The vanilla pc version will look a good bit better simply because of a few things like draw distance and texture sizes.

But where it will shine is in mods where they add new higher res textures and new items and new weather and plants and everything. On the pc the shipped game is just the start.

I reply to this thread with my universal reaction to the Skyrim graphics, and lack of doubt about the PC version.



"WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

Exactly my thoughts on the subject.
I bought my computer 3 years ago, and even then it wasn't top of the line (more like upper mainstream), but I can still play new games like CoD Black Ops at the highest settings and a 2560x1600 resolution. Every time a new console generation is released, graphics take a leap forward, and then it slows down since it hits the consoles' caps, while PCs keep getting better without any games that actually take advantage of the new technology.

All Bethesda games (and most others) get a better texture pack with the PC versions.

LOL

Really now, did anybody notice that big a difference between DX9c and DX10. Here's a hint, if you said "yes" you're an idiot. The version of directx that you happen to be running really has very little effect whatsoever on the visual quality of the game. Direct X really only adds new standardized shaders and rendering gimmicks, that has absolutely no [censored] effect on the quality of the game content.

I'd imagine the PC might look "marginally" better, it may have a few higher quality textures, and you'll be able to set the lod-fade distance to your liking. Yes, it will look better, but not *that much* better. When people start modding you'll start seeing higher resolution textures for armor, skin, clothing, and environmental artwork (such as rocks, trees, and buildings) so with the PC version you'll have higher quality (or higher detail) assets available to you in mod form.

It seems like it will look relatively the same (of course it will look better than PS3 or Xbox because of higher res textures, AA and so on) seeing as how now it's a growing trend to do this (Crysis 2 is an example). However, since we have DX11, we can mod in tessellation, not to mention we can get even higher res textures to go with tessellation. So yeah, PC isn't going to be held down by any means, we have been given the keys to greatness with DX11 support.

Besides, the graphics on the console version are very good. So there is no real downside when we start with base line great graphics and have access to make them even better. If you watch the trailer on your tv through your computer, the distance to your tv will eliminate the rough edges of lack of AA that the consoles have and make rough textures look soft. The PC version will have AA and higher res textures so that it will look good at a close range.



Except that it is a difference and a very big one with DX11. DX11 enables our use of retroactive tessellation in modding. That is a BIG difference in visual quality. Also don't forget that with each DX installment, it streamlines processing, allowing to reduce the workload on your graphics memory so that you can squeeze more out of it. This allows for harsher lighting, greater quality shadows and more efficient multisampling. This is a big difference. Also please don't refer to anyone as an idiot on these forums, it's a very quick way to gain a warning.

Todd did mention that the pc version will have higher resolution than the console, mainly because you sit closer too the screen.

I've always wondered what the real reason to keep all 3 platforms just as good is... Bethesda would win so much more if they took advantage of the dx11 features. They dont want PC sales? Are they bribed? Just look at BF3, they're working around dx11 and is there a pc gamer that doesnt love that?

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/25/just-cause-boss-says-hiring-hackers-and-better-games-will-beat-pc-piracy/

I wouldn't imagine so. I don't think tessellation is a particularly simplistic function as I'm guessing it needs to access and actively modify meshes in the game.. not exactly something you can do like any run-of-the-mill screen shader.



Maybe if Dice was less worried with Direct X 11 gimmicks and was more concerned with making MOD TOOLS I think I'd actually give that game a second thought.

It requires tweaking. It's not simplistic but it's not untouchable either. It's something that no one has really got right in a game yet but luckily we have an entire community that can finally get their hands on it and perfect it. It will require you to tweak the tessellation from area to area. So the height map won't work the same on a cobblestone street as it would on a cliff wall, it would just get out of control on the cobblestone street. But you don't have to change the meshing yourself, the algorithm adds extra structuring to your meshes itself. However, Tessellation makes a big hit on your performance, so your going to need a high end computer to use tessellation to it's fullest.

Thus why tessellation makes little sense to me. The real benefit of tessellation is that vertex coordinates are saved on temporary memory, as apposed to saved in data. But with that comes the issue that tessellation will often change the appearance of your models, and aside from that it must also make further discrepancies for collision models. (as if there wasn't already enough)

Once the algorithm gets more refined, and computers have more processing power to spare I can see why tessellation would have a use, but for right now its more of a gimmick than a necessity.

No.

Yes, as of now it's just a gimmick but still makes a large difference in visual quality. If done right (which I think one of us modders will get it right) then Skyrim post modded would be the most visually impressive game to date, mainly because of the rocky environment being enhanced by tessellation. I look forward to messing with tessellation in Skyrim.

But down to the main point, DX11 does make a very big difference in visual quality, whether or not it's main feature (tessellation) is practical to use in most computers or not.

Yes, this. Only with one more O.

~ Dani ~

used in mdoeration it may be useful for environmental props. Like you said, rocks.

