HAHAHHAAH not that much of a giant leep

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShKHu0ualJ8
http://s162.photobucket.com/albums/t271/tonyrissone/?action=view¤t=23895050.jpg

Modded gta 4.

Also consider the fact that ^ is dx9; were not even talking about dx11 ground up games, which don't exist as of yet...because of consoles.

It's not just graphics
its

Physics; Procuderal water aka liquids with their own realistic physics

more phyics; everything in the game

scale=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5toQqcxcNc There is a whole procedural galaxy everything is to scale; have fun PC only. Also if you dont want to wait for that game to come out their is always X rebirth.

AI the more power the better the AI.

everything is effected by hardware.

The jump in graphics will be HUGE; but right now you don't see that because of console development focus, luckily games like BF3/arma 3/x rebirth ect are coming to move things along.

Anything designed with the consoles as a primary target will always be miles behind anything developed with teh PC in mind. I will love skyrim but it is obvious it will severely lack in the technical department which upsets me and my 580gtx.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz9mIgaBmU8 ARMA 3
^consider the fact that these guys have a very small budget and smaller team.

Hey, ArmA 3 is looking great!

My only gripe with ArmA is that the controls have been amazingly dense and complicated. There must be a way to get it to control as easily as Battlefield without sacrificing any of its brutal realism.

I am looking forward to Red Orchestra 2, which looks like it can provide some of that realism-plus-ease-of-control goodness.

Right in order:

The graphics for the next TES game will obviously be an improvement over Skyrim and with the next gen of consoles coming out the leap in terms of graphical quality from Skyrim to TES VI will be larger that the jump from Oblivion to Skyrim.

Yes graphics do matter, they have to be a certain standard as you say, but the gameplay is always the most improtant feature. Skyrim is graphically better thab I was expecting to be honest and I am perfectly happy. If I were to nitpick I would say the graphics (based on the E3 demo) for the sky (clouds, weather etc) could be better, but overall I am very pleased.

Comparing graphics of a sandbox game (i.e Skyrim) to that of say Battlefield 3 is completely pointless. A game that is linear and has set paths will ALWAYS be better graphically (or at least should be if the devs have done their work) and the simple fact for that is they have alot less work to do on the game than what Bethesda have to do on Skyrim. Why else do you think you get a new C.O.D game every year but have to wait 5-6 years for a new Elder Scrolls game. FPS are linear and you have little to no control over what you are doing, the developers funnel you down set paths and make only what they need to look good impressive, whereas Bethesda have to design a whole world because you can go anywhere and do anything.

I think the graphics are pretty awesome and just fine. For better textures there will be mods. Maybe there will even be skyrim graphics extender after some time. So i'm pretty sure we don't have to worry at all for graphics
I just want the gameplay to be OK and a bit more hard

Great post.

So basically you don't know that Battlefield 3 has huge environments and that its PC multiplayer will support up to 64 players simultaneously.

Morrowind - Oblivionm : different gen of hardware
Oblivion - Skyrim: Same gen...

Simple as that.

Personally now that I think about it, I'm glad Bethesda is releasing a current gen game right now. This gives them ample time to work with next generation consoles more in depth than when they were making Oblivion for their first project.

Still, Skyrim looks bloody stunning for such dated hardware, and the gameplay looks ever increasingly solid over Oblivion and Morrowind in my honest opinion.

Yes but the issue still remains;

They still developed a core around the fact they had to port it over to consoles in some manner; because if the game was developed ONLY around DX11 hardware then you literally could not port it to the consoles...AT ALL...well you could but then you would be making a totally different game.

This is because instead of making....everything around standard design everything would be using hardware tessellation to increase fidelity while increasing performance and ect ect ect ect i can write a whole TLDR...but im tired.

CURRENTLY tessellation decreases performance that is because games are not designed 100% with DX11 features in mind.

Also Bf3 pc supports 64+ players.

