How can people say Skyrim is not ugly?

I wasn't expecting this game graphic to be anywhere as good as The Witcher 2, but I was expecting it to look like a game made for 2011.

Take a look at this texture http://i43.tinypic.com/2mgr4oj.jpg

And tell me it does not look like some weird PS2/PS1 game? This texture in a 2011 game is atrocious. Bethesda did ZERO work on the PC version. I mean is this graphic, and it does not look like the rest of the game.

Take a look at the rest of the game as shown here:

http://i39.tinypic.com/23gy4pg.jpg

As you can see there is a huge disparity between the two graphics. I am running this game on ultra with everything max out in the advance setting tab, and yet how can the image be this bad?

So I ask you guys, how is the graphic of Skyrim not ugly?

You choose to ignore this fact because it a big open world? GTA IV is a open world game and it look nowhere as ugly as Skyrim.

REASON

You guys may sugarcoated whichever way you want, but the fact remain is that Bethesda took zero effort in making this a true PC game. From the control, awful menu, mouse lag, poor quality sound, crashes, and other things, the game was a straight console port with slightly better AA and AF for the PC.

 

Old news. I've been saying that in every will my laptop run Skyrim thread and SKyrim threads that Skyrim will be a console first platform game, that the graphics will disappoint and that they won't do anything but textures, no bump mapping, post processing, nothing impressive that takes advatanges of DX10/DX11 features.

As said before, hopefully the gameplay is good, story is good. Suck it up and just play.

Bethesda clearly knows where the money lies. Rage, Fo3, FO:Vegas, and now Skyrim. All console first games.

 

This should be posted in the skyrim thread. We don't need multiple skyrim threads

 

No, we do need more complaint threads. I meant, when has a Bethesda published game EVER looked good without modding?


Just be damn well happy you can even mod them yep, the world of PC gaming has come to that, now.

 

Fallout: New Vegas was pretty in all aspect.

 

I think some of the reason why PC Skyrim isn`t much better than console version is because of the game size restrictions.
And if they chose to use different textures with PC, it would mean a lot more work.

No?

 

The game looks great when you play it.

It looks bad when you seek out areas to take screenshots of.

Give it a rest.

 

Not likely considering that Fallout: New Vegas is an older game and the graphic top this graphic.

How can you explain that? I also believe New Vegas made use of tessellation as well.

 

Another PC console port? Oh come on, what did you expect? All the developer's are doing the same thing nowadays, see BF3...

 

Without PC gamer, there would be no Bethesda. We pay "60 dollars" for a $50 dollars PC game that has DRM and can't be resell.

BF3 graphic were made for the PC then ported over to console. Grant it still a console port IMO but the graphic (the only thing I mention here) was made for the PC, or at least sugarcoated that way).

If Skyrm graphic was like BF3, I think I would be in heaven.

 

Really ? I had to use some mods to make NV look decent.
I'm not saying Skyrim is great graphics wise, but you have to admit that the art design is impressive.
(You really had to make a thread for this ?)

 

I agree. Honestly, I have New Vegas and it does not top Skyrim at all, without mods. I would get a constant 60 fps @ 1200p on NV though which was nice. Soon I'm sure we will see many mods for Skyrim, but until then I am more than satisfied with the graphics and performance.

 

lol @ the texture. This isn't about resolution etc the art/ atmosphere is what attracts people to it.

 

Stop making ridiculous threads about nothing. Does this game have the greatest graphics ever to grace a video game? No. Is it fun and beautiful regardless? Yes.

 

Considering the huge following Oblivion had and the mods that enhanced the game 20 fold, pretty sure the same will happen with Skyrim.

There is a lot of detail in some places, and a lot of lacking detail in others. It's a pretty good balance it seems. The space the game consumes on the HDD is significantly lower than I thought it would be showing they are smart with use of the textures for how huge the game is.

Under NDA so dont think I can talk about it, but another game I am playing has much worse graphics and yet takes over 25GB of space.

 

​

Time to "RAGE" lol.

 

I normally wouldn't take graphics the most important thing about a game, but I agree that as a 2011 game, it does look awful, especially if you have experienced the visual marvel of Witcher 2. Sadly not many games today look nearly as good as that, you will need a whole bunch of fans-made mods to make some of them don't hurt your eyes.

Yes, I do think we need more threads venting their feelings about a game, so far I have seen so much praise about the game, yet after seeing some game play videos, I must say I am not all that impressed, especially of the graphics.

 

Too bad you haven't actually played it. The graphics aren't great. I'm honestly shocked that anyone expected the graphics to be technically strong, seeing as it's basically Gamebryo.

Regardless of what the textures look like, it's a fun game, and when you pull back and look at the world, it really is beautiful.

