Consoles aren't holding back PC graphics -- not unless modern PCs can run Skyrim at like 120 fps.
Your super powered PC that gets 34 fps inside towns and 50-60 FPS in dungeons isn't exactly blowing the game out of the water.
So what if a game doesnt' support DX11? Congratulations, you just spent an extra 500 dollars to be able to see swaying trees and moving landscape shadows.
Consoles are absolutely holding back PC graphics. Several developers in recent months, including Crytek's lead developer has stated very succinctly that they want to develop for current PC capability but they have to develop with console's in mind first since business wise they need to have sales from consoles to be financially sound.
One of the high up NVidia engineers said current PC graphic technology is more than 10x faster, more capable, etc, than the capabilities of PS3 and XBOX360.
Also, all you have to do to see how embarassingly better PC graphics are than consoles is look at the difference of BF3 on console vs PC. Its completely absurd how much better the PC version looks.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
But seriously. I would totally be down for an Elder Scrolls Online game. They would have to figure out how to deal with being able to kill everyone in the game both human and NPC. But for some reason the chaos of it would prove to be very interesting. A ganksta's paradise.
So here's my concern, because I think it's been misunderstood.
I am frustrated with the perception that I have that consoles are holding back PC gaming. I feel that PC gaming could be miles ahead of where it is now (with regard to graphics, physics, gameplay, interface, UI, AI, sound, etc), if it weren't for the fact that console gaming and it's static hardware requirement keeps dragging PC titles back.
Sure, the graphics may look great in the limited screenshots and videos we are seeing now. But imagine how much better they ~could~ be. Think back to when Oblivion was released: it looked great then, and still looks great now. At the time it stressed computer hardware like no other game.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for crushing hardware just for the sake of wasting CPU/GPU cycles, I want to see those get used, but I want to see them get used for stuff that actually makes the game better. Better textures, better effects, better AI, better gameplay.
Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to come off as elitist. I don't think you should need state of the art top tier hardware as a requirement to game. I think that developers should strive to keep their games running on a "majority" of the computers out there, but should put in enough features to really push the boundary on what technology is available at the time. Oblivion did that. Crysis is famous for it. id used to be famous for it.
Now maybe on "Ultra" setting Skyrim will totally blow my mind. But from all indications, it really looks like a console port, with a few PC upgrades attached. At it's core it's still DX9 (with limited DX11 features so not to break compatibility with consoles - http://www.tomshardware.com/news/The-Elder-Scrolls-Skyrim-Todd-Howard-RPG-DirectX-11,12495.html), and it's "recommended" hardware is from June 2008. Hardly boundary pushing or ground breaking.
It leaves me wondering just how great this game would look and play if there weren't console baggage attached to it (or if it would even exist at all without potential console revenue).
I don't think the problem is what you think it is. I think video games are reaching a plateau where hardware has caught up with ultra-realistic graphics. Graphics look better now than they ever have in the past (compare the Skyrim, Oblivion and Morrowind character graphics to see how much better Skyrim is over Oblivion. Image here: http://www.emgn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Oblivion-and-Morrowind-vs.-Skyrim-Characters.jpg) and they only get better and better, yet they seem to require far kess hardware power than in the past.
Developers aren't getting lazy with graphics, the industry has just gotten better and better at delivering awesome, realistic graphics.
I have a GTX 260 that I bought 3 years ago and I've never encountered a game I couldn't run on nearly the highest settings or the very highest settings, yet graphics have just gotten better and better with games. I say this having bought a lot of games over the years.
What happened to scaling?They get lazy on scaling?I mean you sohudl be able to scale games down to near ancient machines,it's not like you ever draw the entire zone at once,you have view distance and dithering ect ect.Developers are getting cheaper and or lazier all the time.There is no reason there shouldn't be multiple quality versions dfor example DX10+ 64 bit and a 32 bit version.You should be able to pre load HD graphics or low end and of course al lthe other scaling effects liek shadows/lighting ect ect.Lighting alone could be really simplified to just zonal lighting for those that have lower end machines.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Anything that can be played on an XBox 360 is gonna be playable on any mid-range pc made in the last 4 years. With this being a port, the minimum specs sounds more like over-caution then an actual minimum.
