You obviously don't really know. You're just making an assumption off of one trailer.

Very true, the "look" of the game depends on the artists, not the graphic engine. And considering it's the same artists that worked on Oblivion and Skyrim, it's bound to look similiar.

That said, it's not impossible that it will use Gamebryo. Back when Oblivion was in developed they kept calling Gamebryo/Havok/Speedtree and so on for "our tech". And they still use Havok and it's possible they still use many other middlewares (like Gamebryo) to form their own engine.

There is no "look" to Gamebryo.. Or any engine for that matter. The look is up to the artists, designers, and animators. Maybe the animations and art direction look the "same" as Oblivion because it's the same team. Not that I agree they do at all.

Keep in mind that Skyrim was probably in development long before they bought id :mellow:

Looks worlds better than Oblivion (you have to compare Oblivion console version to the Skyrim console version even though the Skyrim console version blows away Oblivion PC as well). This engine has insane graphics, you have to realize how it will convert from console to PC, something alot of people seem to not be able to do. I don't see why people think the graphics are bad, the artists did great, adding in stylization where needed. The game will look insane on the PC and look amazing for a console game. People need to realize this.



Can I buy some Skooma off of you? That's some strong stuff you've got there <_<

Well here's a quote from Todd that I think might help.

Id Software is not owned by Bethesda and not under their wing. While Zenimax could make their developers use each others software, Bethesda's and Id's current engines are working in fundamentally different ways. You want Rage graphics in your Skyrim? Then drop the open world. You want Skyrim open world in Rage? Then drop the graphics. Can't get both in this case.

Engines are way more than graphical output by the way.

Other than that, I have no real opinion about this discussion. I'm content with what has been shown, but I had no real expectations to begin with.

You can post times, i.e. 1:40, to indicate where in the video you feel the sub-par graphics are.

I haven't played any of the gothic series, so I'll ask you:
How big is their world?
How much is procedurally generated?
How long and detailed is the main quest?
How in-depth are the factions?
How many quests are there?
How many dungeons, and how varied are they?

In other words, is it really comparable in terms of developer effort to TES?

And even if it is, here's another question: Why does the poly count have more of an effect on the visuals than the artistic visual style? It just seems to me that merely focusing in mesh detail misses a lot of what the visuals we've seen have to offer.

This post is obviously written with ignorance.

It looks the same because its the same art style (and made by most of the same artist), similar animations, set in the same world, and a very similar game in general... it has nothing what so ever to do with the engine the game runs on. You can have two games that look identical, running on two totally different engines. The engine just handles things under the hood... what you see and that "look" your talking about has everything to do with the artist, and nothing to do with the engine.

Edit: A great example is the fact that Civilization 4 runs on GameBryo... yet Civ4 looks NOTHING like Oblivion.

This looks nothing like Gamebryo. The graphics look amazing they aren't Crysis like but who cares you don't need those type of graphics in order to have a ridiculously good game which is what Bethesda Game Studios has right now. Skyrim looks amazing and I can't wait for more new info.

Guys, I know all about art direction. Maybe too much... And I know about Gamebryo's other games as well. I do feel tho' that my concerns are legitimate. On the bright side it seem as if they're finally starting to put some effort into the animations. But lordy, those textures look waaay low rez.

Well, I'm no expert here, but if the game should have better graphics, wouldn't that be difficult/impossible since they're making the game for xbox360/ps3 as well? I'm not trying to start a console vs. PC battle, but isn't it obvious that a (good) PC is capable of playing far better graphics games than a console? Or am I totally wrong?

i agree with you 100%
theyve taken gamebryo and called it something different
it is not a NEW engine
so why have i heard and read those exact words dozens of times "new engine"?

it is not a new engine
three quarters of the trailer looks slightly better than fallout 3
the other quarter looks very good
its been five years since oblivion- five years is a very long time in terms of technology development

for example, i personally think red dead redemption looks considerably better than this game in all aspects
the water looks like water, the lighting is truly amazing, the textures look great (like rocks instead of bumpy plastic), the foliage looks sharp and detailed

im really starting to feel bad criticizing the game, im actually very very excited about it
but the people arguing with the guy that this doesn't look almost exactly like their last gamebryo games are in hardcoe denial

Oh? Let's make some distinctions. Firstly, even if they were to create a render wrapper that works exactly like Gamebryo but uses none of the Gamebryo source code, then by definition, that is still a new engine. Not that I accept at all that this render wrapper is merely reverse-engineered Gamebryo.
Secondly, care to quantify exactly what/where looks only slightly better than FO3, and how precisely it fails to meet your standards?


I also have yet to play RDR, so I'll ask you: Is RDR comparable to TES in development ambition regarding size and content?

So you can tell just by watching the trailer that the lighting, shadows, draw distance, animation, AI, interface, scripting, dialogue, quest systems, melee, and magic systems have not been re-written? All that, not even look at the source, you can tell is just taken from their old gamebryo engine?

Uuuurrrr.... Can you explain how this looks like Gamebryo? Can you explain what Gamebryo is supposed to look like?

Except if they did that, they would have a lawsuit on their hands seeing as how Gamebryo isn't their engine so reusing it under a different name is against the law hmmm.....

Although i'm not super impressed w/ the graphics, to say it looks 100% the same as gamebyro , or close to vanilla FO3/TES4 is just foolish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shZzYkpl5Nk

There you go.


@ "FOR GODSAKES!!! The graphics are GREAT! Trolls will be trolls. There is not one thing I've seen that I didn't like. This is the best looking game I've ever seen, next to Crysis. Everyone was expecting Crysis/Skyrim. Too much expectancy there. As long as it doesn't look like OB's cartoony and over saturated graphics, I'm happy, and so should YOU! "

I was expecting the texture's to look better than quarls texture pack; and the water........the water..

11/11/11 should include DX11

Also 2nd to crysis, idk about that cause there is; Metro 2033, The Witcher 2, Cryostasis, Arma 2 ect and so on.

it′s the first bit of video months before release, trying to judge anything graphical at this point is like trying to judge a guys appearance by looking at his shadow.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about OP, the game looks great and I can't wait to see some Pc screens with all the settings bumped up.

Also thought the scenery looked absolutely fantastic, I can't wait to go wandering around that landscape (I realise this is only semi related but I wanted to add it )

all gamebryo is is an engine that handles code in the back ground. bethesda writes their own renderer, they are using havoks animation stuff on all the characters(see game informer site).
I really don't care if it still uses gamebryo under the hood, and todd never said they dropped gamebryo, all he said was they rewrote their renderer and other related systems. i personally hope they still use nif files for models so i can make my own swords and shields in blender. get over it and move on people.

I played all the Gothics except 4 which is an atrocity unworthy of Gothic name. Yes, the Gothic world is comparable with Tes (in fact I think it's the only free roaming PC rpg that can compete with Tes to some extent). The map in Gothic 1 and 2 is small. The map in Gothic 3 is huge (not that big as Oblivion's, but the topography is more accurate and the natural obstacles/character speed balance makes it seem big, like in Morrowind). The variation in objects that can be picked up is nowhere near Tes. 80% of the objects (books, plates,ect) are just textures.

Let me try to persuade you into liking the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSKeqlAAV-c

Also keep in mind that this is running on the 360, which is 5-6 year old hardware, and it's only capable of so much, take modern fps games like Bulletstorm and Killzone 3 which are both brand new releases on console hardware that are 5-6 yrs old, and ya they look good, but not that good..

Personally I don't care as long as gameplay is good and ai is better than previous Elder Scrolls..

If you play on PC then it'll be capable of looking much better than the console versions if you've got the hardware