How can people say Skyrim is not ugly?

And to think I am enjoying so much the game. I am such a loser.

 

I am quite happy cuz my laptop can handle it. Witcher 2 just looked like a picture with lots of photoshop

All in all i dont think the game is ugly. what i would like however is more intense combat with powermoves etc. I even had to become an archer because... well.. you dont expect too many special effects when shooting a bow, while you do expect it when fighting dual wield for example. Even though they could add some "shoot 3 arrows at a time" and "rapid fire" things that in fact do exist even in real world.

 

I can chop peoples' heads off with my sword.

 

its just too scary
With sword its like — you enter zombie room and hear noises that are closing to you from all over the place and you are like "woa, ima kill you with sowrd" but you swing is so slow and they are eating you before you can hit each of them once and then there are mages that shoot you from behind.

With bow its like — you enter zombie room and you got no agro at all just running around and then BOOM you are head to head with a zombie... but he still doesnt see you. Stab him and keep going. You meet a boss and its liek "+300% +200%, staggered, stuned, +1500%" dead. You dont even need to save because you will always see them first.

 

Erm, learn Six Sigma. You seem to not have understanding of what quality is. It has shown time and again that quality = profit. It's used throughout most of the Fortune 500 companies. It is what Ford, GM, and Chrysler used to turn their companies around, and is prominent in any company that manufactures products of any kind.

Quality = Production Value in the entertainment industry. Repeating my previous example, if Transformers just left wireframe renderings for some scenes, and just left the blue screen background in others, that's poor quality, and would result in fewer sales. It also takes into account customer satisfaction, which results in long term sales improvements.

No Six Sigma study would result in a company just compiling code for the PC that compiles without error the first time and smack a sticker on it and send it on its way.

But I'm done here. It's just sad to think that people are more concerned about a company making profit that they have no vested interest in, that will screw the customer in any way it can (generally speaking), than providing a product to high quality standards that you paid your own hard earned dollars for.

 

^ HT bascally summarized CoD games after MW2. Its all about sales rather quality from that point.

 

That a gross over-simplification. In order to get where these companies are now, one had to essentially mortgage everything it had (Ford) and the others took money from taxpayers (GM and Chrysler), a fair chunk of which will never be recovered. They had to restructure their business models and renegotiate contracts with their workers and suppliers.

Your Wikipedia link for Six Sigma even states that there is none to very little empirical evidence that it even works.

 

Six Sigma "quality" means free from defects. Six Sigma is all about metrics and quality control. It has nothing to do with subjective quality.

It's sad that you seem to be unable to reconcile principles of business with what you want out of a game.

To actually fix your Transformers analogy, if they spent more time rendering background detail and the shine on Optimus Prime's armor, or more cash on special effects, it would probably increase ticket sales. The question is, would it increase ticket sales enough to cover the cost of the work plus a little extra in the studio's pocket? That's what you have to ask.

 

That turnaround with the money from the government was just a hiccup. It's been done before, just never had the front page news it had in the past. And I'm talking about turnaround from the late 1980's.

Ok, so all the major corporations use Six Sigma, so it must not work. Whatever. As an engineer it makes so much sense and uses actual reason and methodical approaches that engineers have used for ages. It just formalizes it.

But if your mind says crap product is good for consumers, then keep thinking that, because that's what we will continue to get. As consumers we've all become lemmings and just accept what companies tell us. Sounds like the "yay" sayers are more interested in making a company money that they have no vested interest in, than getting a good product that they paid for with their own money. But whatever. This is how we got to where our economy is today, in a nutshell. This game is just a by-product of that lemming mentality.

In summary, sure it is. But in reality, if you've worked with it, results in subjective quality because it takes customer needs and wants into account.

In any case Six Sigma aside, it gets back to what people are actually believing:

"Crap product is acceptable so companies can make more money."

I guess this is the world we live in.

 

Nobody's saying it wouldn't be great if they spent all kinds of money on making the PC version perfect. That would be awesome. We're just telling you why it doesn't happen and why it won't happen. I'm not sure why you're getting so upset.