Anything that can be played on an XBox 360 is gonna be playable on any mid-range pc made in the last 4 years. With this being a port, the minimum specs sounds more like over-caution then an actual minimum.
QFT.
System requirements have just about always been significantly exaggerated, not because game companies want to lie to their players, but because they have to be very liberal for the sake of safety margin. A really lean-running PC might barely be able to get away with going way below the CPU requirement, but they have to make sure that even in the worst case scenario, the machine they say will run the game will, in fact, run the game. There's also a threshold they have to set for playability, and it has to exceed what most or all players will accept.
Some players might be okay with 20fps; In fact, I once played Crysis on my laptop at not much more (~25), and it was just fine on the smaller screen. A player with really low standards might even be willing to squeeze in with 15fps, if it means the difference between playing and not playing. Again, smaller screens also seem to make low framerates less bothersome, in my experience. The devs, however, have to set the bar a little higher than what the player with the lowest standards might accept.
Then there's oversimplification. There are players who might be running Brisbane (Athlon 64 X2) chips who want to play, and barely meet the GPU requirements. Naturally, they're going to have a much higher requirement than someone with a Core 2 Duo E6320, which isn't quite 2GHZ, but should certainly be capable of playing this game. That said, imparting all of that in a system requirement box, and having people understand, isn't easy, so just saying "2ghz dual core" is easier. That should mean the slowest 2ghz dual core CPU that you'll typically catch paired with a DX9.0C GPU should run the game.
Wow.. those characters look terrible. Modders made 2 times better looking characters for Oblivion. I will need such a mod fast for Skyrim too. Bethesda is terrible at making characters for some reason =/
Its not about the looks, its about how limited the game is on consoles (no mods)
This game is huge. Most people won't need mods and might never actually finish it.
There are still people who haven't finished Elder Scrolls 1 and 2 yet.
Only reason to get this on a PC is because someone doesn't like consoles and prefers PC, but consoles will do just fine for the majority.
Most people who mod propably don't do it for more content but to change the game. Make it harder/esier/preetier/change ui/add some ibnterestin g systems etc. Getting a game like this for a console when you can play it on pc is strange.
Its not about the looks, its about how limited the game is on consoles (no mods)
This game is huge. Most people won't need mods and might never actually finish it.
There are still people who haven't finished Elder Scrolls 1 and 2 yet.
Only reason to get this on a PC is because someone doesn't like consoles and prefers PC, but consoles will do just fine for the majority.
Most people who mod propably don't do it for more content but to change the game. Make it harder/esier/preetier/change ui/add some ibnterestin g systems etc. Getting a game like this for a console when you can play it on pc is strange.
Larger viewing area? Higher quality audio? The ability to play on your couch? The fact that the game will probably FEEL like a console port (as Oblivion did).
Some people don't have high quality gaming PCs, and for those that don't, the game will probably look better on consoles when you factor in distance from the screen and the fact that AA won't be such an issue.
I played Oblivion on both the X-box 360, PS3, and the PC, and outside of the ability to have mods, I much preferred the console version. Now if this were Morrowind, the PC would win hands down. In every sense of the word, Oblivion felt designed for consoles hence it just felt weird playing it on a PC.
Consoles aren't holding back PC graphics -- not unless modern PCs can run Skyrim at like 120 fps.
Your super powered PC that gets 34 fps inside towns and 50-60 FPS in dungeons isn't exactly blowing the game out of the water.
So what if a game doesnt' support DX11? Congratulations, you just spent an extra 500 dollars to be able to see swaying trees and moving landscape shadows.
Consoles are absolutely holding back PC graphics. Several developers in recent months, including Crytek's lead developer has stated very succinctly that they want to develop for current PC capability but they have to develop with console's in mind first since business wise they need to have sales from consoles to be financially sound.
One of the high up NVidia engineers said current PC graphic technology is more than 10x faster, more capable, etc, than the capabilities of PS3 and XBOX360.
Also, all you have to do to see how embarassingly better PC graphics are than consoles is look at the difference of BF3 on console vs PC. Its completely absurd how much better the PC version looks.
