I don't see why not, it's just the textures. I doubt Crisis tech is better than Skyrim tech, they all use the same API to program the engine. I thought the water looked too mechanical, like they were trying to hard to make you notice the water. Real water doesn't bulge like that.
Really though it looks a little too realistic, in a bad way, like they used way too much photo source for the textures. I like how Skyrim feels like a fantasy place and it isn't 100% modeled after realism, it is real enough, but it has it's own style which feels cool in its own way. If I want to see Crisis I can just drive to Colorado and it looks just like that.

Funny they stole Oblivion music for that video, that's half the reason it looked good, it contributes so much to the mood.

^ This 100%

That game is getting pretty old. It's a 2007 (that's almost five years ago) game that started production years before that. It isn't even close to what computers can do now. You can see flaws in the graphics everywhere. Honestly most games would look like that if it won't for the fact that most game devs try to make their games so that the vast majority of people can play them. I think Crysis's reputation skews peoples perceptions of it's graphics.

that. was. AMAZING!!!!

But they should try and look better and more detailed right?
Sort of how CGI films have improved and are by no means photorealistic.

Actually is the other way around, as long as you compare *vanilla* BF3 and *vanilla* Crysis. But I agree that the cryengine 2 is a little superior to the frostbite 2 engine.

haha people that say that they dont want graphics this good are trolling you. Or they are hardcoe Skyrim [censored] that will only like what Bethesda is giving them. Ofc everyone would like graphics that look that good. Maybe they dont want that artistic style of graphics but that is a whole other issue.

What are you talking about it's lower texture quality that makes it look like an old game, and it's models aren't that good. The freaking Source engine can make faces look that good. I do have to admit that Crysis attention to detail is very good and is still ahead of it's time, but that really doesn't have anything to do with the graphics, it has to do with the skill of the devs at paying attention to detail. BF3 nears that level of detail too and its a multi-player game. Someone has fan fever.

oblivion with graphics mods on looks very close to crysis in that video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANQyRQ7uuQ4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j60RdZnLeMk

so you can imagine how skyrim will look with graphics mods :thumbsup:

Am I the only one who actually think Skyrim looks "better", in many ways.

However, if you compare vanilla oblivion to the most graphically enhanced modded oblivion, the difference is huge, and we necessarily havent even seen Skyrim on max settings yet on a PC, and it will surely look a lot better than the 360 version. I am sure if we get as much improvement on Skyrim as we got for Morrowind and oblivion with mods, Skyrim will look SICK! In a way I already think it does.

The Crysis demo here was "photo-realistic, but the textures didnt seem that high or great up close, looking at the branch of the trees, do anyone remember the textures in Halo on the original xbox? Even a branch sniped in at from close with 10x magnification had higher resolution that many textures still today, the rock textures were also crisp and clearer than anything Ive seen in any game, and that game is oooold. Ofc it lacked tons of other technical and graphical features, so that was why they could cram in such high res textures, but still.

Also Skyrims mountains kicks those Crysis mountains any day, and the water too from what Ive seen.

maybe TES 6 will have these. Actually, probably will have a little more.

I really don't see the obsession with graphics. Good graphics are nice, but I can still play Morrowind (even Daggerfall) without any problem with the graphical fidelity (detail). The only thing that irks me in Oblivion is that my computer can't run with LOD. Having a good draw distance and being able to see land does make a difference (to me).

The other major thing when it comes to immersion (which is what graphics are for) for me is things like animation. Photorealistic graphics would be worse coupled with bad animation than bad animation with bad graphics, because those unrealistic things would be more noticeable.

Don't get me wrong, graphics are important. I just think people tend to forget about other important areas in the strive for better graphics. I'd rather every aspect went at the same pace.

So realistic is bad? You don't like real life nature and landscapes?

This thread is so painful to read.

The fact that Crysis' water looks too shiny and in-your-face-eye-candy-for-fps-nerds, doesn't necessarily mean that the graphics are bad, just the style isn't the same as it would be in an Elder Scrolls game. Nobody said that Skyrim should look like that artistically!

Even if you don't like the style of Crysis or other eye-candy games of today (actually, I don't like them at all either), doesn't mean that there couldn't be an amazing TES game with the same graphics quality. It would just have different artistic touch.

I understand completely that many prefer e.g. 90's games to todays flashy "realism", I just don't understand how some seem to love the Skyrim graphics/style and still hate/dislike realistic graphics. And by realistic I mean lighting, texture quality, shaders etc.