 

This always baffles me when it comes to console ports. idk why people get bent out of shape when they know this is common practice. Sorry guys, we are the red headed step children of the gaming industry. Get used to it and stop wasting your brain cells getting upset over stuff you cannot, will not, be able to control.

 

I give up.

 

Right...so I should be like every other trendy PC gamer and complain over stuff I can't control. Good idea, add more crap to the interwebz

 

The assumption that good graphics automatically means a good game is a very antiquated view from the Quake days of the 1990s.



Look at the games that DID NOT break graphical feats in its day, but are considered incredibly fun to play:

* Left 4 Dead 1 and 2.
* Civilization 2,3,4,5
* Master of Orion 2.
* Panzer General 1 and 2.
* Team Fortress 2
* World of Warcraft
* Starcraft 1 and 2
* Bioshock 1
* Mass Effect 1 and 2
* Half-Life 1 and 2.

What do these games have in common? Engaging stories, developed characters, rich environments, and/or deeply engaging gameplay mechanics.

I can tell you the exact plot twists in Bioshock, and the history of the underwater city of Rapture. I can tell you the background lore in World of Warcraft, and how Illidan and the Lich King rose to power. I can tell you the story of my character in Mass Effect 2, and how playing as an evil jerk was so much more fun than playing as a pious do-gooder.



Look at the games that DID break graphical feats in its day:
* Crysis 1
* Metro 2033
* FarCry 1
* Elder Scrolls: Oblivion

What do these games have in common? They are competent games that are remembered more for their use as benchmarking tools, than as games.

I cannot tell you what Crysis was about, except "a bunch of aliens invade. You're a guy in a supersuit. Hope you have a good computer."
I cannot tell you what Far Cry 1 was about, except "Alone on an island with a gun. Hope you have a good computer."
I can't remember a thing about Metro 2033, except "Run around in Moscow's subways after a nuclear holocost. Hope you have a good computer."

 

Bollocks. Just bollocks.

Crysis is still among the best FPS games ever made. The sandbox gameplay is unrivaled by any FPS today or before it. The physics unlocked on everything is also unrivaled. You have an infinite number of ways to accomplish something in Crysis.

Oblivion is remembered because to many, it's the #1 best game every made.

Your OPINION and mine differ greatly. TF2 is mindless, absolutely pointless. L4D also pointless and mindless and it's not even a good zombie game IMO. Dead Space 2 and Killing Floor are much better.

HL2 at the time of release was praised for it's graphics and being revolutionary. It was the first game to have full screen HDR. No other game had facial expressions at the time. There were many things about HL2 that attracted players to play because it was the first game to truly take advantage everything that DX9 had to offer.

StarCraft 2 is also among the only TRUE DX10 games out there today. It truly takes advatage of everything a GPU has to offer if you play it on Ultra. It has intensive form of ambient occlusion, transparent shadows, the best Havoc Physics to offer etc. SC2's lighting and shadow is as good as any game IMO. So while it may not have crush PC's like Crysis did with it's incredible amount of polygons/textures, SC2 is a better DX10 game than Crysis is IMO, Crysis is still very much a DX9 game.

So I think your argument is just wrong.

 

It may be common practice for console ports to not spend the time perfecting the game for pc like pc only games tend to do, but being common practice doesn't make it right. But even though it isn't right I know that I won't be able to change it. So I will just continue to rely on all of the talented modders out there that have been able to vastly improve my experience with Morrowind and Oblivion to do the same thing with Skyrim. This may not be the best game in terms of graphics, but it will arguably be one of the best games this year overall. And given time, the modding community will ensure that it gets to the point where the graphics are great too. Where Bethesda may have failed with the pc version the modders will exel.

 

I think the original Crysis is terrible, gameplay-wise. Opinions are opinions.

I do also think the OP is assigning far too much importance to graphics.

 

Yep, the turnaround was so successful that Chrysler never again teetered on financial ruin without having to go back to the taxpayer trough. Lesson learned..oh wait.