Hell BF3 will still be the benchmark game that and Arma 3.

I'll gladly take a SR now rather than one later for a new gen of consoles. And I LOVE good graphics so why might you ask? Cause I dont want another Oblivion repeat.

And yeah, BF3 will give me plenty of eyecandy and push my system to its limits. SR will to, but im ok with how it looks, even if I do with they would use DX11

DX11 isn't an auto-pretty it's a great API but it's not auto-pretty.

It's all about design philosophy.

Target modern hardware while still planning to port to consoles thus still limiting the design

or

Target consoles port to modern hardware

or the best way

Target modern hardware dont restrict yourself in anyway at all.

I think I'm actually more impressed with the graphics going from Oblivion to Skyrim than I was from Morrowind to Oblivion. They might not have as much new gear to work with but it definitely looks like they leveled up their skills a few points.

Yowza! That's Uncanny! Well done.

Err... I mean I WILL DESTROY YOU GREGASAURUS!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3201-Graphics-vs-Aesthetics

This about sums it up. All of their videos are great, and I recommend checking them out.

Not really; the problem lies in the fact that hardware and tech has developed at a far faster rate from oblivion to skyrim than it did from morrowind to skyrim.

But that is not shown in any improvements.

A real look at progress is

Witcher 1 (2007) ---> witcher 2
BF2 (2005)--->bf3(2011)
Arma 2(2009-->arma 3(20xx)


medieval 2(2007)--->shogun 2 (2011) 4

Now oblivion was released in 2006 yet shows less improvements from oblivion to skyrim than games like MTW2-->shogun 2 or Witcher 1---> witcher 2 even though there is a extra year in tech improvements ADD TO THE FACT THAT BETHESDA IS A FAR LARGER STUDIO WITH WAY MORE MONEY.

from this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL3EuzaDgpQ

to this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SchHA0WBOWY

dat progress is yummy.

You obviously haven't seen real time ray-tracing stuff. THAT will be the real next big jump in terms of graphics quality.

iD is already working on a engine (post-Rage) that achieves that.

None of those are really a fair comparison because all of those games are either PC exclusives or being developed for PC. Both Skyrim and Oblivion are being designed with the same tech in mind and have no way to jump so far ahead. Besides, we're yet to see what Skyrim looks like maxed out on computer anyway; perhaps final judgement should be reserved until then.

How I wish I had a good PC...All these pictures and videos look simply yummy

You see this all the time but what difference does the size of the world make for graphic quality. The game only renders what's in view one frame at a time whether you have a million miles of open world stretched out behind you or 10 feet of a hallway. That's doesn't make any difference on your graphical fidelity.

Now I would agree you can't compare BF3 and Skyrim but that is more do to developer philosophies than any game play mechanics. The BF3 devs are committed to making the PC version an actual PC version where as Skyrim the PC version will just be a port of the console version. That's why there will be such a difference in graphics between the two.

Haha, Saame ;p

I expected a much bigger graphical leap than what we've seen so far in Skyrim, when I first heard "We can now confirm that the TES V: Skyrim engine is all-new. And it looks fantastic".

To me, the graphics are slightly better than Fallout 3, but that's it. They look very outdated compared to other newer (or even some older) games. So... the graphics are OK I think, around 6.5/10, but definitely not fantastic... far from.

To me, the explanation is pretty simple though: Bethesda has different priorities than other game developers, and that's why it looks outdated already, and that's why the game has up to 300 hours of gameplay.

Bethesda are going to have a tough, long way now for their next game in order to keep up with the big development of graphics that other games have had for a long time now. Skyrim just got dynamic shadows, for instance, which is very old news for other games.
What the next Bethesda game will look like will depend on how much time and money Bethesda is willing to spend on graphics development, and that we don't know.
I believe we can expect a small increase in graphics like we've had before. It will take time before Bethesda can reach Battlefield 3 graphics I think. Perhaps for the game after the next game they're making.