I think we owe Game Informer a big thank you for nicely giving us a lot of information, but still not giving us so much that we know everything.

Also, I kept it out of my count, but the statue holding the sword looking downward could very well be in-game too. I doubt it, but anything is possible after those mountains, which still scream "painting" at me.

Confirm via Twitter, or what? Seems like so much effort just to hold these guys to their word... I'm eager to get more screens too, but I don't think guilting them is going to work. =p

Well, I'm just going to have to sig that. :biggrin: I hope my issue arrives today so I can see these mountains that apparently look so awesome people don't believe they are in game....

Also @BGS :bowdown: :wub:

ok, why do people keep posting links to twitter?

i see NOTHING on those twitter pages!

seriously, they're just blank... its like the messages or whatever were deleted on the twitter pages...

I get the same. I don't twit, or wtf it's called. Links to real pages please.

I don't use twitter but I see the pages just fine. There's a problem from your end.

Yeah, I already asked Pete through Twitter.

Andrew Reiner is so funny



Guess we have that answer. (I like his "BOOM!" though, haha)

Is http://twitter.com/Andrew_Reiner/status/25378121632972801 what you want? Because, besides twitter, we have no other source of new information and hints.

Also, tweet*

I can see pages linked from twitter fine.. Even when I'm not signed in. So, stop complaining because you don't like/use a service that nearly everyone else does? Those pages are real and a legitimate source. It's word coming straight from folks at Bethesda Game Studios and Bethesda Softworks. Oh, and people from Game Informer.
If it helps I'm using Safari, maybe it has something to do with the browser you are using and not twitter? :shrug:

less than 10 months! :celebration:

Besides you don't need twitter for confirmation anymore. A Bethesda dev has personally confirmed it in this very thread.

Well, that's not the only thing needing confirmation/clarification, but nobody has said how exactly "in-game" it is, and in what context. It could be art in a menu. All we have for certain is "It's not a watercolor painting".

One link supposedly had a screenshot posted on twatter, but I just got the dialogue box with no pic.

And thanks. I was gonna go with tw a t, but apparently that's a cuss word around here =)

Edit: deleted since jon whined about my want for freedom of speech.

anyway, i'd like to try to stay "on topic", but since i cant see the images that everyone keeps talking about, its kind of hard... i dont have the magazine!

ii'll try, though...

...if pete says the mountains are a screenshot, they're a screenshot, BOOM! headshot. :slap:

Are people so surprised that those mountains are rendered in-game? They look like 3D, not a painting - really, really nice 3D, but not unbelievable.

Look at the rock formations on page 57, or the ice wraiths screenshot. Looks like the same graphical quality as the mountainscape to me.

Yes. The posts have to be under 140 characters I believe. These aren't official statements, but they're bona fide accounts for people who know stuff about the game. They're our best source apart from waiting for official statements.

You can wait for official statements if you like. Everyone else will bear Twitter.

Lol'd so friggin' hard!

http://twitter.com/DCDeacon/status/24025244436004864 is the confirmation that Moutains on page 48 is a screenshot.

@DCDeacon The mountains on GI's page 48 - screen or artwork? Can't tell but looks awesome either way.
5:26 AM Jan 9th via web

@faulgor Screenshot. Pretty great huh?
5:50 AM Jan 9th via Twitter for iPhone in reply to faulgor

You're not allowed to use an entire post to complain in this thread as it'd be off-topic, and going off-topic is against the rules. But FYI, people have been linking to specific tweets, otherwise it's impossible to tell what information they are linking to. In my last post I quoted a tweet just for you, though. =p




No, they really don't. There is no discernible geometry, meaning I can't see any perfectly straight lines from triangles in the mesh. At that zoom level (it's in the background) it should be at a lower LOD, I've speculated maybe that it's a DX11 screenshot from the PC and they're using Tessellation and just upped the Tessellation Factor for effect, or they're devoting an enormous amount of triangles per frame just to render these faraway mountains.

Not even the Hawx 2 mountains (with Tessellation ON) are as detailed. Look at some videos.

And the clouds/fog... It's very dense and... grey. It looks nice, but it looks painterly. They said they've improved their fog, but it still all looks like a painting to me. Game fog doesn't usually look that good, it's usually done with lots of layers of 2D textures to fake volumetric properties. But I assume when they say they've improved the fog they mean they're using soft particles. Which I thought was really only possible with the advent of DirectX 10, but they must have found a way to do it on DirectX 9 and Xbox. But not even soft particles look that good, and dense.

If I saw it as a full res photo on my screen, I might be able to discern the geometry.

As for the other views of mountainous areas, that's the very reason that picture doesn't seem like in-game to me, solely because that mountain doesn't look anything like the other examples of in-game mountains from what I can tell. I can pick out the geometry of the closer mountain shots. You'd think if it was so detailed from far away that it would be MORE detailed up close, which is commonly referred to just as "LOD" (Level of Detail) ... But it seems the opposite is occurring, or they simply show the full LOD for mountains at all times, which seems taxing, and possibly impossible for consoles to handle.

For now I'll believe it's "in-game" but I'll need to see a screen on my monitor and not in a magazine to actually be able to tell with my own eyes that it's in-game.

Well then good. I was just saying you shouldn't complain about something just because you don't use it. As in "why do people keep posting links to twitter?" because that's where we are getting are information... which is a legitimate source. That would be almost like asking why people keep posting links to the BethBlog just because you don't normally visit it. :shrug: Now, as I said for the problem of you not seeing it that could be something to do with your browser or maybe twitter's servers had a hiccup. It happens. Though, I will agree that people should transcribe what it says like what Silvade just did and then have the link as their source. That way everyone wins. :spotted owl:


EDIT* Oh my god.... I just got my copy of the magazine. I can see why people thought those mountains were pre-rendered....
Also, Dragons are freaking huge and look incredible. Any graphical fears you have about Skyrim should be put to rest. NOW. :foodndrink:

this is irritating!

i cant see anything cause i cant get the magazine!

...no wonder people hunt down scans, this is a freaking NIGHTMARE!!!

i wish GI would just release the screenshots on their site...

Do you live in the US?

ah, looks like their marketing is a success