$14 billion lost from the 2008 bailouts. Just a blip on the radar.

So people buying houses they couldn't afford, commodity prices rising, and such all had nothing to do with it. Gotcha.

If you think PC gaming is so awful now, teach these evil companies a lesson and give up on it. Find something else to do with your dollars and your free time.

 

Not sure what everyone is crying about. The game and gameplay is fantastic and it's clear to see a lot of development time has gone into the game... even if the graphics aren't much better they game is full of quests and has everything in it to make it fun.

Clearly a lot of effort has been put it to remove bugs and make the game really playable whilst being open world. The game engine is purposely made to run on both low and high end hardware so what's the issue?

Graphics don't make an engaging game, crysis and battlefield 3 have great graphics but in my opinion and dull and unengaging.

Skyrim however is my game of the year.

 

First I am glad another thread was started. Takes this discussion out of the skyrim thread leaving it to the game itself, this discussion takes a larger turn not specifically related to skyrim.

I think its a given here that people know a business has to make money. I think everyone also knows or at least must grudgingly admit that the games market has become consolecentric. Easier and cheaper to develop for with a higher profit potential. Everyone gets it.

The grief that wingnut and others like myself have is that the pc version was kicked out the door with a "good enough, it will work" mentality. It was not given the proverbial love and that is what is wrong. Speaking only for myself I was not expecting them to spend a fortune developing an engine or other such things and they did not have to in order to make the pc experience much better. It's about pride in craftsmanship. At work I do the best I can. Sometimes its not there to do everything I want but I did the best I could with what I had. At one time top game developers took the kind of pride in their product that said just good enough was not good enough. They did the best they could with what they had. Then as now a business had to make money. And they did. This game would have made money as a pc only release. As a console port it was going to make money and it is, lots of it. They could have made the pc experience quite a bit better with some fairly basic work and made money but they did not. This is what is wrong. In the not too distant past a developer would have been ripped for a poor console port both in the gaming community and in the gaming media both online and printed. Yet now people just say deal with it, mediocrity is ok. I am sorry but I am not with them. I will not be fed crap and told its steak. Even worse I will not eat it and think its steak. Color me stupid but I don't like being fed crap.

Take a look at Dragon Age. I started playing it just recently again for something to do while I awaited this one. You see console everywhere and yet it is much better optimized for pc. They did not spend a fortune making it happen and made a huge profit doing it. For myself thats all I ask for, spend a little time getting it right.

 

Pride in craftsmanship only goes so far when you're being yelled at to get things out the door.

People keep using awful analogies. Why?

 

Well, you bring up a good point in your post. It is a matter of opinion whether a game is "good" or not. Crysis being among the best FPS game ever made is an opinion. Oblivion being the #1 best game ever made is an opinion. Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 dead being crap games are a matter of opinion.

But what is a matter of fact is that Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead 2 remain as some of the most popular and widely played games on Steam ( data).
It is a fact that the two games you enjoyed (Dead Space 2 and Killing Floor) did not use absolutely cutting-edge game engines when they were released.
And it is a fact that Crysis 1

I think the point you are arguing is a gut reaction against my opinion of whether Game A or Game B is good or bad.
The point I am arguing is in response to the original poster's question... that cutting-edge system destroying graphics does not automatically make a game good.

I agree, that Half Life 2 was an awesome game at launch. I still hold the opinion that it remains an awesome game even today.

And there are many reasons why people loved Half Life 2. Yes, they loved the graphics. But they also loved the story, environment, characters, voice acting, physics engine, and AI. There are many reasons why people like Half Life 2. You present your argument as if the only reason people ever liked that game was because of its graphics.

Again, my claim is that good graphics do not automatically make a game great. Hard Reset is a game that had great visual quality. But it's unimaginative gameplay and low replayability means it will never be a highly memorable game like Half Life 2, Dead Space 2, or Bioshock.

The popularity of Starcraft 2 (and its rise an an eSport) is not because of shadow quality or ambien occlusion.