 

One of the many people working on this game right now:

Skyrim RETEXTURE PROJECT by ImperialRM - The Nexus Forums

http://www.skyrimnexus.com/

 

This...it's one of the best looking games I've ever played. However I don't go up close to every texture and examine them. Some of you die hard PC "people" (caricature is more appropriate) are just ridiculous.

 

Yeah ! Would hate to have to work a little harder for the peeps who bought our early "PC ONLY" games and enabled us to become the over-bloated behemoth you see before you today !

 

So when a game with good gameplay is released, people complain about graphics. When it's all pretty and twinkling and colourful, people complain about how it sucks so bad in gameplay and bug ridden that it's not worth it

Look on the bright side for once and give this game a chance. At least it has mod support and isn't 17GB huge like Witcher 2 for the length of gameplay that it provides

 

And it installs fairly easily. Three weeks in I'm still fighting with the Witcher 2 to install correctly so I can actually play it.

 

I am with you there bro. But they had a deadline to follow. Not certain they would have finished two versions by that time. Just imagine all the different textures in this enormous game.

And to everyone: I am not dissappointed in the graphics in this game. I think it looks good. I am just throwing out links to mods

 

This is a troll thread. There isn't a game in existence where you can't find a bad texture if you go through them and hunt for it.

It doesn't mean 0 effort went into the game.

It doesn't mean we are sugar coating anything.

It doesn't mean it's a bad console port.

 

I don't think any Bethseda games have necessarily ever been that pretty. Of course I don't think any of their games have ever been any good anyways, not since Daggerfall at least.

 

Indeed, I hate the textures. The texture mod linked looks promising. The bad textures, combined with blocky shadows is why I've uninstalled the game and waiting I'm waiting for mods to slowly emerge.

 

Skyrim is open world, expecting it to look like BF3 and Witcher 2 is ridiculous.

If you bought Skyrim for the graphics, you bought the wrong game. Skyrim is a gameplay game.

 

That's a terrible excuse. It's still a single player game, so therefore it should look better than every multiplayer game on the market.

 

Umm, what?

 

On one hand, I agree with the idea that any SP game should look much better than a MP game, even though I'm focused on the gameplay itself and not the graphics.

On the other hand, yes it is an open world with an infinite number of quests that have space restrictions/requirements, graphic capabilities that are created by companies that need to make a profit.

It is what it is.

Mr. Mysterious

 

I don't understand why people keep bringing up the fact that they NEED to make a profit. Yes they do, and they can. But that in no way changes the fact that they don't spend more than minimal effort, and usually not even that, to make it proper for PC. If it makes money, period, it's worth the effort. 100% of the development costs are taken care of by console sales. Spend the extra effort towards PC and you're pure profit and attract a lot more PC sales. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH PROFIT.

 

Agree 100%.

 

I see your not familiar with the law of diminishing returns.

The sweet spot is the spot between effort and profit. More effort =/ more profit. More effort can = less profit. Your right they spend the minimal effort, the minimal effort to maximize their profit margin.

Also Skyrim isn't about graphics. Its about an amazing open world. An MP game can easily look better. One map in an MP game probably takes as muc effort as what you can walk through in 5 to 10 minutes in Skyrim. They have to individually create those environments. An MP map can be perfected.

Why would an MP game have to look worse? Typically FPS games look the best, and they are all MP focused. I don't think I would enjoy Skyrim that much more if it had better visuals to be honest.

 

I never really got the impression that bethesda were trying to market skyrim for its graphics. It was marketed as having better graphics than morrowind and oblivion but that was about it as far as I could tell. They marketed the game as a succesor to oblivion, a very well regarded game even if it wasn't the most graphically stunning.

Also, it is true that if you had a bunch of programmers who didn't need to be paid and you had no other projects to be working on, then there would be no reason to ignore PC gamers as much as is happening currently. However that isn't the case, the time spent tweaking the very minute details of the PC game could be "better spent" on other projects altogether which would bring in more money than they would gain had they invested the time in perfecting the PC version.

 

It does, because for every day that they DON'T ship it they are missing out on more money.

 

Multi player games are typically made to run on the largest amount of computers possible so they can get the largest communities/profit. single player games have normally pushed the boundaries for graphical requirements. Back when oblivion came out even the most powerful GPU couldn't max it out at 1080p. I guess people where expecting something like that.

I personally think skyrim is beautiful... yea there are a few glitches but the art design is pretty spectacular. and w/e cheesy needs to go find another game to rag on.

 

Every game is going to have bad textures. IMO the art and scale in Skyrim make up for the mediocre graphics.

TW2 doesn't have nearly the same amount of scale as Skyrim (and looks worse running on the same mid-range notebook) and FO:NV doesn't even look good.

