Just want to start off by saying, in no way am I "bashing" on the consoles. Nor do I want this thread to go down that road.

Does developing Skyrim to work on a 6 year old console, detract from the max possible quality on the PC version? I would imagine that when making a game that can run on outdated (compared to what's available today) hardware, you wouldn't be able to "push the limits" as much for computers that do have the latest hardware. Or do they just make it look as good as today's tech allows them to, then scale back the graphics until it will run decently on the consoles?

You could, in theory, make the game look as good as it can on PC, then add options to scale it back to run on consoles. That is not what Bethesda is doing, however. They're targetting the 360, and the PC version won't look much better (until the mods start hitting).

Of course it does.

Considering that the average cheapy PC nowadays has 2GB of memory as opposed to the 360's 512MB I'd say yes, it does detract from the PC experience because certain features or gameplay elements that aren't feasible on the 360 (e.g. having all buildings in all towns be open/part of the city's external cell) aren't implemented in the PC version either. The current console generation is a stone that's had almost all the blood squeezed out of it.

So my hope for lots of tessellation and super-sampling are probably out of the question. That's mildly depressing. Not that graphics are everything, because they're not (in my opinion anyways), but I was hoping for a bit extra than what we'll probably get.

I don't think it'd hold them back any more than the PCs which don't utilize the latest tech. Those PCs are already very plentiful and where would console players go if they don't have an affordable console? Some people somewhere always have the latest, more advanced tech than others. Are those other people holding them back? Developers go where the money is. Instead of treating consoles and console players as a separate group dragging anything down, I believe people should view them as where the general level of household tech is. Technology can move as quickly as it wants, but it's only useful when the majority of people can or wish to afford it. This is a basic model of an industry.

I'm afraid that this is going to go down that ugly road and get locked anyway, but to just try to address an underlying question here as neutrally as possible:

Developers ultimately try to balance maximizing the abilities of each platform and minimizing development costs. The upshot of that is that if the capabilities of consoles and PCs are relatively close (as they were when the current consoles were new), then they can often get away with developing the game to make maximum use of current PC technology, then merely adapt it to the consoles (or the other way around, as desired), potentially with little or no loss of graphical quality. However, when there's a great disparity between the capabilities of consoles and PCs (as there is now), developers are more likely to create the games fairly close to the limits of the consoles, with maybe a few added features for the PCs, but not a whole lot, simply because that adds to development cost. When there's a great disparity between capabilities, it would require more resources to maximize the potential of the PCs AND more resources to then make all the necessary changes to port the game to the consoles. By keeping the quality fairly even, they save immensely on development costs, both up front and on porting the game.

Bioware's dragonage 1&2 are good examples. They worked separately on the console and computer versions. The controls, camera angles, and graphics are notably different between the two. I'm thankful that they're focusing on the consoles because I personally prefer playing with a 360 remote and have automatic updates that fixes bugs and absolutely zero maintenance.

Not necessarily. While the game will no doubt be primarily for DX 9 systems, there's no reason why they couldn't toss in a few DX 11 ones on top of that for the PC version. In fact, it sounds like that's exactly what they have in mind. What gets included will all depend on what they can add, while still having the DX 9 portions function properly. It wouldn't make sense for them too go far into DX 11 right now anyway since not that many people have video cards with that capability yet. It's not economically viable at the moment to have anything more than a hybrid system. Civilization 5 uses the same approach.

My 4gb (RAM), DX11 supporting laptop could not even play Oblivion as well as my PS3. Something about the same, exact hardware in each console of any given type (all PS3s are the same, all Xbox 360s are the same) allows impressive amounts of optimization in consoles, but that RAM argument is garbage. Admittedly, 512mb is low (too low for the rest of the tech in PS3s and 360s, in my opinion; the PS3's 3.2 ghz quad-core processor + 512mb of ram split into two, separate groups = :huh:), but flat-out stating more RAM makes for better graphics is false. If the average PC could play games even as well as a PS3 or 360, then why are so many of us still using those platforms? The answer is simple. The average PC cannot. If you believe otherwise, you must not be a person with an average PC. Mine can't do what my PS3 can and that's that. I still utilize it for gaming where it can be used, but even though some of the specs would make one think it's better than a PS3 for gaming, it's not even as good. Optimization is the key word.