Millions of people play and watch Starcraft 2, and not all of them have computers that can play on Ultra settings. Yes, graphics quality plays a role in how enjoyable a game is. But you are presenting graphics quality as the one and only factor related to how good or memorable a game is.

In fact, you can find plenty of enjoyable games that people love specifically because of their low system requirements. Starcraft Brood War is the most successful eSport game of all time, and does not have super high-end graphics. World of Warcraft is the most widely played video game of all time, and does not have super high-end graphics. Peggle and Plants vs Zombies are among the most successful casual games of all time, and do not have super high-end graphics.

You may be a person that considers graphics quality to be the most dominant factor in determining whether a game is good. You may dismiss games like Starcraft Brood War, World of Warcraft, Team Fortress 2, Peggle, and Plants vs Zombies as boring games, kiddie games, etc. That is fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

But my claim is that cutting-edge system destroying graphics does not automatically make a game good. My evidence is the quantifiable success of games like World of Warcraft, Team Fortress 2, Counterstrike 1.6, and Peggle; based on quantifiable measurements such as initial sales and continued size of player base (even today). And that is a fact.

 

I dont get it – do you know EXACTLY what it would take to make pc experience much better and why? Especially regarding to thread title — how would you make a game significantly more beautifully without changing the engine etc?

One thing i can say is they could GREATLY improve usability. How about getting "Glass Bow" from my inventory when i press alt+1? why the fok i should press Q and then navigate "up/down" for half a minute? Thats ridiculous and stupid.

 

Here is why your analogy fails.

Skyrim is not a crap product. Skyrim just doesn't have AAA graphics. Skyrim doesn't have bad graphics, it just does not have AAA graphics. We aren't lemmings because we bought Skyrim.....Skyrim is a game with quality behind it. Also, I'm just letting you know how the world works, your free to interpet it however you want. You just said subjective quality takes customers needs and accounts. Since when was graphics the #1 need for a game like Skyrim? They made an amazing open world. The game is amazing. It just doesn't use all of the power of a PC. But why does that matter?

Gameplay wins out over graphics, time and again. Blizzard understands this. Starcraft 2 runs on pretty much any computer. Starcraft 2 sold 4.5 million copies +. What other PC games sell that much? Not very many. Crysis 1 was all graphics, and it struggled to hit a million + copies sold. That would mean that the consumer wants gameplay, not graphics.

Also that Six Sigma quality is free from defects. It has nothing to do with the "subjective" quality of the product. Also its a logical fallacy to say something is true because everybody does and/or uses it. Just because the majority of people believe something does not make it true. The majority of people though the world was flat a thousand years ago.

Finally if you look at the level of detail in this game, they had pride in craftmanship.....there are so many tiny things where you are like "wow I can't believe they programmed that in". Like seeing kids having an argument, or picking on each other, or some random things like that. The problem is an open world game like this would require radical and massive overhaul to up the graphics a lot, so I feel like they thought it wasn't worth it. We have interactions like that, because the developers chose not to spend a lot of time working on pumping up the graphics.....

One more thing. I feel like someone who makes a game wants a lot of people to play it. There is no point in releasing a good game if nobody plays it. By bumping up the graphics you only help the small percentage of the gaming population with a very good gaming PC. Skyrim can run on pretty middling PCs, which means that even someone like me with a 6750 can run Skyrim pretty well. That to me is more important to pushing the game on GTX 580 SLI setups. There aren't that many people who can take advantage of that quality. Also you can say that they put the game on console to get more money, but they also do it to get more players. To me it seems kind of dumb to make a great game but exclude a lot of people from it. So if you don't like the profit reasoning, realize the game is also on console because a game maker wants a lot of people to have access to his or her creation. Art doesn't do any good if nobody gets to see it. If the only people who saw the great art were people with $1.5K + laptops or $1K + desktops that seems to be an excluding policy that doesn't benefit a lot of people......that is a niche audience. Skyrim is an awesome game, I feel like the developers would want a lot of people to get to enjoy it, not just a few. 100% of the audience gets to enjoy the open world features. What percentage of Skyrim copies are sold on the PC? What percentage of those PC users have a computer capable of seeing those better graphics? Why focus all of your effort on that, which is maybe 5% to 10% of your customer base over 100% of your customer base?

