Well with the console patches coming out (hopefully) next week (touch wood), we'll get to see how it might unfold for the PC prior to the PC patch.
I hope they are still working on the PC patch during the 2 weeks of Sony / Microsoft certification for the console patches, and not just letting it sit there.

For those of you who think that this game is stable and runs perfectly, I would like you to take a look at the rest of the technical issues forum for the PC. If you come back and tell me the same thing after reading the countless posts highlighting different issues of why the game crashes, has constant bugs, or has some sort of fatal error, then you are a very interesting individual.

The fact is, for whatever financial reasoning, it was more profitable for Bethesda to make the game primarily for the xbox, so they did. They also decided to give the people who made them what they are in the first place a giant kick in the face.

We are left with

- A game with bugs that eventually leave it unplayable
- A high possibility of consistent CTD errors
- Controls that have been optimized for a console
- Outdated graphics in terms of the PC
- A horrible, unresponsive menu

Cheers.

+100000 mate

are you blind or wtf? 70 pages of threads with bugs and you are writing about "give us dx11 and witcher 2 graphics"! //ck this

personally I have crazy pixelated shadows with glitches ( i kinda fixed it but now they are static, and still pixelated and sooo ugly, damn), random CTD's which make me crazy, fps drop without any reson in caves, dungeons ( i have powerful laptop with latest nvidia), some bugs with textures, etc.

THAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM! Todd please fix it

concerning graphics overall: yeah its like on the fallout 3 level just with some improvements, but cmon guys, it was expected, well personally i was sure it will not be outstanding new engine.. Just imagine how difficult it would be to make a game with Witcher 2/BF3 graphics and with huge open world like Skyrim, its almost impossible imho, if they did something like this it would be the next outstanding step in gaming development. But they made just goodgame, and it ok!

sorry for my bad english) BR from Ukraine

My friend, you misunderstand my entire point. Bugs may not have been known at release due to countless system setups, some may have been known. That is what patches and updates are for.

My entire gripe thus far is that we are given a brand spanking new game with 6 year old graphics. Imagine if you got Saints Row 3 (after it was hyped to have the best graphics ever of a SR release, on which it delivered) only to realize you've been given a modified copy of SR2. Skyrim, to me, feels like a modified copy of OB. Were there improvements? Definitely. However the amount of improvements made compared to the amount of improvements possible is simply astounding.

My question, this entire discussion, has been why was Skyrim released with XBox specs on the PC, with no high-end options/support. This is what I wish to speak with Todd about. Not about bugs/crashes/drm. There are other threads for those.

I would also like to thank (before the thread reaches its post limit) everyone for being civilized and bringing some very good constructive criticism to this topic.

Bump for this discussion. I'm in full agreement with the OP- any sort of straight, no BS talk from Todd about the PC release would be a good thing.

Ummm Todd, if you have 5 minutes after all their minutes... I'd like some time as well

This made my evening. Such a sweet game.

Anyways, your rebuttal is definitely a good gist of how I've been feeling about the whole situation.

As a casual PC benchmarker, I can't help but salivate at the prospect of this game utilizing current-gen hardware specializations. The amount of detail on top of the already ridiculous amount of detail would be just jaw dropping. But I understand that a game of this magnitude and all the logistics that come with it, are major factors in what we can receive. Understanding that, I can appreciate the achievement that this game is.

But the glitchy Gamebryo engine with a new coat of paint and the dumbing down of certain aspects of the game are the things that have "irked" me. One thing I want in a TES game is true dynamic interactions with the NPC's. I guess, in a nutshell, a conversation system like Mass Effect or something of that sort. Let me have an actual effect on the individuals in the world. I loved Speechcraft and being able to have some effect on the "people" around me. It was something I was hoping they would further excel in to achieve a real sense of immersion in this jaw dropping world. Instead we got a gutted down "selective" Speechcraft experience. Last I checked, this was a role-playing game, I wanna role-play yo!

