The "Graphics Difference" : V - Skyrim

» Wed May 09, 2012 1:59 pm

Look, we all pretty much knew that the modding community was going to have to make the Hi-res texture version for the game. Simply settings aren't going to change the fact that the texture file sizes are very tiny. Trust me, after the modders get a hold of the texture files... you will see a vastly different game graphic-wise.

true but the question is how many users will have the PC capable of running with massive graphic improvement?Right now I barely see a difference in ultra and low and the specs go high from low to ultra(except for the graphic geeks who apparently see a big issue)

» Wed May 09, 2012 5:28 pm

Now, without resorting to juvenile platform fanboyism, such as "They svck", etc*, which of these shots would people say is most comparable to the Xbox 360 version?

*I'm not saying anyone in the thread so far would act like that, but you just know that someone will turn up and start waving the old epeen

I have nothing but respect for anyone providing a genuine answer.

» Wed May 09, 2012 1:57 pm

o.O people pay thousands of dollars for that?i barely notice a difference. sigh, love those graphic critics...

Who pays over 1 thousand dollars on a PC? A highish-mid range gaming PC costs at most $600. A high end gaming PC might cost up to $1500. Although, even a mid range gaming PC could max Skyrim on Ultra, so there is no need for a high end gaming PC for this game. This ain't BF3, where in you need 2 580's to max the game at 1080p.

» Wed May 09, 2012 4:45 pm

Really there isnt THAT difference, top is not melting face but its quite better than low, but the diference doesn t stop on screenshots of background.
There s a lot of other diference all troughout and the experience is quite better on high.
Anyway there no despair for the Xbox, Bethesda did a really fgood jod is you get an all around pictures for the Xbox.

OTOH though, Skyrim high setting are at middle range PC capabilities, while they are at full Xbox capability if we are to believe beth.

» Wed May 09, 2012 2:31 pm

Now, without resorting to juvenile platform fanboyism, such as "They svck", etc*, which of these shots would people say is most comparable to the Xbox 360 version?

*I'm not saying anyone in the thread so far would act like that, but you just know that someone will turn up and start waving the old epeen

I have nothing but respect for anyone providing a genuine answer.

Well Todd says the consoles run on the lowest possible settings. And seeing these screenshots that seems accurate.

» Wed May 09, 2012 2:23 pm

PC graphic fanatics are like hi-fi fans
I wouldn't want to be one but I'm glad they're out there fighting for the things I barely notice

» Wed May 09, 2012 10:02 am

PC graphic fanatics are like hi-fi fans
I wouldn't want to be one but I'm glad they're out there fighting for the things I barely notice

Whats the load times on the 360? just wondering

» Wed May 09, 2012 8:53 am

No really, that screenshot might not do it justice, but the draw distance obviously much better. And the shadows.

Yea, I see that....

I guess I just don't have the mindset of a PC gamer.....where shadows and the texture of moss on trees really make that much of a difference. *shrugs*

To each their own though. =)

» Wed May 09, 2012 10:06 am

Whats the load times on the 360? just wondering

Wouldn't know, whats a 360?

» Wed May 09, 2012 9:19 pm

oh well,I'l enjoy tomorrow my ''crappy'' xbox 360 ver without worrying about PC issues concerning games or how clunky is keyboard +mouse(according to some people)

» Wed May 09, 2012 8:04 pm

The major difference is in the shadows. But you can also definitely notice the texture difference.

» Wed May 09, 2012 10:21 am

Who pays over 1 thousand dollars on a PC? A highish-mid range gaming PC costs at most $600. A high end gaming PC might cost up to $1000. Although, even a mid range gaming PC could max Skyrim on Ultra, so there is no need for a high end gaming PC for this game. This ain't BF3, where in you need 2 580's to max the game at 1080p.

I spent $4600 including a backup power supply (no monitor) about 14 months ago. At the time it was the best possible for every component.

» Wed May 09, 2012 6:58 pm

The major difference is in the shadows. But you can also definitely notice the texture difference.

Yes those are the major differences..

