Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Announced for release on 11/11/11.

[krogen]

Gameplay might be numero uno, but it doesn't change a fact that what Bethesda just did is a bit disappointing. Both Morrowind and Oblivion pushed our hardware to the limits, back in the day. This probably won't be the case with this one.

But I still have my fingers crossed.

 

[Silus]

I wouldn't assume Bethesda will make the extra effort for PC version to look dramatically better than consoles. It just doesn't make a lot of economic sense. I'm sure it will look nicer, but it most likely won't even come close to pushing modern GPUs, in the way that Oblivion did when it was released. I'm okay with that. The gameplay needs more of an overhaul than the graphics.

I'm going to say it will push modern GPUs, much like Oblivion did. We are talking about a huge world, with tremendous amount of detail and characters. If you want to play it maxed and high resolutions, you won't be able to do so, with a mid-range graphics card.

 

[Silus]

Gameplay might be numero uno, but it doesn't change a fact that what Bethesda just did is a bit disappointing. Both Morrowind and Oblivion pushed our hardware to the limits, back in the day. This probably won't be the case with this one.

But I still have my fingers crossed.

...What did Bethesda do really ? Have you played the game yet ? How do you know it's NOT going to push the hardware to its limits ?

 

[phide]

I can see these types of threads in nine months, if Skyrim has Crysis like graphics: "Bethesda can't code for crap! I can't run Skyrim maxed out with 4xAA @ 1920x1080. What a sham!!" "Yeah, Bethesda really screwed this one. How did they expect anyone to run this thing ?

That's how Morrowind was. Hell, running Morrowind at 1920x1800 w/ 4xAA today is, on occasion, still pretty iffy. Despite that, the game still garnered numerous game of the year awards and was both a critical and commercial success. As did Crysis — another critical and commercial success, despite all the performance complaints.

Historically speaking, the success of the Elder Scrolls series has been driven at least partly (if not predominantly) by technological innovation and pushing the boundaries of hardware limitations. PC gamers really seem to want to play open-ended RPGs that are as technologically advanced as first person shooters like Crysis and Metro, and as the visual divide between TES games and modern shooters increases, the less likely PC gamers are going to maintain an interest in TES games. So long as the game is reasonably scalable, though, PC gamers are unlikely to do too much complaining.

 

[Silus]

That's how Morrowind was. Hell, running Morrowind at 1920x1800 w/ 4xAA today is, on occasion, still pretty iffy. Despite that, the game still garnered numerous game of the year awards and was both a critical and commercial success. As did Crysis — another critical and commercial success, despite all the performance complaints.

Historically speaking, the success of the Elder Scrolls series has been driven at least partly (if not predominantly) by technological innovation and pushing the boundaries of hardware limitations. PC gamers really seem to want to play open-ended RPGs that are as technologically advanced as first person shooters like Crysis and Metro, and as the visual divide between TES games and modern shooters increases, the less likely PC gamers are going to maintain an interest in TES games. So long as the game is reasonably scalable, though, PC gamers are unlikely to do too much complaining.

First of all, I wouldn't say that that particular aspect drove TES to what it is today...Story and Gameplay were always the selling point of TES.

Second, isn't this thread the proof of the opposite ? People are complaining about the graphical fidelity of a game, based on console screenshots, from a build that is either old or from this year, which puts it at least 9 months away from the final build.

 

[phide]

First of all, I wouldn't say that that particular aspect drove TES to what it is today...Story and Gameplay were always the selling point of TES.

I don't think the significance of the series' typically high visual quality should be discounted. Whether that's the key selling point or whether the RPG experience (which Oblivion lacked) or the engrossing storyline (which Oblivion most certainly lacked) is debatable.

Second, isn't this thread the proof of the opposite ?

I don't believe it contradicts anything I'm saying, no.

 

[krogen]

...What did Bethesda do really ? Have you played the game yet ? How do you know it's NOT going to push the hardware to its limits ?

Uhm... Have you seen the screenshots?

I have, and they don't look amazing by any means.

Five years ago when Bethesda released Oblivion screenshots I was struck by the detail and quality... This is not the case with this one, so far at least.

Same with Morrowind. I remember reading a magazine review of the game and I just couldn't stop looking at the screenshots. They were simply amazing.

What Bethesda has shown us so far isn't what I'd expect, considering that the previous games looked so great when they released.

...What did Bethesda do really ? Have you played the game yet ? How do you know it's NOT going to push the hardware to its limits ?

I'm going to say it will push modern GPUs, much like Oblivion did. We are talking about a huge world, with tremendous amount of detail and characters. If you want to play it maxed and high resolutions, you won't be able to do so, with a mid-range graphics card.

