I have a concern about Skyrim that is making me hesitate to reserve the game.
A little background on my problem:
The first current generation console I bought was a PS3, and one of the first games I bought for it was Oblivion. To this day Oblivion on the PS3 is the most fun I've ever had with a videogame, and I've played hundreds upon hundreds of hours across multiple files.
I liked Oblivion so much that I bought it 4 different times. The regular Oblivion for PS3; GOTY Edition for Xbox 360; GOTY Edition for PC (I'm not a PC gamer and I was overwhelmed by all the modding capabilities of Oblivion); and GOTY Edition for the PS3.
One of the many things I noticed, having played the game on all platforms, was the dayplain disparity between the PS3 version and the 360 version, in terms of loading time and graphics especially. In fact, I did a direct side-by-side comparison many times, running both version simultaneously at full resolution on the same television set. I would position myself at the exact same place (say directly outside Bruma, facing the Northern Gate) and compare the two screens. It really is a striking difference, and as far as I'm concerned, it's as good a proof as any of the hardware disparity of the two consoles. The PS3 has finer texture resolution (roof shingles and Dadreic armor notches stand out dramatically well in the PS3 version, whereas on the 360 the textures are muddled and undefined), better looking backdrops and foliage, and the draw distance is either farther or loads more quickly. One really needs to have the two side by side to apprehend the real difference, and anyone can read about more on this subject on the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion
The PS3 version of Oblivion was released exactly a year after the 360 and PC versions, and the advantage of being given its own extended development cycle certainly showed in the finished product. The porting was handled in part J4 Studios, and despite the patches which were later given to the 360 version, the hardware disparity is still very, very obvious.
This brings me to my concern. We have seen a number of multiplatform games suffer quality downgrades on the stronger platforms (the PS3 and PC) to streamline the development cycle for all platforms, resulting in a game that is very much consistent in quality across all platforms, despite inherent hardware differences of significant magnitude. My fear is that both the PC and the PS3 version of Skyrim will suffer from a similar corner-cutting and quality downgrade because they are being developed in tandem and probably together with the technologically weaker 360 version. It does not take a great deal of imagination to grasp why this is very upsetting for PC and PS3 owners.
As someone who owns all the major console and has (though rarely uses) a high-end rig, I would like to know whether this is a legitimate concern. I think in all fairness each platform deserves to be treated and developed for independently, because otherwise the final product will naturally be a representation of the weakest hardware, that is to say, the Xbox 360. I am not adverse to buying several versions of Skyrim as I did Oblivion; but if the PS3 version will only be the 360 version burned on to a Blu-Ray disc, I think I will have to go ahead with the PC version.
Any and all information on this subject will be most appreciated.
You have a couple of misconceptions there. The "downgraded" games to fit console hardware is a myth of WOW [censored] who spend too much time playing and little time studying sociology and economics. The capitalist market of computer hardware is over bloated, always improving. However, technology doesnt really work that way. Games on the first year of a console cycle look enormously inferior to the games on the end of the cycle. Why? Because technology is something to play with, to learn the tricks, and find shortcuts. Thats why Skyrim can make full shadows when Oblivion couldnt: they find shortcuts and get used to how the hardware works, and can find way around problems. That also happens on computers: you can have hardware that doesnt have 3 million GB per second in memory, yet still have a game that looks good. Thats a reality. If it wasnt possible, the capitalist market on this kind of technology would have fallen on its butt, because the hardware keeps getting better, and more expensive, and you simply HAVE to buy better equipment all the time...thats the defeat of any market, because people dont have the capacity to buy indefinitely.
Thats why Oblivion looks better on PS3; in the year in between the releases of the Xbox and the PS versions, some Bethesda programmer found a way around some problems they had during development. Why? Because technology is flexible. What the evolution of hardware is doing is issuing the downfall of computer games: they are gonna keep looking better and better....until people will not be able to pay for the hardware to run it. And all because capitalism works that way, always hungry for more (hungry while that hunger endangers that which it covets: profit), and doesnt let programmers just be creative with what they have, and only promote innovation when the hardware just cant go any further. That echoes what Todd said: "Theres a lot we can do in this generation of consoles", which is why they did not wait for another console cycle.
No company is gonna be stupid enough to make a game only the handful of people that can afford a piece of hardware can buy. Thats like rule number one on the manual of HOW NOT TO KILL YOUR BUSINESS.
The hardware industry is just looking to make money, not to create games that look good. They just want to appeal to a sense of "progress" and milk the rich people that can pay $5,000 computers (and those, of course, are not us, the majority of consumers). Thats why they are pressuring Sony to release a PS4.
» Thu May 19, 2011 9:37 am 