So, what you're saying is your computer hardware can't stretch its legs enough because graphics are constantly being held down by fact that pretty much everything is also released on consoles?
Btw, I wouldn't pay much heed to Crytek. When you build a game on the bleeding edge of technology, don't act like a spoiled child when no one buys your game.
To me though, if I were to say consoles were holding back PCs, I would expect Battlefield 3's graphics to be the equivalent of the PS3 version of a console game and the PS3 version of the same game to be a PS2 equivalent. In most PC ports we see games offer more bells and whistles (in the case of BF3 and Crysis 2 tons of bells and whistles), but I'm not really seeing a generational gap in appearance. Rather most console titles look like the PC version with medium graphics settings at worst.
I haven't played Battlefield 3, so I don't know what it takes to run it on the PC will all its bells and whistles (nor Skyrim obviously), but if the game is truly as large as we're led to believe, one would think most PCs would eat these games alive; however, I don't feel like that's going to be the case. The only people that are going to take advantage of the graphical superiority of the PC versions are those that either overclock their PCs, those that stay on the bleeding edge of technology, or both. If PCs were really as overpowered as a lot of people would hvae us to believe, why is Skyrim only "recommended" to be played using a video card that's only two generations old? In my experience, "recommended specs" may as well be the required specs.
I don't doubt that PCs are more powerful. They probably are 10x more powerful on the hardware side, but the fact is, I'm not sure that translates to a whole lot of difference when we're talking about spending 100s of extra dollars to buy that special video card or processor that allows you to really crank up all the settings of a game to max.
Pleasantly surprised how low the requirements are, should be quite playable even on 5 year old pcs..
Too bad they also have to throw resources into the console version of the game and are held back by this.
I'm also verry verry happy with the artstyle, they are one of the few who don't lean towards the asian or WoW'ish styles and the game looks just awesome, characters as well.
Originally posted by SuperXero89 Originally posted by TwilightEdge
Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by kostoslav Its not about the looks, its about how limited the game is on consoles (no mods)
This game is huge. Most people won't need mods and might never actually finish it. There are still people who haven't finished Elder Scrolls 1 and 2 yet.
Only reason to get this on a PC is because someone doesn't like consoles and prefers PC, but consoles will do just fine for the majority. Most people who mod propably don't do it for more content but to change the game. Make it harder/esier/preetier/change ui/add some ibnterestin g systems etc. Getting a game like this for a console when you can play it on pc is strange. Larger viewing area? Higher quality audio? The ability to play on your couch? The fact that the game will probably FEEL like a console port (as Oblivion did). Some people don't have high quality gaming PCs, and for those that don't, the game will probably look better on consoles when you factor in distance from the screen and the fact that AA won't be such an issue. I played Oblivion on both the X-box 360, PS3, and the PC, and outside of the ability to have mods, I much preferred the console version. Now if this were Morrowind, the PC would win hands down. In every sense of the word, Oblivion felt designed for consoles hence it just felt weird playing it on a PC.
Exactly, I would even go as far to say that MOST people don't have high quality gaming PCs. Even on these forums you see people talking about their need to upgrade their rigs from games like AoC which are already two years old.
Skyrim is first and foremost a console game like the ones before it. It plays well on PC (better?) but that is something people don't understand doesn't matter. Most people will probably buy this game in console form and will never even know they are 'missing' a better picture because as you said correctly, they will be in front of a big screen T.V. on the couch playing it.
The 50 or 60 inch television factor generally is a bigger draw than a 24 inch monitor as far as eye-candy and preference for most people, not matter how much sharper graphics may look.
The 50 or 60 inch television factor generally is a bigger draw than a 24 inch monitor as far as eye-candy and preference for most people, not matter how much sharper graphics may look.
If I had a 55" TV then I'd likley be getting it for 360. But I only have a 32" TV, though I have a good PC, and I"m a PC fanboy. So PC SKYRIM here I come!
Though, its hard for me to say if I liked oblivion more on PC or 360. I beat it on both systems but its simply hard to say.
Its not about the looks, its about how limited the game is on consoles (no mods)
This game is huge. Most people won't need mods and might never actually finish it.
There are still people who haven't finished Elder Scrolls 1 and 2 yet.
