Hey all,

I was watching the latest interview with Todd Howard on Gameswelt.tv http://www.gameswelt.tv/19748/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/video-interview-mit-todd-howard.html?mode=1

While I enjoyed the bits of new info and his thoughts on a number of topics, one topic left me wanting to correct Todd on his statements about hardware advancements.

Around 3:20 into the video Todd starts talking about how a newer generation of hardware could push more polygons and might have more detail close up, but that environmentally, things would look mostly the same from 20ft away.

Unfortunately, Todd couldn't be more wrong about that statement.

Check out this video: http://www.legitreviews.com/news/10461/

Among other things, the video demonstrates features such as Apex Clothing, clothing that moves realistically as a character walks, enhanced shadow capabilities, better bloom, Depth of Field effects that effectively mimic Bokeh (the type of out-of-focus that SLR cameras are famous for), hardware accelerated tesselation, image-based reflections, color grading, cascaded shadow mapping, light shafts, seamless lighting transitions, realistic foliage, soft-edge motion blur.

The current generation of the XBox is still using DirecX 9.

The current generation of PC graphics cards are using DirectX 11, and have been since 2009.


I quite honestly have no problem with Skyrim being developed for the XBox360. I do have a problem with Skyrim being made to utilize only the capabilities of that hardware platform even when running on the PC, and I really don't appreciate the down-playing of the huge difference in capabilities as a few "polygons" with some added detail when viewing things close-up.

One more aside, PC graphics advance at a faster rate than Moore's Law, and have been for over a decade. Even if you just use Moore's Law, doubling in performance every 1.5 years, in the 6 years since the 360's release, PC graphics have advanced to 16x what they were in 2005.

I will buy Skyrim and love it, but I just feel really disheartened that PC Gamers are getting the short-end of the stick on this one.

Peace,
Dan O.

Because a showcase of isolated features is the same as putting them into a game. Ha.


Anyway, while the differences are noticeable, I don't think they're as profound as the hardware thumping DX11 crowd wants them to be. If you have to "Try" to see the differences, they're just not that important, and that's a fact. When you have to "highlight" The differences, instead of letting them speak for themselves, it really just highlights the pointlessness of it all.

And no matter what generation of hardware, there will always be room for improvement, no matter how miniscule.

Not this [censored] again...

The truth is that there are far more console gamers out there than pc gamers these days. Not so many people have the money, or the inclination, to invest in a decent gaming rig. The mass market is god. :thumbsup:

What is this babble?

I did not read the entire post.

Basically I think your trying to say, why have they bothered with the out dated consoles? Well, they want money at the end of the day.

But having said that, the graphics we have seen look real good. Also people reckon its going to be proper fluid etc.

Look at The Witcher 2's graphics. They look the beast. Why? Because they have developed only for the PC. bliviongate:

Well first of all, making Skyrim a DX 11 game on the PC will mean a major rewrite of the game, since the core game will be DX 9 due to the consoles. They probably don't feel that the extra time and effort involved will be worth it. Not to mention that not that many people have DX 11 cards yet, it's still a fairly new technology. Many people are still using DX 9 cards, with some that have upgraded to DX 10. DX 11 card users are still very much in the minority, so it wouldn't be at all cost effective to focus strictly on that group. They'll add DX 11 features where they can, ones that won't interfere with the base DX 9 code, so people with cards that have the capability will still gain some advantage from them, even if it's not the full capability of that technology. That's still a few years away yet. The next generation of consoles will no doubt be DX 11 capable so we won't be seeing DX 11 only PC games until then either.

Why are you getting the short end of the stick? You are getting the same game as console gamers with the addition of the creation kit.

And i dont really think Todd is "wrong". I'm pretty sure he knows what he is talking about. He didn't once mention PC capabilities, he simply stated that based on time, and the game they are making, with a next gen system they would be able to apply more detail. They are not restricted by the consoles for things they want to do with the game. They are only restricted by speed and graphics.

Every now and again there comes a PC gamer who makes the others look bad and who really needs to get over himself. (IMO)

It's an important topic but I kind of agree with Bukee about it feels like maybe it's been up too much. There's really nothing we can do about it, other than hope Bethesda improves the graphics before 11/11/11, either for all platforms or make something PC-exclusive to take use of its better hardware.

Bethesda have stated they want platforms to be equal and there is no real mystery why they don't want to utilize all DX 11 features. It costs money and time, which I think Bethesda want to spend somewhere else which all platforms can use.
Besides, there is a definite majority of console players over PC players. That also has to be considered.

So all in all, I'm just hoping for graphics to improve a bit for all platforms before 11/11/11. If some DX 11 features or other graphics stuff can be added for the PC without costing too much money to taking too much time, then I don't see why not. It's unlikely though, because stuff like that actually takes much effort to get in.

A pretty good solution? NVIDIA can let their experts improve graphics and stuff if the game developer adds an NVIDIA icon or something like "the way it's meant to be played".

