will the PC version look significantly better? : V - Skyrim

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:03 pm

I would rather have a graphics DLC

Those who got the PCs strong enough to be able to install the DLC most likely have spent quite some money on the PC. Most likely they wouldn't then have much against paying some cash for making the game look much much better, while Betehsda at the same time earns extra money for the work.

I would buy a graphics DLC without a doubt, if it would take us of a lot of new graphical features.

I hope you are joking :blink:

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:31 am

Imagine if Gran Turismo 5 had AA and larger texture sizes.

yeah.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 11:48 am

1) You're expecting way too much "rationality" from large random groups of gamers.

2) Technically, console games *do* look better, as the years go by. As programmers learn their way around the hardware & software, they manage to get better and better performance (and find crazy tricks) out of the same stuff. The games that come out 5 years after a console has been out look lightyears better than the ones that come out the first year. (Meanwhile, in the "there's no set hardware" universe of PC's, programmers manage to make stuff better by... brute force. Throwing more processing power, memory, etc at the problem. Instead of learning how to be efficient - after all, why bother? People can just upgrade! Also, can't figure out any crazy tricks that depend entirely on the hardware config, since every PC is different.)

For the latter point, that's very unfair to the hard working programmers who make PC games. As time goes by, both the general algorithms get optimised and published, and most good programmers write optimised code regardless. What they can't do is optimise it to run on a single platform - you can't, for example, have everything fit into almost exactly 512mb of RAM so not to waste any potential, nor can you know exactly how long things take, and trim off what's necessary to get it *exactly* to 30fps, no more, no less. There's also the inherent speed loss of using several layers of abstraction, rather than writing closer to the metal. To imply that all PC programmers are hacks who don't think about what they're writing is a ridiculous statement.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:44 am

For the latter point, that's very unfair to the hard working programmers who make PC games. As time goes by, both the general algorithms get optimised and published, and most good programmers write optimised code regardless. What they can't do is optimise it to run on a single platform - you can't, for example, have everything fit into almost exactly 512mb of RAM so not to waste any potential, nor can you know exactly how long things take, and trim off what's necessary to get it *exactly* to 30fps, no more, no less. There's also the inherent speed loss of using several layers of abstraction, rather than writing closer to the metal. To imply that all PC programmers are hacks who don't think about what they're writing is a ridiculous statement.

That's the price of flexibility.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:57 am

What worries me more is if they haven't taken advantage of the PC's greater number of controls, just to make the game more playable of the casual gamers

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:33 am

I don't think I should be forced to pay extra for what I think should have been included out of the box.

I hope you are joking :blink:

No, why? It takes time to add features, tweak them correctly, make it look good and perform good. And time is money.
The more money they get the more they can focus on certain things.

The expected DLC is quests and locations and such. Things that modders do as well. Graphics is very comparable here. Modders can do it as well (although not as easy, as modders need to "hack" the game).
So if normal DLCs are quests and locations and such, which are things that take time and that modders can do themselves, and that graphics is also something that modders can do themselves, but takes time (and is harder for modders even), then how would it be a joke to ask for a graphics DLC?

You might as well say that all quests and locations from DLCs should be included out of the box.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 7:52 am

o god, here we go again with the superiority complex of how the PC is. So what if the PC is superior it doesn't mean you are a better person for someone who uses the consoles.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 11:34 am

o god, here we go again with the superiority complex of how the PC is. So what if the PC is superior it doesn't mean you are a better person for someone who uses the consoles.

Who has said that? I'm getting the point here that PC = superior, therefore PC gamers should be able to take us of what is actually possible. This is a lot better for marketing for the game, and it makes the game much more stunning and beautiful. But most importantly, it's not literally forcing something to be worse, when in reality it isn't.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:17 pm

No, why? It takes time to add features, tweak them correctly, make it look good and perform good. And time is money.

How about they use the extra $10 we are paying that doesn't go to Sony/Microsoft licensing fees to cover this cost?

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 11:01 am

No, why? It takes time to add features, tweak them correctly, make it look good and perform good. And time is money.
The more money they get the more they can focus on certain things.

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.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 9:39 am

Who has said that? I'm getting the point here that PC = superior, therefore PC gamers should be able to take us of what is actually possible. This is a lot better for marketing for the game, and it makes the game much more stunning and beautiful. But most importantly, it's not literally forcing something to be worse, when in reality it isn't.

So what should they aim for on the "superior" pc since specs change all the time?

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:00 pm

o god, here we go again with the superiority complex of how the PC is. So what if the PC is superior it doesn't mean you are a better person for someone who uses the consoles.

