I agree, as much as I complain and am very dissapointed that the game won't utilise modern technology, that's not because I think the game won't look great, it's because I know it could look better. You could make truly beautiful characters in oblivion or the fallouts, in glorious landscapes. The only graphical enhancement I'd be really bitterly dissapointed to lose is rain falling through things - the others I'm just sad they're not there.

How exactly "No DX11" is good? It really be a shame if I won't be able to use all my HD 5770 features (aka DX11 support). I suppose it can be turned on/off, right?

As my computer is getting older and older... I planned on buying a brand new computer for skyrim release... too bad I cannot use the coming dx11 support from my new graphic card... -.-

Oblivon (with mods)

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=132&t=854105&page=1&pp=15

This is what you can pump out of Oblivion with mods? Hmm..?

And skyrim:

http://static.zenimax.com/bethblog/upload/2011/01/Markarth021.jpg

Hmm? Skyrim looks cleaner, but the graphics should be better (and use dx11!!) for a game being released 2011 and being worked on for 5 years imo...

You got it totally wrong. Almost everyone makes something different in the PC-version nowadays, at least graphically. Even PC-UI's are beginning to emerge which is a good sign. They could make money on PC's if they wanted to. Besides, how do you know they don't get a big part of their income from PC anyways?

Welcome to 2011, Bethesda! What is that you're wearing?! DX9? Wow, uh, yeah... that is SO 2006. DX11 is all the rage these days. It looks a lot better, too.

lol
I hope DX11 is eventually in, I mean did they clearly state that it won't be? It has to be.

I don't think they've specifically stated that it won't, and hopefully they're just saying that things will look the same... at PC's medium settings, and there will be advanced settings that add DX11 features for our viewing pleasures.

But then again, DX10/11 have been around for a few years now, and neither Fallout game have used either... But it was using the old engine, which I'm not sure how good of an excuse that is.

Anybody see the new Rage screens?
http://uk.media.pc.ign.com/media/926/926419/imgs_1.html

I would assume that they are from the Xbox, and it looks pretty damn good. I would be more than happy if Skyrim was at that level with better textures for PC.

Why you saying just like oblivion total console port?? As if oblivion is anything like console games these days.

Quote from the latest GI update The Art of Skyrim:

"There's new systems for allowing decals and scars, face painting, just a lot higher resolution assets for generating all the characters in the game."

(~1:40 @ http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/01/26/the-art-of-skyrim.aspx )

Does this mean we get hi-res textures for PC?

Wait, are those shadows in an overcast day? OMG! <_<

Now, THIS is the kind of screenshot they should release to put an end to all criticism: http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/926419/rage/images/rage-20100503114108734.html?page=mediaFull

Compare: http://www.gamerfuzion.com/file/pic/photo/2010/07/LaserBolt-fallout-new-vegas-new-screenshot-7-8-2010-1-7.jpg

Yeah, graphics don't matter.

Well, when you have an engine that's designed by the pioneers in 3D rendering (id Software), with a programming genius behind it (John Carmack), then of course you're going to see mind blowing results.

Zenimax may own id and Bethesda now, but Bethesda is definitely not id. Nor will it ever be id. ESPECIALLY in the graphical department.


I think he means "in comparison to their previous games" not "higher resolutions for the PC".

There's no shadows in that screenshot because of the sun's angle, and the clouds in the sky! Look at them! :bonk:

If all we get are slightly higher res textures on the PC version then I'll be pissed. Resolution and AA don't count as additional PC features, since scaleable resolution comes as standard and AA can be forced from a GPU's control panel. I'm not saying I need tesselation and 100% physics-based water systems - including a tidal sea with some epic waves during a storm. But I want to see something that proves they haven't just ignored the PC market and the half-decade of graphical advancements made available since the consoles launched.

I just bought a GTX 570 and an i7 950 along with an ASUS Sabertooth board. Part 1 of a very extensive upgrade that I'm undergoing. See, I don't mind spending hundreds (or in some cases thousands) of dollars more on a custom PC over a console so I can get my graphics sliders and make a given game look as good as possible. For me, graphics are just as important in the modern age to add depth and immersion. You simply can't compete in this day and age in the PC market producing DX9 titles anymore, when 99% of games coming out now are utilizing DX10 and DX11.

Metro 2033, although not the greatest game in terms of story or actual game play (in my opinion), made up for it on several occasions for me with the amount of visual awe it put me in. When the world looks more believable visually, it's hard to put down. The whole 'Crysis looked great but was a terrible game' is nonsense. It was a run-of-the-mill FPS on some accounts, but it went above and beyond the norm by introducing new game play mechanics (ie. the nanosuit, impressive character interaction and first-person utilization of the HUD, etc.). Crysis is not my favourite game however, to be honest I've only played it once, and I'm no Crytek fan boy, but I do agree with their business model no less.

If you have the ability to introduce bleeding edge technology into your products for users who have high end gear, while streamlining the experience for the average consumer.. the question should be "why wouldn't Bethesda incorporate optional DX10/11 features on the PC? Tesselation, volumetric fog, dynamic lighting, soft shadows, all of these things benefit a video game and are readily available to developers. The Witcher 2 looks absolutely stunning, and it looks as though it may be one of the heaviest contenders for RPG's this year, due to its developers learning from their mistakes in the first entry, and not being afraid to approach this industry with the "if you're going to do it, do it right" attitude.

As a previous comment above noted, if Beth went through all the trouble to create a "new engine" (which I actually still think looks incredibly similar to Gamebryo, aside from improved faces and world design elements), only to base it on outdated tech, it wouldn't make much sense. While FO3 and FO:NV were pretty awesome games, they also provided that familiar giggle factor from a large majority of its players because they were mere "evolutions" and not "revolutions" in terms of game mechanics, graphics, etc. (That expression may ring a bell..) Sure, Bethesda did a great job refining the tech we saw in Oblivion for the Fallout series, but just because tech exists and "works", does not necessarily mean it should be continually implemented several times over like we are seeing. I may be a tad bit biased because I, too, share the "if you're going to do it, do it right" mentality. Bethesda (Todd especially) loves boasting about how they all grew up as PC gamers and how their roots and love has always been for the PC, so it would be incredibly insulting if Skyrim ends up being vaguely more stunning than Oblivion, when it has had the potential for much greater things.

And, before I go on forever, I'll just say that I'm placing my faith in Bethesda right now to make sound decisions, as we can only wait (impatiently, might I add) for more details.