I'm disappointed. Oh no, not about having to have loading screens or cities in separate cells, no no.
I'm disappointed that quite a few ES fans are being so melodramatic about a technical limitation that is out of the scope of the devs to change. A lot of folks seem to be expecting a perfect alternate reality simulator that runs on last decade's electronics.

I openly admitted here, as well in other threads that I'm nit picky. And no, I wasn't expecting anything. Just hoping.

More than doable on modern pc's. This is like BF3 only having 24 players and small maps on PC since the console version is like that.


Oh well.

I don't have the PC to handle open cities.

Separate cells cities are annoying. I don't mind the loading time. The cities (the ones in Oblivion) feel so disconnected from the environment. I think Skyrim will improve that sense of connectivity. The rest of the interview was pretty good, so it's tough to complain a lot.

How many people does the pc version support and how much bigger are the maps?

If their licensing agreement with Sony and Microsoft, along with development time and staff size, allowed for them making two different versions of the same game, I'm sure they would. Developing two different sets of game code and the extra man hours of testing would be unprofitable compared to making one base game ported to all three release console.
Nitpicking isn't a bad thing; moaning to the extent of claiming things like "The idea that is Skyrim gets worse with each day... " because of a minor gameplay issue as having to wait for a loading screen is distasteful, and I'd say rather insulting to the hard work that the devs are putting in to get the most out of the aging consoles.

As folks have said (and sadly, I do add, this isn't a perfect world), it falls on the shoulders of modders to change games to better suit their favoured platform.

64, and not sure...though It should be a large amount.

Haters will hate this.

I agree most definitely. I personally haven't seen enough to make me think Skyrim will be worse and worse each day. So far it seems to me to be shaping up to be better than Oblivion, though I was massively disappointed there, though mostly due to over-hyping myself, which I'm trying not to do with Skyrim.



As many have said, the modding community is one of the best parts to the TES series. Even after all these years, Morrowind(and Oblivion) mods are still being made, even ones as epic as Tamriel Rebuilt and Qarls texture packs. The mass amount of time and effort these people put into their mods is astounding. This is why I'm mostly not too worried about the game. I know it will be great in it's vanilla form from Beth, and any issues there are will be taken care of in the coming months.

Can't click for some reason(on my phone) does it say weather or not it will be all settlements or just the five main cities.
Im fine with it if its only major cities I just make sure I have something to do for a while when im there but I dont want a load screen everytime I walk into" bumtruck egypt"

I don't really think it's that the consoles just aren't good enough. I think the amount of objects, buildings, activities and people in a city in a TES game is enormous, and it would be hard for any piece of modern tech to run it, whether it's a console or a super-computer.

It's only a couple of the larger cities from what I understand.

Actually a lot of modern hardware could handle it no problem. But like others have said, developing either an entirely separate PC version, or a game that only the highest end PC's can run isn't profitable.

By the way. The loading screens in oblivion gave me a safe feeling. For example: entering a city I never got annoyed by loading screens anyway because i know they are necessary.

I'm sorry this is just BS! Todd specifically said "if we were on a next gen system we wouldn't have to do this" when referring to the cities being walled off. That pretty much shuts all of the XBOX holds the games back retaliations.

[edit] But either way, I really like this interview. Todd is just able to speak about the game, and what he personally feels rather than just answering stupid questions we've already heard the answers too thousands of times.

So, what would you do about it? Not develop the game for the xbox and lose a very large chunk of the customers?
Wait a few years for the new hardware, then a few more years to properly learn how to use it efficiently? Even then there won't be enough resources to make a game to satisfy all nitpicks. Should you then wait another 10 years to take advantage of the next-next gen tech?

A line must be drawn somewhere, otherwise the games would never be made. They decided to develop now using what is available. Be thankful they are developing it at all.

I'm just pointing it out that's all. It's something that's there that svcks, that's all I'm saying.

As for a solution, I'm sure there is no efficient one as far as what Bethesda wants to achieve (to sell a lot of units), or they would have come across it by now.

If it were a perfect world everybody would have top of the line PC's and they would develop only for PC. But unfortunately we have consoles that are years behind as far as hardware and Bethesda has to go along with that if they want to stay in business. Either way, it's still BS.

