Theres no reason to complain about graphics, gameplay is the most important thing

plus we haven't even seen gameplay yet.

Indeed.

A Beth game with HDR and Dynamic shadows, never thought I would see this day anytime soon.

We shall see the first gameplay videos, and then I shall bring the hammer of judgement down once more!

Everyone here boasting about Crysis and its graphics need to realize that Crysis is an FPS game and at full graphics settings laggs like a [censored]er whenever there are more than 10 enemies on the screen. All those youtube videos about ultra gfx and super textured flora are for showcase only. They aren't practical when you add explosions, AI, ect..

Not everyone has a PC that can handle these settings too, so it isn't practical in that sense either.

Now the gfx for Skyrim aren't stellar, but they are hardly bad, or even on par with Oblivion. I'm sure with anti-aliasing, and other options like tessellation the graphics for the PC will be a LOT better looking. Not to mention some dedicated modder will eventually come along and release better texture packs.

Please stop saying "gameplay is better than graphics",it's an annoying statement.
And I say that because

a' We all already know that.
b' Who told you that better graphics means worse gameplay and that these two are contrary to each other ?

Dude calm down, you make it sound like people who play on consoles have destroyed your precious game.

Offensive posts like that will get you nowhere. This isn't a forum for bashing consoles, it's specifically in the forum rules.

Not everyone knows that.

Off hand (and indirectly) Todd Howard.

I'll give you an example: Ladders don't work in TES because they screw with the AI ~its the 3d aspect of the game that does it... Fallout 1 & 2 both had working ladders and Fallout 3 could not.

Todd has said that their games are about "Show, not tell", meaning that you only get what they can visibly show you in the game.
That leaves out the whole host of the implied; aspects that could be part of the game but are not. I recall reading about Oblivion, that there was this grand battle of an army (but it only had six or seven NPC's in it because they can't show you an army in their engine).

It was a sad day for the Fallout series when it lost the text box.
In it's place we got a grungy soiled bed texture instead of a description like, "If you sleep on this bed, you will not sleep alone."

I don't expect any such in depth descriptions of items in TES. The engine can't animate lice can it?

Consoles are where the money's at, get over it.

While better graphics may not automatically equal worse gameplay, budget should be a factor, and I'd rather have the money plowed into other areas.
Console players (PS3 and 360) don't own a Wii presumably because they like these types of games (TES isn't available on Wii, and seeing as you're addressing people on a Skyrim forum...)
You're right, the technology is there for amaaazing graphics, but developing only for that would restrict the market massively, which I guess would lower profits which would mean no more spanky looking new games. Plus, people on here have already started worrying about whether their rigs will run Skyrim - it would be a lot worse if they just let themselves run wild with new technology.
I'm all for games looking good - and in my opinion those screenies look pretty good - but there is more to it than just that.

half of it comes from the lighting. I've seen games come close. But there is still no game out there that does correct lighting. You know, the suttle hues, the gradient of the sky, the horizon, the sun and how the light reacts to the objects how light bounces off one object and lights another. I dont think they will ever be able to do it, but if they do, those games that use that lighting will look incredible.

I would put that greater resource dedicated to shaders and texture storage, means lesser resources available to AI and map detail (possibly even less depth of interactivity).

From experience I know that Fallout 3 would fall to it's knees and become a slideshow when the combat AI kicked in inside a crowded room where it had to update detailed imagery of the scene and moving combatants.

Same feeling here.

Yes, well kiss that pretty picture goodbye and thank Microsoft for their greed and plans to svck all the money thay can from xbox360 players before they make a leap to the next generation of consoles.

@ Gabbo: Well,I kinda fell that way. :confused:

@ HARVEYtheDAMNED: Why was my post offensive ? I didn't name called or was ironic with anybody.I just stated that technology is evolving day by day,month by month,year by year. <_<

@ Chineapplepunk: Excuse me,I didn't said that Skyrim (or any other game) should be made only for high end pcs.
I just said that it would be nice that Skyrim would be able to make use of modern technology.
Regarding wii,let me say that if the people who bought xbox360 and ps3 all had a wii,then Bethesda would make Skyrim for the wii because as you said the place where money would be,would be the wii. It was an example,an e.g. I didn't really meant wii.
:mellow:

Lol why buy another console in the hopes that a game already announced as available for a console they already own would be ported over? Makes no sense.

