It tend to backfire in threads like this that is chuck-full of idiotic conspiracy theories...


So they did not include DX11 features to target a boarder audience... :banghead:
Brilliant, is there anything else that haven't been complained about how the true and honest fanbase is being stripped because Bethesda is an evil money-grubbing company who hates their fans?

No, Beth doesn't hate their fans but they do love money more so much that they said the PC players will get their own UI among other things. Yeah right. They got our money alright.

Did you even read the original post of this thread or just increasing your post count?

I'm currently playing Two Worlds II with the Addon and a mod that is currently at its first release,
first I played it because I wanted to wait for Bethesda's patch for Skyrim because it was and still is really unfinished (for some more, for some less).

Just right now I get the feeling that Skyrim with its stunning far distance rendering does look at some points better then TW2,
but when I look at the features that both game have till now... then I would say that Skyrim looks very poor at some points against TW2.

Both games are made for console's and PC's, so the game has to scale down when it doesn't get the right hardware it wants to run fluently,
for console's this meens in most games a loss in quality.
PC's insteed can be tuned and upgraded to get the most from a game at least most

I don't want to talk to much right now because It's really late here, so here comes my last sentence.

Skyrim could be much more then it is right now, sadly it has become a game that can't reach (for now) a quality like Two Worlds II,
I still hope that fans; modder's and maybe the dev's can make this game good enough to run at the same level like Two Worlds II.

I agree with all of those except number 7. Keep multiplayer out of Elder Scrolls, it doesn't belong.

Since when did I say I wanted The Elder Scrolls to be a f*cking MMO? Some people seem to not understand the difference between traditional multiplayer RPGs and MMORPGs...


Edit: For the people saying they had to "design" for Consoles...take a good, long hard look at BF3. DICE developed two versions of Battlefield 3 - one for the PC, and one for the consoles. And both are nearly identical, yet BF3 on PC has DirectX 11 support and has larger playercounts on their servers. Did designing for the PC and "porting" to the consoles hurt their sales? Not in the slightest. Same goes for MW3...although their server matchmaking svcks.

It also didn't hurt that they were able to patch the PC version faster than the console versions.

There are a lot of complaints that go over the top. I for one am glad I bought the game ( In the end that's what matters ). As this is a Forum it is a place for people to talk about the game. I cant see anyone being to hysterical in this thread. In fact I am finding this thread quirte constructive. Never played a multi player game. Since there seems to be a number of companion quests in this game. I could see how having a real partner could add to the game.

PS. I wish I new how to attach a clever picture. Click Here. ( close your eyes and just imagine a funny one liner attached to an in game action shot. )

That is simply a thought out of conjecture and nowhere has it actually happened like that, ever. I can actually provide evidence to the opposite effect to this kind of thinking. Firstly, console players "choose" their platform, and that's fine. I love consoles myself for certain genres of games and play my 360 quite often. When it comes to open world and deep RPGs, they should be developed for PC first, that's my opinion.

Historically, console games have always outsold PC counterpart games going back to the early 1980s when PC game started taking hold, yet development of PC oriented games that are cross platform worked and all sold well. To the point of evidence and the opposite effect:

Example #1 - Dragon Age: Origins was developed specifically for PC, then ported over to console (it was actually never going to come to console until EA bought out Bioware). Yes, there were "some" complaints form console gamers that the PC version worked better and wasn't made to work well on their platform, but they were very few. Consider that DA:O sold well about 3.5m on consoles, smoking PC sales and most console players loved it. AFAIK, the PC version sold around 1m

Example #2 - The Battlefield series has always been PC first, then ported, but smokes on consoles for sales. Look at Battlefield 3, a PC first developed game, it has sold close to 6m on consoles (excluding this weeks numbers) and is pushing 1m on PC.

Now the opposite effect:

EA/Bioware went after the console market on the thinking Dragon Age needed to change its style of gameplay and take away RPG elements to make Dragon Age 2 more action/adventure than anything what was in Origins, as to attract the console crowd. The result was that initial sales were great because of pre-orders based on the greatness of Origins, then the sales plummeted. It sold around 1.6m total across all platforms and sold 330K on PC. It is barely over 800K in sales just on the 360, where Origins sold well over 2m on that platform. Bioware even admitted that the sales were not what they thought and experienced heavy backlash like they never have with DA2. They stated they will revamp the series to reflect more player agency and storytelling than action and cinematics. Most console gamers didn't like the game and made many comments in the Bioware forums, something that was unexpected.