You do know you can use a 360 controller with a pc right? The USB port an all, and it will download drivers for it. Also steam automatically updates all games, and checks for updates before each time you play while online. Also the pc usually gets it patches first.

What of the PS3 controller? I want that to work with my PC games... but it never does.

I've always found statements like these strange since my 2 year old laptop (no DX11 obviously) CAN max out OB (no AA though, or 2X at max) with +30fps.:huh:

On topic though it's cuts down prduction costs but of course since you can't upgrade consolesconsoels will eventually always limit develpment as if it was PC onl but I'm not sure how extreme the differences would be (maybe we would get DX11 features...).

What type of processor to you have?

It will inherently look better, whether or not they aim for it beyond higher res textures (which they already said they would have). You can force things like AA, AAA, better shadow quality, water full reflections (which the console won't have) and so on. It will look recognizably better but it won't be difference between the Sky and Earth. Now if we find out how easy it is to unlock the DX11 features in Skyrim, we can make the difference between Sky and Earth.

Unlock? Tesselation? How is that done? Morrowind and Oblivion modders can't add skills to the game and take at least a couple years to do what they've done with graphics overhauls, and even those aren't truly graphics overhauls. Tesselation... I don't know too much about it, but I don't think it can be unlocked.

Not to mention higher LOD quality.

Yes, they are out of the question. Todd has basically stated that they won't be using any DX11 shaders, only the DX9 ones that will run on the consoles. So no tessellation or super sampling or anything of the like. The only thing the game will use DX11 for is most likely it's increased optimization.

Now, as for how easy it will be to get tessellation or other features into Skyrim, it will probably take someone writing the appropriate shaders and adding them in. That is a rather herculean task and if it is done at all, might take a few years.

Well since I want my computer to be able to run skyrim, I don't care if it looks the same as the 360 version.

DX11 optimizes? Could that benefit my weak, DX11-supporting laptop? I mean, it can't run Oblivion as well as a PS3 (from educated opinions based on my hardware specs), but if Skyrim is running on the same hardware as Oblivion was on the console side of things and DX11 assists in optimization, is there some remote chance I could play Skyrim at something close to PS3 or 360 settings?

Consoles help the game far more than hurt it.

I think the Skyrim will be better because of it being console and because the last games were. Why, money. Beth has made a lot more money since going multiplatform. There team has grown to nearly 100 people thats amazing, if not for the console sales that team would be much smaller, there would be less money for development. I think that Beth games being on the console helps everyone, including pc gamers.

I want a AAA experience and I play on pc, you need a lot of money to make AAA games. Multiplatforming generates those funds needed.

A better question would be to ask what kind of video chip it uses. It's entirely possible that your PS3 has better video capabilities than your laptop. They're notorious for having crappy video chips built into them.

IT would depend on what CPU and GPU you have. As well as how much RAM, and whether or not it's DDR/2/3.

It's a common misconception that (Exclusive) PC games are developed for the "State of the Art" platform. Because Development of Skyrim started around 5 years ago, no matter what platform it was released on, it had to be developed to run on hardware at least 5 years old. Every game developed is "Held back" by at least one generation of hardware, even PC games.

That said, as a primarily console player, it's not just for the PC, but all cross-platform development hurts the other platforms some way or another, but you could carve the greatest sculpture on the dark side of Europa, and if nobody ever gets to appreciate it, what good did it do? Bringing your creation to the largest number of people, at an overall high-standard of quality is more befitting for an art. And don't kid yourselves, games are a form of art.

Now, I have to hand it to PC gamers, their steadfast devotion to the superficial is really inspiring. When the fact of the matter is, the vast, vast majority of the innovation coming out of the gaming medium is on independent flash-games and the like, that run on something less complicated than the 400 line of Nvidia cards, it really should spell out the logical fallacy of the "Graphical arms race" that is the basis for PC gaming.


And that's all I'm gonna say on that subject.

The answer is yes, but this kind of thread cannot end well even if your intentions are good