will the PC version look significantly better?

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:51 pm

Bethesda said that all three versions will look relatively the same. However, DX11 support hopefully means the modders can make it look a lot better.


Exactly right. At maximum graphics, on PC it will look exactly like the console versions. And if it keeps the same level of quality that we saw in the trailer, probably better by November, then it's gonna look awesome no matter what you play it on. Don't forget as well, that the trailer was filmed on a 360. And like you said, if DX11 is supported, then there's nothing stopping the PC modders from ramping it up anyway. I think, keeping it on a level playing field is a smart move. It makes their job easier, and it gives an even starting point from a player point of view, with modding etc. I don't think there's anything to worry about. Just sit back and enjoy it when it comes out. It's already significantly better than OB, and that's what matters right now.
User avatar
!beef
 
Posts: 3497
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:41 pm

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:32 am

So... let's stop arguing over pointless semantics and go back to what you originally said.


Believe it or not, PC specs have improved from what they were in 2006. And there are developers, such as DICE, that consider what current PCs are capable of when they make their games. They take the top of the line hardware today and develop games that utilize that hardware. By the time the game is released, the game still cannot be played on max settings by lower-end computers, and even medium computers might have trouble maxing it. They should aim to make it look better than it can look on 5 year old hardware.

So, since one developer is doing it with one game everyone should? How about we play BF3 first and make sure the gameplay is better than Crysis. If a pretty game has average gameplay then that's all it is...a pretty game. Those games don't go down in the annals if time as legendary games. How many times do I see OoT regarded as the greatest of all time? Exactly...
User avatar
mollypop
 
Posts: 3420
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:47 am

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:22 pm

So, since one developer is doing it with one game everyone should? How about we play BF3 first and make sure the gameplay is better than Crysis. If a pretty game has average gameplay then that's all it is...a pretty game. Those games don't go down in the annals if time as legendary games. How many times do I see OoT regarded as the greatest of all time? Exactly...

Yeah, you're right. In fact, once the next gen of consoles come out I hope developers realize that there is no point making games look any better than what the 360/ps3 could handle.
User avatar
Jessie Rae Brouillette
 
Posts: 3469
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:50 am

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:19 am

Yeah, you're right. In fact, once the next gen of consoles come out I hope developers realize that there is no point making games look any better than what the 360/ps3 could handle.

Come on, can't you agree with me at all? If BF3 svcks, then I don't care how good it looks. The only thing the majority of people remember Crysis for is its graphics. There's a reason for that and it's not good.
User avatar
Sophh
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:58 pm

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 9:26 pm

Things you can expect on PC that you can't expect from console:

-Twice as high texture resolution
-Anti-aliasing.

Hopefully we will also be able to jack up particle count and view distance as well.


Things you can expect on an console that you cant expect from a PC

-More cash in your pocket (as you wont have to spend £1000+ so that you can say "if you look closely, the apple on my PC looks a little rounder and greener than his on the xbox")
-a Gaming system that you will be able to play any games released for it, and will not be out of date by the time you take the wrapping off the game.

But not to turn this into a console/PC fight

I also play on PC as well as Consoles and I can see the + and - for each, I just hate the old this one is better, no that one is better argument.

Who really cares?
User avatar
Amanda savory
 
Posts: 3332
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:37 am

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:50 pm

Come on, can't you agree with me at all? If BF3 svcks, then I don't care how good it looks. The only thing the majority of people remember Crysis for is its graphics. There's a reason for that and it's not good.


True enough. Oblivion was amazing because of sheer content. Not just for PC modding, but generally. The size and scale of it was almost unprecedented, only just outdone by it's own predecessor, Morrowind. Graphics aren't the key to an amazing game, it what the developers allow the player to accomplish, and how it can entertain us in regards to content.
User avatar
Dragonz Dancer
 
Posts: 3441
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:01 am

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 9:13 am

True enough. Oblivion was amazing because of sheer content. Not just for PC modding, but generally. The size and scale of it was almost unprecedented, only just outdone by it's own predecessor, Morrowind. Graphics aren't the key to an amazing game, it what the developers allow the player to accomplish, and how it can entertain us in regards to content.

