Skyrim - The Elder Scrolls V

[Thoughtful Thug]

The picture was a joke. Chill out.

I consider it as a preference, rather than elitism.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

I know, that's why I said it's hilarious

it's nothing personal mind you, but you really see too much of that crap on the internet nowadays... can't a guy play both PC and consoles, TBS and FPS and have fun with both?

I mean of course you prefer PC gaming, with a decent PC it's superior to console gaming. but looking down on people based on what hardware/games they enjoy is silly.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

I know, that's why I said it's hilarious

Nevermind... Cool

it's nothing personal mind you, but you really see too much of that crap on the internet nowadays... can't a guy play both PC and consoles, TBS and FPS and have fun with both?

Well I think you are missing out in most forums discussing this game. It is highly divided.

And to note: Saints Row 2 only sold under 4 million units compared to GTA 4 20 million

I mean of course you prefer PC gaming, with a decent PC it's superior to console gaming. but looking down on people based on what hardware/games they enjoy is silly.

Not looking down at them at all. Of course I would love to see them purchase upgrades to their consoles without giving up an arm and leg for them. This I hope will increase more quality games to the standard of PC games.

 

[salty mud]

So we basically agree then. Although I'm pretty sure it's a shared blame between developers and console companies. I mean I'm pretty sure they devs must lobby to Microsoft and Sony to upgrade their hardware soon, to some extent. I'm pretty sure they could do it more seriously. On the other hand I'm pretty sure Microsoft and Sony see no reason to upgrade their hardware yet. Last I heard the next generation of consoles wasn't even planned before 2014. I wish we could stop getting useless features and peripherals as the "new innovations" each years. 2014, that would be 9 years of the same generation of console.

Kind of reminds me of this extremely misleading and inaccurate graphic. But it's the same general concept of "delay".

Spoiler :

I guess we do. It's just I think that people forget what videogames are meant to be - fun. The general consensus is, "don't have it on a machine I don't like? You're not having fun." It's silly.

But I've just pre-ordered and eagerly anticipate the arrival of the game.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I don't mind graphics stagnation, it saves me upgrades.
I'm actually a little sad that Skyrim requires at least 512 GB video ram. Looks like I'll finally have to retire my four and a half year old 320 mb Geforce 8 GTS.
Well, the upgrade can wait anyway. It's not like Skyrim will be worth my money until a second or third patch in February. Bethesda is not in the business of releasing bug free games.

 

[MkLh]

I don't mind graphics stagnation, it saves me upgrades.

This. What worries me about AAA titles is gameplay stagnation. If you look at Skyrim for instance, gameplay looks pretty much identical with Oblivion 5 years ago. There are lots of things they could have added: locational damage, different type of weapons, traps, shapesifting, destroyable enviroments etc.. but instead they mostly have just improved graphics and (hopefully) made the world bit more lively and immersive.

The main reason why actual gameplay has evolved so little in recent years probably is an insane development cost of a modern game. Devs simply don't have money or time to invest in innovative gameplay as building graphical worlds takes so much resources. Some have predicted the next gen consoles could change this as they will have enough power to run middleware to make game development cheaper again, but in reality no-one knows this for sure. To this date, better hardware has just made developing more expensive.

 

[salty mud]

What do people make of Todd Howard's claims this time around? People will start fights in streets with each other, quests will be truly "dynamic," varying levels of snow etc?

 

[Rub'Rum]

To this date, better hardware has just made developing more expensive.

That's not entirely false in itself. But who are you going to blame though? The high-tech users telling the game companies "here we have this tech, use it to make awesome gameplay and content"? Are we going to blame people who actually create the better technology because by making it available they are making the game developers focus on making graphics over increased content? ... Or blame people with low levels of expectations in terms of gameplay and content? Look at Rage, what a perfect exemple of this situation. 25 gigs of hi-res textures. Woohoo.

