1994 vs. 2011 : V - Skyrim

» Wed May 30, 2012 8:35 pm

*Double Post* Please delete.

» Wed May 30, 2012 10:02 pm

I actually wish they would release Skyirm with 1994 graphics GOOD GOD do you know how much content and complexity they would be able to add to the game?! /drool

yeah but while they would save money and resources in graphics enabling them to make the largest and most content filled game ever known to man and ever to be known to man they would also alienate a large amount of the new generat ion of gamers who need things to look a certain way and due to this wouldn't make the money back so they'd have to shrink the content in plan for the smaller level of sales thereby creating an average content game.

» Thu May 31, 2012 12:53 am

I think, where the term comes from "Graphics dont make a game" is directed twoard the fact that, if you kept Skyrim, JUST like it is, but had it in 94 graphics, I would still buy the game, or at least rent it to try it out, because, even though the visuals are a HUGE plus. I actually would think that Skyrim, with all of its features, would be fun as hell, regardless of what graphics it used.

But, that's just me, and before anyone tells me what I will and will not buy, yes, I WOULD buy it. and no, im NOT a liar.

» Wed May 30, 2012 9:09 am

yeah but while they would save money and resources in graphics enabling them to make the largest and most content filled game ever known to man and ever to be known to man they would also alienate a large amount of the new generat ion of gamers who need things to look a certain way and due to this wouldn't make the money back so they'd have to shrink the content in plan for the smaller level of sales thereby creating an average content game.

Sad but true =(

» Wed May 30, 2012 3:19 pm

You are sooo lying just to prove your point. There is no way in hell you would pay $60 for a game that looks like the 1994 version. Better yet why dont I offer you a text based version from the late 80's perhaps? Because back then you were paying the equivalent of the normal $60 per game

I actually effectively paid $64 for Daggerfall. Downloaded it, but was having trouble getting it to work, so I called in sick to work that day. 8 hours of missed work at $8/hour=$64 to get Daggerfall work.

Yeah people would pay the money.

» Wed May 30, 2012 9:05 pm

They make games like The Elder Scrolls, which are played for gameplay rather than story.

Personally I play Elder Scrolls for story more. The gameplay is fun and it never gets old IMO but I enjoy delving into the lore and the backstory a whole lot more than gameplay. Story is probably 70% of what I focus on when I play.

» Wed May 30, 2012 1:19 pm

If Skyrim came out on 11/11/11 with 1994 graphics, you would NOT get it.

Countless indie games with terrible graphics that do quite well prove that wrong. Game play > graphics

» Wed May 30, 2012 2:08 pm

Countless indie games with terrible graphics that do quite well prove that wrong. Game play > graphics

quite well as compared to what? Indie games do not cost Tens of millions of dollars to create. So if Skyrim were the most successful indie game ever, the game would still not be successful because they could not even break even, most likely.

» Wed May 30, 2012 9:27 am

That is SO not true. Even games with bad graphics can be awesome and I would personally still buy it.

You'd be a small minority.

» Wed May 30, 2012 11:45 am

It's a bit unfair to Skyrim to use a low rez image though. An image like

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6239/6346016580_544a106749_b.jpg

would be more realistic!!!

Thanks for the screensaver.

» Wed May 30, 2012 2:39 pm

You are sooo lying just to prove your point. There is no way in hell you would pay $60 for a game that looks like the 1994 version. Better yet why dont I offer you a text based version from the late 80's perhaps? Because back then you were paying the equivalent of the normal $60 per game

Knock off the accusations of lying, please. People do have different opinions, and it is very possible that someone would prefer the older games, despite the graphics.

And in some cases, yes, the text based games are better than the stories in "new" games.

» Wed May 30, 2012 6:33 pm

I went for a shower and when I got back a forum civil war had kicked off.

I think that with the next TES game they should keep the graphics pretty much the same as Skyrim but polish it up a bit more. They can spend more time on creating content and making a larger game world.

I only wish for good graphics if it won't hold the rest of the game back.

In other news, my brother just fought alongside a gang of bandits to take down a dragon, when it died they all turned on him and destroyed him, traitors.

