You can't run game making software of a console, of course they are making it on PC, there just doing most of the testing on 360.

The simple fact is the vast majority of BUYERS on the pc will look at the pics.. think ooooo then look at the min spec rec spec and think oh good I can play this and then get it. They wont get it because it pounds the machine... just because it looked nice and they could run it.

To that end making the people in skyrim look nice was important... and they have done it very well.

To that end making distance views that look dang good is important.. and they sure did that.

To that end making a kickass dragon was important and they did that.

To that end keeping the specs low while doing all that was important and they did it.

The REST can be done by modders over the next few years.

Meh... Its not their job to fix the devs game. Just because there are tools in the game dont give the devs (ok here on the forum it do) but it should not give the devs a free pass to not make their game the best they can. It reminds me about some of the discussions where people say "modders will fix it" but why should we be FORCED to use a mod to fix a problem / horrible UI / bad leveling / combat system or whatever because the devs are lazy? Same with graphics... Yes modders will always be able to improve the game past what the devs do... But do that mean that it will be okey for the devs to simply just make "console graphics + abit better"? They want PC users to buy the game... Then make the game use the PC hardware, controls etc etc in a good way.

Todd mentions in a recent interview that there is a lot of power left untapped in the current console gen, and using different techniques for things such as compression allow a lot more to be done. OK so the game wont look as good as one developed solely for the PC, but it will look damn good. I ts not all about bells and whistles, remember who is making the game and smile...

The biggest problem for both for and against arguments that call on an "average PC" is that simply put there is no such thing. There are average specs, granted but even two machines with exactly the same specs can perform very differently, an optimized machine for gaming will at average specs run most modern games, maybe not at highest settings but they will run such games. While a machine optimized for low power usages like just browsing the Internet or processing word documents is extremely unlikely to be able to support even the Vanilla version of World of Warcraft from 2004/5.

Also Laptops are not PCs, Laptops even with the same specs as a PC usually will not run as well as a PC as the considerations put into a PC and a laptop are different. So if you are using your Laptop when talking about "PCs" then you really aren't in the area of talking about the average PC. You also claim your laptop supports DX11, does it really? Do you mind stating the GPU within the laptop? Because just about all GPUs (all that I know of anyway) that truly support DX11, will support Oblivion. Having DX11 installed is not the same as supporting DX11, there is a difference, you can install it, it doesn't mean it's really being supported by the hardware however and if it's not supported by the hardware then it's only partially running DX11, not fully running it and is not considered a DX11 GPU.

Only thing modders will be able to do (in terms of "graphics"... if we now can even classify textures as "graphics") is enhance the textures.
Modders most definitely will not be able to add DX features nor much anything else of great significance.
Textures can be nice but it can only do so darn little compared to other things. Textures should also look great from the start also. It's really not that hard to do and I would actually laugh if Skyrim has so bad textures that it requires another QTP3.

Modders should never "fix" things in theory. It should be great from the start. That there are so many mods for Oblivion shows that it's really a flawed game, but it also shows at the same time that it's such a good game that people think it's worth modding that much.

Does developing on consoles detract from the quality on PC? Is that rhetorical? That answer is rather obvious isn't it?

Most folks seem to have focused on graphics and that is certainly a large part of it. Developing for a decade on stagnant hardware has certainly slowed down overall game evolution. If developers were able to continually improve their techniques and technologies we might be seeing things like cloth physics and other goodies as standard for most games instead of luxuries no one uses.

Beyond even just the graphics, things commonly asked for around here like more complex ai's, making cities larger with more people in them, more variety in game content, more voice actors, more dialogue, etc, etc. would be possible without the size, disk space, and processing power ceilings imposed by consoles. Of course this depends on the developer and game as well, these sorts of things wouldn't be gold standards.

So yeah, I think the answer here is one of the more obvious ones on the forum.

Fix? What is there to ...fix...

You do understand your a voice of about 2 maybe 3000 out of a market of 4 million or more?

And we are saying.. No. We would rather they spend all thier time on stuff for all of us.

By the time the number of people who care grows much elder scrolls 6 will be in dev or even out and it wont matter anymore.


And those people who do care can wait for others who care to mod away like they have for morrowind. That IS the BEST way to handle it.

No the hardware dont get better in some magical way. They can learn how to optimize the code / memory usage / streaming tech but the hardware is still the same. If anything they have learned how to compile the code in a better way.



True... but sadly it sound like they wont make any major changes to the PC version of the game. Hell they even went out and said "10% of our users are on PC" (lol?) basicly a large hint saying "we wont work on the pc that much"


Anyway... When you make a multiplat game it will only be as good as the worst part. Limited ai, physics, rendering, objects on the screen and so on.