Skyrim in its first week already pushed 600K just on the PC for sales, so giving that platform the ability to do things that the hardware can provide isn't asking too much, especially considering that at $60 a hit, they already made over $32m on the game just on PC. I like the game a lot, I like the story so far and I like the system. All I want is an updated hi-res pack for better textures and make the UI more lore oriented, no black and white bland interface. Give the UI and menus nice old style graphics like Morrowind and Oblivion had, that isn't asking much.

To the OP, I give a resounding "NO" to multiplayer.

Also, try looking at Batman: Arkham Asylum/Arkham City for an example of smart game design and programming that translates well to both PC and consoles - it has physics (just look at the Bat's cape!), and the PC version has support for various physics functions running off of PhysX although I do NOT encourage making such features PhysX-exclusive, as that shuts out the ATI users...very much a douchewaffle move. I prefer to encourage the use of Havok's physics suites for game engines, as it's functional across multiple platforms and is not locked to a given manufacturer.

Honestly, the technology has reached a point where there just isn't any excuse to leave out certain technological features like cloth physics simulation - consoles DO support such features. Even more irksome is the fact that Skyrim ships with a 2GB memory limit, which is extremely shortsighted!

Bethesda outdid themselves with Skyrim's environments. I'm not going to nitpick over picayune details such as no cloth simulation and hairstyles.

The UI could be better. It makes unconventional use of the mouse, which leads to some clunky handling, and some too-easy-to-make clicking mistakes. It goes for flash and fun, filling the screen with overblown images and fonts, where a more economical classicism would tell us more in less time with greater convenience.

The reason I'm grumpy about the lack of cloth simulation is that when I'm playing in third person on my character, who has just recently become a Nightingale - complete with mysteriously batman-like garb, complete with cape - the cape just looks like it's been pinned to the [censored], and doesn't flow like a real piece of cloth. It's really annoying - you see, the cloth simulation is the sort of thing you use to give "life" to the overall big picture...the small details, no matter how minute, always makes a world feel more lively...

Swinging signs during a blizzard, cape and cloth being moved about by whatever is impacting them (movement, battle, wind/environment, etc), and so on...the absence of such things is inexcusable for what was touted as a "next-generation" Elder Scrolls title.

To the OP,

It seems like the majority of your feedback is based around the game engine. As has been higlighted elsewhere in this thread it is because Skyrim was designed for the consoles. Console hardware like the Xbox was designed for the most part in 2004, nearly 8 years ago now. The game is designed to work on a console with 512 mb of Video Card Ram. It's designed to work on a Tri-Core PowerPC processor.

(This is why my Nvidia 8800 GTX with 768 MB Ram can run the game in High Quality at 30-40 fps).

Sure the folks could easily design a game that worked on PC's only and had clothing simulation, weather effect more objects, have spells affect the enviroment. (IE, why can't I light a wall torch with a fire spell or why doen't clothing move in the weather). All the cool things we would want in the game are essentially scripts and those scripts take memory and processing cycles.

Frankly the consoles can't cut it. The choice was made that money is more important the depth of the game world. So the next time your game seems watered down, thank the console community. The developers are going to do what the publishers tell them to do so don't fault the developers. The developers are just going to try and make the best with what they've got.

I don't fault them for the DX9 standard. It's still a valid choice.

What I don't approve of, is the lack of cloth simulation. OK? You do realize that there are actually very few clothes in the game that would have required such simulation, right? Dresses that belonged to the court wizards and mages, as well as fine clothing, etc...among other things. It wouldn't have made a significant impact on the game's ability to function on a console.

In addition, if you develop for the PC, I am of the mind that you can easily scale down the parameters of draw distance, memory, etc so that it would run on consoles. It's not really so hard that you end up having to give PC players a stupid 2GB memory limit when over half the market has more than 4 GB of memory in their machines.

