Thread: Skyrim graphics
View Single Post
Old 11-14-11, 03:59 AM   #13
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 868
Default Re: Skyrim graphics

Originally Posted by Sean_W View Post
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.
Bah! is offline   Reply With Quote