I'm not sure you're understanding right. The PC version, at the moment, is exactly the same as the 360 and PS3 version. It is not until the end of the process that the features that define the PC version are put in. So really, which version they're using is irrelevant right now.

Well, console's are striving to be PC's with each generation. It's like game developers are trying to re-create the wheel with this mindset. Which is gonna lead us nowhere, and instead hault technology. It's just wrong.

Oh, I don't disagree - however the state of the gaming industry is as it is, and practically the 360 is a good choice. The PC is a bad choice because there's too much variability in hardware configuration, anybody can make a pretty game by throwing power at it until it works, so doesn't really show off what people will be getting, as such. The PS3 would be a good choice if it worked as well, which for a company coming from a primarily PC background seems unlikely.

That's not to say I wouldn't want to see it running on either PC or PS3 - I would - however we live in a world where people can be sued for having "Unreasonably Dangerous Onion Rings" (As if there is an onion danger threshold that they crossed), serving hot coffee, or not having a warning label on a child's inflatable saying it can't be used as a lifesaver. We can't use PC because enough people simply don't understand, and we can't use PS3 because there's a decent chance it simply doesn't run as well yet.

Except they didn't.... Todd said an obscure sentence in a magazine which could have just been a gaff. He then said in the Toddcast that they would be different and in tweets it has been said that the PC version will have PC unique features. You have to realize that just being on the PC automatically gives it the ability to better looking than the console version, making that statement moot.

PC's should be the standard for showing off games in all their glory on the newest technology, the point im trying to get across. Screw some little kid who gets his mom to buy him games on his xbox360. and he whines that it dont look as good as PC. Tough [censored], get a job if you want a gaming PC. The PC market's where the money is for these companies. The fact that all these companies that made PC only games, are now slapping PC gamers in the face with an Xbox360. And if theres one thing I know, Karma is a [censored].

Crytek was an ULTRA slap in the face with their Marketing and Public Relations.

I just wish companies knew how much Xbox360 is pirated, especially big releases. Might change their mind and view of the Xbox360, not saying the PC is any better, but damn. Put it on Steam and see how many PC pirated versions are floating around.

hate to break it to you but the game is being built for the pc, as for the consoles they simply down grade the textures and stuff for the consoles. so pc will be prettier then the consoles. read and watch the stuff at game informer in the skyrim hub. todd states very clearly pc is the main focus.
any ways not sure what the OP means? there iare screenshots and video footage out now.... and who ever said it wasn't from the pc? the game is still in development so the graphics aren't finalized yet.

Im the OP and a PC gamer.

trailer has been confirmed to be Xbox360

The problem is that the PC graphics aren't finished til the very end of game development not to mention many people would say that bethesda was misrepresenting their product if they showed the PC graphics for the console versions as well. Remember what happened when BGS showed the Radiant AI feature that was in the game in Oblivion and when they had to cut a few features, everyone claimed they lied and still to this day won't drop it because they feel they were cheated when in reality they don't deserve a single thing....



No, that's the exact opposite. Most games today are made for the consoles first then for the PC, not the other way around. Also, Todd already said that it is being made as the 360 as the focus, just like every other game developer making a multiplatform game. As for the screens and trailer being not the pc, all the media released including the trailer has been confirmed to be on the 360 by dev posts and tweets. PC graphics are made at the end, so we won't be seeing the full extent of the PC graphics til near game release or not at all and have to wait to play.

I really hope you're right, though it would be nice to have official words that the PC will get attention later in the development, you dont happen to have any source regarding this?

After thinking about it for a few, its all clear now. Microsoft is monopolizing the console market the same way they did the Operating System market. An example, "Everything has to go through them". Their gonna advertise more, get game developers pushing their console more. And why? Because Windows OS makes billions, if not trillions. So we PC gamers are left with Microsoft playing on our emotions. "We just released Win7 and it has Dx11 support go get a Dx11 vid card", new game gets announced and Mircosoft insist it be shown on their console, to spite SONY. Then PC gamers are left in the dark, in all this BS.

Quick question = Who do you think owns the Internet? Or what company has the most influence over the Internet?

