Todd never went into details when he said "increased performance". OBVIOUSLY we have more raw power from higher end video cards, but there's other DX11 features such as multi-threaded resource handling that will allow games to better take advantage of multi-core machines, that may be implemented as well. Hopefully Todd gives more info into this.

Creation Kit of course.

I would likely not still be playing Oblivion today (literally lol) were it not the CS and modding. It adds unlimited replay value for me, really is far more important than graphics enhancement. And based on what I've seen with Morrowind and Oblivion modding, the graphics can eventually be enhanced through modders anyways. Releasing a Creation Kit with their games is a large part of why Bethesda is my favorite developer.

Haha you might as well ask "DX11 or sidequests?" The creation kit brings forth so many mods that excluding it would make TES5 the worst TES released.

Creation kit is far more important imo. For one, a lot of people probably still won't even have DX11 when Skyrim comes out. Beyond that, the creation kit is a huge part of modding and adds vast (potentially infinite) amounts of more content to play around with and greatly increase the longevity of the game. I have a good rig, and would love some more DX11 support, but the creation kit is far too big of a feature to give up.

I'm quite aware. However, it's a tool they have to tinker with to make it user-friendly for the community. It's something essentially that takes extra time that they don't have to do.

I think you are missing the point. BGS has to take time and effort to make the Creation Kit usable by the community. Obviously ever developer has a kit for their game that they use to generate content and environments. The point of the thread is it's a feature that takes up time to do, and perhaps some would like to see that time put into other features of the game. I'm more than aware that many would only buy the game if a Creation Kit were available, but I was curious to see what people were willing to give up for certain features.

I don't really get the comparison with the Creation Kit. The Creation Kit is "created" anyway and is the same one that Bethesda uses themself.

Bethesda doesn't really lose anything big in precious time or such to release the Creation Kit. They only win by releasing it, as they know: 1) it makes modders very happy and thus making more sales and profit, 2) it will give Bethesda themself ideas for the future, 3) it will keep the game alive much longer for many years after its release.

It's wrong to set an ultimatum and an "end to all topics" with such a flawed comparison (sorry, but it's true I think).

If I was literally forced between these two choices in an alternate universe where this comparison wasn't flawed or unrelated, then I'd choose more DX11 support. Why?
I'm a big modder. I've installed lots of them and made quite a few myself. But in all honesty, in general the mods I've played have often brought more bad than good to the game. They've been severely buggy so that the game can barely be played any longer, been conflicting, been badly done, been so over-cluttered that it makes the game lag really bad, been a huge time-spender to install and understand, been detracting from the "spirit of TES" as I call it, been making things look even worse than vanilla, etc etc etc.
In my very honest opinion, there are very few true mod-gems out there compared to the total number that aren't anything of the negative things I mentioned above. Modding is great with those few mod-gems, but they are so few that I'd actually appreciate the game looking better by more DX11 support from the start.

I'm referring to the Creation Kit being used by the community.

Perhaps. Regardless, it does take them time and effort. They clearly understand how important it is to their PC community, even if most of their customers are on consoles.

How is it a flawed comparison? You either want the benefits of DX11 (which can truly be amazing and would completely change the look and feel of this game), or you want user-generated content. It seems like a fair comparison to me.

This is exactly my point. User-generated content is just that. It's created by the community. While there may be a few good mods out there, most of them are going to be utterly useless and probably detract from the game. All I'm curious to see is if people are willing to have all those bad mods, with the exception of a few good ones. Or, would people rather BGS just use more DX11 support for the game, and make some obvious improvements?

Why are we choosing between more DX11 features and a mod kit? Its not like it has to be one or the other.

'most of them are going to be utterly useless and probably detract from the game'? I had fully 5 gigabytes of mods for Oblivion, all of which I thoroughly enjoyed. Yes, for any given person there's certainly mods that won't interest you personally - but mods are completely optional on a mod-by-mod basis, and there's going to be an incredibly amount of mods for Skyrim to choose from.

