PDA

View Full Version : Skyrim graphics


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Vanzagar
11-13-11, 02:12 PM
For those that have actually played the game, what are your thoughts (take pole)?

Opinions on out of box unmodded game...

Sean_W
11-13-11, 02:17 PM
Poor fidelity but some places have nice textures. Lighting is lacking at night, it's way too soft and doesn't come close to The Witcher 2's lighting and the shadows are terrible. The game fidelity wise is a step back from Oblivion. Also the water looks like crap.

Sean_W
11-13-11, 02:25 PM
Environment design is different to actual graphics that's why. slaWter plays at settings that would make any game look good. :p

Skyrim looks about a 2008 game with some textures from 2004.

|MaguS|
11-13-11, 02:40 PM
I think it looks amazing. Watching the water falls and exploring damp caves never looked better. Its annoying that people compare this game to The Witcher when that is a closed enviroment vs a much larger world with freedom to go anywhere.

Sean_W
11-13-11, 02:51 PM
The Witcher 2 and Skyrim are the same game type, just like Gothic 4 and even that had much better texture quality and fidelity. Size of the game have nothing to do with texture quality and fidelity, it's just that Skyrim is a Xbox360 direct port to the PC with higher drawn distance.

|MaguS|
11-13-11, 03:04 PM
The Witcher 2 and Skyrim are the same game type, just like Gothic 4 and even that had much better texture quality and fidelity. Size of the game have nothing to do with texture quality and fidelity, it's just that Skyrim is a Xbox360 direct port to the PC with higher drawn distance.

Yes the graphics are tied to the size of the game, its a lot more taxing on any system if you use more high res textures. They don't make games just for the top PCs, you are a minority, they make the games for the average PC which wouldn't even run the game at the max settings to begin with. Hell if it wasn't for me my GF wouldn't ever change her graphics settings in her games beyond resolution even though she has a great rig.

Sean_W
11-13-11, 03:19 PM
Yes the graphics are tied to the size of the game, its a lot more taxing on any system if you use more high res textures. They don't make games just for the top PCs, you are a minority, they make the games for the average PC which wouldn't even run the game at the max settings to begin with. Hell if it wasn't for me my GF wouldn't ever change her graphics settings in her games beyond resolution even though she has a great rig.

They're not. A lot of the textures are reused and texture quality has nothing to do with performance, other than VRAM capacity. Skyrim has bad textures because they ported it from the Xbox360 not because the game is so vast. Skyrim is like Crysis 2, in the fact they made no attempt on during developement to improve the fidelity on the PC.

If you believe that Skyrim's graphics are limited to it's size, you're badly mistaken, texture mods should show you that. Texture quality has zero impact on performance, assuming you have the VRAM and texture quality setting are only there for cards with lower VRAM

|MaguS|
11-13-11, 03:54 PM
They're not. A lot of the textures are reused and texture quality has nothing to do with performance, other than VRAM capacity. Skyrim has bad textures because they ported it from the Xbox360 not because the game is so vast. Skyrim is like Crysis 2, in the fact they made no attempt on during developement to improve the fidelity on the PC.

If you believe that Skyrim's graphics are limited to it's size, you're badly mistaken, texture mods should show you that. Texture quality has zero impact on performance, assuming you have the VRAM and texture quality setting are only there for cards with lower VRAM

Yes and the game already is topping the standard VRAM Size for the average PC. I have used Texture mods in other Bethesda games and trust me there is a performance hit, if you do the high end Oblivion Mods you can bring even a top rig down to where it acts all crappy.

Sean_W
11-13-11, 04:19 PM
The game is badly optimised in places. If you put the game on high or the same as the consoles, it won't use that amount of VRAM. Also resolution takes a lot of VRAM. Fallout 3 texture mod is fine with 1Gb VRAM and those textures are superior.

jeffmd
11-13-11, 05:22 PM
I pretty much have features set to maximum, with a mild amount of AF and FXAA (I know it can result in some texture blurryness but it is much better then god awful foliage fringe).

The game really is a testament that it's not the size that matters, but what you do with it. Textures are wonderful, the architecture is wonderful, and it has great atmospheric effects. The majority of this stuff is related to the artist, not the game engine.

I also just hoofed it on the far south edge of the map (trying to find the easiest way to the other side of that mountain) and it really felt like riding through a severe snowstorm at night. Frankly I see none of that in witcher 2.

jkmetal
11-13-11, 10:33 PM
The graphics are everything I hoped they would be. When I modded morrowind for better textures, shader effects and dymanic lighting, Skyrim is what I was trying to achieve. The textures and some of the objects aren't up to the standards set by Crysis 2 or Metro 2033 but it creates a realistic and believable world. It looks fantastic and runs very well, even on my mid-range setup.

In short; no complaints.

Crow_Nest
11-13-11, 11:04 PM
Poor textures, i was hoping for better. But the environments and landscapes are breath taking. The best ive seen in any game.

