull us in, to let us forget about everything else except what that work of art is telling us. And hopefully that message or story can tell us something about ourselves and the world we live in. I think that's a good goal games should shoot for.

http://image.alienware.com/Images/microsite/ati/screen_crysis.jpg and http://s764.photobucket.com/albums/xx281/Soulece/?action=view¤t=screen_crysis2.jpg

Uh... no. http://www.mobygames.com/game/ps3/elder-scrolls-iv-oblivion/cover-art/gameCoverId,86072/. http://www.mobygames.com/game/xbox360/elder-scrolls-iv-oblivion/cover-art/gameCoverId,77304/. Take a look at which one supports 1080i. Hint: it's not the PS3 version. Also, supporting higher resolutions doesn't have anything to do with the amount of space you have on disc or how compressed your data is (and having larger assets actually makes it more difficult, not less).

Strike one for knowing what you're talking about.


Talking about clock speed as though it were the determining factor of a system's ability to render something while ignoring literally everything else about the hardware involved. Strike two.


Ignoring literally everything else about the GPUs in the two consoles and their hardware in general while focusing on a clock speed gap that's pretty much entirely irrelevant. Strike three.


Not knowing how much space DVDs can actually hold. Strike... four?


Hahahahaha yeah.


That doesn't really do anything to respond to what I've said. You're saying it looks worse when you make it smaller. It... actually doesn't (the smaller shot makes it harder to spot less apparent and smaller details that actually make it look worse rather than better), but yes, in print it would make it look worse. That doesn't address the statement I made at all: that this doesn't matter, because the gap between Skyrim's graphics and the graphics of certain other games is so large that we don't need higher-resolution or clearer screenshots to determine which looks better.

Wow..... zing! I lolled pretty hard at this nice!

On topic, I agree people are missing the point, seems people were expecting better than Crysis graphics in an openworld game! For those comparing to RDR Screenies, try rescaling to a small pixel size and comparing it your scans, then make a judgement

RDR still seems to come out ahead, but once again I don't think that it's a fair comparison. I don't expect anyone to beat Rockstar when they go out of their way to do something as well as they possibly can (which they did with the outdoor environments in RDR), and Bethesda's never been at the absolute top of the ladder in terms of graphical prowess. I don't think Skyrim looks better than Red Dead Redemption, but I think that going on to say "and therefore it looks terrible" is more than a little ridiculous.

really? 550 MHz of graphics processing? That seems a little low for PS3 seeing as how it was delayed to allow for upgrades above that of the 360. 550 MHz seems to me to be what the 360 should've been at by the time it was released. By the time the PS3 had gone into production the graphics level had at least reached 700 MHz. Besides, 50 MHz in terms of graphics processing now a days (seeing as how my computer's GPUs pull well over 1 GHz of power) it makes almost no visible effect.

The PS3's GPU is clocked at 550MHz. They probably could have invested in a better GPU in general, but the Cell processor and Blu-Ray drive in the console already represented a fairly gigantic cost in terms of producing the system (gigantic enough that they had to sell it at $600 and still took a loss on every system sold). But again, clock speed isn't the most important factor in the capabilities of a GPU and a gap of 50MHz is pretty much insignificant, especially when we're dealing with two wildly different systems like the 360 and the PS3.

Consoles where design to play games that is why processing is so low may seem a little low but when your are specially design to do one task really well there's not much required to do it.

Yeah but I would've dropped the Blu-ray drive in favor of functionality instead of the marketing hype of "OMGZ we have blu-ray an xbox doesn't" Blu-ray is a pretty irrelevant drive in this generation. When we transition to the next gen in a few years, Blu-ray will be a must but as for the present, it was an unnecessary feature when they could've moved up to a ~700 MHz processor instead. But that's why I'm not in the process of making gaming systems, I'm in the process of making the games :biggrin:



Well the CPU in the console wouldn't have to be that strong due to the fact it doesn't have to deal with threading of a showy background OS and other services but the GPU is the very thing the console is based around and should have at least been the highest quality they could get for a decent cost instead of blowing budget on a Blu-ray player, which at the time was expensive and had very few things on the market to work with it. I just think they reached too far in the future with that feature.

I would like to at least have high res screens, instead of low res scans before making final judgement, but it seems you may be right. Oh well Skyrim still looks amazing to me

Indeed. Even if it does lose out to Crysis or RDR when we finally see the High res screenies, even if it falls just short of them it will still look gorgeous. Am I wrong?

Yes and no. The benefits offered by having a system more clearly dedicated to a single thing or a handful of things are pretty large, but they aren't nearly as massive as a lot of people think that they are. And besides that, both the 360 and the PS3 have operating systems that do multiple tasks in the background while games are being played on them and that can be accessed mid-game.


Blu-Ray wasn't included for the sake of marketing. Sony (and a very, very large amount of anolysts) expected the PS3 to be able to sell regardless of pretty much anything they might have done, and Sony was getting ready for a format war with HD-DVD when they were developing the PS3. They planned to use the system as a Trojan horse of sorts to get Blu-Ray adopted broadly enough that HD-DVD would stop seeming attractive as a platform for studios or anyone else who might want to use it, and that plan's been a pretty monumental success so far (it did result in far slower sales for the PS3 earlier on, but with the price down to a more reasonable level and Blu-Ray being the only option as a media format for the HDTVs that are pretty rapidly becoming the standard among gamers it's picked up enough that the system's lifetime sales have actually caught up with the 360 now).

EDIT: But I'm getting a little off-topic here.