Mozart sounds great on electric guitar. Just sayin'.

Those of you who are criticising without proper information are just being juvenille.
Moreover, whoever stated that they have the right to criticise something they don't own is like saying you can say a certain food tastes terrible without trying it. It's just idiocracy.

The PC will get the game it gets, and the console will get theirs. No amount of complaining is going to change that because it's already too far in development to go back and make any large changes in the engine.

I personally think that game will look good either way ported or not.

And for those that say "You don't understand, you're not a PC Gamer"... My PC build was $7000, sorry kiddies

Criticizing specifics about how a game plays is like saying a food tastes terrible without trying it. Criticizing specifics about how a game looks, when screenshots of that game are available, is more like saying a food looks terrible without trying it. You don't need to taste a dish to talk about how it looks, and you don't need to play a game to talk about how it looks.

And more generally, trying to dismiss customers from criticizing products that they intend to purchase is far more juvenile than those criticisms are.


They almost certainly have higher-resolution assets than what they're including in the console version of the game on hand. It's not too late at all to try and convince them to include better versions of those assets in the PC version, assuming they haven't already decided to do so. It's also not too late to express disappointment with a product that will undoubtedly be receiving a sequel - whether or not major, sweeping changes can be made to this game doesn't change the fact that major, sweeping changes can be made to the next one.


You've been horribly, horribly ripped off if you paid $7000 for your PC.

Not if his PC can fly or something

In terms of higher resolution assets, I agree that's completely plausible to add those in with the PC version. I am talking about the other technical limitations associated with developing PC and consoles side by side.
And the images in the game informer magazine don't necessarily transpose to the final product, nor do magazine images do any game justice.

In response to my PC, I built it from the ground up. I'm a Software Engineer, so I do believe I have some ability to know when I've paid too much for a component.

That would make it more aircraft than PC, but it would explain the cost at least.

I would dearly love for Bethesda to release a special DVD with complete uncompressed/unoptimized original art assets on it for modders to work from when upping the graphics on the PC. Even if the disc(s) cost extra.

Modders have done some incredible art upgrades for previous games, but having the original assets to work from would be amazing.

The Game Informer images are probably fairly representative of the final product given how close they are to finishing the game, and while magazine images aren't going to give a full picture of how the game's going to look they're still good enough to give a rough indication of what we can expect.


If you paid $7000 for a gaming PC, I'm not entirely sure that's true.

Well, I have quad crossfire 6970's ($2000), 24GB corsair ram ($1500), i7 processor ($1500) plus liquid cooling, the case/power supply, and the motherboard... It quickly adds up

It's more than a gaming PC, I use it for a lot of my work so that is why it's like that.

But anyways, I don't doubt it is similar to what the final game will look like. But still, I am apprehensive to judge something that we've only seen a few images of and not much information given. Just seems like a waste of time.

WOW!

I am jealous. :sadvaultboy:

I don't think anyone thinks the graphics will be BAD, but rather they feel they won't be reaching their full potential because they feel that Bethesda is limiting themselves within the capabilities of consoles.

Personally, I'm not worried, Far Cry 2 was released on PS3, Xbox 360, and PC.

Naw, most of those will be several hundred cheaper in just under two years, making the build far easier to accomplish now.

That's why I always wait for technology to level out. Its like DDR3 or AM3 were: overpriced and under performing, much like many of the newest processors are. Waiting a few months is very healthy for your wallet and for your build.

Oh I don't fear it. I know, and have accepted that consoles stunt technological advancement quite a bit. But oh well? Games are only made because the developer gets paid to make them, who's the biggest buying pool right now? Consoles. PC gamers just have to accept it, and try to rejoice that we don't have to upgrade every year. :rolleyes:

You might as well look at the modding community as their trade of for console standardized graphics. Ask yourself if you would trade the CS for those better graphics.

well because 1) they've only seen extremely low quality magasine scans (the actualy pictures in magasines already look bad, ALWAYS!!!) and they think it's gonna be the maximum resolution
and 2) well since they have nothing else to do, instead of doing something constructive, they keep whining. unfortunately, that's how the world works