And how do you know this? At least I have some basis in what I said.

 

[Silus]

I don't believe it contradicts anything I'm saying, no.

You said:

So long as the game is reasonably scalable, though, PC gamers are unlikely to do too much complaining.

But people are already complaining that those screenshots (from a console and from a build at least 9 months away from final) look bad. It's not about scalability, but it's related with it, since less graphics fidelity usually means less demanding specs to run the game that has them.

 

[phide]

Scalability, in this context, means "the ability to reduce visual features in order to improve performance". If the game is visually advanced but can be scaled down in order to perform well on older systems while still maintaining a satisfactory level of visual fidelity, PC gamers are unlikely to complain too much. So, no, I see nothing in this thread that's contrary to my point.

 

[Silus]

Uhm... Have you seen the screenshots?

I have, and they don't look amazing by any means.

Five years ago when Bethesda released Oblivion screenshots I was struck by the detail and quality... This is not the case with this one, so far at least.

Same with Morrowind. I remember reading a magazine review of the game and I just couldn't stop looking at the screenshots. They were simply amazing.

What Bethesda has shown us so far isn't what I'd expect, considering that the previous games looked so great when they released.

Your first question is rhetorical correct ?

Also, they don't look amazing compared to what ?

Oblivion is a bad example, since its screenshots prior to the full game's release, were showing the same glowingness that people complain about today (as one of the reasons why Gamebyro is so awful). People's comparisons just change, based on new stuff that came out after Oblivion (namely Crysis). And this is why I ask what are you using to compare the amazingness of these screenshots.

To me all this is hilarious, because the usual game used to compare anything nowadays, is Crysis. And that all modern games should at least offer the same graphics fidelity as Crysis. But Crysis was a game widely criticized for running like crap on more modest machines and that Crytek doesn't know how to a code a game, blah blah blah...

 

[Stereophile]

First of all, I wouldn't say that that particular aspect drove TES to what it is today...Story and Gameplay were always the selling point of TES.

Second, isn't this thread the proof of the opposite ?

Phide is right. Shiny graphics are traditionally a big part of the appeal of each successive TES game. Morrowind looked amazing for a 2002 open world RPG. Oblivion had tons of hype surrounding the graphics. It didn't turn out looking quite as nice as I expected, the first hint was dropping the elaborate shadows they showed in the first previews, but it was one of those games PC gamers liked to use to show off their pixel shaders.

Now PC game graphics advancement has sort of stalled out due to declining PC game market share and the increasing importance of consoles using outdated 2005 era GPUs. For evidence, one only need to look at any of the many GPU reviews on this site for the last few years. Even mid range cards can play top games at what used to be considered insanely highly resolutions and image quality. There isn't the same incentive to upgrade as there was before this console generation came into its own. It's really come down to splitting hairs. Where before, you'd be forced to upgrade your GPU every 2 years or you'd pay a heavy price.

I'd like to be wrong, and if I am, I'll go right out and buy a quadcore and $300 GPU, but I'll be surprised if the system requirements for Skyrim are much heavier than Fallout 3. Any mid range CPU/GPU combo from the last 3 years will probably handle it with horsepower to spare. It just doesn't strike me as a game that will demand enormous PC resources.

 

[nakedhand]

Agreed. Graphics are secondary, gameplay is numero uno to me personally. And some better voice acting will be refreshing

Gameplay and story is number one for me as well, but "the other" number one has to be the visuals, interactivity and destructability.

 

[RamonGTP]

Historically speaking, the success of the Elder Scrolls series has been driven at least partly (if not predominantly) by technological innovation and pushing the boundaries of hardware limitations.

I couldn't disagree more with the highlighted part of this post. It's success has been predominantly determined by the gameplay.

 

[phide]

If that's the case, why was Oblivion successful?

 

[CMadki4]

I couldn't disagree more with the highlighted part of this post. It's success has been predominantly determined by the gameplay.

Roger that: gameplay. Eye candy can only get you so far. Did pretty scenery and bad voice acting keep you playing Oblivion for hours upon hours upon hours? Maybe, but more than likely not.

I must say, if they get rid of that glow, and maybe improve the character model a bit, I'd be totally happy with the original look. Plenty of eye candy for me.

Fast travel: for those of you complaining about fast travel and how it shouldn't be in the Skyrim. Don't you use it. Hoof it. Problem solved.

 

[RamonGTP]

If that's the case, why was Oblivion successful?