Rocks are rocks (pretty much) so it doesn't matter if it get warped by a tessellation effect, but I doubt we'll be seeing tessellation get put to good use on realistic player models. I suppose it suits the type of game pretty well, but theres so many inherit issues with the concept of tessellation, especially when it comes to walkable terrain, "collision cover" multiplayer visual consistency and all that stuff.

But yeah, if it's limited to rocks and such I can see it being useful.. though I don't know how such a thing would be done, since you'd only want to limit tessellation to certain meshes. If it's not implemented from the start, there may be no way to selectively flag tessellation properties without having to make modification to the TES construction set itself. I mean, it may be possible still, but I think the implementation would be very rough and unoptimized.

I think the PC version is going to look only slightly better out of the box, but eventually with mods it's going to look MUCH better.

Textures - Possibly about 2 times the size of console textures. Later with mods at least 4 times the console texture size.
Anti-aliasing - PC version can use much higher anti-aliasing.
DX11 - Supported, but not many features are put to use. Later mods are going to put them into use and add more graphical effects.

Edit: And of course the supported Resolution is much higher on PC.

What GPU do you have?

Like everyone says Todd have confirmed DX11 and the pc will look better as allways.

I doubt that the PC version will come out of the box with base resources that are superior in any way to any console version, ie. forget about higher resolution textures. There's not much precedent for that, because game companies don't want to hear endless flak from platform group A that they gave platform group B a "better game".

Most of the data on the Oblivion disc was voice content. I don't know how many discs Skyrim will cover. I don't even know how modern consoles handle multi-disc games (if at all) since I don't own one. But, the most I'd expect from the PC version over console versions is, as mentioned, possible support for DX10/11 since A. they may have more efficient routines for some functions, and B. modders would totally love it.

Ability for PC to handle higher screen res/HDR/AA/draw distance is a given. I run an overclocked Radeon HD5850, which isn't exactly super duper new anymore, but at 1920* res I expect that it'll chew up and spit out Skyrim as it comes out of the box, and will still do alright with good graphical mods.

I will *not* be upgrading my PC for this game, or any other this year. I don't feel that I'll need to.

There's actually a lot of precedent for higher resolution textures on PC (See: Almost every game released in the past 6 years), including Oblivion itself, as well as higher resolution textures being confirmed by word of god.

Got any proof?

PC is superior to consoles. That's the simpliest truth. It can handle MUCH more today than 5 years ago. So why limit PCs? The game could look A LOT better if it was given more lighting features from DX10 and 11 especially. If the game looks A LOT better, then it would also get much more positive comments and better reputation and show off more in marketing. People like to see pretty things.

I've read comments almost everywhere on the Internet, on forums, articles, YouTube comments, how Skyrim look a bit outdated already. It looks OK. But if you compare it to how other games look, it fails. I'm not saying Skyrim looks bad on itself, but compare it with other new games, it does look kind of bad (SOMETIMES, not always). So why not take advantage of the PCs power and allow for better graphics. Allow for more stunning visuals that will amaze us.

Battlefield 3 follows this. They say "Give power to the PCs". It's a fact that PCs are more powerful, and when the power is present (PC) and when the tools (DX) is present, why not use it? Much better marketing.
The game itself wouldn't be better than the console version. It's still the very same game. But PCs are better than consoles in terms of what it can handle. So it's not actually the game, it's the platform. Therefore I find it kind of silly to force them to be "equal", when they in reality aren't.

Of which part? The former would require per-game proof, so yeah, no, but the latter was in one of the game informer interviews - which I'm sure you can find as well as I.

For those of you who want to know more about DirectX 11 and the new tesselation pipeline and why it will be incredibly difficult to mod it in, this is a nice basic tutorial: http://xtunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Understanding_Shader_Model_5-format_rev4_web.pdf

(another one for OpenGl 4.1 http://prideout.net/blog/?p=48)

PC version will obviously look better (better textures, effects, resolution, view distance etc), but not by much - that'd require better models, much more detailed locations, more npcs in a scene etc., that's too much work, so we're stucked with some fluff effects until the next console generation or people suddenly realising consoles and console games svck. )

I agree completely. It's as though Bethesda feel they'd be insulting console players if they took advantage of the PC's superior power. Console players aren't stupid. They know their 360 and PS3 has nothing on a high-end PC. They won't get upset if Skyrim has tessellation and DX11 lighting and shadows.

What is interesting, is whether they'll now consider releasing Skyrim on the http://kotaku.com/#!5792165/new-nintendo-console-debuting-at-e3-launching-in-2012-more-powerful-than-xbox-360-and-ps3 (or whatever it will be called). A late 2012 release date falls in line quite nicely for a GOTY Skyrim as a launch title, and if the rumours are true that the console is more powerful than the 360 and PS3, then higher resolutions, textures, and AA could make it the superior console version of Skyrim. They should take advantage of each platform's strengths, instead of identifying the lowest performing machine and setting each version to run at that standard. What a stupid design approach.