Such a petty issue can stir up such a pot of hatred. It's actually quite interesting, seeing the PC fandom fervor, and being able to draw shockingly similar parallels between that, and a lot of the racial injustices of the United States 60 some years ago.

There's not really much discussion here though. Is it because of Console memory limits? Absolutely. Is it a big deal? No, not really. This is one of those things where you really can say "Just mod it". I'm not sure how that mod worked on Oblivion though. Hopefully there's no scale translation issues for you guys.

You were right, by the way, about there being no reasoning behind arguments of "xbox hardware isn't holding anything back". It does get annoying when some people still spout that that particular console is as powerful as modern day gaming rigs still, but then again not everyone will keep up with the progress of the technology and it all devolves into a red team vs blue team argument.
Sorry, I'm going off topic now.

Pettiness is subjective. And whether much is to be discussed here is also your opinion, not something to be spouted about as if people shouldn't be involved in such a discussion.

As far as modding it in? I'm sure it will be doable. The "child worldspace" system they used in Oblivion (and presumably Fallout 3) should still be intact in Skyrim. So I don't think there will be any issues dealing with Skyrim's cities.

Are you likening PC owners to the worst racists seen in the 20th century or are you describing the issue of hardware vs hardware as pointless and damaging as the segregation between two emotionally equal yet differently skinned people?

PC is holding itself back, by allowing the Consoles to hold the PC back. Like you said, in a perfect(An unattainable quality) world, everyone would have top-tier hardware. And that's before considering, some people really just don't want to have to trudge through all the BS that comes with PC gaming, like driver issues, hardware incompatibility, ect.

I mean this in the most respectable way possible, I love PC gaming, but to blame all the problems on console, when it was the PC as a platform, that allowed it to happen, is just being blind to the details, and keeping that mentality is what is allowing the consoles to keep that Lion's share.



Likening PC owners to the racism seem in the 20th. It's not bad here, mostly huffin' and puffin'. But on less moderated forums, like /v/, it can get downright disgusting. That's actually when I started hating "PC Gamers" even being one myself. Seeing that kind of hate of something as petty as what hardware you're using, is literally as stupid as racism.

I've noticed things coming full circle for the PC; a lot of the most fun titles being released for it are small, low requirement, indy games that are getting wider distribution thanks to services like Steam. Perhaps these indy developers will become tomorrows blockbuster developers that have a better appreciation for what AAA PC gaming should be - gameplay complimented by cutting edge technology, not glorified tech demos (I'm looking at you, Crysis).

edit: I miss my Amiga.

Are you saying it's the PC's fault for being so complicated that it caused many gamers to invest into consoles for their "plug-n-play" value, that in turn caused the masses to use consoles that are easy but inefficient?

Yeah, I agree with that. To me it's always been the more capable things are the more complicated they are.

But the bottom line is it svcks that the games I enjoy have to be held back because of that. Either way you look at it.

Absolutely. If a developer is going to Multiplatform, they should take full advantage of what they have for each. Now, PC is weird, because you can't really take advanatage of "Everything" because it's almost impossible to find 2 hardware configurations that are the same between 2 people, but you get the idea.

It's really overestimated what kind of "negative' Impact Consoles really have on the potency of PC's, there's no part of gaming theory that can't be accomplished on both, but the PC's biggest asset is all that surplus and cheap memory. So while the core may be the same, you avoid stuff like Walled Cities, lower NPC count (Even if most just turn out to be filler, it really brings the world alive) less Dialog and all that good stuff.

But this isn't just a PC-Console thing, pretty much any nonexclusive or non-port title is hurt by a simultaneous cross-platform release. Developers have a finite amount of resources to work with, the only real solution, is universal, standard hardware. Which we might just see soon, with services like Onlive.



I've noticed that too. But also, power has kind of plateau'd a bit for PC. We've reached a point, especially with processors, where it's not economically viable right now to push those GHZ up past around 5.0. Multicore processors are really just a stopgap measure. They're not really "More powerful" they're just different, if the application's aren't threaded properly to take advantage of a multicore setup, nothing really happens. But actually, I think that's been good for PC as a platform, it's stopped this graphical arms race (For the most part) that used to define the platform. And you see things like indy games outselling the AAA titles. It's really making the industry rethink innovation. As talented as the Crytek people are, do their games actually do anything spectacular? Or do they just look pretty while running the same drills we've seen before?