How Elder Scrolls could look using CryEngine 3

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Found these somewhere else from the "consoles holding back gaming" department, thought I might share, even if just for the brilliant videos :P

Dat scenery.

Also, here's another example of the CryEngine shaming other games with its looks:

I wouldn't say consoles are to blame so much as it is the industry as a whole. Consoles just get blamed because we were stupid enough to believe console generations could last twice as long as they used to. Spoiler alert: We were wrong.

Fappy:
I wouldn't say consoles are to blame so much as it is the industry as a whole. Consoles just get blamed because we were stupid enough to believe console generations could last twice as long as they used to. Spoiler alert: We were wrong.

Consoles can last for a while, after all certain games age well with graphics being done appropriately. Even then, sometimes you just don't give a shit about graphics

image

Holy damn...that's beautiful...

Dat grass! >.> <.< v.v sorry...

Fappy:
I wouldn't say consoles are to blame so much as it is the industry as a whole. Consoles just get blamed because we were stupid enough to believe console generations could last twice as long as they used to. Spoiler alert: We were wrong.

It's nt consoles themselves, but they are in the center of the issue. Publishers wont develop PC only title because, like it or not, mostof theirsales will come from the consle market and they'd be fools to shut themselves off from it. Developers can't take advantage of PC's power because they need to run thegames on consoles and optimising for both consoles AND the PC takes a lot of time and money.

Then there's Microsoft and Sony who want to bleed every cent out of the current generation and fear the current economic climate would make releasing a new console risky.

Consoles are holding gaming back but it's not because their bad machines and it's not really anyone's fault, everyone is just doing what they can to safely turn a profit.

That second one looks too warm to me. It looks like its somewhere tropical. I'm not denying the visuals are stunning but when I play skyrim I imagine it's a cold place

Damn...
The first one deffinately matches the Elders Scroll tone/color-scheme more.
It still doesn't match Elders Scrolls though.

Consoles might be holding things back, but only in terms of graphics and processing power.

I'd prefer developers to invest some effort in writing rather than continue with the polycount dick-waving. You don't need top hardware for that.

Zhukov:
Consoles might be holding things back, but only in terms of graphics and processing power.

I'd prefer developers to invest some effort in writing rather than continue with the polycount dick-waving. You don't need top hardware for that.

I am going to agree. While it is very nice to enjoy the absurd levels of graphics capable by PCs nowadays. I would vastly prefer better writing and deeper gameplay.

Zhukov:
Consoles might be holding things back, but only in terms of graphics and processing power.

I'd prefer developers to invest some effort in writing rather than continue with the polycount dick-waving. You don't need top hardware for that.

I have to agree.

It doesn't matter how pretty your game is if it's shit.

Daystar Clarion:

Zhukov:
Consoles might be holding things back, but only in terms of graphics and processing power.

I'd prefer developers to invest some effort in writing rather than continue with the polycount dick-waving. You don't need top hardware for that.

I have to agree.

It doesn't matter how pretty your game is if it's shit.

Funny thing is, I'm actually pretty big on graphics. In particular, I'm a huge sucker for well animated characters.

But damn it, it's not the be-all and end-all of a good game.

Zhukov:

Daystar Clarion:

Zhukov:
Consoles might be holding things back, but only in terms of graphics and processing power.

I'd prefer developers to invest some effort in writing rather than continue with the polycount dick-waving. You don't need top hardware for that.

I have to agree.

It doesn't matter how pretty your game is if it's shit.

Funny thing is, I'm actually pretty big on graphics. In particular, I'm a huge sucker for well animated characters.

But damn it, it's not the be-all and end-all of a good game.

I also agree with that :D

Animation for me, is more important than the polygon count, because if something moves properly, I can forgive outdated visuals.

Monster Hunter games have brilliantly animated characters, things have weight and everything moves like it should.

Zhukov:
Consoles might be holding things back, but only in terms of graphics and processing power.

I'd prefer developers to invest some effort in writing rather than continue with the polycount dick-waving. You don't need top hardware for that.

Add gameplay to that list of one thing and I'll agree with you. I would have bought Halo Anniversary if it had updated the game itself, maybe add the drones and brutes to singleplayer, armor mods and dual wielding, shake things up a bit rather than just making new textures.

You know, as great as that is....I still get a warm spot for a game that uses 16 bit Retro graphics.

