Assuming its overcast, they chose a bad day to take a screenshot.

Yes, it does look better than Oblivion. I didn't say it didn't. I just said it that they looked too similar considering that Skyrim is (supposedly) using a new engine. I am no where near a hardcoe pc player. I play on the xbox 360 and before that I played on the xbox/ps1/n64/snes. I am getting my first PC that can play current games very soon, though(for Skyrim). Here just read this. I think this post says what I wanted to best.

I can't post scans, but if you look at the Game Informer print article, there are some screenshots of the game that very readily demonstrate that the lighting system in place for Skyrim is not the same as Oblivion's. One screenshot in particular shows detailed musculature of the player character being bathed in subtle, rippling shadows, and lighting that is on a gradient depending on his distance from (and angle toward) the light source in a dungeon of some sort.

That picture alone was a "holy crap" moment for me. The lighting is clearly more advanced than Oblivion's in my opinion. The benefits of the new engine seem clear to me. It isn't just Oblivion 2.5 visuals as people keep parroting for some reason, in my opinion. I think this will become apparent when we finally see the game in motion.

Actually, it looks a lot less glossy. Which is awesome!

Well HDR seems better and I haven't seen any blowout so thats a good thing. I'll admit lighting looks better but I'm not wow'd yet. Need to see the game in action. I'm trusting BGS knows what they're doing.

That article makes a very good point! :goodjob:

Look on page 49 of the GI magazine. The top picture has some pretty impressive lighting on the cave walls.

I think the lighting is considerably better compared to Oblivion and Fallout 3, personally. Less excessive ambient light and no bloom baked into the textures. Much more stark, like Morrowind's. I'm getting a good vibe from it - now I'm just hoping everything isn't all blown up and inflated looking with specular maps again.

I seem to recall a gameplay video for TES IV that came out a few months before release. They started in the dungeon and were just kind of picking things up and tossing them, showing off the new physics. Then I remember that they grabbed the skeleton ribcage and held it up to the light from the window and it cast a real time shadow. After release it didn't seem to be able to do this anymore, and I was only slightly disappointed, but the rest of the game was awesome. I mean, stepping outside the first time was breathtaking. If it was possible then, surely they will have improved the lighting enough now to do that again. I would like to see an end to the light bubbles of the gamebryo engine, and from what the screenshots look like, I might get my wish.

I remember that video. I was blown away by the physics. It was so cool that you could pick stuff up and drop it in a game. Haha.

Yeah, you're thinking of the notorious http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de1M4Q_g2eg which had soft shadowing. In fact, the lighting overall seemed a lot better than - still not realistic in the slightest regard, but less excessive ambient light.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1162170-known-pc-features/page__view__findpost__p__17068345

Imo Skyrim should be using Dx11 for PC to put it out of the crowd...

1 - thanks for making YET ANOTHER thread to bash on graphics that we barely even seen yet. this must be the 10th thread about this exact picture I see

2 - I'll say the same thing as I said on the other: LOOK AROUND CAREFULLY! it looks like it's a cloudy, foggy day (or mostly foggy in that place anyways). even in reality there aren't many shadows in that kind of weather

3 - Of course, they'd OBVIOUSLY keep the best looking screens for the first time in a magasine.

4 - Are you desperate to find something to whine about?

Please read my entire post before replying
1 - Thanks for posting yet another comment complaining that I'm complaining about shadows. Think hard. Lighting is not the same as shadows. It encompasses far more than the absence of light(shadows). Please reread the OP. When I first made this thread I wasn't think about shadows. I am talking about how Oblivion and Skyrim look similar. Oblivion has little to no shadow effects. Therefore it would be snip to jump to the conclusion that I am talking about shadows specifically.

2 - I have bought the magazine and I can see how Skyrim looks different from Oblivion, but I also see the similarities. Specifically, the shininess of most things with a normal map and the bizarre way lighting creates artificial depth to objects with normal maps(hoping for tessellation on the PC version). If you have the GI issue open to page 54 and look at the screen at the top. Look at the texture and how light effects that grizzly man's kilt. It looks terrible. Page 49, bottom of the page. Look at the birch tree in that scene. Birch bark does not reflect light at all. Welcome to the shiny barked forests of Skyrim.