 

I think OP is just trying to point out the overall very compressed textures that vanilla Skyrim uses (after all it's only what 5~6 GB, for a game of this scope? people should have expected this). In a month or so when a comprehensive mod with high-res textures comes out he'll be good.

 

LOL What are they putting in kids Kool-Aid these days? For crying out loud. You buy into the fact that you have to pump out crap in order to make the absolute most money possible? What ever happened to quality and pride in craftsmanship? It's the publicly traded companies that have this mentality, but it doesn't mean it's right or the best way to make money, but more importantly, not the best way to keep customers. Since when was running a business ONLY about making money? If this is what it has come to, I'm on the first ship to Mars.

I understand a lot about business finance, considering I worked in the automotive industry as engineer and project manager for 15 years and seeing how quality in the end = most profit. End of story. Anyone who tells you otherwise will be fired. I was even on a niche program that "only" made the company ten million dollars, but you know what? That was ten million bucks in their pocket even though they had to spend 50 million to get there. They based it off an existing product. Sure they could have just slapped a couple extra badges on and offered a different floor mat and still made some profit, but far from the ten million they ended up making.

Don't spend time on PC = lost sales. Do your due diligence on PC = improved sales. And customer loyalty is something too. You want repeat customers? Make them happy. This is why our country is in the toilet. Companies get richer, we get crap product, and buy into the need to relax quality in order to make money. All FALSE.

 

INB4Lock.

HT: I agree with you 100%.

Mr. Mysterious

 

I want to just say one thing is that Skyrim graphics are way better than under the GameBryo Era games. Then again being Bethsoft, I never expected Crysis 2 graphics out of the box (on top of a bug-free, realistic animations, and properly designed armor set experience).

Skyrim is at least playable and enjoyable on vanilla, unlike the GameBryo Era titles. However even Bethsoft admits that the game's strong point on the PC Platform is relying on the massive and wide-spectrumed modding community to make it Crysis 2 in level of graphical quality and Witcher 2 quality of bug-free and smooth character mechanics.

 

@HT this is quite idealized thinking, I appreciate the ethics, but ...

Business and especially gaming is about the common denominator. There are many brilliant games that do not make money, because they appeal to niche consumers. These studios really work hard and produce top notch products, but few buy. They have loyal fans and are able to maintain their business model.

The big ones however, i.e. the EAs and such, they do not care about perfection or best possible products. They need to roll out a product that sells maximum units with minimum people pissed off. It's like blockbuster Hollywood, gotta be something in it for everybody, nothing particular good for each subgroup, but something for all. Indiana Jones Crystal Skull is a great example, fans hate it, but fantastic financial success, and mass consumers like it.

The same equation applies to big business games. Especially for games that have shorter life cycles. The Starcraft/Warcraft games have different dynamics as they need to build community for 1-2 years, then sustain 1-2, and then milk until death. WoW has entered its final phase with Cataclysm now I would assume (except for smaller addons maybe).

Games such as Skyrim, or e.g. the GTAs or Mass Effects, have relatively short life spans of 1 year, max 2 years, then another round of best of editions. They need to hit mass market at minimal costs. For mass market, they need mass media. BF3 and MW3 run TV ads, which cost major money. Production costs are high. So flushing out a game that is 80% there is good enough to satisfy 90% of the target consumer. Satisfying the remaining 10% would increase costs much more and is not feasible.

In automotive it is somewhat the same, then again in almost every industry it is.

Just my two cents.

I like Skyrim btw

 

Why don't you actually read my post? Yes, every day that they spend working on the PC version represents extra manhours. Every manhour that they don't spend working on the PC version represents lost sales. There is a lot of research that has gone into determining the balance of extra manhours to lost sales. Your ranting really isn't making any sense, and denigrating me as a "kid" who's drinking the "kool-aid" doesn't help your point any. If the net present value of the project doesn't make sense, they won't do it. In this case, the cash outflows from paying more programmers to work more hours on the PC version doesn't make sense given the anticipated extra cash inflows.

By the way, a product that costs 50 million to make yet brings in 10 isn't business, it's charity. If everyone did that, they'd all be out of business.

 

The world of skyrim is one of the most captivating and most immersive games I have ever played... given how long I have been playing, that's something.

Yeah, I can find games with better graphics... but the heart and soul of the game is not the graphics.

Its just ONE part of the whole...

Have you noticed the relaxed demeanors of the people who are friendly and the threatening ones of those that are hostile? The haughty stroll of a king compared to the skittishness of the common folk?

You can TELL if the person in front of you wants to kill you, run from you, or talk by how they carry themselves...

There are so many nice little touches and life-like gestures and actions that make you forget that this is just a game.

The above combined with the quite serviceable (and playable) graphics result in a masterpiece of a game.

So good, I literally have to set an alarm or I will play long past when I had planned to stop. I don't think a game has done that in a long LONG time.