Bah!
11-14-11, 03:59 AM
The Witcher 2 and Skyrim are the same game type, just like Gothic 4 and even that had much better texture quality and fidelity. Size of the game have nothing to do with texture quality and fidelity, it's just that Skyrim is a Xbox360 direct port to the PC with higher drawn distance.

Look, I think Witcher 2 looks amazing, but to say they are the same game type and that size of the game makes no difference is laughable.

First off, they aren't even close to the same kind of game. The Witcher 2 is a linear, corridor style rpg. Sykrim is a wide open sandbox type rpg.

Second, size, as well as scale, absolutely matter in terms of graphics and textures. TW2 wouldn't look nearly as good as it does it it were a wide open, open world rpg. The reason they were able to pull of such amazing graphics is because of the nature of the game they built. If you tried to put TW2 style graphics in Skyrim (or even the original Witcher) there wouldn't be a computer in the world that could run it. Maxed out (with Ubersampling) TW2 uses about 700mb of vram. My copy of Skyrim, without mods and some ini tweaks uses ~1200mb. Adding more fidelity would make it unplayable on 99.9% of computers, including yours.

When I first loaded up the game I was disappointed as well. But after playing for a while, I'm completely impressed with how it looks overall. It's a living breathing world, and I'd rather have a wide open world that looks like this than a closed off corridor game that looked like TW2.

The only thing that smells of console port to me is the atrocious UI, which I can't stand.

AngelGraves13
11-14-11, 05:18 AM
Could it be better? Yes!

Is it still thoroughly enjoyable? Yes!

I'm sure the next Elder Scrolls will look next generation, if they use id Tech 5 AND don't screw us with overcompressed megatextures like in RAGE.

K007
11-14-11, 05:39 AM
havent seen anything good with id tech 5...rather hope they dont use it. skyrim looks better and the world feels way more alive than id tech 5...not to mention the ai/etc.

Ancient76
11-14-11, 05:57 AM
Look, I think Witcher 2 looks amazing, but to say they are the same game type and that size of the game makes no difference is laughable.

First off, they aren't even close to the same kind of game. The Witcher 2 is a linear, corridor style rpg. Sykrim is a wide open sandbox type rpg.

Second, size, as well as scale, absolutely matter in terms of graphics and textures. TW2 wouldn't look nearly as good as it does it it were a wide open, open world rpg. The reason they were able to pull of such amazing graphics is because of the nature of the game they built. If you tried to put TW2 style graphics in Skyrim (or even the original Witcher) there wouldn't be a computer in the world that could run it. Maxed out (with Ubersampling) TW2 uses about 700mb of vram. My copy of Skyrim, without mods and some ini tweaks uses ~1200mb. Adding more fidelity would make it unplayable on 99.9% of computers, including yours.

When I first loaded up the game I was disappointed as well. But after playing for a while, I'm completely impressed with how it looks overall. It's a living breathing world, and I'd rather have a wide open world that looks like this than a closed off corridor game that looked like TW2.

The only thing that smells of console port to me is the atrocious UI, which I can't stand.

Not true!

There are other open world games, like Gothic: Arcania or Two Worlds 2, that look and work better then Skyrim.

Skyrim doesn't have parallax, SSAO, true dynamic lighting. Many textures are low resolution... Game is poorly optimized like all TES games.

Bah!
11-14-11, 06:24 AM
Not true!

There are other open world games, like Gothic: Arcania or Two Worlds 2, that look and work better then Skyrim.

Skyrim doesn't have parallax, SSAO, true dynamic lighting. Many textures are low resolution... Game is poorly optimized like all TES games.

I have both of those games and neither one of those games look as good as Skyrim. They have higher resolution textures, but as far as things like vegetation, distance, lod, models, etc go Skyrim clobbers them.

Johnny C
11-14-11, 07:27 AM
Not true!

There are other open world games, like Gothic: Arcania or Two Worlds 2, that look and work better then Skyrim.

Skyrim doesn't have parallax, SSAO, true dynamic lighting. Many textures are low resolution... Game is poorly optimized like all TES games.

Wait 3 weeks
Download mods
Enjoy Skyrim


I am enjoying it right now. It's not perfect, but it's damn good. Once you switch some keys around so they are more like Oblivion/Morrowind and enable the shadow tweaks, water tweaks and fxaa. The world feels very real, very alive. I constantly happen upon NPC's doing their own thing, completely independent of me.

Sean_W
11-14-11, 08:49 AM
Look, I think Witcher 2 looks amazing, but to say they are the same game type and that size of the game makes no difference is laughable.

First off, they aren't even close to the same kind of game. The Witcher 2 is a linear, corridor style rpg. Sykrim is a wide open sandbox type rpg.