And Pokemon HeartGold and SoulSilver were released in 2010. Not to say you're wrong, but you really can't compare visual quality of games on different platforms simply with time. Crysis was released a year and a half after Oblivion, which isn't a very long time in the long run. But it was developed for different hardware using an unoptimized engine. The best that PC's have will always be better than the hardware on consoles, excluding the immediate time of release perhaps. The only comparison you could possibly make is Crysis 2 for 360 and Skyrim for 360. Figure out how many polygons, particles, and AI packages Skyrim loads, then compare to Crysis 2. You'll probably end up with results around the same, with Skyrim probably having more advanced AI. The reason a game like Crysis 2 is better is because it loads less than an open world game like Skyrim. You can increase quality by a lot when you don't render as much quantity-wise.

I'd still like to see higher-res water meshes. That is one of the few gripes I have with the game. Everything else looks absolutely superb.

I will be on PC, but this video on xbox looks awesome anyway, I would be more than happy with it.

This may be a silly question, but how do you know that the screenshots already available are not of the PC version?

Because they feel comfortable with Microsofts tools? I dunno bout you but I've seen a lot of devs whom seems to prefer developing on the 360 first.

I believe a Bioware dev said that it's like packing a lot of things in a very small box (360) and then you take those things and put them in a big box (PC) where they can be moved around (customizable settings) to the users own end (mods).

The PC will have higher res textures, which has been confirmed by Todd Howard. He stated that this was done because PC players are closer to their screen than console players.

Anyone who thinks that the high res textures will be made at the last moment hasn't got a clue about how texturing works. You usually start out with a hi-res texture, which can easily be reduced. Turning a low res texture into a high res texture basically requires you to do the whole texture over again.

Google.

As for being left in the dark, I'm a PC gamer and I own a console and when I play on my PC, I never feel cheated because my PC version of the same console game always looks worlds better when I crank it up to max settings.



Yeah...no. It's the opposite when you start development with the 360 instead of the PC. When you do it that way, you make high res textures last. Besides, I find it easier to make low res textures first as a baseline and then increase it from there. Texturing is an art and with all art, you start with a roughdraft and move on to more detail from there.

What are you gonna do about it? Punch a wall? Make angry post on Internet forums?

Should he fear for his life just because he, maybe, prefers an Xbox over a PC?

REAGAN SMASH! Reagan sleepy.

If the trailer was 360 footage (which still looked amazing) they can never release PC footage for all I care.

edit: What I'm concerned about the PC version is optimization, stability, controls, UI, mod tools, that kind of thing. I can live without über graphics.

I have more than enough experience with making textures, both hi-res and lo-res to know what I'm talking about. Even your base texture or rough draft as you call it will be in the maximum desired resolution as it's easier to reduce the texturesize later on than to work vise versa. I have no idea about your workflow or what kind of textures you created, but it's just not logical. Care to elaborate, or show an example?

The development is done on a PC of course and not on a 360...

Erm, Todd may have said that some of their development occurs starting with the consoles but that's not how it usually works. I've made textures for the Source engine for years and typically I start at a 2048x2048 working resolution, then tone it down as is necessary (and in some cases removing layers of detail that just translate into a garbled mess at lower detail). Much more practical, especially considering the extensive amount of photo references Bethesda uses (look at the Making of Oblivion videos).

Source: I started the DaggerXL Texture Project, man!


"Remastering" a lower resolution in the way you describe it sounds like the methods used back in the 90s, when lots of console ports of games had added goodies like CGI cutscenes and better textures than their PC counterparts. These were often simply done by doing some faint brushovers to add additional definition and by overlaying detail textures. Which can work if you put enough effort into it, yes, but it can also look incredibly artificial compared to what raw higher resolution textures can do.

Starting at a higher res also gives you the option of being completely soulless and just jumping a mip-map when porting things to lower hardware.


I paint the "base" for lots of my textures before overlaying things onto them. But I do these at a higher resolution, so that in the event that I want to redo any details I can revert to a clean, crisp instance of the texture, add the new details, and then downscale them consistently with the rest of the image - instead of having to deal with a messy low resolution copy. The only drawback to this technique being that I have PSDs which go well over a few hundred megabytes in size. :whistling: