Console Versions: Do you want a Hi-Res Texture Pack? : V - Skyrim

» Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:55 am

I don't really care.

Sure it would be cool, but the game looks great as is.

I'd rather they just keep shooting me up with more content.

» Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:12 pm

Sorry, I should have clarified. I just meant there is one, not that Beth released it.

Which is exactly why you won't see one on consoles.

Texture Updates are a labor of love, by the talented modding community. For a company: If there's no way to profit off of something, there's no business in making it.

Also, let's be realistic here... consoles can't handle much more in terms of image quality in an open world, than what Skyrim offers.

You'd see FPS go down to somewhere near 15... and stay there.

That'd be fairly unplayable for folks used to 30 or higher. And of course, people who don't understand those complexities would whine, complain, make threads, threaten to sue and... well, you get the idea.

» Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:43 am

Average gaming PC RAM and VRAM: 4GB Ram, 1GB Dedicated VRAM.

Gaming Console RAM and VRAM: 512MB Shared.

This is one reason you don't get higher res textures.

Another is that your TV's, even 1080p, only support a resolution of up to 1920×1080. The average PC monitor can support TWICE THAT.

» Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:22 am

Skyrim looks great to me on the 360, I have it installed.

The only thing that looks like crap is the cows.

» Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:59 am

Another is that your TV's, even 1080p, only support a resolution of up to 1920×1080. The average PC monitor can support TWICE THAT.

Not only that, but most Xbox 360/PS3 games run at 1280x720 (or even less in many cases).

I am probably not the only one who think it looks gross when 720p is up-scaled to 1080p.

» Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:46 am

I have it on ps3 (free copy from a friend) and pc so I don't mind if consoles did get high-res textures (highly unlikely) and wouldn't care if it didn't.

» Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:19 am

Uh... what makes you people think the PC has a "high res texture pack" in the sense that Battlefield 3 and Dragon Age 2 had?

PC looks sharper due to overall display resolution but the textures are mostly the same across all platforms.

Watch: http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/skyrim-xbox-360-vs-pc-comparison-video

» Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:55 am

There's a good chance they would kill the console versions. Remember, consoles are pretty old now - 5 years or so. No PC that's 5 years old will be running this game, let alone with a high-res texture pack.

» Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:20 am

I understand you and I was once a hardcoe PC player.
But I say this. The PC market is dead.
Why?:

There are roughly 10 consoles for every gaming viable PC.
And there are around 30-50 consoles for every great gaming PC. And there are roughly 1000 consoles for every super gaming PC.

What is game makers ultimate goal: To make money. Second to that: To make a great game.
Now, the two go hand in hand so make a great game and earn tons of money.
Now, why the heck do you want to release a game specifically for a PC, when you have around 20 times more possible buyers on the consoles.

With the new Consoles, that already are in engineering phase, PCs will crash and burn. Why? Cause the new consoles that will come out, will have such advanced hardware that it wont be on the PC market for atleast another year to come.
Add in that game developers with consoles can focus on ONE way of doing the game, they have an exact limit to how great they can make it.
For PCs, they need to add various settings. They never need to do this for consoles.
Once they have learned how to design for consoles, its so much easier then for PCs, but above all, you have a massive amount of users more for consoles, PS3+Xbox together, then for the PC.

There will always be games for PCs, but I believe most will in the future be online games.
The true, block buster games, have ALREADY started to more and more move entirely to the console.

Look at one of this year Game of the year contenstants. Dark Souls. Or its predecessor Demon Souls.
Massive games that easily could be ported for the PC but wont.

Look at skyrim: It is releasing the DLC to Xbox first, then to PS3

Look at EA sports game studio. They have stopped releasing some titles to the PC already. But not due to users.
But the second argument why PCs market is dying. : Cause its self inflicted.
The cracking of games is so enormous that game studios, despite flawless titles, have gone bancrupt due to the piracy thats out there.

