Textures in Skyrim are fail to accomodate consoles

TheOneKnownAsMe said:
Oh look, more people mindlessly fixating on minor details that in no way impact gameplay.
Click to expand...

Totally agree here. Instead of paying for a sequel that has a new story line, better leveling system, people would just rather pay for the same game with a totally graphical overhaul.

See BF3.
 
Skyrim in 2011 looks like EQ2 in 2004. Only difference is that in 2004 most machines couldn't render the gfx while today you can play it on a $300 grocery store PC. Every time I walk by the big displays at the store and see that barely any of them sold I giggle to myself about the suckers who paid $60 for this junk.
 
Katalysis said:
Speaking of texture fail, I have been running into these two problems:

1. Certain models will not load their textures consistently. Namely, female draugr and some of the thieve's guild inhabitants in the cistern.

2. In Riften, I can see through the floors and walls in some of the shops.

Sound familiar to anyone?
Click to expand...

A rare issue iwth alt tabbing or background notifications, with the floors and walls. Alt-Tab out and back in and your issues will be resolved.
 
Thuleman said:
Skyrim in 2011 looks like EQ2 in 2004. Only difference is that in 2004 most machines couldn't render the gfx while today you can play it on a $300 grocery store PC. Every time I walk by the big displays at the store and see that barely any of them sold I giggle to myself about the suckers who paid $60 for this junk.
Click to expand...

I think when a game moves 3.5 million units in two days, joke's on you since they all laugh at you?
 
Or, almost 300,000 concurrent players... on PC alone. It's fine though, some people find complaining as a hobby, rather than enjoying life.
 
I think it is more people come to expect graphics to progress after years of development, sure gameplay is important but when you can immerse yourself ina more realistic world to soe degree, it just makes the gameplay that much better..

otherwise if gfx didnt matter you would still be playing doom and zelda.... so clearly graphics to matter to some degree, or most people wouldnt have the video cards they have as well.
 
With the size of the game, it is possible that any increases in graphics would directly reduce their possible playerbase, would it not?
 
Thuleman said:
Just because McDonalds sells a billion burgers a day doesn't mean their product is any good.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't the absolute best quality food in the world, why would it sell so well? This is why the inventor of the McRib is the new Iron Chef.
 
Even with the high resolution texture packs, environmental mods, and lighting tweaks, Skyrim will still suffer from limited geometric detail. It's still going to feel like a maxxed out, somewhat clunky GameBryo engine a year from now. When I really think about it, the graphical transition from a 2011 modded install of Morrowind to Oblivion to FO3 to Skyrim...isn't so big. There just isn't a huge difference considering the time scale.

and that's fine. That's what we were all expecting... It's also the reason I expect still to prefer Morrowind (which doesn't sit at the top of my RPG list, but is a fine game).

But, because I believe I'll give Skyrim its best chance when modded, and because I'll likely upgrade to a 28nm GPU, I'll wait to play the game.

So far the "How to Steal in Skyrim" video has me chuckling the most...heh...awesome :)
 
Thuleman said:
Just because McDonalds sells a billion burgers a day doesn't mean their product is any good.
Click to expand...

McDonalds is universal. Everyone enjoys or has to eat. Not everyone plays video games.

It is like trying to compare the best High School football team in the country to the worst NFL team. The worst NFL team would still run over the best High School team. In the NFL's case it is the Colts.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
If it wasn't the absolute best quality food in the world, why would it sell so well? This is why the inventor of the McRib is the new Iron Chef.
Click to expand...

McDonalds sells so well because it almost negates inflation. When I can make a double cheeseburger at home with 30 minutes of my time spent and probably 5 dollars spent. A pound of ground beef is like 4.00 and buns are about 1.25, then I have to buy ketchup/cheese etc. it adds up to 10 dollars.

People who generally go to McDonalds every day are poor and thus have no time working between jobs to cook.

Most of those people usually have children as well.
 
Draax said:
Sometimes you just need to enjoy a game for what it is.

If you are always complaining about PC releases being "consolized" perhaps it is time to take up a new hobby ... as this isn't changing anytime soon.
Click to expand...

no kidding.

Skyrim, so far, is a masterpiece. I haven't enjoyed a game this much in a long time.
 
Domingo said:
Threads like this are worthy of a "Scumbag Steve" meme.

Claims to be a PC gamer.
Does nothing but complain about every PC game.
Click to expand...

To be a PC gamer means that you hold the qualities and potential of PC gaming above the debased realtiy of consoles.

If there are no PC games that meet that standard, why should we not be vocal in demanding games that can actually take advantage of the strengths of the PC (powerful hardware, powerful interface, powerful connectivity)?
 
roaf85 said:
Totally agree here. Instead of paying for a sequel that has a new story line, better leveling system, people would just rather pay for the same game with a totally graphical overhaul.
Click to expand...

How about we get all of that AND the graphical overhaul.
 
I thought PC Gamer meant you played games on a PC, clearly you have proven me wrong.

No, what you're talking about are Hardware Enthusiasts who also happen to be PC Gamers. The result are people like this.
 
roaf85 said:
McDonalds is universal. Everyone enjoys or has to eat. Not everyone plays video games.
Click to expand...
Skyrim is universal among video game platforms. Universal really doesn't have anything to do with it. Skyrim was hyped up by the marketing machine and people bought into that before actually checking the game out themselves or waiting for a trusted source to provide a decent review of it.

simonizor said:
OP (and many others) fails to understand the complexity of the engine used in this game.
Click to expand...
What that this have to do with anything? A game with a multi-million dollar production expense, released in 2011, shouldn't need to rely on modders to achieve contemporary gfx appearance.

In Minecraft I can settle for low rez blocky gfx because it's part of the appeal and fits the theme. In Skyrim not so much, especially considering the hype and the alternatives to spend money on.

Why is it so hard for folks to just admit that the game is OK but the gfx are not.
 
Look, when it comes to Skyrim, if you're the kind of guy who jams his face straight into the nearest wall and proceeds to count the number of pixels present in the moss, the game will dissapoint.

But look at the world the way it was meant to be viewed, and you'll find that the game is actually rather stunning. Towering mountains, sweeping plains, vast evergreen forests, frozen desert tundras all dot the landscape of skyrim. And when viewed the way the developer intended, it fails to dissapoint.
 
TheOneKnownAsMe said:
But look at the world the way it was meant to be viewed, and you'll find that the game is actually rather stunning. Towering mountains, sweeping plains, vast evergreen forests, frozen desert tundras all dot the landscape of skyrim. And when viewed the way the developer intended, it fails to dissapoint.
Click to expand...

Until you get close to the towering mountains and find they are really small hills, and the inspiring rock faces are really just giant flat blocks, and the snow texture is just the same giant flat block colored white.
 
Forceman said:
Until you get close to the towering mountains and find they are really small hills, and the inspiring rock faces are really just giant flat blocks, and the snow texture is just the same giant flat block colored white.
Click to expand...

Lol yea this game has a way of looking epic from a distance, then tiny when you get there :(
 
TheOneKnownAsMe said:
I thought PC Gamer meant you played games on a PC, clearly you have proven me wrong.

No, what you're talking about are Hardware Enthusiasts who also happen to be PC Gamers. The result are people like this.
Click to expand...

Well you pretty have to be a hardware enthusiast to want to continue playing games on the PC these days given the ported crap that the developers and publishers push our way and all the titles we don't get and the DRM and all the other ways we get the shaft.
 
Why could they not develop the game with high res textures and then compress the hell out of them for the console versions?

Instead, we just get the crappy low-res console versions on PCs which average 1-2GB for 1200MHz GDDR5 texture memory these days, compared to the Xbox 360's 512MB of 700Mhz GDDR3 shared memory.
 
TheOneKnownAsMe said:
Look, when it comes to Skyrim, if you're the kind of guy who jams his face straight into the nearest wall and proceeds to count the number of pixels present in the moss, the game will dissapoint.
Click to expand...

Just like games from 20 years ago?
wing-commander-5.jpg


If an object is only meant to be looked at from afar, you should never be able to reach it to see it from up close, especially in anything with first person view. That's why so many console games are 3rd person with a camera always locked a couple of feet behind the character's head and therefore always a couple of feet away from any object being scrutinized.
 
Last edited:
Spare-Flair said:
Why could they not develop the game with high res textures and then compress the hell out of them for the console versions?

Instead, we just get the crappy low-res console versions on PCs which average 1-2GB for 1200MHz GDDR5 texture memory these days, compared to the Xbox 360's 512MB of 700Mhz GDDR3 shared memory.
Click to expand...

If you honestly think the average PC has 1-2gb dedicated GDDR5 Vram, you should really get a reality check.
 
Show me a game released in the past five years and I will show you an ugly texture. That includes Rage, BF3, Crysis, and everything in between. If you play hunt the ugly texture, you will always find something.

Me, I was too impressed by the foliage, lighting, and other special effects in Crysis to do more than notice the ugly rocks.
 
KazeoHin said:
If you honestly think the average PC has 1-2gb dedicated GDDR5 Vram, you should really get a reality check.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about enthusiasts or regular PC gamers. Anyone who isn't really a dedicated PC gamer will probably buy it on console anyway. It was on decline for awhile but I knew many console gamers who switched back and upgraded to a decent gaming PC when Starcraft 2 came out.

The point is that it would be easier to just start with large textures (your texture artists will probably thank you that they are working on things that look real instead of trying to optimize blurry blobs into more blurriness with crappy lightmaps and crappy bump mapping) and then making lower resolution, compressed versions for downscaling to PCs with less VRAM or consoles.
 
Forceman said:
Is that Wing Commander?
Click to expand...

Wing Commander 1, to be exact. Looks like level 1-4, dart vs. Drathi. Classic. I still hear those pew-pews 20 years later and want to yaw up just looking at that pic.

I honestly thought we'd be farther ahead than we are now back than in rendering power, media etc.
 
Spare-Flair said:
I'm talking about enthusiasts or regular PC gamers. Anyone who isn't really a dedicated PC gamer will probably buy it on console anyway. It was on decline for awhile but I knew many console gamers who switched back and upgraded to a decent gaming PC when Starcraft 2 came out.

The point is that it would be easier to just start with large textures (your texture artists will probably thank you that they are working on things that look real instead of trying to optimize blurry blobs into more blurriness with crappy lightmaps and crappy bump mapping) and then making lower resolution, compressed versions for downscaling to PCs with less VRAM or consoles.
Click to expand...

I hope I can find the PDF on the gamer demographic, but essentially: PC gamers (not enthusiasts, just anyone who has ever played a Game on PC) take up about 5-10% of the videogame market. That means if you have a 200 man team working on three platforms(two consoles plus PC), thirty of them may be coders who specialize in environment optimization, logically and financially only three guys will be working on optimizing for the PC. Any more, and the team is statistically loosing money. Those are the numbers, and they hurt.
 
Thuleman said:
Skyrim is universal among video game platforms. Universal really doesn't have anything to do with it. Skyrim was hyped up by the marketing machine and people bought into that before actually checking the game out themselves or waiting for a trusted source to provide a decent review of it.
Click to expand...

You are completely missing the point, but whatever. It is apples and oranges to compare fast food to video games.

Skyrim isn't universal because many gamers wouldn't touch Skyrim simply because of the genre. Certain people like racing games etc. Genres appeal to different people who play video games.

Not to mention there are thousands of video gamers out there who strictly just own a Nintendo Wii. They can't even play Skyrim.

Skyrim is a great game in my opinion. I only played it for a few hours but the few I did I found them superior to Fallout NV.

In a holiday season like this one where AC: Revelations and COD MW3 score between 8-9 review scores Skyrim is probably the best bang for your buck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top