Only reason to get this on a PC is because someone doesn't like consoles and prefers PC, but consoles will do just fine for the majority.
Most people who mod propably don't do it for more content but to change the game. Make it harder/esier/preetier/change ui/add some ibnterestin g systems etc. Getting a game like this for a console when you can play it on pc is strange.
Larger viewing area? Higher quality audio? The ability to play on your couch? The fact that the game will probably FEEL like a console port (as Oblivion did).
Some people don't have high quality gaming PCs, and for those that don't, the game will probably look better on consoles when you factor in distance from the screen and the fact that AA won't be such an issue.
I played Oblivion on both the X-box 360, PS3, and the PC, and outside of the ability to have mods, I much preferred the console version. Now if this were Morrowind, the PC would win hands down. In every sense of the word, Oblivion felt designed for consoles hence it just felt weird playing it on a PC.
Exactly, I would even go as far to say that MOST people don't have high quality gaming PCs. Even on these forums you see people talking about their need to upgrade their rigs from games like AoC which are already two years old.
Skyrim is first and foremost a console game like the ones before it. It plays well on PC (better?) but that is something people don't understand doesn't matter. Most people will probably buy this game in console form and will never even know they are 'missing' a better picture because as you said correctly, they will be in front of a big screen T.V. on the couch playing it.
The 50 or 60 inch television factor generally is a bigger draw than a 24 inch monitor as far as eye-candy and preference for most people, not matter how much sharper graphics may look.
LOL
Newsflash, Elder Scrolls has first and foremost always been originally a PC game.
And if you can afford a 50 or 60 inch television, I'm banking on the fact your PC is top of the line. Not to mention a high quality PC costs about the same as a PS3 now.
Its not about the looks, its about how limited the game is on consoles (no mods)
This game is huge. Most people won't need mods and might never actually finish it.
There are still people who haven't finished Elder Scrolls 1 and 2 yet.
Only reason to get this on a PC is because someone doesn't like consoles and prefers PC, but consoles will do just fine for the majority.
Most people who mod propably don't do it for more content but to change the game. Make it harder/esier/preetier/change ui/add some ibnterestin g systems etc. Getting a game like this for a console when you can play it on pc is strange.
Larger viewing area? Higher quality audio? The ability to play on your couch? The fact that the game will probably FEEL like a console port (as Oblivion did).
Some people don't have high quality gaming PCs, and for those that don't, the game will probably look better on consoles when you factor in distance from the screen and the fact that AA won't be such an issue.
I played Oblivion on both the X-box 360, PS3, and the PC, and outside of the ability to have mods, I much preferred the console version. Now if this were Morrowind, the PC would win hands down. In every sense of the word, Oblivion felt designed for consoles hence it just felt weird playing it on a PC.
Exactly, I would even go as far to say that MOST people don't have high quality gaming PCs. Even on these forums you see people talking about their need to upgrade their rigs from games like AoC which are already two years old.
Skyrim is first and foremost a console game like the ones before it. It plays well on PC (better?) but that is something people don't understand doesn't matter. Most people will probably buy this game in console form and will never even know they are 'missing' a better picture because as you said correctly, they will be in front of a big screen T.V. on the couch playing it.
The 50 or 60 inch television factor generally is a bigger draw than a 24 inch monitor as far as eye-candy and preference for most people, not matter how much sharper graphics may look.
LOL
Newsflash, Elder Scrolls has first and foremost always been originally a PC game.
And if you can afford a 50 or 60 inch television, I'm banking on the fact your PC is top of the line. Not to mention a high quality PC costs about the same as a PS3 now.
I wouldn't go that far, PS3 is about the cost of 1 pretty high quality video card. You can, of course, build an adequate PC for cheaper, but I wouldn't say a high end PC costs the same as a PS3.
I do agree, however, that TES is primarily a PC game. I also agree that the ability to have access to the mods on the PC is all the reason I need to buy the PC version and the reason I always have.
The majority of people who buy for consoles would never go through the trouble to install mods anyways, but they are likely not going to get the same kind of longevity out of the game either. I still play Oblivion, and FO 3 and NV at least once a month, and check the mods often for new challenges, races, areas, etc. You don't get that on the console.