Daystar Clarion:
Animation for me, is more important than the polygon count, because if something moves properly, I can forgive outdated visuals.

Truth.

Proof:

Zhukov:

Daystar Clarion:
Animation for me, is more important than the polygon count, because if something moves properly, I can forgive outdated visuals.

Truth.

Proof:

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean.

Half-Life hasn't aged well at all, but if everything were animated like that? Then I would care very little about rubbish textures.

Damn, that looks pretty good.

Sigh, I wish people would get over the whole Consoles are ruining gaming shit, it's just childish, and having to give paragraphs of reasons why is pathetic. I enjoy playing on my 360 and don't want to pay for a beefed up gaming rig.

Warning: Requires super computer

TizzytheTormentor:
Damn, that looks pretty good.

Sigh, I wish people would get over the whole Consoles are ruining gaming shit, it's just childish, and having to give paragraphs of reasons why is pathetic. I enjoy playing on my 360 and don't want to pay for a beefed up gaming rig.

It's not consoles "ruining" gaming, but lazy devs, impatient publishers rushing out crappy PC ports. That and the super long live span of the current gen of consoles. Not ruining, but just holding back. Imagine Skyrim with battles the size of something out of the Total War series. That is the potential of a PC centric game industry.

Dude are you tripping, you have any idea how much it would cost to have an entire game looking like that, It would run way over budget, It's pretty but totally infeasible. Not to mention the hardware need to run it. Lets face facts the people that actually own high end machines are in the minority and it simply isn't good business to market to such a small crowd.

Zhukov:
Consoles might be holding things back, but only in terms of graphics and processing power.

I'd prefer developers to invest some effort in writing rather than continue with the polycount dick-waving. You don't need top hardware for that.

The typical console gamer response. It's time for you guys to come up with a new excuse. Why should anyone develop a game like that when all that people spend their money on is Modern Warfare 8 and $20 DLC map packs?

Cronq:

Zhukov:
Consoles might be holding things back, but only in terms of graphics and processing power.

I'd prefer developers to invest some effort in writing rather than continue with the polycount dick-waving. You don't need top hardware for that.

The typical console gamer response. It's time for you guys to come up with a new excuse. Why should anyone develop a game like that when all that people spend their money on is Modern Warfare 8 and $20 DLC map packs?

Riiiiiiiight...

a) I'm not a "console gamer". I mostly play on PC, although I do have a PS3 for games that don't get released on PC.

b) I have absolutely no idea what Modern Warfare and DLC have to do with this.

It's time for you to start making sense.

Obligatory post about how awful CryEngine games look on consoles.

Seriously Crytek, every console game on that engine plays at 20 frames a second and has more pop-in than Rage. Time to go back to the drawing board.

TheYellowCellPhone:
Dat scenery.

Also, here's another example of the CryEngine shaming other games with its looks:

I believe that's actually Cryengine 2, assuming that's the mod that I've been waiting for for ages. In my opinion, Cryengine 2 was better because it had more advanced features like destruction. That is unless there's something about Cryengine 3 I'm missing.

Last I checked there were actually Cryengine 3 modders trying to put destruction in, so yeah...

Quite frankly, the extra bit of power provided by the PC does a bit more than allow for better looking game worlds. It also allows for larger ones. Anybody recall how horrifically Skyrim/FNV have been doing on the PS3 because of the load on memory and the flabbiness of the GPU? Also, how they were unable to add a holster animation to ME3 because of limitations on RAM? There is a vast amount of potential gameplay dynamism being lost because of the current big three's unwillingness to update for all of these years. It's no shame to admit we could use nothing new. And, as mundane and insignificant as graphics are to the overall gaming experience, there's absolutely nothing wrong with wishing for better, aye :)?

EDIT: Also, it's generally not actually implementing assets into a game that generates the ridiculous fortunes required to create them as much as the creation of said assets. EX: My work with modding in CE2. I could very well do something along the lines of that Total-War-esque scenario you're presenting to the public from my home computer in roughly 2 months, assuming I was provided the assets beforehand. Or, rather, the development of a game world that size. More time than money is required. I've built nearly 1KMx1KM maps myself.

Well yeah that's nice and all but graphics aren't the most important thing to me.

You don't need a super powerful computer to have good characters, gameplay, animations, writing, story or voice acting.

Consoles can dop those things quite well.

