Thread: TES V: Skyrim

I cannot see how people can say the graphics on this game are bad. It's no bf3, but its fucking huge, the amount of content and attention to detail...what the fuck do they expect? in under 5gb (unless i am imagining seeing this) as well jesus.

I think its beautiful.

Also just killed my first dragon and also lol werewolves.
btw try dropping some stuff around people

also sycld you should totally lvl ench and souls, that would go so well with an evil caster or something, not to mention it'd be so satisfying once you have a full set of caster light armour lol.
also you'd be a fucking badass.

Originally Posted by ShitFace

I cannot see how people can say the graphics on this game are bad. It's no bf3, but its fucking huge, the amount of content and attention to detail...what the fuck do they expect? in under 5gb (unless i am imagining seeing this) as well jesus.

Well, why the fuck did it HAVE to be under 5 GB? What's imposing that limit, in your mind?

The problem is that the game was made to be played on 5 year old hardware (i.e. the Xbox 360), and when it was ported to the PC, Bethesda didn't bother enhancing the graphics to the point that the game could take full advantage of modern hardware.

I do think the game looks good, but those screenshots actually illustrate a good number of the problems: aliasing of foliage textures (I find this REALLY distracting), low-res textures, etc. Yes, of course everything looks best from a distance, but to play the game you gotta look at things up close.

Look, the point is that when games were developed for PCs first, they were allowed to push the envelope if you had the hardware to support it (or if you didn't you probably could get a good experience at lower level settings). Now, it seems that more and more games are being made for the out-dated hardware of consoles first, then ported to PCs without enough of an enhancement to their graphics to support modern hardware.

Originally Posted by sycld

Well, why the fuck did it HAVE to be under 5 GB? What's imposing that limit, in your mind?

The problem is that the game was made to be played on 5 year old hardware (i.e. the Xbox 360), and when it was ported to the PC, Bethesda didn't bother enhancing the graphics to the point that the game could take full advantage of modern hardware.

I do think the game looks good, but those screenshots actually illustrate a good number of the problems: aliasing of foliage textures (I find this REALLY distracting), low-res textures, etc. Yes, of course everything looks best from a distance, but to play the game you gotta look at things up close.

Look, the point is that when games were developed for PCs first, they were allowed to push the envelope if you had the hardware to support it (or if you didn't you probably could get a good experience at lower level settings). Now, it seems that more and more games are being made for the out-dated hardware of consoles first, then ported to PCs without enough of an enhancement to their graphics to support modern hardware.

lol you misunderstand me, I never said it had to be under 5gb ( turns out its over anyway, 5.7gb), just that it was around that mark. my point was that thats's pretty fucking impressive to get this amount of content and the graphics the way they are (awesome) and people are still complaining how it looks.

edit: also i'd like to say that this is probably the best console port i've ever seen.

Originally Posted by ShitFace

lol you misunderstand me, I never said it had to be under 5gb ( turns out its over anyway, 5.7gb), just that it was around that mark. my point was that thats's pretty fucking impressive to get this amount of content and the graphics the way they are (awesome) and people are still complaining how it looks.

edit: also i'd like to say that this is probably the best console port i've ever seen.

I can understand this. I'm not to exaggerate so much by calling it terrible looking; it is a beautiful game.

And it's a decent console port, since most are even worse.

But it sucks that the game had to be a console port, at all.


Anyway I got passed the thing I was whining about using a well-placed Fury spell; why sneak around enemies when you can just have them kill each other?

Almost all my perks are going to be based around magic: focusing mainly on Destruction, Illusion, and Conjuration, with some points in Restoration (the increased Magicka recharge rate talent is low in the tree), and some in Enchantment (so I can wear light armor with the same magic-enchancing attributes) and Alchemy (at least the low lying ones that enhance health and magicka potions).

And, of course, I'm leveling Light Armor just by getting hit and wearing it, and Lockpicking just by picking every lock I come across.

But who would ever spend perks in Speechcraft? It looks like a useless perk tree.