 

[Evie]

Totally going to blame the people who say I shouldn't be able to run this game on my slightly older laptop just so you can get an even more awesome game

(Actually my laptop could probably handle harsher requirements, but that's besides the general point, which is that a lot of people who might be interested to play this game aren't interested in upgrading their computer every year or so - especially in the Age Of Laptops. Gotta take more of the possible audience than just hardcore gamer in considerations: the more you sell, the more you have resources to actually work on games)

 

[Rub'Rum]

Everybody might as well start making the next FarmVille and AngryBird then.

 

[Maniacal]

Better graphics/visuals =/= needing to get the latest hardware for your computer if they optimize it correctly. Hell, Skyrim and Oblivion's graphics would look a thousand times better if they just sharpened them up a bit (compared to the FEAR, STALKER and Metro games, Oblivion's graphics are kind of rounded off and ugly). Although they have yet to actually show the PC version of Skyrim so there is the possibility of hope but I'm not holding my breath, but at least they have shown they have fixed things they should have fixed in Oblivion (the bloody awful faces...).

This. What worries me about AAA titles is gameplay stagnation. If you look at Skyrim for instance, gameplay looks pretty much identical with Oblivion 5 years ago. There are lots of things they could have added: locational damage, different type of weapons, traps, shapesifting, destroyable enviroments etc.. but instead they mostly have just improved graphics and (hopefully) made the world bit more lively and immersive.

The main reason why actual gameplay has evolved so little in recent years probably is an insane development cost of a modern game. Devs simply don't have money or time to invest in innovative gameplay as building graphical worlds takes so much resources. Some have predicted the next gen consoles could change this as they will have enough power to run middleware to make game development cheaper again, but in reality no-one knows this for sure. To this date, better hardware has just made developing more expensive.

If they spend too much time making the graphics pretty while not improving the gameplay, but that isn't always the reason. Even when developing for middleware they usually don't vastly improve the gameplay (unless they are an indie dev). A lot of AAA developers (and publishers, who love to push the devs to a strict deadline) know they don't really have to innovate much to sell the games.

The combat in skyrim could be improved in so many ways (although it looks slightly better than Oblivion's (which was already mediocre)). They don't really need to sacrifice this stuff to improve the graphics, but they could still make them look better (it is amazing how much better graphics look when you just change the lighting and HDR settings, sometimes having to edit them yourself or find a mod/tool to fix it but still, even Morrowind and M&B look a hundred times better just with some HDR). And anyway, I care less about having the most "shock and awe" graphics and more about the detail (one reason why I love The Witcher 2, SO MUCH DETAIL ).

What do people make of Todd Howard's claims this time around? People will start fights in streets with each other, quests will be truly "dynamic," varying levels of snow etc?

"Cool story bro" but I'll believe it when I see it. He hyped up the "radiant AI" of Oblivion which wasn't really that amazing. It is LONG past time they added more activities for the NPCs, the Gothic series already did that years ago (pity it was rushed and ruined, although Gothic 3 is still pretty fun once you get the community patches).

I'm curious to see how the varying levels of snow will work, and the dynamic quests. People fighting each other might be interesting, but it might just be radiant AI again. As I said before though, all of this requires RAM and CPU power, something the x-box really lacks (that is the problem people are having with the consoles, not so much the people who play them).

 

[salty mud]

I heard the snow variations are really poor. It's almost like a white layer of paint on the floor, that randomly changes place at random intervals. No footprints, no crunchy snow noises... But then again, this is just what people say; so take it with a large dose of salt.

 

[Rub'Rum]

... no crunchy snow noises...

ooh man I WANT CRUNCHY NOISES! (although I guess I get a lot of it IRL).

Well that's okay, I like salt.

 

[Maniacal]

Footprints seem rather necessary for snow, especially when you're tracking something :/

Snow noises, well lots of games have different footstep noises for different surfaces (even Minecraft!).

 

[Mustakrakish]

Wow... just wow... can't we just discuss the game? Are you seriously saying that the video wasn't awesome? The game is the same as Oblivion, just with graphical improvements? Seriously? Not worth your money?

I'm sorry, but there are very little graphical improvement. That's one of the last things (if at all), that is "appealing" about Skyrim. That is the last "selling point" about it. If you listened to what they were saying, or watched what they have done about the game at all, you'd understand that they worked hard trying to make a good game, improve on their fails of the past. The last thing they're trying to sell, is "hey look at the pretty graphics". The least of what most of good previewers were focusing on is pretty graphics.