On some titles, it just feels more natural on a console and you don't have any real incentive to get it for a PC, like Batman: Arkham City. For a game like Skyrim though, you absolutely have reasons to buy on PC, it just isn't accessible to those who aren't computer literate or have the patience to take the time to learn how to install mods.
The 50 or 60 inch television factor generally is a bigger draw than a 24 inch monitor as far as eye-candy and preference for most people, not matter how much sharper graphics may look.
Originally posted by devian LOL Newsflash, Elder Scrolls has first and foremost always been originally a PC game.
And if you can afford a 50 or 60 inch television, I'm banking on the fact your PC is top of the line. Not to mention a high quality PC costs about the same as a PS3 now.
You'd be wrong too.
Most people will buy a big screen because most people watch TV first and foremost. For less than $2,000 you can buy a huge TV to watch the ballgames, your pron, cable, satellite and movies on. That's why people have those and will spend that money.
Conversely most of those people will not spend $1,500 or $2,000 for a high-end computer which is what we are talking about. You can't go out and get one for less than that, lol.
What "high quality PC" costs $300 and where does the average person go and buy that one from? Does someone have to borrow your time machine to get that deal?
Comments
Consoles are absolutely holding back PC graphics. Several developers in recent months, including Crytek's lead developer has stated very succinctly that they want to develop for current PC capability but they have to develop with console's in mind first since business wise they need to have sales from consoles to be financially sound.
One of the high up NVidia engineers said current PC graphic technology is more than 10x faster, more capable, etc, than the capabilities of PS3 and XBOX360.
http://www.gamesradar.com/pc-gaming-being-held-back-by-consoles-says-crytek-man-360s-and-ps3s-everywhere-have-a-cry/
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/nvidia_claims_pc_gaming_sales_will_overtake_consoles_2014_-hardware_already_10x_more_powerful
Also, all you have to do to see how embarassingly better PC graphics are than consoles is look at the difference of BF3 on console vs PC. Its completely absurd how much better the PC version looks.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Having a slow processor can do alot more than that.....
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development
Skyrimjob
Getting too old for this $&17!
But seriously. I would totally be down for an Elder Scrolls Online game. They would have to figure out how to deal with being able to kill everyone in the game both human and NPC. But for some reason the chaos of it would prove to be very interesting. A ganksta's paradise.
Getting too old for this $&17!
cough 'upgrade' cough cough''
*Corsair Obsidian Series 650D *i5-2500K OC'd ~ 4.5
*Asus P8Z68-V PRO/GEN3 mother board
* Radeon HD 7970
*8GB (4GBx2) 1600MHz Kingston HyperX
*240GB Corsair Force GT Series SATA-III SSD
Agreed, there is abolutely no excuse for having 2gb of ram these days. RAM is so stupidly cheap, you can get 4gb's for less than a new game costs.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I got 2gb too xD. 2gbx1 just died
yeah just ordered 2x2GB DDR3 ram for 30$ (10$ S&H) from newegg.ca
well see how the processor holds out though, they are a bit more expensive to upgrade on my computer
I don't think the problem is what you think it is. I think video games are reaching a plateau where hardware has caught up with ultra-realistic graphics. Graphics look better now than they ever have in the past (compare the Skyrim, Oblivion and Morrowind character graphics to see how much better Skyrim is over Oblivion. Image here: http://www.emgn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Oblivion-and-Morrowind-vs.-Skyrim-Characters.jpg) and they only get better and better, yet they seem to require far kess hardware power than in the past.
Developers aren't getting lazy with graphics, the industry has just gotten better and better at delivering awesome, realistic graphics.
I have a GTX 260 that I bought 3 years ago and I've never encountered a game I couldn't run on nearly the highest settings or the very highest settings, yet graphics have just gotten better and better with games. I say this having bought a lot of games over the years.