Gameplay trumps graphics, every time - minecraft's overwhelming popularity is proof positive of that.

Don't misunderstand. My point is that mods are purely subjective and are a hit or miss. Some will enjoy certain mods. Some won't. The best mods will likely be enjoyed by most if not all. They are a gamble and are not a guarantee of anything.

I personally think gameplay is on par with graphics in importance to be honest. If anything is truly important for a game, it's the story and plot behind it. No matter how outdated the gameplay and graphics are for a game like Ocarina of Time, Vanilla Morrowind, or Golden Eye, I can still play them and have as much fun as I did a decade ago. Those games are truly timeless, and that's what constitutes a great game in my opinion.

I think it's a flawed comparison becuase what I already said, basically.

The Creation Kit would be released anyway and it wouldn't really take Bethesda much more time to do so than not to do so. Bethesda would really only benefit from releasing the Creation Kit. DX11 features wouldn't be released anyway, and it would take much much more time to actually make it happen.

User-generated content could also never (or at least for a long long long time, with lots of performance hits and bugs coming with it) even close achieve what DX11 features would be able to do either, as you said in the #1 post. DX11 features are therefore something completely different that can't really be compared to user-generated content. It's finally also the work being done by someone else than the developer and is completely unrelated to the time and money developer is spending to improve graphics or whatnot.

Finally, DX 11 features is perhaps not the best comparison itself, since we know by looking at Crysis 2 for instance, that a game can look absolutely amazing with DX9. It could very well depend just as much on how well you use it and what other graphics (non-DX-related) features you implement.

It would be a more "fair" comparison if it was like more "more work on graphics" vs. "-30 quests and -30 dungeons" or something like that (and in return Bethesda would hire more programmers to work on graphics).

That's fine.

It merely comes down to what one would prefer more.

It's true that games looking great ultimately comes down to development and implementation, but DX11 definitely makes the process a lot easier.

Perhaps you should create that thread and see what the community has to say.

Why couldn't we have both? >.>

True that any given mod is a gamble on a person-by-person basis, but given the thousands of mods we're sure to have coming out, the odds are good you're going to get your Skyrim experience lengthened by hours and hours of content - free.

I agree that a game's story and plot can improve a game by a lot - for example, Bioware is known as a gaming company for their mastery of storytelling.

Blizzard on the other hand, is known for well-polished competitive and/or cooperative multiplayer.

Bethesda, as we know and love, is known for gameplay - open world gameplay, to be specific. You could dumb the graphics down considerably, and still enjoy the freedom that TES games offer - go anywhere, attack anyone, steal anything. If you remove the core gameplay that makes it TES on the other hand, but improve the graphics - I wouldn't be too interested in that game. I personally play Bethesda games for their gameplay, whilst I play Blizzard titles for multiplayer, and Bioware games for story. I don't play any games because of their graphics.

I have no idea since I'm not nearly a programmer, but I think it's easier to implement graphics through DX11 than through DX9 like Crysis did (I think Witcher 2 uses DX9 as well?)? But I may be very wrong? lol
Still, DX11 isn't needed for a game to look much better than Skyrim, that's for sure.

I don't think it's any need to create such a thread... I mean. There's nothing that can be done now and no reason Bethesda would listen to us. They're very well aware of it themselves and it was a choice they made. I can't simply say it's the wrong choice Bethesda made. I haven't played Skyrim yet, lol...
But based on what I know so far and read so far and seen and heard so far, I think maybe Bethesda could have spent some more energy on graphics (whether that would be graphics in general or DX11, I have no idea)...

I very personally think Skyrim kind of already looks outdated compared to the modern graphics-standard. I get jealous when I look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90BPECahh3o. Gives me a true WOW feeling that is just stunning. Some scenes in that video are so darn beautiful. Like 0:37, 1:45 (omg look at the wind animation), 1:56 (such a beautiful sunny and alive-looking forest/field. I could stay in that place forever).