This. Thank you.
User avatar
T. tacks Rims
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:35 am

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:17 pm

Exactly right. At maximum graphics, on PC it will look exactly like the console versions. And if it keeps the same level of quality that we saw in the trailer, probably better by November, then it's gonna look awesome no matter what you play it on. Don't forget as well, that the trailer was filmed on a 360. And like you said, if DX11 is supported, then there's nothing stopping the PC modders from ramping it up anyway. I think, keeping it on a level playing field is a smart move. It makes their job easier, and it gives an even starting point from a player point of view, with modding etc. I don't think there's anything to worry about. Just sit back and enjoy it when it comes out. It's already significantly better than OB, and that's what matters right now.

Just want to clarify:

Modders won't be able to add DX11 features for a long long time. And perhaps then, they might not even be able to. The modder responsible for both graphics extenders (MW and OB) is Timeslip. He started the projects and made both foundations. He should be able to add some DX11 features, but most likely not tessellation (as I understand, that requires you to alter all the meshes/textures in the game). Perhaps shademe can help too.

Still, as I said before, it takes A LOT of time for modders to add DX features, or even shaders. And first they need to "hack" it in. They can't implement it normally as developers can. And when they "hack" it in, other problems occur, etc etc.

Expect a graphics extender for Skyrim to take years, or if we're unlucky, never come. There are very few modders that know how to do this. Very very few. And not all of the few that do know how have time, or the urge do put so much work on something like that.

So, basically, DX11 without any features would only give us better performance, even though it COULD give us so much more from the start.
User avatar
GEo LIme
 
Posts: 3304
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 7:18 pm

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:49 am

"There's a lot of people who say graphics don't matter," he said in the latest OXM podcast. "To them I usually say 'you're lying'." According to Hines, when you try to sell a game the graphics is usually the first thing that people will check out.

"They will look at a screenshot and make a snap decision: 'that looks awesome', or 'I'm not interested'," he said. "So if you can make something look amazing just at first glance, it's so much easier to get them."

"Everybody gets pretty pictures, and everybody gets the big story stuff, and so I think graphics in a similar way gets a lot of people interested right away," he continued. "They see something, and they say 'holy crap, that looks amazing - now I want to know more about it'. As opposed to 'yeah that looks OK, and it looks like it could be any other game'."


This, thank you Pete Hines! I hope they try to make PC version scale better.
User avatar
jason worrell
 
Posts: 3345
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:26 am

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:11 pm

I'm not sure what this talk about content-vs-visuals or platform-x-is-better-than-platform-y has to do with the OP's point though.

He expressed a concern that the PC version is being held back, and while content is certainly always king, I think it's only fair to question why/whether the game does not utilize the capabilities on the more modern platform for visual consistency with the oldest, as has been suggested. I think it's pretty understandable for someone with a modern PC to be a bit disappointed in this the same way a console owner may be disappointed with a console game that looks like something from the last generation. We all just want the greatest Skyrim game possible.
User avatar
Kate Murrell
 
Posts: 3537
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:02 am

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:08 pm

Come on, can't you agree with me at all? If BF3 svcks, then I don't care how good it looks. The only thing the majority of people remember Crysis for is its graphics. There's a reason for that and it's not good.

Crysis was actually a pretty good game. It's remembered for the graphics because they were absolutely mind blowing for the time and are still among the top echelon of graphical fidelity.

Things you can expect on an console that you cant expect from a PC

-More cash in your pocket (as you wont have to spend £1000+ so that you can say "if you look closely, the apple on my PC looks a little rounder and greener than his on the xbox")
-a Gaming system that you will be able to play any games released for it, and will not be out of date by the time you take the wrapping off the game.

But not to turn this into a console/PC fight

I also play on PC as well as Consoles and I can see the + and - for each, I just hate the old this one is better, no that one is better argument.

Who really cares?


