Yah with that size, Crysis no longer looks so great.

Wrong......they are always finding new techniques to add more things in games & squeeze more graphical power out of them.
Yes there is a limit,but the PS3 & 360 are far from dead yet.....sales suggest that too.

With graphics is like this: play Oblivion/Crysis/Metro 2033/AvP,Amnesia, Gothic or any other game like that at low resolution/detail and then on high. The atmospher, the feeling of being there, living that story isn't quite the same, isn't it? Graphics, like music, gameplay, story, voice acting, they are all parte of the whole. Trying to emphasize on one part it's like saying that the brain is more important than the heart, lung or liver.
You can extrapolate to your car, phone, etc: it can look good, but you also need performance/you have performance, but you also need comfort and so on. A great game shouldd have all of them. Until I see some FullHD pics or play the game on my screen, I for one, can say how good the visual part is in telling the story.

Like people have said, PS3 and 360 really limit the ceiling. Like it or not, you have to be a hobbit to enter the Westfarthing. We also have to take in mind optimization issues - viewable/enterable space size, game capabilities, lightning, etc. While having a game as beautiful as all those real life pictures, having realistic look is not as important as the art direction, and having a great art direction is not as important as having a gameplay, and having a great gameplay is not as important as having actual, living goblins come with the game box. Collectors edition can come with armored ones, or the wizards.

Do we know these aren't from the PC version? I mean it would make sense to take the screenshots (which btw may have has a wee while in PS) from the system most capable of outputting high fidelity graphics.

The Witcher 2 isn't a fair comparison. Yes it looks great but it's not an open world RPG nor is it being held back by consoles.

That's the major issue, I think... :swear:

Problem is a lot of us can't get the GI, but there's hope for some high res screens in the GI hub during the next weeks.

Judging by the rather low-quality screenshots that I saw of the magazine, the graphics look good and acceptable. However, it does slightly annoy me that Bethesda could have implemented features like Directx 11, etc., into their engine, but seemingly didn't. Everyone would benefit from it if they made the game first for the PC and then ported it to the consoles. If they designed the graphical (and other) capabilities of the game primarily for the 6-year-old hardware of the consoles, then much potential is wasted.

You are quite the [censored] if you were actually expecting something like that.

I'd rather play an ugly, yet smooth-running, truly open world game with lots of stuff to do and good gameplay wise than play a lifelike-graphics game set in a tiny room where I can play with cups and plates.

Yes, consoles may be holding back the graphics, but IMO, it's better to be able to play Skyrim on 11/11/11 than having to wait an undefined amount of time for a new console that can live up to the expectations of some people. Besides, Skyrim looks better than Oblivion.

In fact, I think that Bethesda not working so hard on graphics has given them more time to improve on the gameplay aspects, allowing for the inclusion of new features such as the woodcutting, smithing, dual wielding, etc.

gameplay>graphics

There has to be a balance between gameplay and graphics. It should be 50% 50%.
I'm waiting for more HD pictures, perhaps even videos, until I can safely know what I'm talking about.
But judging from what I've seen so far, the graphics could be a little better.

The reaction was "That looks pretty nice" instead of "Wow!".

I'm sorry but people who do not realize the value of good graphics are gnomes and should be stomped on. A game can be good without any graphics at all, and gameplay is certainly the important foundation of all games, but I think that great gameplay without graphics can still make a great game; great gameplay with [censored] graphics means the graphics will ruin immersion and ultimately [censored] up the entire game; and finally great gameplay with great graphics will take the game to a new level and that is what all developers should strive for today, pushing the limits on all levels: sound, gameplay, graphics, code, story, etc. in order to create great works of art that will invoke emotion like a film would, and not just light entertainment.

It's all because of the hype. They said it would look "next gen" and it would "blow our mind", but it doesn't. It's still great, but they made us expect too much I think. :shrug:

99.9% 0.1%

A good RPG can be done with ASCII characters, and its still a good RPG.
Adding ray-traced graphics and calculated physics to a mediocre or bad RPG doesn't improve the game (or the story).

I say make the best game that you can with what resources you have, then worry about spending the remainder on graphical improvements.

PnP RPGs don't even need graphics. However in particularly regarding a current gen TES game, which is not really comparable to PnP or ASCII in terms of presentation, expected or otherwise. Graphics are important. If it is not pushing the envelope in that department then it is doing it wrong.

There isn't some mystical compromise or balance that must be struck between the 2. Best of both. Every time.

You could do ADOM, or Nethack in 3d
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/adom1.jpg

Don't get me wrong... I love great graphics... but if they have to cut corners to maintain the pretty pictures, its not worth it to me.
I'd rather a text-based RPG with no graphics, but with an engine that taxed a quad core with 6gig ram ~using it for interactive fiction, and chat-bot AI.

When I first played Fallout 3 the machine was minimum spec. The game looked great, but as soon as a fight occurred, the combat AI kicked in, and the frame-rate dropped to single digits.

they said oblivion 2.5
thats what it looks like

agreed, tired of people complaining about the graphics, skyrims graphics are amazing imo, even by looking at very low quality magazine scans

And yet no game looks better than Crysis, even the sequel :/

What I've seen so far hardly seems bad enough to ruin the game or immersion.

This is game is like 11 months away, the graphics could improve by then. Even if they don't, the game looks great judging by what we've seen.

the graphics looks great to me. as long as the animations have improved im good (btw i love how you can see the blood veins on the player character in the 1st person screens. small details like that means alot. after all, we'll have those arms/hands on the screen almost all the time when we play)

People are looking at an beta/alpha version of the game in low resolution screenshots and yet are complaining. Plus static screenshots never look as good as the game should be. Wait until some footage of the game in action and you will change your minds.

Plus this has to be the best looking open world RPG game I've ever seen. Only The Witcher 2 seems to look better, and it is a story driven semi-linear RPG.

Its very true of comic books, that great art will make up for a bad script, and that bad art will ruin a masterpiece. But I don't see that in games. If I play chess on the PC ~ I don't need raytraced HDR marble Greek statues for Chessmen; What I want is a devilishly clever illusion of a skilled opponent. (and the same goes for RPGs or any other game whose entire point is not simply a light show); Graphics are just like the icing on a cake. The prettiest icing in the world won't improve a bland product; though it will compliment a grand one.