As much as I enjoy it, I just hope that combat doesn't become focally stressed over the other aspects of the game. I know things are going to have to die, but I must also have to survive the concrete jungles.

I can tell you it runs perfectly on my computer, so there's not an inherent technical problem in the game, just a compatibility issue with some people's hardware (including my wife's computer). PC gaming was ever thus, and Skyrim seems to suffer from it a lot less than other games, even previous TES games.

Yeah, that is definitely one area where they took a step backwards. I also agree that a new coat of textures would be fabulous, but at this point asking them to revisit the entire game and do a texture pack the same scale as Qarl's in Oblivion is unrealistic. It's a lot of work for something only a small minority of their users would get to enjoy, not that I'm saying you're asking for that, but it seems like that's what some people in this thread expect.

We're nearing the end of this console generation, so I expect the graphics will improve dramatically for Elder Scrolls VI: Tamriel. (I can dream, can't I?) While they did take a step back in some areas (speechcraft/faction, spell-making or lack thereof) I think overall Skyrim was more ambitious than Oblivion, which was more ambitious than Morrowind, and so on and so forth. I wouldn't expect TESVI to be any different in that regard.


Skyrim also runs more or less flawlessly on my system (aside from the bugs and graphics defects we all experience) as I've only had a few crashes in over 70 hours of gameplay, and then only because I was messing with ugridstoload. However, I think that has a lot to do with the fact that I'm using Windows 7 64-bit as that seems to be the OS where people are getting the most stability. The fact that it runs fine on one OS but is extremely unstable on others, though, makes your claim that there is "no inherent technical problem" a bit silly. This isn't only about hardware compatibility, software compatibility is a major factor as well and PC releases should be stable on the most commonly used operating systems. Right now, it seems that only Win7 64-bit users aren't having problems but I'd wager we're a minority in the pc gamer market at large, there's still a huge # of people using Win xp for example.

PC gaming has been flatlining since 1997. It's a long slow death with many glorious titles gracing the PC on its triumphant precession into the annals of history. If I'm lucky it wil still be gasping it's last breath when I retire in 35 years.


My bigger complaint isn't which platform a game is developed on. I am mostly pissed off that games keep getting easier and easier. Not just in terms of hand holding, but more importantly in terms of player skill. These days most games are just variants of Diablo. Its no even "hack-n-slash" anymore. That would be too complex for casuals. Nope, now it's just "hack".

The game sold 3.7 milions in the first two days. 15% of that is 0.55 milion on the pc. If that isnt a BIG success than i dont know what is.

Well I don't distinguish between hardware and software for compatibility issues - I just slipped and said 'hardware' when I meant 'computers'. Again I've heard of win XP computers running Skyrim fine, so I'll stand by my 'no inherent technical problem' - otherwise 100% of the computers would see it. I would even go so far as to say that, compared to other TES games, Skyrim actually works very well on the vast majority of configurations. There are a LOT of people with problems, as expected, but compared to the vast numbers of people playing the game the proportion of problems seems to me to be very low.

If we can find a specific combination of hardware and software that 100% causes problems - that is, we can prove that every person with that combination has a problem - then we can inform gamesas and they can investigate if there's anything in their game that's the cause of the problem (chances are it's not - it's far more likely to be a problem with the software on that particular computer configuration such as driver conflicts or setup problems etc.)

I demand the Todd!

I guess they have enough money to afford HD texture pack and some optimizations to PC game? Like FOV, for example...

My blu-ray drive can read Wii disks! I was playing Skyward sword at 1080p this morning on Dolphin Emu, you just need a bluetooth dongle and a motion plus wiimote. Shadows (although smooth) and textures are crap but its stable, see what I did there?

As for the topic at hand. I really would like to know why the PC version is THIS bad. I mean it functions and is beautiful and I personally don't care for dx10/11 but why are the textures and shadows so hideous? You can see the compression on the textures... so why not package the uncompressed version as Ultra? Surely Skyrim will sell 2 million copies on PC, is that not worth the extra work? I don't believe they owe us anything because we bought their games for years, they are a business and it is a product, but as a customer in general this is atrocious.