3 - I can see a lot of things I like in the screens from the GI issue. I like the shadows. Weather patterns aside, if these screens are from the 360, the distant shadows would presumably turned off. Shadows are a very good/big change and one that will make Skyrim look different than Oblivion. Screens I like from the GI, pg52 2 at the bottom, pg53 both on this page, pg55 both, pg56-59 all screens on these pages. The ice wraiths, dragons, giant spider, wolves, and barmaid all look great. I also like how all of the armor looks. Huge improvement from Oblivion to Skyrim. Armors and weapons that I actually want to collect.

Okay, so you're not talking about shadows specifically. Roger. Understood.



I guess this is just going to come down to subjective opinion, then. Because I'm looking at those examples, and they look AMAZING to me. Far, far better than Oblivion's lighting. The Birch doesn't look shiny or reflective to me. It just looks like it's lit. There is a crease in the bark that makes it look brighter vertically for part of it which may be what you're seeing. I see no shininess, though, personally. So, again, subjectivity ftw I guess. Eye of the beholder, and all that.

It doesn't look the same as OB and FO3. It looks kinda/pretty good. BUT I think it can be improved quite a bit further.

I think Bethesda should spend some time tweaking the shadows and lighting more...
They can make a game so beautiful.

I can't say this enough, if skyrim had MORROWIND graphics but with better engine/animations I would still play it until my eyes fall out.

So would I. I still play Oblivion, there's no reason why I wouldn't play Skyrim. In fact, most people actually complaining about the graphics will play it regardless.

With that said, nothing I've seen so far looks outstanding technically speaking. The art direction and the concepts look fantastic. The game looks great. 5 years ago, it would've look AMAZING. Today it feels almost outdated, which it doesn't mean it looks ugly. Quite the contrary. People are not saying it's ugly. Just unimpressive, unlike Oblivion when it was released.

I strongly disagree with this model. These are not virtual categories one can simply put in level of importance, they are all just as equal to the others, and each one complements (or hinders) another. That's like saying things in life are either 1) good, 2) okay, and 3) bad. There's much more happening that encompasses what we experience, in life, and as well as in playing video games. A game with good gameplay, a [censored] story and good graphics is not going to be received well, just like a game with great gameplay, good story and poor graphics will see a less ideal response from the community at large. They all matter, and they are all just as important.

And the reason there is a lot of console bashing is because a lot of the console gamers on here seem to fit quite nicely into the typical console mentality that you've been labeled as over the years. This whole, "sorry, DX11 isn't supported on the XBOX or PS3, so if we can't have it, PC can't either" attitude is absurd. Nevertheless, all of us on this forum are inevitably going to play Skyrim at one point or another, and we will all have different opinions about it after playing it. So to put the whole spectrum of game development / enjoyment into a category of 3 fields of importance is just nonsense, and sounds more derived from opinion rather than tangible result.

id tech 5 is an engine specifically made for pc's, JS

cannot be explained any better then this.

I'm sure Skyrim will look good; it will look much better than oblivion both in art direction and technically. I don't what to get into the whole subjective/objective thing. My main issue was that Skyrim looks too similar to Oblivion.

I was content with having this thread die a few days ago. I thought I got my point across and there were generally good responses(a few bad aggressively/angrily negative ones as well). Someone posted and bumped the thread to the front. I just had to respond to that condescending post. I did get a little too nitpicky, though. Although it wasn't the main topic of the thread, misplaced shiny in games bugs me sometimes.

Rage? I've seen it. It looks amazing on consoles. Skyrim is not using the same engine so.... I don't know why you brought up Rage. Skyrim is using the new Creation engine and Rage is using id tech 5. They are completely different engines. Although, I hope that John Carmack helped out with the creation of the Creation engine.

Yeah, don't you just hate when games focus on important stuff like Gameplay and story instead of making eyecandy?

This is such a silly thread, with many months down the line, who are we to know it wont be tweaked? it most probably will its called polishing. I think they lighting and shadows will improve because I think they wont risk damaging their beautiful world because if you want to create something beautiful, every aspect must be beautiful, can't have one bit of ugliness get in the way. I have faith in Bethesda but even if it didnt have this all fancy lighting it would not bother me one bit.