No but it means they should scale the game for recent PC-hardware AND Consoles...instead of only scaling it for consoles. (IE: Witcher2/BF3 look leagues ahead of what we've seen of Skyrim)

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:45 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.

It doesn't look modern?

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 11:48 am

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.

Then the game will cost even more, and those who don't got a "superior" PC will pay more for things they'll never be able to use?
Or it could mean that the game gets delayed? Who knows.

So what should they aim for on the "superior" pc since specs change all the time?

How would I know? I'm not a game developer or a hardware developer. I'm fairly sure they themselves would know what to aim for. Something new that sells a lot, most likely.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:05 pm

So what should they aim for on the "superior" pc since specs change all the time?

They should aim to add enough graphical options to bring current top of the line PCs below 60fps. That simple. Add tessellation options or highly detailed meshes, give us high resolution texture options (1024x1024 and above), maybe some new shader features, etc. I'm betting a $1000 gaming pc will be able to max this game. That's not really fair for the people who spend more on PCs, or for the people who want to play the game in a couple years on what $1000 will buy them then.

Edit: scrap that "in a couple years" comment. The devs shouldn't focus on what machines will be like in the future, but they should focus on what PCs are capable of right now, which is more than consoles are capable of. I'm not flaming, it's just the truth. Hardware that cost $500 five years ago is not capable of doing the same things that $2500 hardware can do right now.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:01 am

How would I know? I'm not a game developer or a hardware developer. I'm fairly sure they themselves would know what to aim for. Something new that sells a lot, most likely.

When a game is in development for years how can they develop for tech that's not fully realized yet, or releases too late into development?

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:18 am

NV: Do you feel the consoles are holding PC games back?

DICE: Yes, absolutely. That's the biggest problem we have today. Most games are actually still based on the same core idea that the consoles are your focus, the superior platform or something. I don’t know why. That was the truth 5 years ago, but the world has moved on. PCs are way more powerful than the consoles today and there are actually almost zero games out there that actually use the benefits of this. So for our target of what we want to hit, we are now using the more powerful platform to try and prove what we see gaming being in the future rather than using the lowest common denominator, instead of developing it for the consoles and then just adding higher resolution textures and anti-aliasing for the PC version. We're do it the other way around, we start with the highest-end technology that we can come up with and then scale it back to the consoles.

Oh how I wish TODD was the one saying that. The results are astonishing.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 9:57 am

I can't wait until a couple of years when PC owners will complain how every game look better on new generation consoles...

Even though I'm a PC user myself.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 1:32 pm

At this point though you're using a lot more power for so little change in graphical quality.

I dont think were too far off from makeing pixels as small as atoms, and finally then you wont be able to tell the difference between real life and your monitor. maybe only 50 years

Humm a pixel on a 24inch 1080x1920 monitor right now is ~60um(mircons) width or 60*10^-6meters. Atoms ~.1-.5 Angstroms in width or ~.3*10^-10meter. So right now a pixel is ~2,000,000 times the width of an atom. So no we are not nearly close to the atomic level. The limits of the human eye will be reached much much sooner.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:55 am

I can't wait until a couple of years when PC owners will complain how every game look better on new generation consoles...

Even though I'm a PC user myself.

that only lasts for 1-2 years, then the switch begins. Most of the gen pc looks better

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:03 pm

They should aim to add enough graphical options to bring current top of the line PCs below 60fps. That simple. Add tessellation options or highly detailed meshes, give us high resolution texture options (1024x1024 and above), maybe some new shader features, etc. I'm betting a $1000 gaming pc will be able to max this game. That's not really fair for the people who spend more on PCs, or for the people who want to play the game in a couple years on what $1000 will buy them then.

Edit: scrap that "in a couple years" comment. The devs shouldn't focus on what machines will be like in the future, but they should focus on what PCs are capable of right now, which is more than consoles are capable of. I'm not flaming, it's just the truth. Hardware that cost $500 five years ago is not capable of doing the same things that $2500 hardware can do right now.

Not fair? The destiny of this thread is inevitable.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:11 pm

Not fair? The destiny if this thread is inevitable.

Wrong wording? It's not really about "fair," it's about the fact that current PC capabilities are known, and there are developers who understand this.

Really boohead's quote up there ^^^ says it better than I ever could.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 3:39 pm

The destiny if this thread is inevitable.

Only some Scottish humour could salvage it.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:59 pm

Wrong wording?

I don't know? You said it.

» Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:49 pm

I don't know? You said it.

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

So what should they aim for on the "superior" pc since specs change all the time?

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.