we shouldnt need external programs!

Where do you get this notion that graphics = good game? I'd take good graphics and amazing gameplay over amazing graphics and good gameplay any day.



Why not? OBGE/MGE are my 2 favorite projects by far.

Not 3rd party ones anyway... I wouldn't mind official extensions for the PC version of the game (that installed off the DVD).

The thing that I'm disappointed about that is somewhat related to this ISN'T the graphics, but the visual design. Thematically everything looks like Oblivion. Rocks and trees, Boreal forest. I didn't see any people trudging through snow-capped peaks or expanses of bleak tundra. Even if it was as pretty as can be, it's still in a fairly boring place.

Granted, I've only seen a few screens, but I'd be a lot happier if they chose to show some more variety and put my fears to rest...

I'm starting to think people will only be happy with nothing less but photo realistic.

I can't find that picture of the photorealistic brick video game, but that's what I see coming. No gameplay, only graphics.

Snow means footprints.

**Be neat if elves didn't sink in the snow.

You mustn't have seen the full article, then. There are several screenshots of rocky crags and snow-capped peaks, along with several different sort of forest environments. The article also made explicit mention of a large expanse of tundra on the map when it listed off the various sorts of environments that the map is composed of.

Then i retract. i did see the one warrior with the dragon in the background in the snowy area, but I was hoping for deeper snow. Still, i would have much rather seen the tundra and except for that one screen it still all looks the same.

RDR is graphically inferior I will tell you that right now. Even from looking at blurry screens and owning RDR. Besides, both of those games are empty compared to things you can do in games even as old as Oblivion, possibly Morrowind. The Hunter has 8 huntable creatures, with 4 possible skins (1 default, 3 rare), 9 weapons, 6 characters and 21 items. I took all of that off their official wiki. You encounter more stuff than that in the tutorial of Oblivion (Axes, Daggers, Bones, Other decorative items, alchemy tools, goblins, rats, zombies, assassins, swords, bows, etc.).

RDR has a lot more stuff to do and a bigger area but even that is relatively small and undetailed compared to Oblivion. Unless you are in 1 area of the game you will almost never see a tree. Towns are spread out to a several minute walking distance from anywhere else where people may be, excluding the random camps of 1-3 people. Whats more only about 6 buildings are usable in every town, instead of every building in Oblivion.

Comparing Apples and Oranges is pointless. They are both entirely different and both delicious in their own right.

http://www.counterfrag.com/screenshots/the%20elder%20scrolls%203%20bloodmoon/1.jpg

I wouldn't care, really...

Frankly if it looked like the first picture the development time would be several more years.

It doesn't matter how it looks, it matters how it plays. If you want graphics, play an FPS. An RPG should focus on game play and game mechanics.

We don't sink in our snow once it's walked on it's pretty solid and at that point we don't leave footprints either. Of course if we walk across snow that hasn't been packed we will leave a path but it's generally too deep then to leave actual prints and what you get is a line of disturbed snow rather than any real prints. We call it breaking trail.

Oh and http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/wickedwoman/DSC00030.jpg picture looks rather skyrim like as well as my driveway in my sig. Of course you have seen the one in my sig. :wub: before.

Incredible view.
I still have it somewhere.

**Found it....
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Incredible-Driveway-1.jpg

Don't they look at home there as I'm sure some my character from Skyrim will.

This will be a nice pause from Fallout despite my having a blast with FO:NV. Thanks again Gizmo.

I remember reading an article about Virtual Reality being used for therapy, and rehabilitation, and it said that people were able to make an emotional connection with the simulations even if they were unrealistic looking characters or even wire-framed models. It's about the mechanics, and how the user can interact with those models. Of course, we all love the eye candy, and it's nice to see things look lifelike, but that is not the point of games, it's about how the game is played. The visuals need only complement that Game play. There are games that are completely cartoon-like, like Monkey Island, but that is how the creators envisioned it, and those visuals complemented the game play and story. Sure we want to see improvements. The first Monkey Island games were extremely limited to the technology, and so we recently saw them remake them the way the original artists and developers first envisioned it. (As you can see in the early concept artwork). But they obviously didn't need to look lifelike, in fact, if someone remade a Monkey Island game with the crysis engine, it would ruin the whole point of the series.

Elder Scrolls is a Role-playing adventure game, with it's own unique history and story. It's a large dynamic world, and the graphics should bring those visuals and concepts to life. They should be realistic, but being a fantasy game, doesn't or shouldn't be completely "life like". It's all about how Bethesda wants us to experience the story and content in the game. Oblivions graphics...hell, Morrowinds graphics blew me a way, even though they needed improvements in some areas, they didn't need to look completely life like, but they needed to allow the player to better appreciate the content through it's form. The visuals should never be the most important aspect of a work, but the content, and what those visuals are doing for the content.

Resize your crappy scan of a screenshot to the size of the following:

crysis: http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/5125/screencrysis.jpg
Oblivion: http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/3043/oblivion2.jpg
Now compare..
Let's wait for a HD gameplay video shall we?

last I checked crysis didn't have all the RPG elements,
games can only use so much room, some try to make it look good, some focus on gameplay, don't compare an FPS to an open world RPG

True dat. I reseve the right to pass judgement on graphics until after trailers featureing gameplay footage have been released. Even Crysis isn't photorealistic (especially the water), and what i've seen so far of Skyrim looks pretty darn, well... pretty. I'm going to remain optimistic and hopefully I will be pleasantly surprised (I'm really looking forward to that first vista when you see the word for the first time).

Snip, and i stand by my statement.

You guys realize the scans your all looking at don't do the game justice, look at page 49 when you actually get the mag and your mine will be blown

We are lucky we get what we get on the consoles. Achieving what they have with Skyrim is down right phenomenal. This is old constricting hardware. Your NOT going to see anything better. Consoles can only be squeezed so much. Skyrim looks great from a console point of view, better than anything else on console doing what its doing.

Well guys i was expecting something better THAN THE WITCHER 2 simply because bethesda has 1000x the budget.

Of course the witcher 2 is being developed primarily for medium/high pc's.

Skyrim has to think about archaic machines from what.. 05/06

Also pray the mod tools come fast so we may salvage this game if theres any major falts.

GO QUARLS TEXTURE PACK

We haven't seen screenshots yet from the PC version rendered at high resolutions....I'd wait until then to conclude whether the graphics are better than The Witcher 2 or not.

Meh, that's maybe 1 gen away actually.