The general feeling I get with the PC version is that Bethesda just wanted to rake in some extra cash with an easy port. They only thing they seem to care about is making sure people can't pirate it.

remember the days when multiplayer was just a little feature so you could have some fun with your friends while talking about the awesome stuff that happens in single-player instead of digital crack that every addict wants shoved into every possible corner of the industry?

all i want... ALL I WANT, is a few game franchises that focus the full power of their time and money on making a strong single player. why, internet, must you troll all over my dreams? why can you never be happy with the 4,756,438,572,948,762 games that have multiplayer? why cant i have ONE triple-A series where i dont ever have to worry about children screaming, people pestering me to play deathmatch, or extreme meta-gaming? ONE series where the developers dont have to divide their resources and rebalance a whole game just to make it multiplayer.

one. thats all i want. you have THOUSANDS. i want one. bioware has already trolled me with mass effect 3, dragon age is sure to follow... your insatiable greed will be the death of me :sadvaultboy: .

OP, your only real argument is the UI; its so painfully obvious that it was made for consoles, with its complete lack of dragndrop, unrefined scrolling, and few shortcuts. everything else is, im sorry to say... stupid. insubstantial dribble that id rather the devs not waste their time on. sure it would be nice, but there are far, far, FAR more important things to work on before we even consider something so trivial as dynamic tree animation.

Again,

You acknowledge the truth but yet seem to disregard it. First of all, a very small percentage of the market has 4 GB of memory. In Fact the Xbox has sold about 57 million units. Which means the Xbox is the larget platform market. Which means they're developing a game for their 512 mb of ram.

Also, it is far more expensive and takes much longer to develop a high end game and scale it down, than to aim low and try to squeeze the most you can out of it. The thing's you want, you cannot have because the game is designed for consoles. This was not the developers choice, trust me they milked the Xbox and the game engine for everything it's got. They did a good job.

Also, adding cloth simulation would have been a HUGE hit to console performance. I know it's important to you, that's okay, but just realize it would never happen for a game of this size on a piece of hardware 8 years old.

Oblivion's signs swayed when a storm broke out, and I believe the engine would be incapable of running a multiplayer session, too many things going on at once. Now if it was not open world, say a multiplayer battle of some sort, would be very do-able. But think about it, one person is in Riften, moving around things and affecting the NPCs and quests there, while another guy is in Morthal doing the same. This would be like running 2 Skyrims at the same time! MMO's and other multiplayer games can handle it, but they do not have half the feature skyrim has, noteably moving or picking items around. The UI was designed for consoles from what I see, but cloth physics should be in.

I'm not wanting multiplayer in the BS form we have come to know it as. I want to go back to the olden days of multiplayer RPGs.

On top of that, do you have any idea just how fun and wonderful it would be for modders to create clothes that actually have cloth simulation? This is the real reason why I've been asking for cloth simulation - so we can MAKE them look and behave realistically. I don't want skele-bound clothes, they've been around since Morrowind, and I want a change in flavor (technologically-speaking).

Nearly all of the tech I've seen so far in Skyrim has an ancestry in either Morrowind or Oblivion, and doesn't truly bring anything new to the table for modders. Hence my gripes at a lack of Havok-supported physics.

And Garthilk, I know what you're saying. I just think we need to pressure Bethseda to stop making their PC versions essentially ports of the console version of the game. I'm quite tired of that. I'd rather they develop for the console, figure out what parts could stand to be COMPLETELY upgraded for the PC (aka, havok physics, like I've been talking so much about), and then release it.

It's been a widely accepted fact that the PC platform is technologically superior to the console platform, and has repeatedly been stated and affirmed with the passing of each console generation. The PC is actually what gives a game long life, especially the Elder Scrolls series. If gamesas developed exclusively for the console and never released the Elder Scrolls games for the PC, it would have become a one-trick pony about as bad as Final Fantasy in a matter of a few console generations. Just look at Square Enix and the current value of the Final Fantasy brand...

Most of the production costs for each platform would be shared. Money constraints could be an excuse for a new title with no history to judge the expected PC sales by. This title was always going to be a big PC sellers ( approx 300,000 so far, with a total of 7,000,000 across all platforms). So that's 300,000 users who deserve to get the most out of their game. So the comment about money while correct from the publishers point of view it is not a valid one to me. Bethesda make 110 million profit from this game or do they invest some extra time in the PC version and only make 105 Million dollars Profit from this game. While game production costs have increased with more and more big budget titles coming out, do not believe the proper gander generated about how much game cost to make. I make a cake it costs me 10 dollars to make but an affiliate company of mine charges me a million to ice it. So I pay my own company a million, I then justify selling the cake for 2 Million and justifying it by telling you my production costs are so high and some many of my cakes fail to sell. As the six Pistols put it the only money that really counts is the money that comes to us.

