PC Specs Released! : V - Skyrim

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:46 am

New Tweet on the 6GB install debate from Pete:

"6 gigs: New engine & we're much better at compression (art/voice/data). It's huge yet more optimized than we've had before. And faster."

Yeah, The Size doesn't speak for amount of content. Look at rage, it's about 20Gig and I completed it in 15 - 20 hours whitout rushing the game. I made all side and main quests that I could find and spoke to most NPC's and exploring areas

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:50 am

I was never worried about the game size. It's only logical that they've optimized better and learned how to compress files easier and smaller.
That = less file size. On top of that, it IS bigger than Oblivion file size wise. So...better compression..+ more HD space required..
that equals a bigger game indefinitely.

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:49 am

I don't judge games by size (having worked as a level designer i know it's not the sheer size and diversity of textures that counts but the creative way they are used) but there is also the testimony of those four french players who tried Skyrim at a event. They all said textures looked bland and they were all pc players (so they have higher expectations)

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:54 am

i dont really care ALL that much if the textures are low quality because ill be getting a texture replacement mod as soon as one comes out. Ill be exited for Qarl's texture pack 1 for skyrim

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:04 am

My Radeon 6870 will cut through this like a hot knife through butter.

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:53 pm

I think those specs are downplayed to be more attractive to a wider range of PC gamers. I am a highly skeptical person, so maybe idk what I am talking about. But, I think about previous games lately that have been released and how well they have been running and looking great with older cards. Curious to know what other people think.

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:04 pm

Wanted to note that Pete and I just had a conversation with with Todd. He noticed the feedback that's being shared about only needing 6 GB HDD. Here's the word straight from Todd:

He also mentioned that the game runs faster and bakes cookies for you, too

woot! cookies! i was waiting for that. time to go order it.

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:38 pm

Wanted to note that Pete and I just had a conversation with with Todd. He noticed the feedback that's being shared about only needing 6 GB HDD. Here's the word straight from Todd:

He also mentioned that the game runs faster and bakes cookies for you, too

I freakin love cookies. I WILL hold you to this.

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:28 pm

Have any of you noticed that the recommended specs are a little higher than Witcher 2's recommended specs?
This is going to be a great graphical game with tons of graphical setting options!!
:celebration:

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:56 pm

I think those specs are downplayed to be more attractive to a wider range of PC gamers. I am a highly skeptical person, so maybe idk what I am talking about. But, I think about previous games lately that have been released and how well they have been running and looking great with older cards. Curious to know what other people think.

Well, the good thing about PC gaming is that's possible to customize graphics options. For example, I don't like post-procesing effects (like DoF, motion blur, etc...). Usually by removing them alone I can run most games with everything else tuned to maximum because these effects are very demanding. I don't t think in the end it will require much more horsepower of Oblivion

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:56 pm

I think those specs are downplayed to be more attractive to a wider range of PC gamers. I am a highly skeptical person, so maybe idk what I am talking about. But, I think about previous games lately that have been released and how well they have been running and looking great with older cards. Curious to know what other people think.

Optimization is a GREAT thing! Oblivion (Worst Optimization Ever) can even reebot my PC at High Settings. While Crysis 2 run very smoothly with HD-Textures at Ultra.

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:42 pm

My Radeon 6870 will cut through this like a hot knife through butter.

dangbrothat'sawesomemancool.

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:31 am

I don't judge games by size (having worked as a level designer i know it's not the sheer size and diversity of textures that counts but the creative way they are used) but there is also the testimony of those four french players who tried Skyrim at a event. They all said textures looked bland and they were all pc players (so they have higher expectations) AND THEY ARE FRENCH LET'S NOT FORGET THAT

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:26 pm

I don't judge games by size (having worked as a level designer i know it's not the sheer size and diversity of textures that counts but the creative way they are used) but there is also the testimony of those four french players who tried Skyrim at a event. They all said textures looked bland and they were all pc players (so they have higher expectations)

Unless they were playing a maxed out PC version of the game their opinions are irrelevant. I thought all demo'ing was done on the Xbox360 (of course the textures would be bland)

Still, people who were expecting Crysis level hyper-realism were destined to be disappointed. These types of games aren't linear shooters; the focus is always on content first. I'm just happy the graphics appear to be a marked improvement over previous TES and Fallout games.