They are shooting for a wide variety of gamers so they have to make the game work across all systems with basicly the same preformance, plus if they do go through with bringing mods to the consoles they will need thoughs mods to translate well to the consoles and the best way to do that is keep all the platforms of the game pretty much the same (excluding mods that require hardware boosts).

Seems like people here are forgetting DX10 as if it isn't exactly and improvement over DX9. DX10 was released the year after the current gen consoles are. Its already costing beth more by making it for 360 and porting over to PS3 and PC due to the fact that porting games "up" is harder then porting games "down" look at this way is it easier to go Up a cliff or down a hill?

The only thing holding on to DX9 is current consoles the majority of PC gamers have DX10 now since DX10 cards cost like $50. Games this year are dropping support for XP and due to rumors Windows 8 coming out next year XP will prolly be dropped all games PC anyways. For example Battlefield 3 a Multiplatform game will not have DX9 support in the PC version BUT will be on PS3/360.

At a bare minimum I hope Skyrim PC has more DX 10 features since DX10 features are not "new" and "unexplored" by game devs.

As for the "PC profits are the minority" to be correct PS3 profits are the minority of the 3 in most games. PC actually has sold more then either console (separately) in many of the multiplatform games. People seem to add both consoles together as if they were own by the same company.. so its 2 platform vs 1 and that 1 platform in the long has better quality/cheaper then those 2 platforms.. but ya people go to best buy and see that $1800 price tag for a PC which if bought online or elsewhere is $200

Agreed, that's one of the key features of DX11, that it can scale dynamically in terms of features and capabilities based on what DX Level the GPU is capable of.



Also agreed, DX10 cards are cheap, and have plenty more features than DX9.



I'm hoping so as well, but preparing for a DX9 featured engine.



Also agreed, most of the sales statistics floating around the web fail to include online distribution. Take a look at Steam, how many games are bought and directly downloaded via Steam?

And yes, I can easily build a PC capable of DX11 with 8x the RAM of an XBox360, for around the same price as the XBox360 Premium was on release date, except instead of a 20GB HDD it would have a 750GB HDD.


Once again, I'm not unhappy about Skyrim being released for the XBox360, many other PC games are, even ones that feature DX11 capabilities.

I would simply rather not be bound by the same hardware restrictions as the XBox360.




The only reason I'm posting this now, is I don't feel Todd gave justice to the differences that involved here during his interview.

The differences are easily seen, and do not need to be "pointed out".

Peace,
Dan O.

Just because a technology existed in 2009, doesn't mean that many people actually had systems that could run it or that there was software that would use it.

It takes time for stuff like that to trickle down from "a few crazy techheads with expensive systems can run it" to "gamers in general have it". So, the fact that DX11 was around in 2009 doesn't really mean much. We're just hitting the point where you can expect a decent amount of the playerbase to be using it. (Remember - forum dwellers tend to represent the high end, not the average. Just because a bunch of people on various super-tech sites were running DX11 rigs last year, doesn't mean many other were.)

>>invest 1,500 into gaming rig
>>nothing to show for it but crysis 1 and uniengine benchmarking tools.

Also if a game was made around DX11 shader tech only the differences WOULD BE ASTRONOMICAL. Mass tessellation OMFG on everything....you could render a whole army with a minuscule hit in performance.

Low poly models with high amounts of tessellation is the future; to bad were stuck in 2005, well unless your playing crysis 1...then 2007.

I think the real problem is that these days unless you're playing at 2560x1600 there's basically no real benefit of getting a $2500 computer over an $800 computer. An $800 computer can max most games at 1920x1200.

nah we have more to show it, Steam, Red Orchestra 2, BF, etc

And if you spent $1500+ on your PC your a idiot and should be shot or back to console...

Skyrim is made for the masses, not the elite.

The game is actually being built on a PC since that is the only platform that the Construction Set is capable of being run on. So it's not being ported "up" at all, it's already starting out as a PC game. They're just designing it with the limitations of the consoles in mind.

I wish I could be surprised that things were made for the lowest common denominator, but it's hardly a situation unique to gaming.

PC gamers get the short end of the stick? It's interesting diction when one takes into account that PS3 players WEREN'T EVEN MENTIONED! I swear, people don't seem to notice our existence!

I future proofed it the biggest costs were my mobo and 1200w PSU. That way 6 years from now it'll still be kickn.

Also i was talking from a tech perspective of course we'll get RO2, diablo 3 but as tech pushers go we'll have to wait for BF3 which still isnt a pure DX11 game but its getting there.

You future-proofed by buying a stronger PSU?

But the power requirements for hardware remains fairly stable as efficiency rises!

Yeah 1200W is really overkill... A good PSU like a 850hx can run sli 580s as long as you don't do too much overclocking.

lol in Denmark you can't get a proper PC under $1500 unless you build it yourself then perhaps its enough, svcks not to be American... jk

If you plan to SLI or Xfire I can understand. Thought you meant $1500 PC as the first gaming rig you get