I already said why. Game play. I think it was great as do many other people. Sure, graphics help with the immersion factor, but they are secondary to game play, not a predominant factor.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I know 4 people who don't really like RPG's who bought Oblivion because it looked pretty. Only one of which actually finished the game. Obviously gameplay has a lot to do with sales, but so does presentation.

 

[RamonGTP]

I know 4 people who don't really like RPG's who bought Oblivion because it looked pretty. Only one of which actually finished the game. Obviously gameplay has a lot to do with sales, but so does presentation.

I'll use myself as an example then. I'm typically not one for RPG's either and I bought Oblivion because it looked pretty too, but I continued playing it because I really enjoyed the game and completed the main quest. By the time I completed the main quest, the "awe factor" was gone. Visually I had seen everything the game has to offer, yet I still went back time and again to continue the sub quests.

When Skyrim gets released, I'll buy it and this time it won't be because of it's visuals it'll be because I fully expect a great game. So I still maintain that although both are important, TES continued success is predominantly due to game play, not graphics.

 

[Youn]

The new screens look like the expected progress in image quality. Remember people, every generation will typically get smaller and smaller improvements as we approach true photo-realism.

That said, if they gimp the animation then it could really kill the immersion factor.

 

[Spare-Flair]

The new screens look like the expected progress in image quality. Remember people, every generation will typically get smaller and smaller improvements as we approach true photo-realism.

That said, if they gimp the animation then it could really kill the immersion factor.

It's more likely that they were not too ambitious into jumping into new technology because they went with what was tried, tested, and proven considering they need it to scale properly for consoles and jumping into something more graphically ambitious new may not have given them that assurance. The best hope for PC gamers is that they will have extra DX11 features, huge textures available to choose from, and maybe SSAO and better dynamic shadows (Oblivion's were pretty bad) that can be turned on versus the console version.

 

[Krenum]

The new screens look like the expected progress in image quality. Remember people, every generation will typically get smaller and smaller improvements as we approach true photo-realism.

That said, if they gimp the animation then it could really kill the immersion factor.

I don't want Photo realism in games. Whats the point? Its a game. What then need to be focusing on is the animation first and foremost. Animation is the deciding factor when it comes to immersion in my opinion.

 

[krameriffic]

If that's the case, why was Oblivion successful?

Simple: reputation. Oblivion was the fourth in an extremely well known series of games. From every angle it looked like a revolutionary and purely awesome game. It was also a part of the new generation of HD consoles, which sure as hell helped it on that front.

 

[sculelos]

Simple: reputation. Oblivion was the fourth in an extremely well known series of games. From every angle it looked like a revolutionary and purely awesome game. It was also a part of the new generation of HD consoles, which sure as hell helped it on that front.

Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas were also very well received. I'm pretty sure we have nothing to worry about with Skyrim as most of the people I know who played Oblivion enjoyed it.

 

[hegulator]

Oblivion was a total punt by Bethsoft in terms of gameplay, but it delivered like none other on the technology front. It sounds like they're recycling the same gameplay from Oblivion (leveled system, very limited skills, etc) without delivering a massive engine breakthrough, so they'll just be riding on The Elder Scrolls name and their marketing department this time. I'll wait to pick it up until it's 20 bucks on steam and the modding community has removed the horrible leveled system.

 

[tuaarita]

I wonder if my rig can handle this on maximum settings.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas were also very well received. I'm pretty sure we have nothing to worry about with Skyrim as most of the people I know who played Oblivion enjoyed it.

New Vegas was the work of Obsidian. It is generally percieved to be a better game than Fallout 3 by the rpgphiles.

 

[sculelos]

Oblivion was a total punt by Bethsoft in terms of gameplay, but it delivered like none other on the technology front. It sounds like they're recycling the same gameplay from Oblivion (leveled system, very limited skills, etc) without delivering a massive engine breakthrough, so they'll just be riding on The Elder Scrolls name and their marketing department this time. I'll wait to pick it up until it's 20 bucks on steam and the modding community has removed the horrible leveled system.

The leveling system won't be nearly as bad this go around. Think Fallout 3, never once in that game did the leveling system bother me.

As far as technology goes they are more concerned with performance, animations and gameplay and I'm fine with that. Pretty graphics only go so far in making a game fun to play.

New Vegas was the work of Obsidian. It is generally percieved to be a better game than Fallout 3 by the rpgphiles.

Definitely had more bugs then Fallout 3 but yeah it was a better game story wise even though it took me a lot less time to play through then Fallout 3.

