I think your oversimplifying things:
More polygons != better quality.

I myself have worked with various 3D applications, and with the knowledge I have about the subject a fair share of oblivions models is kinda sloppy.
There could be massive performance boosts by optimizing the geometry. However, there's so much content that doing so would be incredibly time consuming.
Obviously, when applied correctly more poly's do lead to better quality, but it isn't a fixed relation.

Also, don't forget that if they say they're using an updated version of the current engine, that doesn't mean much at all:
The different unreal engines are all based on their previous versions, and if you look at the difference between its versions those are some incredible steps.
Actually, I liked hearing so because it nearly guarantees that the ability to modify the game stays intact. This is incredibly important, as I wouldn't touch OB without FCOM (or OOO at the very least) and several other mods.

So basically, I guess you'll just have to trust the developers.
The industry standards have risen significantly since TES IV, so they're forced to improve both quality and quantity to satisfy their public.

One last thing - Don't forget that both TES II to III and TES III to IV had significant engine upgrades. Also, they used the current engine for TES IV, FO3 and FO:NV already. With the latter, many reviews criticized the engine for being outdated. Bethesda knows that if they don't improve it enough, they basically kill TES' near-flawless reputation.

Anyone remember this fake screenshot of Half Life 3? http://www.videogamesblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/half-life-3-fake-screenshot-big.jpg

I can't tell if it's just a real life photograph with the crowbar inserted in, or if it's digital. If it's digital, then how the hell did they make the graphics that good?

It's very easy to tell it's a photograph.

First of all, take the blur on the leaves at the top left.
Second, take the reflections in the water
Thirdly, all of the shadows are consistent with the highlights.
Next, there's a bit of noise caused by the digital sensor

and most important: download the image, right click it, properties.
Open the 'Details' tab.
Scroll down.
It'll show: KODAK EASYSHARE CX6200 DIGITAL CAMERA
plus all information about shutter speed, ISO speed, diafragm, and so on.

More onscreen content for me. A game can be great without having top of the range graphics. A game only needs cutting-edge graphics to cover up failings in other areas.

Damn, you are very observant! But it would be pretty crazy if games in the near future have graphics that good. I always crack up when someone describes a game like CoD as "photorealistic". I don't consider it photorealistic unless it literally looks like real life.

Why thank you
Because I'm a hobbyist 3D artist and a hobbyist photographer, I have developed an eye for the differences (scored 9/10 on Autodesks 'Fake or Photo' challenge )

While it'll take a while, photorealistic graphics will appear in due time.
When looking at the 3D software that's used for motion pictures like Pixar's, but also Pirates of the Carribean (the vast majority of the seascapes and landscapes are CGI), you'll notice that the render engines are starting to use GPU's more often. While it can easily take several hours (!!!) to render a 1080p scene with accurate lighting, some fog and some simulated fluids, it's a fact that both the hardware as the algorithms used are improving steadily.
In due time (several years, that is) we'll be able to achieve photorealism on the current resolutions.

However, because the displays we're using are also increasing in both size and resolution (1080p is common nowadays, and we're slowly moving towards 30" 2560x1600). It might just happen that by the time we can achieve these levels of realism on 1920x1080, the monitors we've started using by then have a too high resolution to make it playable. After all, 1920x1080 is roughly 2,1MegaPixel and 2560x1600 is roughly 4,1MP, almost double. With all post processing that'll require more than double the performance for the same framerates.

I got 9/12.

It was hard though. Simple things look real enough, I called 3 of them CGI wrongly.


I think Crysis showed things can be done close to real time. If we had a general purpose engine where we are free to plug our own shaders for different materials, we can get something very close to CGI with community power. Playing with Morrowind and Oblivion via MGE-OBGE is more fun than creating a "tech demo", because tech demos are boring and unrealistic situations for a working game where Morrowind and Oblivion with their top content and their underlying game mechanics show the results truthfully and beautifully.

9/12? They must've updated it then. When did you give it a shot - my entry was a fair time ago.

I disagree about crysis: It lacked detail in lots of placement, where a displacement map or tesselation (i know, it's released way before DX11 made tesselation more common) could really increase its realism.
The lighting and water effects were above average though, and so were general textures. However, the fact that a high-end computer still has trouble running it maxed (including AA) shows that it was too far ahead of the available hardware.

However, I do agree that it was looking much more realistic than anything else that was released in the same year, surprising people of the possibilities.

Just now after seeing your post. It must have got harder.

I did some render/animation with MAX. Nothing amazing. I wrote some shaders. I believe I have a good eye. I think, by 2015 things will get really interesting for real time rendering.

I too agree Crysis can get a little more polish with polygon counts and texture quality but the designs and tech is just super. It is actually what I would call a standard:
shadows for everything,
day night cycles,
parallax mapping for ground,
realistic(quality) specularity and normal maps for objects,
many post process effects,(object motion blur, dof, SSAO, color grading)
water and sky renderings are very detailed. Just check this:
http://s51.photobucket.com/albums/f386/vtastek/morrowind/morrowindmisc/crysistodeditor2.png

No wonder the outdoor lighting looks great. Graphics cards are getting faster but CPU speeds are getting lower for per core since, it is hard to max it.

Metro 2033 looks really good for rendering quality.
Subsurface scattering and object motion blur. It runs good.
It also supports tessellation.

Just Cause 2, another great example of late.

I am very happy with those games look and especially performance. But Crysis has the Sandbox editor, so it wins.

Oh and just to put more unnecessary pressure on Bethesda http://www.justcause2mods.com/components/com_remository_files/file_image_248/img_248_01.jpg is what texture modded Just Cause 2 volumetric clouds look like.