Yes, I took it to be a theoretical goanywhere. Like there are no innate barriers stopping you (besides the edge of the map), just natural terrain.

Exactly. Todd has also basically stated, when talking about the size of the map, that the mountains are barriers. That's one of the ways the make the make feel bigger, by making people go around them.

This isnt the best example, but Halo games are notorius for doing this. Honestly I completely agree with you, but I remember seeing these games and just staring outside of the map at the beautiful landscapes in the backround. Some of these locations are explorable, however many (and I mean many) are outside of the map and simply put in for an artistic feel. IMO it was a very nice touch of detail, and a creative way of cutting off the map. Sometimes you would see incredible storms in the distance as well, and I always loved that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zz-GNv0EIU&feature=related

But, I do agree with you. I think that this area is In-game...Windhelm is a good guess.

it′s hard to go to the sun, or even the clouds --> 'No'

Yea I dont think anyone took that as a literal go anywhere, however this comment seemed to be a response to peopels complaints about NV and how there were many invisible boundaries smacked right in the middle of the map. It was stupid. You could literally see that you could hop over the next rock with ease, however an invisible wall said NO, walk around to the path. I dont mind if mountains are so steep that I cant climb them. But I DO NOT want an invisible wall to tell me that.

Its funny, someone else mentioned earlier "So I can go to the sun?"...in response to the go anywhere statement. And as I typed this another person said the same thing.

Personally, I took the go anywhere comment as in there will not be annoying invisible walls in the middle of the map. Certain boundaries are to be expected because the game has to be closed off somehow, and its impossible for it to stretch on infinitely. But running into an invisible wall somewhere that you SHOULD be able to go is awful IMO.

It sounds like the outside the map stuff in halo is done with screenshots or animations, rather than being an actual continuation of the world. TES is different, outside the map is just more of the map, usually in less detail to the inside areas, since if they can do that there, why not in the game? Nonetheless, there really doesn't look to be any more detail in those mountains to other shots, save that you have a more clear and less fogged view of some of them, and it is brighter. I fully believe it is an in game location and unedited.

Which is exactly what I said. :wink_smile:

I just found this quote from Todd Howard, from the link from the "new" information thread that just popped up.

“As far as actual landmass, it’s ABOUT the size of Oblivion. It’s different in that a good portion of it is mountainous. And mountains you can’t just walk across. So they kind of inflate your game space. If you have this large mountain, getting up and through that and around that, and then the dungeons that are on mountains, you spend more time there. When you’re walking around it, to us it feels a bit bigger because of the mountains. We were really pushing to have it not just be this big snowy mountain game, so that we do have a lot of different regions. They all have a really unique look while still being a part of that province.”

That is indeed an actual ingame screenshot. They have done incredible work with the LOD distance rendering technique of the engine. Instead of making things look worse the farther they are, as it is in Morrowind, Oblivion, Fo3 and NV; The farther an object is, the more it fades into a more 'pictury' look. This is why it looks like concept art. Because concept art looks amazing, and they wanted far off things to look amazing.

This again? Really?
I asked Pete months ago and nothing has changed since then. It's still a screenshot!

However, I really don't know how we are supposed to climb these mountains. Especially because there is no longer athletic/acrobatics.

I hated on Halo ODST (I think) on the tiny cliffside MP map there is a HUGE industrial looking building with a lot of open ground that you can't go to.

Yes, I've noticed that. Skyrim looks better far away than up-close, rather than the other way around.

Ah yeah, that's how Just Cause 2 is. When you're extremely high above the ground things look photorealistic to me.

Well, to me it looks all awesome, the graphics are mind-blowing as it is in the trailer and the landscape image.

Yea I was always frustrated that there was beautiful places outside of the map you couldnt go....but I still thought it was better than other games alternatives which is bland backrounds with no detail, invisible walls, etc.

Skyrim does look better from a distance than up close but so does every video game with good graphics if you ask me. From a distance you dont get nearly as much detail. Plus Skyrim is going to have a lot of epic views imo, so Im def happy about that.



Like I said most games are like that. GTA 4 had great graphics in general, but when you hovered WAY up in the air in a helicopter it practically looked picture perfect.

I agree. Honestly, I don't see why people are suddenly getting so worked up over graphics. Why, all of a sudden, people seem to only care about graphics? It seems like 30% of the topics in the Skyrim forums are about the graphics in Skyrim, in one way or another. Oblivion today doesn't have the best graphics, but it is still one of my most loved games, that I still play frequently. Also, Morrowind.

First of all, it's not "all of the sudden." Some of us have been concerned about the graphics for a while. Second of all, concern about graphics is no less valid than concern about game play. People have just as much reason to discuss one as they do the other. And even if it is true that 30% are about graphics, that still means that 2/3 are still about game play issues. So what are you complaining about?

Hela, aha. I love your replies 'cutting through' 'illogical' based emotion-reflex postings.

People have the right to whine discuss anything they want on the forums, unfortunate as that may be. That doesnt necessarily mean they are reasonable or legitimate concerns. Just ignoring it is the best option. At the end of the day its what YOU think.

I think that these mountains are in the game, and that they will be able to be explored, however I dont think we will just be able to walk right up the side. Mountain ranges like this will have to have paths built into them....even though I dont see any in the image I dont see any other way. You could say levitation, however its very likely that isnt returning let alone not every character uses magic. On the other hand, EVERY character will have to do some walking if they want to explore. Therefore Im just learning toward paths.

I wasn't saying 'all of you guys are stupid for caring about graphics', and I certainly wasn't complaining. I just assumed that it was generally accepted that graphics don't make the game, and I was pointing out that it was odd (to me) that so many threads were about people's concern about graphics, especially when (it seems) so many people have a love for Morrowind, or even prefer Morrowind to Oblivion, when Morrowind does not have the best of graphics. I guess I was mistaken. If the graphics were the exact same as Oblivion, I would be about 95% as excited as I am right now about Skyrim. :shrug:

if that is out of the game zone high hrothgar must be massive with steps the size of an ogre . If it is in game . there's a good chance it is and high hrothgar is confirmed climeable

well there are a few isolated mountain ranges in skyrim, so maybe