Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Gaming Central

Newegg Daily Deals

View Poll Results: Opinions on Skyrim graphics (only vote if you've actually played the game)
Impressed 25 34.72%
Pretty much as expected 30 41.67%
Unimpressed 17 23.61%
No Opinion 0 0%
Voters: 72. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-14-11, 04:59 AM   #13
Bah!
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 868
Default Re: Skyrim graphics

Quote:
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
Old 11-14-11, 06:18 AM   #14
AngelGraves13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,383
Default Re: Skyrim graphics

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.
AngelGraves13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-11, 06:39 AM   #15
K007
 
K007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia, Sydney
Posts: 9,406
Default Re: Skyrim graphics

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.
K007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-11, 06:57 AM   #16
Ancient76
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
 
Ancient76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 651
Default Re: Skyrim graphics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bah! View Post
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.
__________________
Skyrim: Realistic Overhaul - http://www.skyrimnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=5400
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.C.O.P.: Realistic mod for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - Call Of Pripyat - http://www.gsc-game.com/index.php?t=...3928&sec_id=19
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core 2 Duo E8400 4.2GHz / Zalman CNPS7000B-AlCu
Asus P5Q Pro
Kingston DDR2 / 2x2GB
MSI 5850 Twin Frozr II
ASUS 22" VW220T
Seagate Barracuda 320GB SATA II
Corsair HX620W
Sharkoon Rebel 9
Ancient76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-11, 07:24 AM   #17
Bah!
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 868
Default Re: Skyrim graphics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient76 View Post
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.
Bah! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-11, 08:27 AM   #18
Johnny C
Passing you @ 192mph
 
Johnny C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada, EH!
Posts: 779
Default Re: Skyrim graphics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancient76 View Post
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.
__________________
Phenom II 965BE @ 3.9ghz 200X19.5 1.4625 vcore 2.8ghz NB 2.4ghz HT - Asus M4A79XTD-EVO bios 0604 - 12GB Corsair DDR3 1600 @ 1600mhz CAS 9 w/1T - XFX 6970 2GB 950/1450 - Xigmatek S1283 HSF - Antec 900 - Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Johnny C is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-11, 09:49 AM   #19
Sean_W
Registered User
 
Sean_W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,423
Default Re: Skyrim graphics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bah! View Post
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.
Sean_W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-11, 11:27 AM   #20
|MaguS|
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Skyrim graphics

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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-14-11, 12:31 PM   #21
Sean_W
Registered User
 
Sean_W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,423
Default Re: Skyrim graphics

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
Sean_W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-11, 12:58 PM   #22
|MaguS|
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Skyrim graphics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean_W View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-11, 01:03 PM   #23
Sean_W
Registered User
 
Sean_W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,423
Default Re: Skyrim graphics

Quote:
Originally Posted by |MaguS| View Post
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.
Sean_W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-11, 02:21 PM   #24
jeffmd
Has a vegetation fetish
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,816
Default Re: Skyrim graphics

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.
__________________
_________________________________________________
Mobo: EVGA 122-ck-nf68 680i sli, CPU: C2D Quad 6600, Video: EVGA GTX 460 1gb SC, Sound: X-fi gaming, Windows 7, Antec P180b,Thermalright Ultra-120 HSF, Antec TruPower TP3-650, 4 Gigs RAM
jeffmd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.