This post below I linked here before pretty much sums up my thoughts on this...

""You know what really detracts from an rpg experience? A bad game. Like animation and terrible voice work. Generic, awful art. Uninteresting quests and repetitive, samey gameplay and environments. The same dungeon environment a hundred times over that was bland the first time through. Braindead AI that gets stuck on walls or runs in circles or says the most random inappropriate crap at the wrong time. Or says the same exact thing a thousand times, but sometimes in a different voice. Loot scaling. Impotent archery. The worst combat in gaming. Bad camera. Little variety in armor or loot. Randomized character design were everyone looks terrible. Quite possibly the worst animation in the industry. Technical problems like framerate and texture pop.

And if someone was to say... you know what? We fixed most of this. Yup. Really turned it around in almost all of these areas. Worked real hard. Game moves very well now. The environments are varied and interesting. The character design is 1000x better and the world just has an air of authenticity about it. You character feels better. It's all more believable. Presentation, animation and visual effects help to create a role playing experience that seems more realized... I'll take it.""

If your view is that this still looks like crap, just Oblivion with graphical improvements that is not worth your money... well then I guess I'd have to respect different views and move on.

We can talk how they could do this and that, add that and this to no end. They ed up with Oblivion, that's not a secret. But personally I appreciate the work they did this time around to make it good and can't wait for the game that I was craving for for years now, and it certainly is worth my humble money.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Are you seriously saying that the video wasn't awesome? The game is the same as Oblivion, just with graphical improvements? Seriously? Not worth your money?

Nobody said that.

If your view is that this still looks like crap, just Oblivion with graphical improvements that is not worth your money...

Nobody said that.

I'm looking forward to play it.

 

[Maniacal]

EDIT: Ninja'd. I did watch the video and it was pretty neat, although I think that is partly because Bethesda has excellent music. I really look forward to the Skyrim sound track

Wow... just wow... can't we just discuss the game?

We are, to the extent we can based off a few videos of it (mostly showing the same footage).

I'm sorry, but there are very little graphical improvement. That's one of the last things (if at all), that is "appealing" about Skyrim. That is the last "selling point" about it. If you listened to what they were saying, or watched what they have done about the game at all, you'd understand that they worked hard trying to make a good game, improve on their fails of the past. The last thing they're trying to sell, is "hey look at the pretty graphics". The least of what most of good previewers were focusing on is pretty graphics.

I don't think you're actually reading and/or understanding the above posts. Although clarity mistakes are possible. However, "little graphical improvement being a main appeal" is ridiculous, they vastly improved the faces of people and I don't think anyone wanted Oblivion's faces again. If it was much more detailed/pretty it would be even more appealing

We can talk how they could do this and that, add that and this to no end. They ed up with Oblivion, that's not a secret. But personally I appreciate the work they did this time around to make it good and can't wait for the game that I was craving for for years now, and it certainly is worth my humble money.

I think we all already agree that we'd rather Bethesda focus on gameplay than graphics, however I'm just not really seeing enough of that in the preview videos or it's hard to tell how good it actually is. Mount&Blade and Dark Messiah set the bar high (and years ago) for decent combat mechanics and every game that fails to come close feels lacking to me. Hopefully Skyrim's combat is better than it looks (or at least modders can improve it more easily than in Oblivion). Oblivion was still a lot of fun despite its flaws, albeit in part due to mods, and I am sure Skyrim will be the same, but I'm not getting hyped up over it.

EDIT: At least the music is always amazing.

 

[Double A]

What? I'm positively hyped for Skyrim. Sure, it probably won't be the greatest RPG ever, but it'll still be a good game worth $50-$60.

You must really the hate the last 3-4 years of games then.

Oh yes. I absolutely hate every game with good graphics solely because of that.

I think he meant that he hates games that don't have any real new or innovative content besides better graphics, something people have complained about for more than 4 years.

Indeed I did.