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/88459/skyrim-sales-exceed-34-million-units-in-two-days/

14% of Skyrim Sales are on PC. That means that pumping up the PC version only helps 14% of players. Even that is pushing it, I would say at least half of those PC sales are on computers that couldn't use better graphics anyways (and that is pretty high). Why should they focus so much on 7% of their audience? Not just from a profit perspective.....from a fun perspective as well. If you want your audience to have fun, you would focus on improving the experience for everybody and not just 7% of your audience. However they didn't include DD, so maybe you can bump it up. Even if you assume that 10 to 15% (a high estimate) of players have PCs capable of more graphics, that is still only 15% of your audience.

 

Just how the auto companies/gov't wants us to see it, right?

Sorry, your application of Six sigma is wrong, but you are correct in saying that SixSig is used almost everywhere in the manufacturing world. SixSig refers to manufacturing quality of products NOT R&D (i.e. video game development). If your work directly involves SixSig, 99% chance you are employed in QC (Quality Control).

From your article:

For instance, if you produce metal rods that are supposed to be 74'', you know your machine isn't perfect and rods will not always be 74.00000000'' (perhaps the mean will be 73.995000, this is the real world). Rods might be 74.05'' or 73.97'', and you must decide whether those are acceptable rods that were manufactured. When you find the standard deviation (the spread/deviation of points away from the mean), lets say .01, and you know through a Gaussian curve that 99.9% of all rods manufactured will fall within 3 StDevs away from the mean (+/- .03). The lower the StDev is, the less variability there will be in the end products from the mean, but you will end up throwing more away. To make it clear, you can produce Ford Pintos using SixSig, does it mean that it is a quality product? Heck no, it was one of the worst, definitely a 'crap' product. But it wasn't because of manufacturing, it was because of R&D.

(This part is to everyone) We live in a capitalistic society. It is based on supply and demand and nothing more. There are no invisible forces or no one is obligated to do ANYTHING for you, put in extra time for free, make something 'special' for you, etc. I liken this to the progressive tax system. Why should a very wealthy person work the same amount of hours, if they are making less? For instance, on the first million they make, let's say they are taxed 30%, but once they hit that five million mark, they are taxed for 60% after that. Why should they be putting in the same amount of time (work hours) if they are only making .40 on the next dollar versus .70? If they can live fine at under 5 million, a CEO/Owner can choose to close his company once he reaches 4.99 million and reopen once the new tax season rolls around if he wants to and what can you do about it? Nothing, they are not in any way, shape or form obligated to providing you services. They CHOOSE to provide you with services/products. Video game companies are 'guilty' or these practices too. Why should they make less on a product for more work or the same? Even if it costs $3 more dollars per game (R&D costs) to actually develop the game on a per-platform basis, no way they would do it. It's completely illogical, you are throwing away free money. Especially if you are a public company, this is a crime. You main objective is to please shareholders and throwing away money is like giving the finger to your investors. This is a big reason why Valve is very respected among the gaming community.

Stop demanding these products/services if you want to make a REAL difference or at least try understand how reality works. Internet rage just pisses off everyone.

 

this is not a graphics vs gameplay contest. NO developer should sacrifice either. It is false that if you have great graphics, you will automatically have bad gameplay, and the inverse holds true as well.

The truth is, Skyrim has unremarkable graphics, but they are not horrible nor bad by any means, just outdated. They knew their engine would not hold up to competition so they focus on important things like atmosphere. Were they a bit lazy on that regard? Yeah but they most probably were busy with getting thins ironed out better in stability and performance.