What happened to scaling?They get lazy on scaling?I mean you sohudl be able to scale games down to near ancient machines,it's not like you ever draw the entire zone at once,you have view distance and dithering ect ect.Developers are getting cheaper and or lazier all the time.There is no reason there shouldn't be multiple quality versions dfor example DX10+ 64 bit and a 32 bit version.You should be able to pre load HD graphics or low end and of course al lthe other scaling effects liek shadows/lighting ect ect.Lighting alone could be really simplified to just zonal lighting for those that have lower end machines.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
OMG I want in on that. Off to Newegg.ca.
Anything that can be played on an XBox 360 is gonna be playable on any mid-range pc made in the last 4 years. With this being a port, the minimum specs sounds more like over-caution then an actual minimum.
QFT.
System requirements have just about always been significantly exaggerated, not because game companies want to lie to their players, but because they have to be very liberal for the sake of safety margin. A really lean-running PC might barely be able to get away with going way below the CPU requirement, but they have to make sure that even in the worst case scenario, the machine they say will run the game will, in fact, run the game. There's also a threshold they have to set for playability, and it has to exceed what most or all players will accept.
Some players might be okay with 20fps; In fact, I once played Crysis on my laptop at not much more (~25), and it was just fine on the smaller screen. A player with really low standards might even be willing to squeeze in with 15fps, if it means the difference between playing and not playing. Again, smaller screens also seem to make low framerates less bothersome, in my experience. The devs, however, have to set the bar a little higher than what the player with the lowest standards might accept.
Then there's oversimplification. There are players who might be running Brisbane (Athlon 64 X2) chips who want to play, and barely meet the GPU requirements. Naturally, they're going to have a much higher requirement than someone with a Core 2 Duo E6320, which isn't quite 2GHZ, but should certainly be capable of playing this game. That said, imparting all of that in a system requirement box, and having people understand, isn't easy, so just saying "2ghz dual core" is easier. That should mean the slowest 2ghz dual core CPU that you'll typically catch paired with a DX9.0C GPU should run the game.
There are still people who haven't finished Elder Scrolls 1 and 2 yet.
Only reason to get this on a PC is because someone doesn't like consoles and prefers PC, but consoles will do just fine for the majority.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Wow.. those characters look terrible. Modders made 2 times better looking characters for Oblivion. I will need such a mod fast for Skyrim too. Bethesda is terrible at making characters for some reason =/
Most people who mod propably don't do it for more content but to change the game. Make it harder/esier/preetier/change ui/add some ibnterestin g systems etc. Getting a game like this for a console when you can play it on pc is strange.
Larger viewing area? Higher quality audio? The ability to play on your couch? The fact that the game will probably FEEL like a console port (as Oblivion did).
Some people don't have high quality gaming PCs, and for those that don't, the game will probably look better on consoles when you factor in distance from the screen and the fact that AA won't be such an issue.
I played Oblivion on both the X-box 360, PS3, and the PC, and outside of the ability to have mods, I much preferred the console version. Now if this were Morrowind, the PC would win hands down. In every sense of the word, Oblivion felt designed for consoles hence it just felt weird playing it on a PC.
So, what you're saying is your computer hardware can't stretch its legs enough because graphics are constantly being held down by fact that pretty much everything is also released on consoles?
Btw, I wouldn't pay much heed to Crytek. When you build a game on the bleeding edge of technology, don't act like a spoiled child when no one buys your game.
To me though, if I were to say consoles were holding back PCs, I would expect Battlefield 3's graphics to be the equivalent of the PS3 version of a console game and the PS3 version of the same game to be a PS2 equivalent. In most PC ports we see games offer more bells and whistles (in the case of BF3 and Crysis 2 tons of bells and whistles), but I'm not really seeing a generational gap in appearance. Rather most console titles look like the PC version with medium graphics settings at worst.
I haven't played Battlefield 3, so I don't know what it takes to run it on the PC will all its bells and whistles (nor Skyrim obviously), but if the game is truly as large as we're led to believe, one would think most PCs would eat these games alive; however, I don't feel like that's going to be the case. The only people that are going to take advantage of the graphical superiority of the PC versions are those that either overclock their PCs, those that stay on the bleeding edge of technology, or both. If PCs were really as overpowered as a lot of people would hvae us to believe, why is Skyrim only "recommended" to be played using a video card that's only two generations old? In my experience, "recommended specs" may as well be the required specs.