 

[Disposed]

Oblivion was a total punt by Bethsoft in terms of gameplay, but it delivered like none other on the technology front. It sounds like they're recycling the same gameplay from Oblivion (leveled system, very limited skills, etc) without delivering a massive engine breakthrough, so they'll just be riding on The Elder Scrolls name and their marketing department this time. I'll wait to pick it up until it's 20 bucks on steam and the modding community has removed the horrible leveled system.

So many assumptions from a couple screenshots. I like to speculate as much as the next guy but you cannot come up with all of that based on a couple low res screenshots.

 

[sculelos]

So many assumptions from a couple screenshots. I like to speculate as much as the next guy but you cannot come up with all of that based on a couple low res screenshots.

I know. People need to remember that Oblivion was a huge step forward from Morrowind in many gameplay aspects. Sure their were a few things implemented poorly but Bethesda overall delivered a very solid game and the few things they made huge oversights on like the leveling system I am sure they will fix in the next game.

My short want list is as follows.

- More intelligent A.I.
- More realistic weather and shadowing
- Better Animations
- More aggressive combat
- Realistic Features, (Food, Water, Sleep, etc)
- Stability
- Unique Landscapes and Better variety

Oblivion is still fun today with the right mods. I just hope that Skyrim will beat my modded Oblivion experience hands down.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Other than combat, what exactly was improved over Morrowind in Oblivion? I would call it a step backwards in most areas as far as gameplay is concerned.

 

[krameriffic]

Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas were also very well received. I'm pretty sure we have nothing to worry about with Skyrim as most of the people I know who played Oblivion enjoyed it.

I don't think any of them were bad games in the same way that Bioshock wasn't a bad game, but most people don't think they stand up to their predecessors (Morrowind, Fallout 2 and System Shock 2).

Fallout 3 is the only one that represented a significant change from the gameplay and design of its predecessor and that was primarily to bring it onto the console scene (where it probably made most of its sales). What we are doing here is thinly disguising the PC vs. console argument by putting it in a particular context: Bethesda/Obsidian RPGs

 

[Disposed]

Other than combat, what exactly was improved over Morrowind in Oblivion? I would call it a step backwards in most areas as far as gameplay is concerned.

2 words

VOICE ACTING.

It wasnt the greatest but it sure beat the hell out of reading a novels worth of text just to play for a few hours. I know a lot of people complain about oblivions voice acting but at least it had it...

 

[Tudz]

Other than combat, what exactly was improved over Morrowind in Oblivion? I would call it a step backwards in most areas as far as gameplay is concerned.

I enjoyed Oblivion more than Morrowind, but that's just me.

 

[Parmenides]

2 words

VOICE ACTING.

It wasnt the greatest but it sure beat the hell out of reading a novels worth of text just to play for a few hours. I know a lot of people complain about oblivions voice acting but at least it had it...

Remember that you just heard the same voice actor over and over again saying the same things.

 

[Disposed]

Remember that you just heard the same voice actor over and over again saying the same things.

This is true, i didnt say it was good but like i said at least it was there.

 

[TheOneKnownAsMe]

I felt the voice acting in Oblivion detracted from the game. Sure, it was kinda nifty for a while, until you realized that it was the same voice over, and over, and over, and over.

I personally missed the depth of dialogue that Morrowind provided by limiting it to text only, it's just not possible with voice acting. No one wants to hear the same monotone voice drone on for six or seven paragraphs. Whereas with text, you can read it and perceive it however the hell you want.

 

[RamonGTP]

I think I'd rather have voice acting than text only. Just my preference.

 

[Tudz]

I think I'd rather have voice acting than text only. Just my preference.

Same. I'll go one step further and say I'd rather have bad voice acting than no voice acting. When a game presents me with a wall of text I tend to ignore it and move on.

 

[NKDietrich]

I think I'd rather have voice acting than text only. Just my preference.

Yep. Ever since games started developing voice acting, I've found it harder and harder to go back to games without it. Especially when my character doesn't have a voice.

 

[CreganTur]

The leveling system won't be nearly as bad this go around. Think Fallout 3, never once in that game did the leveling system bother me.

As far as technology goes they are more concerned with performance, animations and gameplay and I'm fine with that. Pretty graphics only go so far in making a game fun to play.



Definitely had more bugs then Fallout 3 but yeah it was a better game story wise even though it took me a lot less time to play through then Fallout 3.

Obsidian generally does well at creating story and atmosphere and always falls on their face when it comes to technical follow-through. They're one developer who I no longer trust. After The horrible let down that was Alpha Protocol, and let us not forget KoToR II's problems, I will never buy another game from them on day 1. Purchases of their games will now be fully dependant on user reviews.