The choice makes as much sense as, dx11 or give up a kidney.

Or how about we get both and they drop one less popular console version? *gives knives to xbox and playstation users* *grabs popcorn*

I agree. Ultimately, having mods is definitely a plus, and there is bound to be some good ones out there for everyone. I'm just merely suggesting that it's not guaranteed fun for all.

Yep. BGS and BioWare are my two favorite developers in the industry, for very different reasons.

True. The main appeal that will always be for me is the freedom to do whatever I want and go wherever I want. Anything else is merely icing on the cake that will add to the experience.

The Witcher 2 is DX9. The only game coming out this year that will be the biggest step towards a fully-capable DX11 game is Battlefield 3.

Fair enough. The graphics and visuals are good (especially the environments), but they aren't the best. That's fine though, as ultimately what makes a TES game for me is being able to do what I want and go where I want. CD Projekt Red has done a phenomenal job of trying to make the most believable and exciting experience yet. They claim they have made the best looking RPG to date, and they may very well be right in that claim. Even if modders can't make improvements using DX11, they can still make other improvements with DX9. Just like you stated with Crysis 2, the only thing that really holds back a game graphically with DX9 is the creativity of the developer.

Most definitely the creation kit. Which I've been deeply impressed by for years now, for at least 3 different games. Mods because maybe our gaming preferences are a bit different than what's typical for gamers in some way... We want a bigger world, or more of a challenge, or some change to game mechanics. Or we want dual wielding, or maybe just for roleplaying purposes a previously unplayable race. Or we want new armor, or a customized home, or we thought the default content wasn't deep enough, or we wanted more quests. Or something not at the top of my head.

I remember I loved Morrowind on the x-box, but I always envied the ability to have mods, and I was ecstatic the second I was actually able to play it on the computer. Though by then Oblivion was about to come back way back then.

No, you're missing the point. The creation kit was made anyway, that's what Bethesda used to create the game. So it wouldn't take all that much time to bundle it for the player at all, it can be used as is. It may involve the removal of a few functions that the devs have access to, like the base code of the game, but for the most part we're getting the exact same tool that they worked with. Having to choose between DX11 and the CS is like having to choose between a DVD player or the engine when buying a new car.

They don't "have to tinker with it to make it user friendly for the community". Who/what gave you that idea? A feature or 2 may be disabled before releasing it to the modder community, but pretty much the tool is made with Bethesda's use in mind, not the community.
Another thing: DX11 is mostly performance enhancements to DX10.

And as a general comment on the whole DX11 thing:
This board, just like any other, has its share of people who throw words around... "Tesselation" is now up there with "immersion" and "balance" as de rigueur TES forum buzzwords. There are other things much more important to a game than making LOD look pretty with tesselation or shaders as you get closer. Neither tesselation nor shaders makes for better animations, or better dialog, or compelling stories, or better/more varied interiors, or add variety to the NPC meshes (clothes, armor, faces), none of that. I don't play a game and say "oh, look how wonderfully, unnaturally bumpy that road is". Anyways, I can make that road look wonderfully, unnaturally bumpy just fine using DX9 or DX10.

Do not take offense friend. BGS is doing us a favor by allowing us to use the Creation Kit. You do not see that kind of commitment from very many developers. They don't have to give us the Creation Kit at all. Just like they don't have to give us any DX11 support at all either. I'm just curious of what feature people are willing to sacrifice for the other.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2716

A fairly long read, but worth it for anyone wanting to educate themselves on the feature set of DX 11.

Disabling a feature or two is tinkering...

You are completely entitled to your opinion and that is perfectly fine. Some players actually prefer better graphics and to take advantage of their high-end rigs. The truth of the matter is DX11 is the future, and some players want to take advantage of that now. DICE isn't holding back in this regard. Why should BGS?