Saying people like gameplay more and graphics and quoting sales is retarded. People OBVIOUSLY want lower specced games because otherwise they CANT run them. Crysis sold like crap because very few people could run it properly at the time. Starcraft 2 is an example of a game that scales very well, going for beautiful graphics to super crap ones, but the key thing is that it allows low spec'd people to play the game. It had NOTHING to do with gameplay vs graphics. Had everyone being blessed with a super high end system, they would still cry over crappy graphics.

am I disappointed with Skyrims graphics? Yes, I am, but at least it is a quality product, so at the end of the day I will still enjoy it. However, that is not to say I am OK with it. They are charging a premium for their product so I expect a premium quality product. I will say that while skyrim is a great game, it made me a bit skeptical regarding the prices they charge, and most probably won't be buying their next game for 60bucks.

In the end, keep in mind we, at least on this forums, are mostly runing games with laptops. Laptops are significantly less powerful and more expensive than desktops. Please tell me, what do you think will be the reaction of people when they find out that their laptops, often not high end, can run a new great game with great performance? I hardly think they would be crying about it.

Hell, Crysis 2 did a trick on their minds, by renaming Low, medium high settings to high, very high and enthusiast etc. they wouldnt feel bad by running crysis 2 on high.

 

I'm happy with Skyrims graphics...I couldn't playing Skyrim if the graphics were similar to Witcher 2. I just couldn't, Skyrim is waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy too big. Most computers couldn't handle Skyrim if the graphics were like Witcher 2...at least not yet.

 

+1 for trying to bring data and numbers into this discussion.



14% (PC sales) of 3.4mm units is 476,000 units.

The current Steam Hardware Survey shows that about 37.18% of surveyed users have graphics cards that are capable of running Skyrim at 1920x1080 at Ultra settings and getting at least 30fps. The cards I counted in this were:
* AMD Radeon 4850 or better
* AMD Radeon 5770 or better
* nVidia GeForce GTX260 or better
* nVidia GeForce GTX460 or better
* nVidia GeForce GTX550 or better

The number of Skyrim customers that even have PCs capable of running at Ultra settings is ~177,000 people. The markup for a retail store is ~15%, whereas the markup for Steam is 30%. That means Bethesda gets between $42-$51 in revenue per copy of Oblivion sold, and that they made between $7.4mm - $9.0mm in revenue from PC gamers.

The 5-6 calendar weeks that get counted in the United States as "holiday sales" counts for 50% of consumer retail spending for the year. That means that if Skyrim were to be delayed and launch in January (instead of November), it could expect its revenue to be cut in half by $3.7mm - $4.5mm.


So, these are the basic factors into the decision, based purely on launch timing (ignoring operational costs).

* The potential risk losing $3.7mm - $4.5mm in revenue from the PC platform by delaying its launch, to gain time and refine its graphics.

* The potential gain is the boost in sales from PC gamers that: (a) like Skyrim; (b) have PCs powerful enough to run at Ultra settings; (c) would not otherwise buy the game, if the better graphics were missing.

Improving Skyrim's graphics is making a bet that you can find more than 88,500 people that fit the exact profile of (a + b + c).

I would not make that bet. And I'm glad Bethesda did not make that bet either. Because I'm enjoying the heck out of Skyrim. And I'm glad that I don't need more than a GTX560Ti to max it out (unlike Battlefield 3).

 

I agree with the OP, Skyrim is an ugly DX9 game. Graphics haven't changed much since Oblivion and are far outdated for 2011. I'm very unimpressed with the graphics.

 

I think the idea of saying "omg look at this texture i can see jagged areas" is just so silly. The art in Skyrim is beautiful. The environment in Skyrim is beautiful.

It gets away from this silly pixel war to get the smoothest curves etc and works with reasonable expectations.

Individual items may not be incredibly high resolution but the overall environment looks great.

 

How I am very surprised no one read my post that it is up to modders to get them HD. Complaining about how crappy graphics are in any vanilla Bethsoft game (that is not id) is really a redundant point.

Then again, I agree with Hungry Man. This game isn't about benchmarks and pixel-w**ring. You want that, go and continue debating about Crysis 2. I am playing it mostly for gameplay and rich lore and knowing that mod support will fix all of Skyrim's woes in due time...