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:17 pm

Wanted to note that Pete and I just had a conversation with with Todd. He noticed the feedback that's being shared about only needing 6 GB HDD. Here's the word straight from Todd:

He also mentioned that the game runs faster and bakes cookies for you, too

It will finally bake cookies ?

I wanted it to bake sweet rolls!
I cancel my preorder!

hahah.

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:15 pm

Recommended Specs

Windows 7/Vista/XP PC (32 or 64 bit)
Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPU
4GB System RAM
6GB free HDD space
DirectX 9 compatible NVIDIA or AMD ATI video card with 1GB of RAM (Nvidia GeForce GTX 260 or higher; ATI Radeon 4890 or higher).
DirectX compatible sound card
Internet access for Steam activation

The recommended specs let you play on High, not on Ultra. You'll want beefier rig for that.

I'm still a bit puzzled by that last statement. What exactly are folks supposed to "beef up" from those specs?

We know there is no 64 bit exe so going over 4GB RAM would be a waste, and will probably need to hack the exe to make it LAA to even use 4GB anyway.
Beth has never released a well optimized Quad-core game more or less needing to worry about more than that, which will probably require ini editing anyway for little to no gain.
You can't even buy cards or systems anymore with video cards that are DX9 capable only, I don't see that being much of an issue for folks. Upgrading to a DX11 card just for Skyrim would be a waste.
A 1GB card should be plenty considering how small the default textures will be in the vanilla game, you won't need anything past that till the user made texture packs come out.

What exactly is he recommending that folks "beef up" to play on Ultra. Upgrading any of the recommended specs would be pointless considering the limitations of the game and the engine itself.

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:08 am

The recommendations at least look as if they make sense, which is totally untrue for the Minimum.

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 3:51 pm

The recommendations at least look as if they make sense, which is totally untrue for the Minimum.

I actually thought the recommended looked a little higher than I thought they would be and the Min about right where I expected it. Only reason I can think of the Recommended are as high as they are is poor optimization. This is a console game made by a console developer after all, it just happens to be ported to PC as well.

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:08 pm

OH well!

lol

As I expected, I meet recommended. Yippee!

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:03 pm

This is a console game made by a console developer after all

Don't you have to develop exclusively for the console to be a console developer?

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:03 am

A 1GB card should be plenty considering how small the default textures will be in the vanilla game, you won't need anything past that till the user made texture packs come out.

I have 1.28GB VRAM. Is that enough for (standard) user-made packs (although I'm not sure if I'll install any)? I ran QTP3 fine.

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:08 pm

I have 1.28GB VRAM. Is that enough for (standard) user-made packs (although I'm not sure if I'll install any)? I ran QTP3 fine.

Probably. If QTP ran fine for you I wouldn't expect anything for Skyrim will outstrip that. But who knows till we see what the mod'ers come up with.

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:51 am

I'm still a bit puzzled by that last statement. What exactly are folks supposed to "beef up" from those specs?

We know there is no 64 bit exe so going over 4GB RAM would be a waste, and will probably need to hack the exe to make it LAA to even use 4GB anyway.
Beth has never released a well optimized Quad-core game more or less needing to worry about more than that, which will probably require ini editing anyway for little to no gain.
You can't even buy cards or systems anymore with video cards that are DX9 capable only, I don't see that being much of an issue for folks. Upgrading to a DX11 card just for Skyrim would be a waste.
A 1GB card should be plenty considering how small the default textures will be in the vanilla game, you won't need anything past that till the user made texture packs come out.

What exactly is he recommending that folks "beef up" to play on Ultra. Upgrading any of the recommended specs would be pointless considering the limitations of the game and the engine itself.

I assume they just mean a better graphics card for ultra which would likely mean upgrading to a newish GPU that will have DX11 support whether it matters or not.

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:21 pm

The recommendations at least look as if they make sense, which is totally untrue for the Minimum.

How so?

» Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:31 am

I actually thought the recommended looked a little higher than I thought they would be and the Min about right where I expected it. Only reason I can think of the Recommended are as high as they are is poor optimization. This is a console game made by a console developer after all, it just happens to be ported to PC as well.

As currently quoted, the minimum is nonsensical. VRAM is totally meaningless when considering performance. Total crap for graphics frequently have a ton of cheao RAM attached in order to SCAM the newbies.

Only core speed, RAM speed, Memory System Bandwidth, and shader processor total count can affect performance. A Geforce 210 could have 27 Terabytes of RAM and it still would be total, absolute crap.