Second, size, as well as scale, absolutely matter in terms of graphics and textures. TW2 wouldn't look nearly as good as it does it it were a wide open, open world rpg. The reason they were able to pull of such amazing graphics is because of the nature of the game they built. If you tried to put TW2 style graphics in Skyrim (or even the original Witcher) there wouldn't be a computer in the world that could run it. Maxed out (with Ubersampling) TW2 uses about 700mb of vram. My copy of Skyrim, without mods and some ini tweaks uses ~1200mb. Adding more fidelity would make it unplayable on 99.9% of computers, including yours.

When I first loaded up the game I was disappointed as well. But after playing for a while, I'm completely impressed with how it looks overall. It's a living breathing world, and I'd rather have a wide open world that looks like this than a closed off corridor game that looked like TW2.

The only thing that smells of console port to me is the atrocious UI, which I can't stand.

They all the same games, doesn't matter about size of the game. Gothic 4 has superior draw distance, the patch fixes the issues with it. Skyrim does have poor LOD just like their other same engine games and they have made the grass draw distance good because there is much less of it. As I can see, there is no long grass any more, it all looks like weeds.

The game is clearly pure console with a few features bolted on, FOV, control, inventory let this game down immensely. Tweaks are fine but technically, it's on of the worst releases for the PC if you look at the defaults.

I do love Skyrim but the things I mentioned are just stupid and let the game down. I hope devs patch it well and add some PC features. Fidelity wise, Gothic 4 could be called a 2011 game, Skyrim is about 2008 with some 2004 textures and shadows thrown in.

|MaguS|
11-14-11, 10:27 AM
Just got to the Greybeards mountain and it is a breathtaking sight. I love how the weather affects this games look. Gothic 4 has nothing on this game, I'm sorry but you can have all the textures you want but without good atmosphere and weather system it is nothing more then a pretty picture.

Sean_W
11-14-11, 11:31 AM
We're talking about graphics, not atmosphere. I don't deny that Skyrim locations are some of the best out there, but for actual graphics fidelity it's pretty mediocre. Mountains look good because they are at distance, the actual texture fidelity is pretty awful on the rocks. Also there is a lot of cover up for what the engine cannot do and console limitations.

Also, technically, there is nothing new in the engine, not even SSAO support. The only feature worthy of 2011 is FXAA

|MaguS|
11-14-11, 11:58 AM
We're talking about graphics, not atmosphere. I don't deny that Skyrim locations are some of the best out there, but for actual graphics fidelity it's pretty mediocre. Mountains look good because they are at distance, the actual texture fidelity is pretty awful on the rocks. Also there is a lot of cover up for what the engine cannot do and console limitations.

Atmosphere is part of the graphics. You can't just pick one area and call the graphics bad. Graphics should be based on a whole, including art design and atmosphere the game provides. If you want to argue about if the textures are good or bad then say that, not if the graphics are good or bad.

Sean_W
11-14-11, 12:03 PM
Atmosphere is part of the graphics. You can't just pick one area and call the graphics bad. Graphics should be based on a whole, including art design and atmosphere the game provides. If you want to argue about if the textures are good or bad then say that, not if the graphics are good or bad.

Graphics encompass a large area and I've already said what is good and bad about the graphics. Bad textures, bad shadow quality, bad water, bad lighting that's non dynamic. The game is beautiful in a picturesque, design way and some of the textures in some of the towns are pretty good. A good example is Riften.

jeffmd
11-14-11, 01:21 PM
I have yet to find a game where the shadow quality was ever really good. The dx11 update to crysis 2 was a big jump, but self shadowing still showed signs of blockyness and textures the shadowing missed. For the majority of the games out there though, the shadow detail never matches the resolution, and self shadowing is always bad and glitchy.

Bad water? seriously? I think its probably the best water behind crysis 1/2. They used alot of artistic licensing to get the water to do a lot of things, and fall alot of ways. The majority of games don't have water change levels at all, and when some do like crysis, its only a waterfall that uses a single particle technique to show it. Also the shader used is probably the best I have seen that creates the illusion of wave depth, even though the water geometry is flat. It also does a better job at object impacts then say witcher 2. I kinda cringed at the boat scenes cause the wake effects and splash were so bad.

Static lighting? where? even indoors the flickering of light sources is very apparent.

I am sorry but I am an absolute graphics *****.. I even knock MW3 and BF3 for some of the ways it looks, and I still give skyrim a thumbs up.

Sean_W
11-14-11, 01:45 PM
The water doesn't even come close to games like Just Cause 2 and The Witcher 2, Crysis yeah. Just Cause 2 uses CUDA. Skyrims water texture looks flat, there is no tide and light doesn't shine on the water dynamically.

Games have shadow quality issues because they're mostly DX9 and old tech, Just Cause 2 didn't because it had High resolution shadow support, so did Gothic 4. Skyrim doesn't employ any blur on such shadows, that's why they look pixelly and crap and even Oblivion had better quality shadows. Skyrim's waterfalls don't even animated long distance, they just a low quality texture.

Gothic 4 is a lot more dynamic in the graphics department.