Skyrim was released on day ONE, as a full downloadable, workable version for the PC. On DAY ONE.
Thats another reason why they always, and its due to the PC market only, release patches a day after or two, after release. Its not cause they missed it, its to ensure those piracy crackheads dont get the game as its ment to be.

PC market is both killing the game industry and dying regardless due to lack of players compared to consoles.
its a Loose Loose situation.

U mad bro???

pc gaming is far from dead. your forgetting the masses of players that still play games like counterstrike and still support old games. your also forgetting the biggest gaming market ever which is MMOs. the like of SWTOR, GW2, DIABLOIII which will all sell atleast millions. the thing i love about pc gaming is you know you get your moneys worth out of game. for instance I bought bf2 what?? 5 years ago now. and its still getting modded and there are still servers online. this will NEVER happen with a console game. as they usually only throw old games under there beds. the community is also very strong and dedicated. massive clans, money to be won, and alot of mature gamers to talk to.

back on topic. why does everyone assume you can just put a high rez texture pack on and the game will run fine?? your forgetting the massive hit it has on performance. only reason it worked for bf3 is becasue the game was built using those textures. skyrim is clearly not. the fps would be unplayable. not to mention the 360 RAM would just fail under the pressure.

» Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:09 pm

THe consoles are both too limited. You are not going to get much higher textures in such a large world with limited video ram available to even stream them, you will get some higher textures and more noticable pop-ins.

You an't just magically make the hardware do more then it is capable of, especially the ps3 which has 256mb of vram available for texturing detail, and non-unified memory for the rest of the systems use.

» Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:11 pm

On the note of BF3, the PC textures and effects are much higher on the PC then the HD packs avalable for the console versions, there is a large visual differene in effects, shadowing, layering and texture detail.

» Wed Dec 07, 2011 7:29 am

Gotta laugh at the people that think this is even an option. I voted no for obviouse reasons. Stop being stupid and if you want Hi-Res packs save up ￡800 and buy a good gaming PC then you can enjoy the rewards. Plus the above comment of a car accident? Haha, thats wrong, you should have said something like a cheap corsa getting in a drag race with say a Mitsubishi Evo, it wouldn't win without some serious time and money spent on it but after that, why not just buy the Evo in the first place.

» Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:04 pm

Consoles won't be able to handle it period.

» Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:40 am

While I understand both leadign consoles designs, I prefer pc jsut for better hardware.

However peopel who think the PS3 can handle more then the Xbox 360 are kiddign themselves. Once again Sony has designed hardware with memory flaws. THe Cell processor design is not an all powerfull design, in fact they are individually very weak, and much slower then multi core consumer and business CPU's. Even dual core smart phones can handle more lines of data.

The gpu in the ps3 is actaully pretty behidn the 360's, while the 360 is behind the times, the gpu is a bit better then the PS3's. Often that is reflected in textures when you compare, as well as tthe PS3 trick of blurring distant objects and makign then 2-D.

the non-unified memory is a flaw. No matter how powerfull you wish the CEll core design, a fancy name for single pass chips in tandom and nothing but an IBM chip set equivelant to a full fledged HT dual core, the memory limits it. You can't load moere data then the total will allow, and the split design between the GPU and main system is a flaw, even with tricks to allow main system memory to be used, it slows the ability to stream textures on the fly. Keep in mind there is no dedicated sound processor, the cells must handle that.

Plain and simple if the 360 isn't goign to handle it, nor is the limited non-unfied memory of the ps3 that is actually not as fast for total system memory access. Todays PC's with 1-4 gig of vram that is faster from the start, and 2-64gig of main system ram and much more powerfull GPU's can handle it.

» Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:26 am

Ps3 yes. Xbox360 no. It couldn't handle it. I picked yes.

Firstly, Niether of them could handle any more than they are pushing now, they would melt. Now that we have established that you have not [censored] idea what your talking about you can educate yourself.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-off-skyrim