I'd like to comment by saying that there are some people who believe that more power only means better graphics, which is untrue.

Having more power and resources DO make for better visuals, but they also make for larger environments, better AI, better effects more objects on screen etc.

It's true that visuals don't make the game, but how nice would it be if we could have more room to create bigger and better games? Crysis 1 as an example. Not only was that game gorgeous but it was huge, filled with wildlife and tons of flora/fauna/nature, excellent shadow effects and physics. It's an example of what we could do given the hardware. Sure it's not going to sell as well because the entry level is too high, but it shows potential.

Some console games are actually starting to show their age, games such as Battlefield 3. Console version only has 24 players versus the PC 64 simply because of the limited resources with consoles. Before anyone says "Well anything more than 24 is too many", keep in mind that Battlefield is about the scope of the battles. Tanks, jets, jeeps and the soldiers on foot make the game look and feel like an actual warzone. If you think that 24 is "more than enough", you might as well be playing CoD, because it's too small to be a "battlefield".

I suppose you could argue that the limited hardware forces devs to have better focus, but we know that doesn't happen a lot of the time.

Honestly I prefer skyrim as it is cuz you know... I can run it >.>

Iszfury:

EDIT: Also, it's generally not actually implementing assets into a game that generates the ridiculous fortunes required to create them as much as the creation of said assets. EX: My work with modding in CE2. I could very well do something along the lines of that Total-War-esque scenario you're presenting to the public from my home computer in roughly 2 months, assuming I was provided the assets beforehand. Or, rather, the development of a game world that size. More time than money is required. I've built nearly 1KMx1KM maps myself.

Annnd that makes no sense, If you make a game 10 times bigger you need ten time the hours or ten times the staff, Time is money. Even if people are just populating an area with shrubs and trees that is still a lot of extra hours plus the bug testers have to go through it all afterwards creating even more drain on the budget not to mention the extra hours created by the need to put tasks/quests and enemies there all of which needs to be tested afterwards.

Modding a game is very different to developing it. Staff need to be paid, often quite a lot of staff an extra month or two can end up costing over a million dollars.

Jesse Billingsley:
Warning: Requires super computer

Yes. This came to mind for me as well.

Skyrim runs on my 3.5 year old PC that was mid-range when I got it. (and thanks to its new engine, runs better than the Gamebryo games, god Gamebryo sucks)

Not everyone's gonna have dual GTX 560s and an Octocore and 20 GB RAM to go with it.

Hazy992:
That second one looks too warm to me. It looks like its somewhere tropical. I'm not denying the visuals are stunning but when I play skyrim I imagine it's a cold place

Well, Skyrim is just one part of the Elder Scrolls universe. There's a few Tropical places in Tamriel.

OT: This isn't the fault of Consoles holding anything back. This is simply a matter of price.

I'll full well admit that I don't know much about the extents of a PC, but it seems to me that you need a pretty hefty rig to run this, something that you aren't gonna be able to afford for under a thousand bucks.

If PC games were more easily accessible in price, than you'd be able to blame the console market. But saying that they're holding it back when the average gamer couldn't even afford something like this? That's going a bit too far.

But it is nifty to think that this is probably what the next elder scrolls game will look like when the time comes around. But then again, their problem isn't in the visual department.

shameduser:
Imagine Skyrim with battles the size of something out of the Total War series.

What, typical battle or "I've been jumped by multiple stacks from several different factions" battle? The latter can easily put over 20,000 troops on screen. Fucking GLORIOUS.

Also Ppppbbbbbbbt to CryEngine 3... I want to see games using Real Virtuality 4 (the ArmA III engine). I want to see High End Gaming Rigs made to cry again.

Waaghpowa:
Having more power and resources DO make for better visuals, but they also make for larger environments, better AI, better effects more objects on screen etc.

Damned fucking straight.

When you've got the resources for larger play areas, better and more AI and the ability to have more objects on screen it completely changes what you can do with the game... and assuming the devs aren't tightly leashed or lazy fucks, it allows for much great depth in gameplay variety.

Nature porn!

I love the third one, with the castle. Other than that, it was kind of meh. I don't play a game for its graphics and I doubt I ever will. I would have actually liked to play an elder scrolls game, with the environment of the last one. Compared to Skyrim, which I kind of dislike for its environment, it's little else than depressing.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked