I am being objective. You're not, as you're the one who created this topic stating how bad Skyrim looked to -you-
Red Dead is a pretty game, there's no denying that. But it's very easy to make an exceptionally pretty game when the landscape is practically the same across 80% of the game. Some desert with splotches of grass, a few cacti and some birds overhead. RDR is gorgeous, but I still think the artistic direction in Skyrim makes it a more beautiful game. 'Course, we're just talking about definitions of words here, and how we as individuals define beauty, so we'll never agree on this one.
You didn′t understand this post at all. That′s why, again, you are the one not being objective, don′t take it the wrong way.
We are not talking about art direction here, we are talking about technical stuff. In this context beautiful game is referencing to the render and other effects. Not the art, not the story etc..
just a few examples about why red dead redemption is objectively better (again, I am not talking about art, as the post title, I am talking about a the rendering and stuff like that)
Here is a list of technical stuff that red dead has and skyrim doesn′t:
- normal maps for muscles simulation
- camera dust, rain effects
-wet maps when character goes into water ( I′ve never seen that in any other game)
-volumetric lights
-sparkling stars
-etc..
All I am saying is that it is too bad that skyrim having such a great environment,modeling and yes, art direction, has such a mediocre rendering.
Maybe not a unreal engine, but at least a better one that this one.