I don't doubt that PCs are more powerful. They probably are 10x more powerful on the hardware side, but the fact is, I'm not sure that translates to a whole lot of difference when we're talking about spending 100s of extra dollars to buy that special video card or processor that allows you to really crank up all the settings of a game to max.
Pleasantly surprised how low the requirements are, should be quite playable even on 5 year old pcs..
Too bad they also have to throw resources into the console version of the game and are held back by this.
I'm also verry verry happy with the artstyle, they are one of the few who don't lean towards the asian or WoW'ish styles and the game looks just awesome, characters as well.
This game is huge. Most people won't need mods and might never actually finish it.
There are still people who haven't finished Elder Scrolls 1 and 2 yet.
Only reason to get this on a PC is because someone doesn't like consoles and prefers PC, but consoles will do just fine for the majority.
Most people who mod propably don't do it for more content but to change the game. Make it harder/esier/preetier/change ui/add some ibnterestin g systems etc. Getting a game like this for a console when you can play it on pc is strange.
Larger viewing area? Higher quality audio? The ability to play on your couch? The fact that the game will probably FEEL like a console port (as Oblivion did).
Some people don't have high quality gaming PCs, and for those that don't, the game will probably look better on consoles when you factor in distance from the screen and the fact that AA won't be such an issue.
I played Oblivion on both the X-box 360, PS3, and the PC, and outside of the ability to have mods, I much preferred the console version. Now if this were Morrowind, the PC would win hands down. In every sense of the word, Oblivion felt designed for consoles hence it just felt weird playing it on a PC.
Exactly, I would even go as far to say that MOST people don't have high quality gaming PCs. Even on these forums you see people talking about their need to upgrade their rigs from games like AoC which are already two years old.
Skyrim is first and foremost a console game like the ones before it. It plays well on PC (better?) but that is something people don't understand doesn't matter. Most people will probably buy this game in console form and will never even know they are 'missing' a better picture because as you said correctly, they will be in front of a big screen T.V. on the couch playing it.
The 50 or 60 inch television factor generally is a bigger draw than a 24 inch monitor as far as eye-candy and preference for most people, not matter how much sharper graphics may look.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Almost everyone seems to be baffled by the low HDD space requirement. Quizzical, I call upon you to explain!
If I had a 55" TV then I'd likley be getting it for 360. But I only have a 32" TV, though I have a good PC, and I"m a PC fanboy. So PC SKYRIM here I come!
Though, its hard for me to say if I liked oblivion more on PC or 360. I beat it on both systems but its simply hard to say.
LOL
Newsflash, Elder Scrolls has first and foremost always been originally a PC game.
And if you can afford a 50 or 60 inch television, I'm banking on the fact your PC is top of the line. Not to mention a high quality PC costs about the same as a PS3 now.
I wouldn't go that far, PS3 is about the cost of 1 pretty high quality video card. You can, of course, build an adequate PC for cheaper, but I wouldn't say a high end PC costs the same as a PS3.
I do agree, however, that TES is primarily a PC game. I also agree that the ability to have access to the mods on the PC is all the reason I need to buy the PC version and the reason I always have.
The majority of people who buy for consoles would never go through the trouble to install mods anyways, but they are likely not going to get the same kind of longevity out of the game either. I still play Oblivion, and FO 3 and NV at least once a month, and check the mods often for new challenges, races, areas, etc. You don't get that on the console.
On some titles, it just feels more natural on a console and you don't have any real incentive to get it for a PC, like Batman: Arkham City. For a game like Skyrim though, you absolutely have reasons to buy on PC, it just isn't accessible to those who aren't computer literate or have the patience to take the time to learn how to install mods.
You'd be wrong too.Most people will buy a big screen because most people watch TV first and foremost. For less than $2,000 you can buy a huge TV to watch the ballgames, your pron, cable, satellite and movies on. That's why people have those and will spend that money.
Conversely most of those people will not spend $1,500 or $2,000 for a high-end computer which is what we are talking about. You can't go out and get one for less than that, lol.
What "high quality PC" costs $300 and where does the average person go and buy that one from? Does someone have to borrow your time machine to get that deal?
"TO MICHAEL!"