I bought my PC for £350 and get my games cheaper than on console - I wish I had the money to own both, but I don't, so I went with the best value. Lucky, then, that for my £350 I own a machine capable of playing every single game out there at high/max settings at 1680x1050 with 4xAA, and something that I shouldn't need to upgrade for years. Unlike some, I don't care if my 60fps isn't being run by cutting edge hardware - the thing about PC gaming is that it gives you freedom. The freedom to buy cheaper hardware and get less results (Though that's not really the case right now, hopefully it will be one day in the future - you should not be able to max out all but a very few games with last generation's low/mid end card), and the freedom to buy better hardware and get better results. If you want to be locked into a walled garden, that's your choice - but don't go assuming that because skyscraqers exist, that's what you need if you want to leave it.
User avatar
victoria gillis
 
Posts: 3329
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:50 pm

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 9:21 pm

This. Thank you.


Good to know there are some people out there who aren't judging on graphics alone. ^^
User avatar
Bethany Watkin
 
Posts: 3445
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:13 pm

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:16 am

Crysis was actually a pretty good game.

Just "pretty good" doesn't cut it for me.
User avatar
Kahli St Dennis
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:57 am

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:37 pm

True enough. Oblivion was amazing because of sheer content. Not just for PC modding, but generally. The size and scale of it was almost unprecedented, only just outdone by it's own predecessor, Morrowind. Graphics aren't the key to an amazing game, it what the developers allow the player to accomplish, and how it can entertain us in regards to content.

Has anybody really said "graphics = the game" here? I haven't seen anybody saying that. We need to seperate graphics from gameplay and story and sounds and lore. Graphics is a seperate thing. This thread is really about graphics and such and we can't take account to everything else all the time. One of the most important things about a discussion is to talk about a specific thing, else it just wanders off and becomes almost pointless.

In other words, if we're talking about graphics or graphics related stuff, why bring every other thing about the game into discussion?

It's like this: If Skyrim has Mario-like sounds, then the game will svck. If Skyrim has 2D graphics, then the game will svck. If Skyrim has really bad gameplay, then the game will svck. What's the point of saying that?
User avatar
glot
 
Posts: 3297
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:41 pm

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:26 pm

Just "pretty good" doesn't cut it for me.

Why? I'm not going to say excellent, because very few first person shooters are, but if you only rank it among fellow FPS', then yes, it was an excellent game.
User avatar
katie TWAVA
 
Posts: 3452
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 3:32 am

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 11:28 am

Why?

Why? Because i'm looking for legendary. 15 years from now, Crysis will not be remembered in the same vein as OoT.
User avatar
Haley Cooper
 
Posts: 3490
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:30 am

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 9:06 am

Has anybody really said "graphics = the game" here? I haven't seen anybody saying that. We need to seperate graphics from gameplay and story and sounds and lore. Graphics is a seperate thing. This thread is really about graphics and such and we can't take account to everything else all the time. One of the most important things about a discussion is to talk about a specific thing, else it just wanders off and becomes almost pointless.

In other words, if we're talking about graphics or graphics related stuff, why bring every other thing about the game into discussion?

It's like this: If Skyrim has Mario-like sounds, then the game will svck. If Skyrim has 2D graphics, then the game will svck. If Skyrim has really bad gameplay, then the game will svck. What's the point of saying that?


I'm sorry, I thought the title of the topic was "Will the PC version look significantly better?" With questions ascertaining to DX11, and what it could be used to do for PC. I was voicing an opinion based around graphics. There's nothing in the topic that says it's specifically about graphics, gameplay or lore. So I think my opinion still stands thanks.
User avatar
Emmi Coolahan
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:14 pm

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:52 am

Why? Because i'm looking for legendary. 15 years from now, Crysis will not be remembered in the same vein as OoT.

So you only play the very best games ever created? That's a ridiculous thing to do. For people who just like to play good games that are fun, Crysis was an excellent title which also had spectacular graphics.
User avatar
loste juliana
 
Posts: 3417
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:37 pm

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:23 pm

So you only play the very best games ever created? That's a ridiculous thing to do. For people who just like to play good games that are fun, Crysis was an excellent title which also had spectacular graphics.