So what if the graphics are a tad dated... (and yes I agree with the why - console limitations)

 

I never said you need to make a bad product. But there is no need to make a perfect project. Quality in the end does not always equal the most profit, not everyone ones a quality experience. Which made more money, Transformers or any film that won the Oscars in the last 5 years? It happens to be Transformers.

You need to make a product that delivers what the customer wants, or what most of the customers want. You never need to make a perfect product. Yes you need quality and pride in craftmanship, but you don't need perfection in craftsmanship, you need to release a product that is fun to play in a reasonable time frame.

This game took 5 years to make. Asking for more is a bit ridiculous. 50/60 profit margin isn't too bad, only the best companies make 20% + profit margins on physical products. However if you mean they lost 40 million dollars (put in 50 million and came out with 10) that is pretty bad. Your right, customer loyalty is important. To a point. Compared to MW3 and BF3 Skyrim has so much more effort put into it. You can't say Skyrim isn't a quality product. Ok it doesn't have that great of graphics. Minecraft didn't have that great of graphics. It was a fun game. Graphics =/ a good product. The only old game I play consistently is Super Smash Bros. The graphics are bad, but the game isn't based on graphics at all so it is always going to be fun. I'll have fun in that game 30 years from now. However there is no reason to just keep pumping in dollars to make a more perfect product. Perfection doesn't exist. Good enough is fine. Notice I didn't say cheap.

Skyrim isn't a game about graphics. Skyrim is a game about the open world. Just like Minecraft isnt' about graphics either. I really don't think that many people would buy Skyrim for the $30+ million it would take to pump up the visuals a lot in this game. It would take a lot because the game is so vast and all the environments would have to be designed at those better visuals and so on and so forth. Plus its in development for 5 years. I really don't think they would sell that many more copies at better visuals. People looking for an eye candy experience probably aren't that interested in a game like Skyrim which is more about exploring and being amazed by how "alive" the world feels. I would rather the graphics be worse and the game feel more "alive" like it does. Any engineering project has tradeoffs like this. I feel like they struck a good balance between graphics and the open world, and alive nature of the game. The attention to detail is amazing in how the world operates. To me that is more important in this game anyways. That is what I am saying.

Every Engineer knows you make tradeoffs, and their tradeoff was Gameplay>Graphics. To me that was the right tradeoff. Putting more money into graphics wouldn't have moved that many more copies I feel. And it wouldn't have made the game that much better. Starcraft 1 survived for 10+ years on gameplay. Graphics aren't that big of a deal in games like Starcraft and Skyrim. Graphics seem more important in an FPS campaign because FPS campaigns are like Transformers: All eye candy, adrenaline and no substance. Skyrim isn't a game that really benefits from more graphics, because its a game with substance.

I'm going to have a lot of fun playing Skyrim. I don't care about the graphics that much, they are "good enough". The whole package to me however is "Amazing".

 

Thank you, extra employees/work hours do equate to a larger average total varible cost. It is completely in their best interest to keep this down seeing as marginal revenue is going to stay about the same in the grand scheme of things. HT, I do not know if you agree or disagree with the economic notion of incentives, but from what I can tell any large corporation is trying to make an economic profit (not to be confused with an accounting profit) like any other industry. What you described to us seems, to me atleast, that you obtain some utility from making a good product, however not everyone takes pride in their work and use it as a means to an end. To make a living...

 

One day we are going to have an Occupy *insert company name* Forum/Server..

 

Skyrim is an awesome game. Its graphics are not the best ever made, but (to me, at least) that's not what Skyrim is all about. And the game is far from ugly; the overall art style and beautiful environments more than make up for a few textures that aren't 4096x4096. When I play the game, I play the game. I don't zoom in on every brick and examine how high-res the textures are because I'm too busy having fun.

And to be completely honest, I'm more than happy to sacrifice some texture quality to have a download that's half the size of most other major titles these days. And, as others have noted, mods will be released to appease graphics snobs just as they have been for Oblivion, Morrowind, Fallout 3 and New Vegas.

Overall, Skyrim is an awesome game. Easily one of my favorite games released this year, and so far shaping up to be one of my favorite RPG's of all time

It's been amazingly bug-free so far; in 4 hours of gameplay, I've encountered exactly one bug, which was quickly rectified by walking in and out of a load zone. Quite excellent considering Bethesda's track record.

And to anyone who says Fallout: New Vegas has better graphics or that Skyrim's engine is the same as Gamebryo...you clearly haven't played this game, at least not with graphics maxed out.

tl;dr - whiners need to shut up and stop analyzing texture resolutions. It's distracting you from having fun.

 

I've sunk 20+ hours into the game. At heart, it's Gamebryo. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but it is. It definitely looks better than Oblivion, a lot better.