I'm not saying that. I won't judge the game until it's out. It does bother me, however, with this new trend of people always patting gameplay on the back and completely neglecting the importance of graphics. Like I said a game without graphics can still make a great game, obviously, but with today's AAA titles there is no reason what so ever not to aim for the best graphics you can get (apart from economic stuff). As said, great graphics will make great gameplay even better and bring it up to a level where great gameplay alone could not go. The same thing goes for sound, story, etc. as well and not only graphics. Gameplay is the important foundation on which to build a great game, everyone should get that. It would seem gamers today have been spoiled by the awesome graphics we have these days, though, and forgotten how much it (graphics) contributes towards the final products. Again, there is a difference on Minecraft and Crysis. We enter different gaming experiences with different mindsets and thus require different things to enjoy it. In a AAA game, you would loathe horrible graphics. In a RPG game, I think that stunning graphics (these days) is absolutely essential, in order for the player to actually believe he is THERE.




Well like I said to the other guy, it differs depending on what you play. When playing an RPG you really need to believe the world is real, and nothing can break that immersion, or else it would risk ruining the entire experience. It's like, say, noticing a microphone above Theoden's head in the Return of the King when he addresses the Rohirrim before the charge. Escapism isn't escapism if you keep getting reminded of reality. And for your last sentence - that is exactly what I said earlier if you read my entire post.

But it doesn't use it for anything :shrug:
I'd love it if the games would use those cores and RAM to maintain and draw from a database of past user interactions with NPCs throughout the entire life of the PC.
To use these terabyte hard disks for a multi gig main save for a given PC and minor overlay saves for the sessions. The kind of game where your PC poisons a river, and all the towns down stream get sick (and don't like it if they find you out).
A game where the PC is in a party chasing a band of roaming marauders, only to catch them after they [randomly!] encountered a weapons merchant on the road and stole his store inventory (one that you could of encountered instead).
A game where one core is used to calculate world events that change while you are underground treasure hunting... A battle up top causing a cave-in down below; or using threaded AI for each opponent in the room. For this I'd gladly accept a reduced graphical overhead; and for NPC's that use a state of the art chat-bot with personality profiles for each NPC, and access to a database of all that they personally know of the PC, and all that they know second hand, and by rep... I'd gladly accept text only dialog that was dynamic and mostly un-repeating. NPCs that get annoyed with pestering, or rephrase what they said, curtly, or with more information (based on PC stats/ sympathy/ indebtedness/ gratitude).

No all we get is better shaders and a need to upgrade our PC. The world gets prettier, and less involved.

You're kidding, right?





I'm embarrased to be from the same country as you.
Have you actually seen scans? And, I know you can't of have seen the magazine, because I doubt the postal service can get a package from MN to Auckland that quickly, and the retailers here won't be getting the GI until about the 20th.
Look at http://deuspayne.com/screenshots/oblivion/forest_foliage.jpg and then http://guides.gamepressure.com/fallout3/gfx/gallery/large/Screenshots/screen41B.jpg and now go look at a scan. All have significant improvements over each other.

I didn't say they should buy a wii now,but that they could have bought one back then.
You know,when Nintendo showed the people at e3 the graphics of wii when Oblivion wasn't even announced yet and everybody that now has a xbox360 or ps3 started bashing wii and saying things like "I will get xbox because it will have HD graphics" or "I will get ps3 that will be even better than xbox360 because it's gpu is 50mhz faster"...
When Wii was announced,everybody was saying that it's going to be the last console Nintendo will ever make because it will fail to sell because it had worse graphics.

But nowdays they say graphics are of no importance.

But after 1 or 2 years,when the new generation of consoles will arrive,everyone will whine if the graphics aren't better than in today's consoles.

I kind of see your point, but Wii is largely used for "party games" - good at what they do, but they're hardly known for these types of games. Plus, if one were to think ahead about buying a console for a specific game (say, TES), I'd go for a console that had already released a TES game before (MW, I think). Also, I'm pretty sure you did say in your first post that console players should just buy a Wii if graphics isn't their primary concern. I really don't see where this is going, tbh.

Yeah,today wii is for party games.But back when it was announced there weren't so many party and fitness games.
The AAA launch title of Wii was Zelda:Twilight Princess.
A long single player 'hardcoe' game.
Anyway,we went off topic so let's stop here and get back to the topic.

Right guys, can the 'Console vs PC' crap please and keep this discussion as civil as possible.

Thanks,

Milt

I saw plenty of shots of nords standing on snow. If Beth really had a tundra they would show wood elves sinking waist deep in snow since that is the sort of stuff companies love showing off during pre-release. Since they aren't keen to show off the fantastic snow environments we may as well expect a desert painted white with the occasional white cliff and falling snow filter on the camera.

It'd be interesting if they managed to have Snowballs/clumps as creatures that moved when pushed, (like the tumbleweeds in NV); such that they simulate a snowdrift that can be walked through, and leaves a path of disturbed snow.

you havent even seen a mountain or valley yet...

Perhaps because licensing even dated engines for commercial games can easily cost millions of dollars.

I think that's everyone's reaction when they first see that picture...