We're in it for different reasons. Fair enough. Just saying one of, if not the highest regarded game of all time has graphics from the 90's. Pretty safe to say gameplay is more important. Just saying.
User avatar
Lawrence Armijo
 
Posts: 3446
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:12 pm

Post » Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:21 am

We're in it for different reasons. Fair enough. Just saying one of, if not the highest regarded game of all time has graphics from the 90's. Pretty safe to say gameplay is more important. Just saying.

Sure, they're games. Why does this mean that better graphics aren't good, again? Because I'll tell you now, OoT looks like crap - it wasn't that great on release either. It's a fantastic game nontheless, but why would having decent graphics make it a worse game? That's a ridiculous thing to think. I play games to have fun, and appreciate an interesting, mostly untapped medium - why do *you* play games?
User avatar
Elizabeth Lysons
 
Posts: 3474
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:16 am

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:28 pm

Sure, but I feel they should spend that time and money before the game is released, instead of making us pay extra after the fact to get the game looking like a modern game.


Would people on the PC be willing to be paying $80 or a $100 for thier copy of the game while 360 and PS3 pay $60? Bethesda is using the engine that most people use and where the money is, then port it to the other platforms.

If Bethesda took the time to tweak the PC to look so much better are the PC players willing to dish out the extra money OR EVEN WAIT AN EXTRA 6 MONTHS TO A YEAR FOR IT TO BE DONE? Making it for the PC and then porting it to the consoles will not make the consloles look any better and would be a waste of rescources that dont give any extra benifit.

While the PC started it all, the bread and money is no in the consoles, mostly Xbox adn then PS3 and PC not sure what order for the PS3 and PC though.

So why wouldn't Bethesda concentrate all thier resources on the 360 where most of the money is coming in from now. Again, Bethesda can save more money by not porting it to the PC and Bethesda does give out the tools for the Modders to make the game more better on PC so it's a win win situation.
User avatar
Ownie Zuliana
 
Posts: 3375
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:31 am

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:07 pm

Sure, they're games. Why does this mean that better graphics aren't good, again? Because I'll tell you now, OoT looks like crap - it wasn't that great on release either. It's a fantastic game nontheless, but why would having decent graphics make it a worse game? That's a ridiculous thing to think. I play games to have fun, and appreciate an interesting, mostly untapped medium - why do *you* play games?

You proved my point. 15 years from mow people will look back on Skyrim for its gameplay, not graphics. All these games will look dated in 10-15 years, but the true gems will carve their legend through its gameplay. Just like OoT.
User avatar
Maeva
 
Posts: 3349
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:27 pm

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 9:50 pm

Exactly right. At maximum graphics, on PC it will look exactly like the console versions. And if it keeps the same level of quality that we saw in the trailer, probably better by November, then it's gonna look awesome no matter what you play it on. Don't forget as well, that the trailer was filmed on a 360. And like you said, if DX11 is supported, then there's nothing stopping the PC modders from ramping it up anyway. I think, keeping it on a level playing field is a smart move. It makes their job easier, and it gives an even starting point from a player point of view, with modding etc. I don't think there's anything to worry about. Just sit back and enjoy it when it comes out. It's already significantly better than OB, and that's what matters right now.

Very well said. :)
User avatar
james tait
 
Posts: 3385
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 6:26 pm

Post » Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:17 am

Good to know there are some people out there who aren't judging on graphics alone. ^^

I'm with you all the way.
User avatar
sarah simon-rogaume
 
Posts: 3383
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:41 am

Post » Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:29 pm

You proved my point. 15 years from mow people will look back on Skyrim for its gameplay, not graphics. All these games will look dated in 10-15 years, but the true gems will carve their legend through its gameplay. Just like OoT.

What? So what's your point, things improve over time so we shouldn't bother? I don't live in 15 years time, I live in 0 years time. Either your argument is "Good graphics actually make a game worse", or your argument is "Good games are played more than bad games" - I can't tell which. One of them is obvious, the other idiotic, neither of them need saying, so I'm going to assume I'm missing your point. Why is something having good graphics a bad thing?
User avatar
Patrick Gordon
 
Posts: 3366
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 5:38 am

PreviousNext

Return to V - Skyrim