Oh, okay. Sorry if that had been mentioned before. I skipped a page or too.


Good point. ^_^'

Alright, thanks for clearing that up for me.

so we confirmed that the version seen is the 360 version, what we already assumed. Either way it looks good and the game play is what really breaks the game

Is there no one else who thought that screenshot (the one with the warerfall) was amazing? Then again, as a PS3 player, I guess I wouldn't know what good graphics supposedly are, eh?

I think it looks awesome BTW what do you mean I'm both a PS3 and PC gamer and PS3 games look pretty good in most cases.

What I'm saying is that bump/normal mapping is the same no matter which resolution it's in. If you've baked a normal map texture, then it's fixed. It wont matter much if it's displayed on either platform, if fur and hair is done as normal mapping (bumps) then it will look like [censored] no matter what. Same with oblivion, higher resolution doesn't make the technique used for fur and hair look much better. Bumps isn't the best way of doing that, resolution won't help that much. Real fur and hair should be used. Black and white 2 had that years ago.

Ugh, the fur/hair topic was completely separate from the bump mapping topic. You're the one combining the two.

What people have been saying, in one shot, everything looked terribly flat. People explained that it could look better on PC because like I said, it will have greater texture quality, as witnessed in most PC-Xbox ports and vice versa. It doesn't matter if the bump mapping process is the "same" because the resultant textures are NOT. Look at any console vs PC textures thread at any forum. Since all textures are displayed in lower quality usually, bump mapping would be affected.

The separate topic was that there was fur/hair on clothing that looked particularly bad. These used alpha transparency, and thus it was predicted that it would look better on PC with proper transparency AA.

I of course agree "real" fur and hair should be used, but it doesn't exist. You can mimic fur with shells (and add fins for DX10 for better quality) which is a technical term, so don't go thinking it means turtle shells and dolphin fins, please. Hair is much more complicated because of its length, there are probably no implementations that are fast enough for real-time.

I just assumed that with all the talk of the "limitations of consoles" and how great tesselatation and DX11 are that many PC players must be seeing something that puts my PS3's graphical capabilities to shame. :shrug:

I have to see an implementation of tessellation that doesn't look horrendous.

AAA is adaptive anti-aliasing. It makes clear distinction between finer textures like leaves in a tree, or bars on a metal fence or hair. Sorry it took so long for me to reply, had to get all the animals in their lots, it's snowing hella-hard down in southwest Missouri.



This.

I'm confused. Then what is it about consoles that are so limiting?

Well they aren't dx11 (or dx10?) compatible as far as I know, so they can't use tesselation.



I thought Metro 2033 did a nice job with tesselation, it could've been refined a bit but it's a newer tech.

I'm sorry but I think everyone who says that graphics don't matter is a liar. If that were true why would you even bother to play any new video games in the past 10 years. Imagine how huge of a game someone could make currently if it was all text adventure. Graphics do matter, and are a good chunk of game development. I am not saying that they are all that matters. There are many things such as graphics, story, gameplay, playability, etc; all of which matter immensely.

...and some people have $15,000 Alienware supercomputers.

How many people have computers which support DX11? How much would that even cost? Compared to a $300 360 or PS3, is it worth the price? I didn't see anything wrong with the picture people are criticizing about Skyrim. I think it looks beautiful and I can't imagine much better, so why is anyone complaining?

Don't listen to that person. Like *everything* in graphics it relies on the art direction. I assume that he's talking about the overly accentuated effects in the Unigine benchmark. They're overly accentuated for a reason. It's a benchmark.

And in actual *games* he's probably just plain wrong. I've replied to him (I believe) spouting this crap in another thread. Tessellation can't look "horrendous" as it's a technique. It's almost as if he doesn't want a beach ball to look smooth, he just wants to be able to count the triangles. Tessellation as applied in most games today are usually just to smooth out character details, and it looks great.

See my reply below for other reasons they're so limiting.



Hah, well not only that they have between 256-512MB total for GPU memory. Their GPUs are 5 generations old:

GTX 5xx > GTX 4xx > GTX2xx > 9xxxGTX > 8xxxGTX > 7xxxGTX (PS3)
HD 6xxx > HD 5xxx > HD 4xxx > HD 3xxx > HD 2xxx > X1900 (Xbox)

Their CPUs are getting old, but at least they can downsize the nm process the silicon is on for power/heat.



No matter the generation of technology, you can almost always nearly max out GPU and CPU power for under $2000. To the point it actually matters for current games anyway.

I never get the argument that consoles are only $300. They used to be more, for one, and secondly PCs do infinitely more things than a console can, which is part of the reason you are paying for it. Also if people buy a $2000 computer from some place, a monitor may also be included. Should we count the cost of HDTVs in the price of console purchases to make it more fair? Since the way you've presented it, all the money put into a PC must go to the cost of gaming, then we must include the price of everything that goes into gaming. So take your $300 console, and now add the $1000 HDTV.... and so on.

High-end gaming computers aren't as expensive as many make them out to be. Sure, if you buy an Alien Ware, it's going to cost double or more what is actually in the computer because of the name brand. But any well-informed customer can easily build just as good a computer for half the price or less. One could easily build a respectable gaming computer that would probably cost around $900 or so and would last a few years, considering games are still lagging behind the technology. Where as if one were to go with Alien Ware, it would probably cost $4000 or some outrageous price of that sort. At the same time, consoles are still a respectable platform. Obviously Skyrim will look better on PC (especially if it is DX10 and maybe DX11 capable, not to mention mods in the future), but it will still look largely improved over Oblivion on all platforms. My advice is if one has a monster gaming computer like myself, get Skyrim on PC. If you don't, Skyrim will be just fine on console (btw multi-platform games typically look better on 360 more so than PS3).

I have another question. Is the 360 technically more powerful than the PS3 or vice-versa?

PS3 is technically superior.

Ah, thanks. So... wouldn't logic dictate that the PS3 version look at least as good as the 360 version of a multiplatform game, if not better? :huh:

It should, but a lot of developers code and make games for the 360 first, because its "easier" to use, then bring it over to the PS3. Some time its the other way around, but there's plenty of games that are superior on the 360, only because the devs made it that way.

So... how noticeable of a difference do you think there will be for Skyrim, in terms of graphics, between those two versions? :unsure:

Wont know until it comes out I guess.

those are a lot of facts. its almost like you are trying to put up an argument, only nobody is arguing with you.
your efforts are better used elsewhere, because we are here to talk about skyrim. not the fact that game developers use PCs rather than an xbox to make their video games.

Can... maybe... I should have bought a 360. :dry:

If this was the first year or two of the PS3, I would say that it would be better on the 360, but that trend is dying out. The PS3 is finally getting the amount of time it needs to make a multi-platform game superior on its console. This is coming from a 360 owner. Look at NV for example. it looks the same as 360, possibly a little better, but the load times on the PS3 blow the 360 out of the water. Then again, with the money M$ throws around, I'm sure they wont let Sony out-do them too much. Multi-platform games are only going to be as good/in depth etc. as the 360 allows.