Why can't Skyrim look like this? Come on! : V - Skyrim

» Sat May 19, 2012 8:42 pm

If that's directed at me, then I'd be fascinated at how you got that out of anything I've said.

I think he misinterpreted your "not equals" sign. Or he was agreeing with you in a very aggressive way. :shrug:

» Sat May 19, 2012 11:16 pm

If that's directed at me, then I'd be fascinated at how you got that out of anything I've said.

Just because i responded to your statement in my post doesn't mean the entire post was directed at you. I thought that was obvious given the fact i actually quoted someone else.

When i said "so many ingrates" I was referring to people in general and specifically the person i quoted, which wasn't you.

» Sat May 19, 2012 9:40 am

That's why Battlefield 3's textures look so bad on PC, right?

See, while I understand that companies have to target the lowest common denominator the game will be running on, that really doesn't explain why the high quality art assets they use to create the compressed, smaller assets for consoles are not included on PC. There are several PC games that also ran on consoles that didn't have to sacrifice the bells and whistles just for the sake of running on older hardware. So to be frank, I don't see that as much of an excuse.

It would at least be nice if Bethesda was transparent about the reasons they chose to include more compressed, smaller textures. I'm sure they have valid concerns to do so, but at least say them.

You're absolutely right, they certainly could have included an HD texture pack or something. As a matter of fact, they said they would a while ago, and it never happened. Just keep in mind that their focus is gameplay, and I would rather keep it that way. Like your example, Battlefield 3. They very clearly focused on graphics there. The game looks awesome, but it's the worst battlefield game yet (I've been playing since 1942). They cut out SO many features and thinned the game from a plump happy man to a skinny, sickly little child.

I do NOT want that happening to my Elder Scrolls as well.

» Sat May 19, 2012 11:15 pm

I dunno I think Skyrim looks pretty good already with the right mods / settings:

http://www.sweclockers.com/forum/136-elder-scrolls/1063981-skyrim-bilder/index2.html#post11769757

I kinda hated the pixelmess of foliage in the background aka. "speedtrees" in Crysis engine. Skyrim doesn't have that.

» Sat May 19, 2012 10:37 pm

Uhm hello?? Crysis has the same amount of interactivity and npc's with COMPLEX ai as opposed to the few morrons you'd meet in a tes game. It has MORE things to interact with (you can cut trees down with bullets!! ) and it's buildings are not seperate cells!! Even considering "skyrim" to deal with more is absurd.

Skyrim -

Few, stupid ai
Has cells for interiors
Does not do lod well
Basic lighting
No destruction
Poor animation (although with havok, that may be the fault of the artists)

Crysis
Many ai that are very smart
Can make building interiors Non seperate
Does lod very well!
Amazing lighting
Destruction
excellent animation

» Sat May 19, 2012 4:49 pm

This thread gone far enough, and is irrelevant as Skyrim doesn't use the CryEngine.