The only problem I see with skyrim's graphics would be it's Saturation. Oblivion's colour was blooming with life and happiness. In skyrim, when the game loses it's saturation it gets ugly, and loses the happiness and feel that oblivion had.

Considering Skyrim was also designed to run on consoles, it does. Skyrim is currently pushing the upper limits of today's console hardware. Any higher, and consoles would be smoking and lighting on fire.

I also think that is a problem (and thats why I installed a mod to fix it) but I didn't think it needed much mentioning as brightness, contrast and saturation can all be changed via TV/monitor/video card driver and skyrim has a bit darker tone to it overall.


I don't think that things like enchaced texture inside dungeons (because dungeons require a lot less performance) and a water shader can't be ran on a console.

Stopped reading when he first said "graphics is".

Hi theer Korbu! Good to see you.


Yes, indeed. This is a point that can hardly be refuted. But while we should all bear in mind this fact, that still does not excuse us from pointing out this or that shortcoming. It very well might be the case that some of those shortcomings could have been overcome on Xbox 360 / PS3, because, you know, BGS programmers are only human.

Essential? Of course. Does the quality matter? Not usually.

I think that if the OP had any kind of idea as to what kind of effort goes into graphical processing, be wouldn't be [censored]ing.

To even program a game's graphics like the original Super Mario Bros. takes more effort than most people can conceive of, not to mention a game with graphics like Skyrim has.

OP just has no idea what he is talking about, let's let this thread die already.

You see snow as sperm? wow you need help...

.......Older game engines are almost always worse than the newer ones. Very evident in the comparisons you drew. How you even compared those games to skyrim is far out of my realm of imagination.

Gothic and Risen have complete crap graphics. Seems like you thought this was a numbers game and just threw them out there.

Oblivion? Skyrims predecessor? "Nice-looking" shadows don't make up for its other poor graphical qualities. This is practically skyrims old husk... simply void comparison.

FO3... FO3? Good water edges. But, graphically average rocks, weapons, characters, walls, and uh pretty much everything else. Definitely graphically worse game than skyrim, period.

The majority of resources simply cannot be spent on graphical overhaul in big games like skyrim.
Unless you play in 480p skyrim has completely reasonable graphics.

Hi there Uriel Nocturne!


The OP is criticizing from the end result perspective. He doesn't need to know squat about graphics programming - and the question is pending, do you? – to know when something looks off. I myself know squat about graphics programming. I own a top of the line PC. When I'm walking about SKyrim's landscape - which I do on max settings - things, whole bridges, grass detail, tree detail, mountain detail, all keep popping up in an obtuse manner. I am not playing on Xbox 360, I am playing on a high end machine. I know squat about graphics programming yet these LOD problems are right there in front of my eyes.

But we were talking only about specific features and in those games which I used as an example the specific features are a lot better. If you want a more overall comparison example I can through out Two worlds 2, BF3 (engine capable of huge scenics), Witcher 2, Crysis, Crysis 2, Far Cry 2...

If we only compare Skyrims actor shadows to oblivions. Skyrims looks like minecraft with out smooth lighting. Same thing goes for FO3. FO3 just rolfstomps skyrim in water edges.

Risen has bunch of fancy lighting effects (like SSAO) and Gothic 3 has better dynamic shadows and loads of bumbmapping and on top of that it also runs great (I could get around 60fps there).

Why do you have a $600-$700 graphics card but only 4 GB of RAM?
Spent that much on a PC but cheaped out on ram, just don't understand.

Hello there Joshko. Glad you could join us.


More often than not, any attempt to criticize is met with the proverbial all-purpose anti-"complainer" rhetoric.
PS: That was the autocensor in action. It replaces banned words with the "[censored]" tag and other more easily digestible expressions.

Rumbled the OP and lost interest at that point zzzzzz

Because I think it's pointless to have over 4gb of ram? I haven't seen a game that uses over 4gb and if ram becomes an issue I can just buy more. I would thought that people would more likely wonder my cpu choice instead of ram.

Wasn't there a patch that allowed Skyrim to use 4GB of ram. Unless windows 7 or any other programs you have running don't use any RAM than I'm pretty sure you could use more.
Atleast it wouldn't hurt.
Just brought that up because when playing some games if I have an internet browser open I've reached around 3.5 to almost 4 gb of ram use.

For me, there has been an improvement since the last game. That's good enough for me, the graphics certainly aren't perfect, I stopped and lol'd at a particularly bad texture join the other day.

But hey, so long as they keep improving, that would suggest they know their own shortcomings. I think OP might have had a better reception had he said 'critique' instead of 'criticism' in the thread title.

Ah I see, yes if I recall the word I tried to use is so bad it actually was the sole reason for dueling back in the day.

But in any event I, I suppose some people feel a need to criticize and nit-pick, and that's them and I accept them for who they are. But I don't get it.

Hi there Bieltan!


Very well pointed out. A subtle yet discernible difference between the two words. However, a perhaps less fortunate choice of words did not warrant some of the reactions he got, especially because his is an obviously thought out post, even if one might disagree with it.

I believe Beth added this in a official patch and I rarely get over 2gb even with web browser and a game with steam overlay open.


Hey it least this thread is getting better. The previous threads didn't fare too well. First one got locked, second got filled with trolls, third just died down and this one has atleast one person with something to say. The future of mankind looks brighter.

By far the most balanced and sensible response from that who does not share the same view as the OP. short sweet simple and non assailant.

You are the reason why less is more these days.

Yup, but atleast you no longer need a paragraph long disclaimer saying how you really do love Skyrim to not get flamed so bad that the thread gets locked before the second page like at the release

BF3. Nope, it is a FPS with large scale multiplayer maps. Not an open world game. Besides it's not even rpg centered. Graphical excellency is a given.

Crysis. It's one of those games where...here's a start, here's the finish, and you've got all this land to roam in. Do that 11 times and that's your game. Definitely does not carry the Open world aspect skyrim does. It has bounds.

Witcher 2. Yet another restrictive Linear game.

Two Worlds 2. (Kinda lacking in graphics here...) Still not like skyrim though. You're on islands and you have to complete certain quests to get to the next island.

None of these games are even on par with skyrims landscape style, mechanics, and even objective. Compare skyrims "lacking" graphical elements to a game in the same realm.

Agreed.