The sad part is I would be completely happy with the game as it was released, if there was a true ultra setting which may or may not have included the following: DX10/11, Hi-Res Textures, better AA, maybe some FSAA as well as FXAA, and better shadows.

The game as it stands is a decent game. But it could have been so much more on release. Judging by the lack of response from anyone 'in the know' that would be able to shed some light on this topic, we will have to either wait and see what happens or do it ourselves with the creation kit. But quite franky, I am getting tired of fixing their games before I can expand upon then.

Imagine hearing about a new car in the works that is faster, sleeker, and more fuel efficient than its predecessor. When pictures of it are shown, it looks pretty sleek. Then once you get the car you realize that nothing has changed except for a few aerodynamic points with the cars shape. You take it to the shop to beef it up (Ultra Setting) and all that's done is a new paint job and tire change.

But what would the 99% of other players have to give up for you to have your exclusive ultra ultra setting? Or are you willing to pay ￡100 for a high res texture pack add on?

How about you stop trolling the thread?

I think that more than 1% would be able to play with higher settings than what is available right now. But that is speculation from my part and so is it from you part.

On the other hand, paying over 100$ for a high res pack add on!! Come on, this is art that has already been done and should have been included in the game. I really don't understand why this was not included with the game, at least as an option during installation. I did not see Bioware (EA) charging their customer for the high res pack for Dragon age 2. The game is really beautifull, as long as you don't look at things closer than a couple of feets. Closer than that, its mostly blurry textures that should not be present in a AAA game like Skyrim. Anyway, that is how I see things and I really hope that Bethesda fix this texture mess.

Not to mention the lack of motion blur. That guy is trolling, just ignore him. Every game I know of that has been released since 2010 has had true motion blur. Not just a screen shift. Literally, when you move run in Skyrim, the world zooms out, and things moving past you are crystal clear. And no, I have not edited my .ini files.

People, whether you like it or not, the money in games is with consoles (mainly because of piracy). Games are made to make money, so until they release the next gen consoles you will see very little change in game engines and the use of DX11. The next gen consoles will blow the current ones out of the water and that's when game engines will begin to be made to take advantage of that, and the PC will benifit from those - not before.

Todd and the rest of the Devs used to converse quite frequently with the members here, until the sociopaths and malcontents chased them off when they were off their meds...


Case in point, and you rocket scientists wonder why they don't want to talk to you...No wonder people consider gamers losers...Though too many excellent gamers are tarnished by examples of childish behavior like this!

I am trying to be respectful, and typically ignore people like this. It's sad that a few bad apples ruin these possible discussions for everyone. I don't wish to scream at anyone for their game; in fact quite contrary I would compliment them for a job well done. However, I would question their decision not to expand upon what the PC version is capable of.

The other guy that said its because of piracy, you can pirate ANY game on ANY console, whereas you cannot do such on a PC. In fact, console users that know how to obtain these games have their world opened up to Japan-Only games. To use piracy as a scapegoat is the lazy way out.

Like I said, game engines are driven now by the capabilities of the consoles and will not change until they do. Also, I would say there are way less games that are PC only, where as I can think of many that are console only - why would a developer not cater for the PC market too, why miss out on that revenue? Because they fear the returns are far less for the extra re-coding due to the reasons I mentioned before.

I fully agree with you, also Piracy is an issue that PC gaming companies have to face, (That cannot be solved by these S*****Y DRM methods) multiply that with the increased difficulty in developing on the PC vs the ease of consoles, it then becomes clear why it's no wonder that they would do a console-port (Not condoning, just an observation) Plus, one must consider every Bethesda release since Daggerfall included console ports, look at Morrowind, ever notice that the shadows were far less detailed in the PC vers vs the console? I don't like the fact that my game consistantly crashes due to improper 64 bit OS optimization, but at the same time it doesn't suprise me that Bethesda chose the middle-road in their port, as the majority of PC players do not have PCs that run on diesel fluel!