I'll add that I don't think graphics are very big deal to me.. style, atmosphere and gameplay are much more important.

that's what i've been waiting for someone to say.
oblivion had really nice graphical mods. add the nice SSAO and some new shaders, bokeh DOF and color grading and we can get an oblivion that looks way better than the vanilla version.

like this clip -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l1jZRbkl0k&feature=related

it isnt going to be photorealistic or as good as the shaders of cryengine but it WILL look better and i can freakin' wait for these mods.

and for those who say they want a more stylized design -
LOTR movies were pretty stylized yet photo realistic. if a game looked as good as the LOTR movies we would ALL play it and prefer it over any other types of graphics any TES game has delivered. Skyrim WANTS TO LOOK REALISTIC!! it just cant get there. Borderlands wanna look stylized and manages it pretty nicely. Rage wanna look stylized and does a fantastic job at it. Skyrim wanna look realistic. it's the hardest thing to do. why? because we all know how realism looks like. it's all around us. finding flaws in realism is really easy. imitating it is hard. creating a cartoony style is easier because as the designer, you set the rules.

Since skyrim is going for a realistic look with stylized structures and architecture than if bethesda could make it looks like Crysis can they would have done it.
nobody here believes they stopped the image fidelity half way because they were scared it will hurt their style....

What skyrim lacks in image fidelity is some shaders, AA (or FXAA or whatever it's called these days), sharp textures, better HDR, better SSAO, DOF etc. I think SSAO and DOF are already in the engine. i wonder how they look and when they are used. if it's already in there to a small extent im sure modders will amplify it to look better for those of us with rigs that can handle it.

i wish ice la glass who made the icenhancer mods for GTAIV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLNGpIaiqt4&feature=related
will give skyrim a try and try to import some of his work into it. his mods for GTAIV made the greatest improvement for a game i've ever seen.

and if u like style than check out this stylized shader for GTAIV with the icenhancer mod:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--i0P0-mDCQ&feature=related
the power of shaders.... dayum
.

I like the graphics but why do they always make the dynamic lighting.... so blinding? It is good don't get me wrong but will games in 10 years be a torch in your eyes?

Photorealistic graphics rely much more on lighting and depth of field than textures.

Super high resolution textures are very handy for playing games at 2560x1600 res. Since the extra detail is actually being drawn. At such a resolution the graphics look more realistic no matter what and the only thing low res textures give is blurry/blocky pictures to look at.I tried going back to a 1080p TV but games look too blocky at the lower res

Unfortunately, most console ports are not designed for any resolution over 1080p so they have all kinds of anomalies that make my eyes water. Heck at that high of res I most often don't use AA since I can not see any jaggies (unless it is a typical console port). That is console portitis though and the disease keeps me from buying most multiplatform games.

The 'enhanced' textures for skyrim will probably still be blocky/blurry at 2560x1600... stupid consoles are 4-5 years behind my monitor :mage:

Its so realistic it hurts my eyes!

Gah. I was going to go on a huge debate about how I like artistic styles etc., but you just summed it up in three or four sentences. Bravo.

And I agree, obviously. Look at Borderlands, very interesting graphics, definitely not photorealistic, but very cool.

Look at Halo, not photorealistic, still has amazing terrain and awesome design.

Then you have CoD. Dirty, disgusting, blotchy, brown and grey, blurry, smudged and horrific textures, adding up to a bad looking game.

A little more? We're talking five years down the road. The true processing power of computers doubles about every six months do the math. It's Crysis people it isn't some kind of alien technology, it was made in 2007. We don't have to wait tell 2018 for games to surpass Crysis, because we can surpass it NOW! The only reason the game does not have the same level of graphics as Crysis is because 1) It has to run on the 360 2) It's a giant open world game that requires hundreds of models to even be fun. We need to consider gameplay limits more then the technical limits here.

Edit: I know you were slightly joking, but I really responding to the concept of Crysis being the "King" of graphics.

I have to agree. Godrays are just exaggerated, in those video... blinding.

Ok, now my point on this matter: I wouldn't ask for Photo Realism in, let's say, Borderlands, or Fable or even Gears of War. Why? Because the aesthetics don't aim to be realistic. Damn, I'm not even asking for it in Skyrim, just saying that it would be very cool. Skyrim, even with its fantasy setting and epic enviroment do aim to look realistic, therefore, Photo Realism would belong, and look great, in my eyes.

I know im not going to get max graps with my pc......but only an idiot would be bothered by good graphics .....just my oppinion though

that's more real than life itself.....

Exactly, they won't complain when they can casually obtain that detail. It makes them look like fools.

I think it's funny how everyone is focusing on the content and the animations. That's not really what the post is about. Do you want to see better meshes, textures, and lighting with no change in it's artistic direction? Of course you would, unless you think The Elder Scrolls is supposed to be pixelated, blurry, and flat everywhere. I think the game looks great right now, but better lighting and tessellation wouldn't hurt. The Elder scrolls is supposed to have an exaggerated sense of realism, it is a fantasy world after all. I like to see exaggerated colors, environments, or atmosphere, because you need it to reflect the mood you want the player to experience, and have it complement the game-play.

The head bobbing camera would make me throw-up, and certain lighting effects can make me feel a little disoriented. You need to remember that this is a game, and you don't want the graphics to overwhelm the intended experience. I wouldn't want the game to look exactly like that Crysis mod, but taking advantage of some of those graphical features or qualities wouldn't hurt.