I agree with most of what you are saying but, someone in spare time, created a couple binaries that allow you to launch the game, mitigating the 2GB limit (EXE name: skyrim4gb.exe). I would like to personally thank this person for making my game more enjoyable!

I have not actually checked to see if this works but I do see evidence that it does. I have an i7-960@3.8 Ghz with an GTX 260 SC on a 30inch screen 2560x1600 and was not able to load the game on ultra settings (splash screen loaded fine). After downloading the binaries to allow the game to use over 2GB of ram I am able to run the game on all ultra settings with AF 16x and AA off and the game never drops below 30 FPS.

It should also be noted that without these unofficial binaries my game would slow to 1 to 3 FPS after exiting one world space to another. The most notable was the trader in Riverwood as it happened every single time. EDIT: my game never crashed once when experiencing this behavior, however, I could not do anything. Sometimes pressing ESC to pause for a second resolved the issue but not normally.

Another thing, without the unofficial game launcher my game crashed to desktop with no error about 2 to 3 times daily. I've been using the skyrim4gb.exe for about 20 game hours now and have yet to experience a crash or even a slow down.

EDIT: I would still like to see physics be processed on the video card if the card supports it. If they wrote this code it should be reusable in other games as well including future releases of FO and ES.

One more EDIT: 12GB of RAM

The very fact that Bethseda did not create binaries for higher memory limits, is telling: it simply indicates that the work for the PC platform came as an afterthought - who knows how long it will take for them to release the Creation Kit?

Honestly, the game industry as a whole has become very complacent towards the PC platofrm, thanks to the overwhelming dominance of the consoles. This trend is slowing down, thankfully, in the wake of more PC-centric releases.

I've seen it on many boards over the years (lately on Elemental/Fallen Enchantres). See, most players are just having fun with Skyrim. If MP came out for it, they could care less one way or the other, and, in fact, would be happy that other Skyrim players are happy.

But, then there are these basemant dwellers. They only play solo, and for some, it is quite litteraly their world. They are terrified that if multiplayer was implemented, it might, in some magical way, deprive them of a pixel of their solo game. So they attack those who dare mention it. It's just plain selfish and rude, the old "dog in the manger" story, when it comes down to it. It won't affect them in any way, but they don't care, they got'a make sure your attacked if you dare to mention MP. You'll notice people who socilize and want MP in games, never ever complain that single player enchancements might upset them and the way they enjoy playing.

I and my roommate both have this game. We share the extra room as our computer room. We are 2 feet from each other; playing Skrim; constantly pointing, commenting, showing each other equipment and trying to interact. And we often joke more and more how we wish we could just play coop, and how fun it would be. A couple times we purposely travel to the same city at the same time.

The key element of the Elder Scrolls is that the world evolves along with your character, and your choices have an impact on that evolution. Now that even Mass Effect has been sacrificed on the altar of multiplayer, I am glad there is still one game that caters to the single player. Call me selfish, but I feel entitled to my own sandbox without random people, or even people I know, running through and knocking over my sandcastle. I love multiplayer games, but I don't want all of my games multiplayer. The design considerations for the two styles are so different that the single player experience would be ruined even if you never invited another person to your world. I don't want single player WoW, I want Elder Scrolls.

Edit: providing an example for some other posters. In ES, your character accumulates hundreds of quest variables that determine where NPCs move to, what cities belong to which faction, which factions like or hate you, which NPCs are dead permanently There is no status quo. Multiplayer games have to offer some sort of status quo. The phasing in WoW is a very pale immitation of what ES does constantly. You have to maintain a common base so that different players can share the experience. Unless all your decisions are collaborative, i.e. you both join the thieve's guild and do all you quests together, the fact that one player has killed the guild master and the other still gets quests from him indicate that they are not, in fact, in the same world or in some world where their choices don't have a real impact, since everything is reset anyway. It's a different kind of writing and story design by its nature. Mass Effect is going to have a co-op combat mode. Do you think Skyrim combat is designed for balanced PvP? Thank the gods it's not.

That's fine. Just try not to focus on the multiplayer subject matter in this thread. I'd like it if we could at least pressure Bethseda on a technological perspective to bring their games up to par.

I only ever remember them saying the the PC UI would be tweaked a little bit or something along those lines. Though I won't discount the possibility they said a new UI, but I just remember hearing them say tweaked. (or maybe it was "modified")