Not what system is better and not what system you prefer.

Would everyone be okay with Skyrim being developed for each system separately and pushed to each systems limits (obviously you don't want to push PC's TOO far, but pushed a bit further none the less)? Even if it means some systems get more stuff?

Say having more content in the PS3/PC versions (more quests, dungeons, more dialogue, etc), considering how the PS3 uses BLu-Rays with a ton of space (40-50GB's isn';t it?) and the PC's have to download the game to their HDD anyways, so all that is required is for them to have enough HDD space.

Then say the PC users getting more detailed cities/environments (more trees, buildings, random objects, open cities, etc) and larger amounts of NPCs to make the cities feel truly "alive", as well as the possibility for epic battles.

I know this would probably make the 360 users feel left out, and on one side I can sympathize with them missing out, but on the other hand I feel that it's kind of lame for everyone else to be limited by the ~8GB's of space on the 360's discs.

Would you guys be okay with this, or should everyone have to have the same amount of content (quests, npc's, locations, graphics, etc) aside from graphics being higher/mods on the PC?

I think content differential is pointless. Most of the space the game will occupy will be for textures and sounds/voice clips. Removing even half the quests isn't going to make it that much smaller. Maybe more dialogue on the non-Xbox versions would be fine.

Xbox owners might feel left out at first, until they realize that they don't have the same hacked network collapse and credit card security problems Sony's been experiencing.

I just hope the DLC is more like Shivering Isles than it is like horse armor.

I'm just glad you aren't the one making the game.

i want skyrim for the PC to be pushed "to far" they still talk about crysis graphics for a reason and any midrange computer in the last couple of years can run the game just fine. since we wont get another TES game until 2017 or 2018 i dont mind having a bleeding edge game even if i have to turn down some graphics options on my current rig (which i woudlnt cause my rig kicks ass) but i wouldnt mind cause ill be playing the game for years to come and by then most people will have upgraded to PC that can run it just fine.

im for future proofing as much as possible.

You make a good point. I guess it would depend on how well the game scales up and down with the new engine they're using.

Todd Howard:

"It is nice to be able to work on a system you know really well now, that you've worked with for the last 5 years. It makes a difference in the quality of the content that you're making."

I think Bethesda is doing it just fine.

He also said that they're limited with the current console hardware in the German fan-site interview, but then tried to downplay the difference between open and closed cities, because of PR reasons obviously.

I just personally think it svcks that the game is being made "the same" on all platforms. Sure, PC users get mods, but WE have to make them ourselves, and that takes a lot of time and know-how.

Cross-platform communism blows.

after playing other openworld games that dont have seperate cells for inside and outside the city, its really going to svck having to go back to closed cities again in skyrim. im hoping that an "open cities" mod gets created quickly. thank God for modders. i love you, i love you, i love all of you modders!

Lets take the the main citys, now on the 360, the cities should be in a different cell like the imperial city from oblivion. the PS3 would be the same as the 360, but the imperial city wouldnt be sectioned off. then finally the PC during installation you should be given a choice of what you want based on the specs of your machine ( seperate cells, same cells etc) multiplatform games should be made in this style.

Honestly...if Bethesda did this I think it's safe to say there would be a larger percentage of sales for the PS3.

Hahaha. I have no issue with the consoles or the users of them. I have a 360 myself for Gears and the occasional round of Halo with my brother. But I still see no reason why the game should be made the same on all platforms, when taking advantage of the multiple advantages would ultimately be a better decision.

I dont think that even if the game were made separately for each platform. of that of the pc or ps3 upgrades I dont think many could just be flicked a on switch and they would come instantly . If they were ever going to hit the release date I don't think they they've 100% juiced out the xbox 360

I put that into the category of "PR talk for why we're designing for antiques."

But yeah anyways... I wouldn't really mind honestly...I'd be okay with it. It'd be a little disheartening to see though. Better graphics I'm perfectly ok with...more quest are another thing though.

That's ridiculous. Famililarity does make a difference.

Developers decide the facts. They're not going to make 3 seperate versions of the game, they'll just use the engine to the best of their ability and PC can easily put up the graphical quality in comparisson. There will be a few tweaks that is all.

This is the way it should be done. It's not the consoles that hold the PC back, it's the developers who make that choice, even when they have all the tools to make the games separately.

Precisely.

I wonder how the 360/PS3 users would feel about this if say, Beth was also developing for the Wii, and was using that as the standard. Maybe then they'd see where PC users are coming from.

But does not excuse designing for the most underpowered system on the market, excluding the Wii.

pretty good anology........might have to borrow that sometime.

It's technology, time and money that hold manufacturers back from creating a new system and releasing it right now. They're not going to abide by your ways because you want to play a game at somehow better standards just because it is made for all audiences. PC games get a hell of a lot more than console. Some people cannot afford or understands PC gamepaly - especially when it comes to updating the game thing to play new games with semi-acceptable FPS.

So, you want BGS to do what's in the OP? That would just take more money and time. BGS already has a limited budget and takes enough time to release a new ES game. This would also detract from making a good game. Lots of manpower would have to be devoted to this.

PC users already get more than half of the pie already, with mods and higher res textures. You are not entitled to more.

It's already clear how they feel, albeit on a smaller scale. PS3s have a Blu-Ray format. It doesn't get pushed to its potential because the 360 doesn't. The PS3 has higher possible peak performance due to its cell processor. It doesn't get pushed to it's potential (or rather the PS3 version of any multiplatform game is never as well optimized as it could be) because the 360 doesn't. It's smaller-scale stuff, indeed, but there are clear differences between PS3 exclusive games on the PS3 and multiplatform games on the PS3. Killzone 3 takes up a full 41 gb of space and uses nearly 100% of the PS3's full capabilities. The result is a gorgeous, smooth game that has stereoscopic 3D support and is arguably the best looking console game to date.

Skyrim, a game packed with far more content than Killzone 3, is stuck with a full 8-9 gbs of space due to DVD limitations. Am I upset? Indeed, it could be so much more, already. I fully support tailoring to specific platforms. If Bethesda announced they were making full use of the PS3's architecture and cell processor, I would be crying out tears of gold. I fully support giving you high-end PC players full DX11 support and whatever else it is that top-tier PC games are doing, these days. Everyone and their dog will one day have a laptop capable of running those features, so it benefits everyone, in the long run.

No, because that would be a bit excessive. What they should have done is designed the game for the top, then scaled back. It's a lot easier to reduce than it is to add. As it is, they're designing for the bottom, then moving it over to more powerful systems, but I doubt they're going to much that would really take advantage of those two systems. Too much extra effort.