Bethesda should, imo, try to focus and make things better on all platforms. Especially lighting and shaders in terms of graphics .... before 11/11/11.
IF some graphical things can be added extra for the PC version WITHOUT taking too much time or costing too much money, it would be nice. It would make the PC players feel less "cheated" and it would be better for marketing. It's a thing only Bethesda know themself of course. We have no idea and can just speculate.

I hope that Battlefield 3 will look so much better than the average consolegame that the PC got more attention from players and developers in the future. Everyone is arguing that, because of the bad sales figures of PC Games, it wouldnt be profitable to exhaust the technical possibilities of the PC. These people forget that in the past the PC could compete with the consoles for one reason: the superior graphics. PC Gamers were always attracted by new technology and state of the art graphics. without these traditional PC advantage no one wants to spent money for new hardware, new games etc.. Instead, Crysis1 from 2007 has still the best looking graphics overall. no surprise that the PC market for core games is dying.


Edit: better textures for skyrim on PC ? i would be very surprised if there will be a really noticeable difference. a little bit sharper i would guess. nothing more.

Todd said "higher res" on PC. He didn't say how high res. He said he didn't wanna go into those details. Now, to get a high res texture as well as a low res version, there are two ways that can be done.
You either...
1. make a hi-res texture from the very start. Then easily lower the resolution for the low-res version.
or you...
2. make a low-res version from the start. Then increase the resolution.

The 1. way of doing it is way way better. It's much easier to make a GOOD hi-res texture from the start than to make a GOOD hi-res texture by increasing the resolution of a low-res version. Lots of detail is lost by the low-res version, and it would require a lot more than just increase the resolution to make a GOOD hi-res texture by choosing the 2. way of doing this.

If Bethesda has done 1. way of making "higher res" textures on PC, those textures are already made long ago. Those textures would be made first, and then scaled down to low-res for consoles. My guess it isn't this way, considering what Todd said in the interview. That means a lot more work would have to be done to make GOOD hi-res texture with 2. way of doing it. My guess is that that is something Bethesda don't wanna spend much time doing, and we'll be left with bad looking textures for the PC version as well.

Well some people think that i dont want a game to be multiplat or something... The thing is go multiplat! Its great you make more money = more money to spend on creating games that the players might like. The problem is when devs want a market (in this case the pc) but then dont tailor the game for the PC (or consoles if they port the game from PC to console).

...and when doing the next game you'll have the same hardware limitations than the previous one, making another dumbed-down game.

The problem is when devs want a market (in this case the pc) but then dont tailor the game for the PC (or consoles if they port the game from PC to console).

I wouldn't call it "dumbed down" but it is certainly limited. Aside from graphics there's also other things such as the limit to how many NPCs can be placed around you at once, which makes for things such as truly bustling cities, and large scale battles impossible.

Well, there's always a chance that Beth leaves the engine potential "opened", so modders could add that stuff, and even more. I haven't lost that hope.

...and I want my future computer to be totally drained out

Weakest(technically) system among the three is 360 so yes,
they won't make it beyond its limits. :sadvaultboy:

Oh I'm sure modders will do tons of amazing work with TES5, but I would personally like to see MORE come with the vanilla game. I'm nit picky and greedy.

But, if PC users are truly only 10% of Beth's market like Todd (I believe) has stated, then I guess we are lucky to be even getting a PC version. Which, is sort of sad. I mean without the success of Arena and Daggerfall as PC only titles, they'd not be where they are today. But times have changed perhaps, and PC users shouldn't feel "entitled" I suppose.

intel Core 2 Duo T9300 2.5 Ghz.

I call BS on that... For one reason alone... That would mean that it sold around... 400 000 copies on the PC with a mod site saying 1,2milion unique visitors or something like that... and then you have to remember that not everyone mod their game either... And somehow (lets say 900 000 copies on the PC) i doubt oblivion sold 9milion copies in total... Beth would be flexing around if it did that.

Bethesda will make much, much more from the console versions of the game than the PC versions, so why is it alright to just make a PC version and dumb it down for consoles? You should get what you put in, yet PC gamers are putting in nothing and demanding everything at the expense of console gamers.

And you're absolutely right. Times have changed since Daggerfall, and now consoles are the vast majority of Beth's source of income. It's only natural that they get first priority.

You seem to forget that it's thanks to PC gamers the games have been so popular so long. Thank the modding community which is showing off the games and improving them year after year after year.
You also seem to forget that if a better version is shown with better graphics, that is better for the marketing. Graphics sell.
Finally, it will make PC players feel less "cheated".

Do you know where you got that quote? I thought I remembered seeing it posted again somewhere on the forums with a link but I'm not sure.