It seems that some people *ahem PC nerds* are never able to be pleased.

Wait? How is this a problem? Wanting constant innovation in an industry which thrives on innovation is a bad thing?

A lot of console gamers are just happy to sit back and play games. I like to think I have a more proactive role by encouraging the industry to always do better. Perfection is nearly an impossible goal, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be strived for. Every step towards perfection due to consumer pressure is a good one.

I play as many PC games as the next guy, but in my experience I have never heard or seen a console player complain about the games they are getting. For the most part they find them 'fun.' A word that is barely ever used now it would seem. Instead of pinning the blame on consoles and their restricted hardware, I pin the blame on the developers for sticking to consoles.

A lot of console gamers are happy just to have a good time, and know what? I'm perfectly fine with that. Fun is my primary reason for video games. If it were escapism, I'd read a book or watch Netflix, as those are far cheaper alternatives. Video games are extremely fun.

However, this does not mean games have to only be fun. Thought-provoking is a good thing to achieve, like in any entertainment medium.

I'm not pinning blame on any one party in particular. Publishers are perfectly happy to keep pumping out expensive games which are guaranteed to turn a profit, though, and they can easily do that with the current console gen as everyone already knows how to work with them. Microsoft and Sony are also happy because all they have to do is make some fancy doodads every few years.

So we basically agree then. Although I'm pretty sure it's a shared blame between developers and console companies. I mean I'm pretty sure they devs must lobby to Microsoft and Sony to upgrade their hardware soon, to some extent. I'm pretty sure they could do it more seriously. On the other hand I'm pretty sure Microsoft and Sony see no reason to upgrade their hardware yet. Last I heard the next generation of consoles wasn't even planned before 2014. I wish we could stop getting useless features and peripherals as the "new innovations" each years. 2014, that would be 9 years of the same generation of console.

Kind of reminds me of this extremely misleading and inaccurate graphic. But it's the same general concept of "delay".

Spoiler :

I hope the Wii U will help pressure Not-tendo to make new consoles.

On the other hand, I've gotten next to no use out of my PS3. Meh.

I know, that's why I said it's hilarious

it's nothing personal mind you, but you really see too much of that crap on the internet nowadays... can't a guy play both PC and consoles, TBS and FPS and have fun with both?

I mean of course you prefer PC gaming, with a decent PC it's superior to console gaming. but looking down on people based on what hardware/games they enjoy is silly.

Objectiveness is fun!

Sadly, most console gamers (especially casual gamers) haven't ever played on a gaming PC, so most will automatically assume it's worse because their friends haven't either. This, of course, is a source of many a flame war.

 

[Evie]

Everybody might as well start making the next FarmVille and AngryBird then.

There's a difference between designing a game you can run on a five years old laptop, and designing a game that a two years old or year old laptop may play.

We're not five, or ten years ago when the desktop was the computer of choice and people could upgrade it to play games. We're in 2011, and the average possible consumer has a laptop, which he changes every few years. Laptops can't get graphic cards update, at least not at any sort of reasonable price/effort, so the higher your graphic requirement, the more of a potential audience you cut off, period.

So while it's no reason to use browser grame graphics, it's a serious incentive to not push the graphic requirements further than necessary - you want mid-range laptops of the last year or two (preferably two) to be able to field your game.

 

[Rub'Rum]

I was just saying that because by the logic of trying to have the biggest audience, small games that can be run on phones are probably what everybody should be doing. Since now it's laptops that everybody has, at some point in the future that statement will become "most people nowadays have small tablets" or something without even a keyboard and a mouse. That'll do wonders for gamers if game companies must target the largest audience and what it is that they own at home all the time. I guess there'll still be companies catering to a more "hardcore" (ugh) base, but we'll probably have to say goodbye to the richest biggest companies with the larger means.

My personal situation is that it would cost me more to change laptop every two years and have an underwhelming gaming experience than it actually costs me to buy an excellent PC every 4-5 years. I have the excellent desktop PC for my home entertainment needs, and a cruddy work laptop that costs like 500$ and runs windows 7 and everything I need plus some classic games from gog.com and the like.