» Thu May 31, 2012 1:12 am

That is SO not true. Even games with bad graphics can be awesome and I would personally still buy it. For exemple, older final fantasy, zelda etc...

have to agree aswell. gamers simple wouldn't accept it for visuals that old. there is a minimum requirement these days. graphics help heaps with immersion and gameplay aswell. i certainly would not but i would be disappointed a game with great potential would be ruined by such a thing. i still cant get over the shadows on PC even on ultra they're alot worse than oblivion something MUST be wrong.

» Wed May 30, 2012 9:17 am

To be fair, the OP never made clear what his point was. He just posted a picture. Title doesn't explain the point of this topic much either, discussing graphics seemed like an obvious choice.

I just thought it was neat to do a direct comparison since Skyrim is a playable zone in Arena. For what it's worth: I think 1994 Skyrim is totally charming, 2011 Skyrim is totally impressive, and Minecraft rocks my socks.

» Wed May 30, 2012 5:19 pm

Now imagine... 2011 vs. 2028

:woot:

Hmm... Well graphics can only get so good. I think gaming will get to a point where every game will be expected to have perfect, life-like graphics. People these days always use graphics as an argument to which game it better. When every games graphics are perfect, then what? Will we argue about which game has better animations, voice acting, etc? That sounds strange but there will always be rivalries between gamers. Am I the only one who thinks about this kind of stuff?

» Wed May 30, 2012 1:37 pm

You know what the graphics arent everything. You can still get the same basic sense of world in the old games like Arena/Daggerfall as you can in Skyrim. They were maybe even better in some regards.

» Wed May 30, 2012 7:22 pm

Hmm... Well graphics can only get so good. I think gaming will get to a point where every game will be expected to have perfect, life-like graphics. People these days always use graphics as an argument to which game it better. When every games graphics are perfect, then what? Will we argue about which game has better animations, voice acting, etc? That sounds strange but there will always be rivalries between gamers. Am I the only one who thinks about this kind of stuff?

Just think though, when graphics have reached their limits most of developers resources will go into gameplay. So TES IX is gonna be awesome gameplay wise.

» Wed May 30, 2012 3:01 pm

I don't see much of a difference... :whistling:

Glad I'm not the only one.

» Wed May 30, 2012 4:05 pm

so long as graphics were the only thing different, hell yes I would buy Skyrim.

I used to care absolutely zero about graphics until I became 3d animation major in college. Now I appreciate effort put into graphics and notice lazy work in game models I even buys some games just to see the technical achievements made in the graphics (Crysis I'm look you), but Gameplay is still my number one concern when playing games.

If it wasn't a pain in the ass to play Arena and Daggerfall I would play them, but there are a lot of technical difficulties to playing them on a modern computer and a [censored]-ton of bugs that make the games almost unplayable.

Edit: Actually come to think of it, I bought Oblivion more for the technical aspects of the game too.

Well i would'nt buy it, [censored] that, i like nice graphics even if i'm well aware that its not the most important thing.

» Wed May 30, 2012 7:01 pm

Your obviously a modern gamer (no offense)
graphics don't make the game at all, story and gameplay is what's important.

Very true. Games and movies both can be thought of this way, in my opinion.

» Wed May 30, 2012 10:18 pm

Graphics definately help but they are definately not the most important aspect of a great game. Unfortunately more and more developers are forgetting this these days. More profit from the masses in exchange for Burger King games for the rest of us.

» Wed May 30, 2012 7:52 pm

Plenty of us owned Arena back in 1994. Arena was ok to play but daggerfall was horrible. I still play arena from time to time on dosbox. it's a classic for me. I own a cd copy of daggerfall but i never play it.

» Wed May 30, 2012 10:33 pm

Graphics have never been that important to me. I notice in every single game forum these days all people do is talk of how good/bad the graphics are.

Not so long ago people used to care about game play,story and even sound more above the graphics. Some of the funniest things i read these days is Minecraft related when i hear people say crap like "why would anyone play this game? the graphics are [censored]!!!!11!!." Yet for me Minecraft is one of the best games i've ever played. Granted it has no story etc... but then again i loved Lego as a kid and Minecraft is just that for me.

» Wed May 30, 2012 4:27 pm

that's actually not very impressive it's been 17 years lol

» Wed May 30, 2012 2:11 pm

textures on the top one look about the same.