I would have to say you were ripped off there if you paid that much for a rig. My PC, that I built myself, was about $3800 with a top of the line GPU, many HDDs and a SSD. Besides, price of a PC doesnt denote knowledge of a PC. Anyone with money can go to a site such as Alienware and pick out the most expensive parts and assume they are going to get a great PC. (Though I would never recommend Alienware, they are way overpriced for what you get)

You missed the point. It's not that PC's are capable of better graphics, though that is true, it's that developers ignore the fact that PC's are now ages ahead of consoles in every aspect. Were games developed to use a modern gaming PC's full potential we would benefit not only from better graphics but more complex versions of everything. It's the fact that console hardware does in fact hold the evolution of gaming back. Much as people fight over it there really is such a thing as 'consolization', that is, games lacking in potential complexity and depth because they had to be hacked apart to work on a five or six year old console when a gaming PC is outdated in a few months.

Not to mention PC gamers built the market for many developers that are turning to this trend. Also, most games ARE made 'for' the PC first, that is, on the PC, but they are made in such a way that the 360 is the primary focus, and as such hold themselves back to make sure it works on that platform.

Now before anyone goes spouting nonsense back at me I'll point out that I personally don't really care, I play games for the sake of having fun and enjoying myself. Were consoles up to date with modern PC's we would have more complex games, but until that happens I'll entertain myself with what's available.

I'm pretty sure it's going to look great but it's the user interface and cell loading performance I'm holding my breath over.

Already you got ripped off.

-4 6970s costs ~$1500
- 24GB of DDR3 costs at most ~$540

You have already over payed by $1500

All I want is Direct X 11 capability.

Graphically I really don't care about much else - what I DO care about though, is when console design affects gameplay.

Take for example, Oblivion - looked MILES better on PC, but still had draw distance issues. Now I've played both versions (Xbox and PC) and the difference is nigh unbelievable. Travelling anywhere on a horse on the Xbox version is HORRENDOUS, with the insane amounts of choppiness, pop-in and general performance issues. Sure the PC version had pop-in and had to load areas, but it did so very seamlessly when compared to the console version.

I'm worried about the game being developed FOR a console then ported over because lets say Bethesda lowers draw distances on the engine itself in order to get the game to run, or instances areas, so we have map transitions where there shouldn't be. THAT is a concern of mine - when the console divide gimps the game and makes it a dumbed down shell of what it SHOULD be -

ie) Bad Company 2 on PC compared to a console

Console:
Max 24 players per game
Matchmaking
Graphically gimped by a smaller draw distance/no DX10/11

PC:
Max 32 people per game
Servers/server browser
Graphically superior in many ways.


I think the majority of PC players would agree that although graphics ARE an area we fear for, it's the gameplay that we want to be optimized on our platform. We simply want it to be the best it can be, and not dumbed down or trimmed in ANY way.

I'm almost positive that those meat pictures were concept art...

So uh... why are there 2 threads with the EXACT same title by the EXACT same OP?

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1157533-why-do-people-seem-to-think-skyrim-will-look-bad-on-pc/

Since the one I'm linking to is older, I'd say have a mod close this one so we can continue discussion there. We don't need 2 of the exact same thread.

Is it just me or is there two of these threads? Or I might be seeing double from my fever, I really can't tell lol.

Edit: Rahu sees it too apparently.

That's not true actually. You see a PS3 doesn't bother trying to render the polygons of a PS1 game at a higher resolution. If you run that PS1 game in a PS1 emulator on a computer on a newer graphics card, you can crank up the anti-aliasing and render resolution and it WILL look better (way better) than on the PS1.

Having a good computer would allow higher resolution display as well as more anti-aliasing and other effects. In addition it's likely there will be settings to turn things up such as draw distance and the like which are things that are likely fixed on the console versions. In short, a more powerful PC can most definitely make a game with identical art assets as the console versions look better.

Honestly if the witcher 2 looks better with it's MUCH MUCH MUCH SMALLER budget, then i'll scoff.