 

I used exactly one analogy, which represents only the smallest portion of my post, the rest of it were simple statements of truth sans any analogy. If you have a better analogy than is fit to print here please share. I'm guessing you don't but then its easier to scorn the truth than face it.

 

Multiple people in this thread have used crappy analogies.

The simple fact of is this: there comes a point where doing more work to refine a product is not worth the investment. Basic economics.

 

No it is much more fundemental than that, this comes down to greed and a belief that customers will buy whatever swill they choose to peddle. Exactly what led to all the major American auto manufacturers to their knees. Bioware managed to do a much better job in the aforementioned Dragon Age and made a truckload of money off pc gamers. It isn't like you cant tell its a console port but they took a little time to make the pc experience what it should have been. That is the whole point, "it works" may be good enough for you but for others even some proverbial greedy corporations "it works: isn't good enough. Keep in mind here all my comments refer not just to graphics but the entire port. In that one the entire experience is better, general clicking around, graphics, inventory. Everything, and they did not spend a fortune doing it. That is a lame excuse for poor workmanship and one no gamer should accept. I knew all this going in and the only reason I purchased this game is because I believed the core gameplay would be there and I knew the modding community would soon fix things up for the most part. Without that modding community I would not have purchased this game until I saw ample review evidence stating that the port was done properly.

 

SIMPLE ECONOMICS, what don't you get about that? How can it possibly be "more fundamental" than the heart of microeconomic theory? Making it "good enough" for people to buy it is the heart of marginal utility. Net Present Value (spending enough on it to make some money) is the core of financial planning. You all live in a world where you think that companies are going to forsake money in order to satisfy your ideals. Be realistic. And if the game's not good enough for you, don't buy it.

 

First, you have no proof what so ever what you're saying is true. You have no clue how much Bioware invested in the port, etc. So stop assuming you are correct in this. Here are the facts: Bethesda is backed by ZeniMax, Bioware is backed by EA. You can ASSUME that Bioware will have a bigger budget than Bethesda however; I have no proof and could be wrong. More facts, all companies are out to make a profit; to believe that they are around to "make the customer happy" are delusional and need to spend a bit more time understanding how world and local economies function.

Now, to clear the air - this game is phenomenal after spending the better part of my weekend playing it I believe this game should be GOTY. The graphics are great, are they on parr with The Witcher 2? No it isn't. But they are two different types of games, I believe our technology isn't there yet to make a game that looks like TW2 and has the scale of an Elder Scrolls game. Back on the topic of quality, I am not the only person in the world that feels this way. This game has received a lot of critical acclaim from the "professionals" and gamers in general appear to like it a lot.

 

So much this.

Yeah, some of the textures look bad and some of the objects are jaggy and some of the shadows look bad, but if you step back and look out over the terrain, it really does look nice. They also did a great job with the dynamic weather.

 

I completely disagree with the idea that single player games should look better than multiplayer games.

That makes 0 sense.

Games with large art and graphics budgets should look good. That's all. Rendering is done client side and doesn't rely on networking at all.

If you're talking about physics / immersion, you might be onto something if it needs to be in sync. I believe we're talking about still shots and textures.

As far as pride and craftsmanship go, they are making a game. If the game is good, then good. There isn't a game in existence that couldn't have more detail than it does. Take a holistic look at this. I feel like mighty internet forum judgement is coming down because someone on the internet found a texture in a game, improved it, and posted it on the internet. Yikes.

 

It's a modern game. You release it without major bugs to sell it on the sweet spot timing for maximum revenue, then iron out minor problems with patches and mods. This isn't like the early 90s when games with bugs stay buggy because you can't patch it or they're just too lazy to even make a patch for it. Why scream about this and make a loooong discussion as if it'll stay this way for the rest of it's lifetime?

 

Don't think OP was complaining about bugs, but just realized how appalling some of the low textures are.