However its more about the PC performance to me 1-2 second load times, frame per second, etc

» Wed May 09, 2012 3:28 pm

As predicted, there's close to no graphical difference in the PC version on any setting. I had to look quite hard to see it at all. http://kotaku.com/5858451/see-the-differences-between-skyrims-four-pc-graphics-settings/gallery/2 that has similar recommended specs to http://elmundotech.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/battlefield-3-mp-maps-_vista_caspian-border-large.jpg and http://www.abload.de/img/13nco5.jpg (Pic made by a modder).

Ohwell, it was predictable and came true. Still, Bethesda, please switch to an engine made by someone else. I know you can just call up John Carmack anytime you want now, but to be a little frank but truthful, that doesn't mean you've got the same skills as he and id do.

If you can't see the difference you need your eyes checked lol. low maybe medium is the xbox 360/PS3 quality & the PC is miles ahead in fine detail & shadow effects. Ultra blows it away.

» Wed May 09, 2012 1:38 pm

There is definitely a difference. However the difference between low and ultra isn't as substantial as expected.

» Wed May 09, 2012 2:54 pm

I spent $4600 including a backup power supply (no monitor) about 14 months ago. At the time it was the best possible for every component.

Ah you see that's the Ultra high end gaming PC range. You see I didn't think to include that range of PC, since only idiots with too much disposable income would buy a PC that expensive. High end is good enough to run BF3 on Ultra. What more do you need at this point, with no new consoles coming in the near future (excluding WiiU)? Not many devs are pushing graphics much past what consoles can render.

» Thu May 10, 2012 12:21 am

This is like a 14 year old troll posting who needs some glasses very badly. He is just being a pain for some attention bc his mom must be ignoring him. You're just ignorant if you can't see the difference & you don't want to see it. The roof on the back right, shadows, terrain detail & the supports for the bridge are DAY & Night form low or medium to ultra.

» Thu May 10, 2012 12:34 am

The differences are pretty huge, I don't know how people can say they bearly see them. I can't wait for modders to release even better texture mods that make these look like crap.

» Wed May 09, 2012 12:39 pm

Ah you see that's the Ultra high end gaming PC range. You see I didn't think to include that range of PC, since only idiots with too much disposable income would buy a PC that expensive. High end is good enough to run BF3 on Ultra. What more do you need at this point, with no new consoles coming in the near future (excluding WiiU)? Not many devs are pushing graphics much past what consoles can render.

Jelly much?

It's my development machine which happens to also be awesome for gaming.

» Thu May 10, 2012 12:57 am

Wow..

Are you telling me that people can't actually see the difference in those pics ?

Don't know what to say

» Wed May 09, 2012 9:30 am

Wow..

Are you telling me that people can't actually see the difference in those pics ?

Don't know what to say

we can but it's barely noticeable and not worth the trouble for us.

» Thu May 10, 2012 12:59 am

Wow..

Are you telling me that people can't actually see the difference in those pics ?

Don't know what to say

I wouldn't notice the shadows were I not looking extremely closely.

Believe me, this stuff in motion really will make things seem a whole lot better. You won't notice the individual pines if you're running through the forest. Nitpickers are always disappointed, thus you don't design games for them!

» Wed May 09, 2012 2:58 pm

Hmm, if you compare the "High" Screenshot and the "Ultra" screenshot the high one is able to see a tree between the two buildings that the you can't see on the ultra screenshot?

» Wed May 09, 2012 7:43 pm

Everyone needs to remember that each person is viewing the sample pics on their own machine, too, and that may also create very different judgments.

I have a high end laptop (gaming Asus) and I can tell you that the sample pics have very slight differences. Noticeable, yes, but certainly not "night and day" as some claim. However, that is on my particular machine, and someone else may see something quite different.

» Wed May 09, 2012 11:52 am

Hmm, if you compare the "High" Screenshot and the "Ultra" screenshot the high one is able to see a tree between the two buildings that the you can't see on the ultra screenshot?

That's because ulta correctly darkens it out of view from the building shadows.