 

Sorry. I have been an employee of a corporation my entire life and I know how business works because I started and own the corporation. Doing good enough means you make some money. Doing it right means you make more money. And yes, I am aware of what a budget is and that is the real key here. Did you spend enough to make the thing people want? You want to make money you dont sell people what you want to sell you sell them what they want to buy. As to your last I do vote with my wallet and it has a long memory. This is how subpar products brought GM to bankruptcy. People like me voting with their wallets.

@Getawayfrommelucas Yeah, again, I know how business works and again your view is what killed the American car manufacturers. The minute you start thinking good enough is the way to go and you no longer need to put in the effort that is the moment when your business start sliding into the toilet. There is always somebody hungrier coming along no matter how big you are. I don't have a clue? Seriously? You actually have no idea what I'm talking about do you? lol

Last word is yours gents.

 

Oblivion vs Skyrim

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bzIa05qAxPg?version=3&amp;hl=nb_NO"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bzIa05qAxPg?version=3&amp;hl=nb_NO" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='640' height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>



vs








vs








vs








vs








vs



Source plus more photos: Skyrim Vs Oblivion: Game Engine Comparison (Feature) - NowGamer

 

Skyrim blows Witcher 2 and Oblivion away period. The graphics, gameplay, open world, etc

I am just blown away by the detail in the game. Corporate arguements aside this game is amazing

 

If you own the corporation then you are not beholden to any shareholders aside from yourself and you would not have to answer to anyone if you miss a deadline or go over budget. Public companies and private companies financed by capital firms and other investors do not have that luxury. They ultimately have to answer for any failure to maximize the benefits to the investor. There's a lot of things you can do when you're in business for yourself that you can't do when you're working with someone else's money. I would think that someone that's worked for a corporation his "entire life" would get that.

 

My opinion doesn't change the fact this is how business works around the world. Your naive view that there is someone "Hungrier" is why we have more art majors than science majors in college. We have more Chiefs and not enough Indians and guess what? That has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. It doesn't matter what my opinion is or what your opinion is - it doesn't matter. What does matter is that corporations have a way of doing business and that is how the world works. All due respect; accept it or not, I really don't care but stop spouting your hard "facts" on Bioware when you haven't linked a single article supporting your argument because right now everything you say can be taken with a grain of salt and if I did misunderstand anything you wrote it wasn't because of my knowledge (or lack of) it was because you didn't articulate your point well enough. So please, enlighten me

 

Obviously appallingly terrible.

 

I am not going to say much to further discourage people, but if I should point out 1 thing that needs major redesign, it is the trees. Look at the video. They look 100x better in Oblivion. Lush and full. In skyrim the branches look flat. Like something cut out from a cardboard and glued on

 

Well, from the perspective of someone that hasnt owned any sort of powerful computer or notebook until now, I think Skyrim looks fantastic. Even if the graphics arent the greatest thing in the world, they arent nearly bad enough to distract from how awesome the game itself is. Plenty good enough to get lost in the environment and atmosphere.

That said, I also dont think WOW!!!! going from my bro's xbox version to my notebook (and im running it maxed), so i hope mods make it even prettier in the future.

Edit: Wow, the Oblivion vs Skyrim screenshots almost look the same... Why are these games being compared graphically again?

 

I'm fine with the way the game looks. Is it the best looking game ever? No. Will that dampen my experience playing this game? Absolutely not.

If the developers make a tree, and I see that it definitely looks like a tree. They have succeeded. If I can't see the difference between a Nord and a Red Sand even if the game tests me on that, there's clearly a problem with the design. If I care anything about the graphics, it's how it distinguishes every object, person, and effect. It wouldn't hurt to make it look good, but my standards aren't really up there.

 

I think the tendency among the vocal about graphics not being good enough simply aren't being realistic.

Find me the game of similar scope that beats this. If it doesn't exist, then this is *best-in-class* graphics. What more could you ask for? What about other games which don't match this? Are they so appalling as to be worthless?

It's sort of like, "why bother seeing this movie, its special effects aren't as good as the best special effects I've EVER SEEN, so it's trash." There's so much more to a movie (and a video game) than whether or not every graphical aspect vastly surpasses the best you have ever experienced prior.