How Elder Scrolls could look using CryEngine 3

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

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.

this

SO.MUCH.THIS.

graphics need to be like third on the list, not first, with game play and story being first, make it work and make it interesting before making it pretty.

Cronq:

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?

the typical PC elitist 'know-nothing-know-it-all' reply, its cute really. its people like you that are part, if not ALL of the 'polygon dick waving' problem. you know that right?

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.

Actually it's us. As the consumer we are complacent and allow for it to happen. We go out and buy games by the millions and then realize they aren't worth it. Plus, who really cares about graphics? I don't.

What kind of computer would you need to run an Oblivion sized game with that level of graphical fidelity?

You guys do realise I don't want my PC to take up half of my room right?

Audacity:

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.

Actually it's us. As the consumer we are complacent and allow for it to happen. We go out and buy games by the millions and then realize they aren't worth it. Plus, who really cares about graphics? I don't.

I honestly just want a fully functional product :(

Fappy:

Audacity:

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.

Actually it's us. As the consumer we are complacent and allow for it to happen. We go out and buy games by the millions and then realize they aren't worth it. Plus, who really cares about graphics? I don't.

I honestly just want a fully functional product :(

Good luck with that. If you've ever read about or bought a Bethesda game you'd know the line "Bethesdas Games always ship with bugs" most of them leave the game barely playable. But we allow ourselves to buy them even though they are rife with problems. So we need to start there. When a game like Fallout 3, bug wise, comes out we need to make sure the company is held accountable foe their mistakes. I'm not saying protest or some other shit but don't just accept it because it's a company you like.

I wouldn't say graphics on consoles are bad by any stretch.... would be nice to see more graphics like that though.

Audacity:

Fappy:

Audacity:

Actually it's us. As the consumer we are complacent and allow for it to happen. We go out and buy games by the millions and then realize they aren't worth it. Plus, who really cares about graphics? I don't.

I honestly just want a fully functional product :(

Good luck with that. If you've ever read about or bought a Bethesda game you'd know the line "Bethesdas Games always ship with bugs" most of them leave the game barely playable. But we allow ourselves to buy them even though they are rife with problems. So we need to start there. When a game like Fallout 3, bug wise, comes out we need to make sure the company is held accountable foe their mistakes. I'm not saying protest or some other shit but don't just accept it because it's a company you like.

I have bought quite a few Bethesda titles over the years and never really paid much attention to the plethora of bugs until Skyrim. I always just chalked it up to the complexity of the games, but after experiencing the sheer amount of game breaking issues with Skyrim I changed my tune. The difference between Bethesda and other developers is that they have always been bad at QA while other companies have just recently started consistently releasing games in unfinished states. Obsidian doesn't really count because they are slaves to their publishers where as ZeniMax and Bethesda are pretty much one and the same.

wintercoat:
image

Damn... beat me to it. Anyway, yeah, great engine.

Fappy:

Audacity:

Fappy:

I honestly just want a fully functional product :(

Good luck with that. If you've ever read about or bought a Bethesda game you'd know the line "Bethesdas Games always ship with bugs" most of them leave the game barely playable. But we allow ourselves to buy them even though they are rife with problems. So we need to start there. When a game like Fallout 3, bug wise, comes out we need to make sure the company is held accountable foe their mistakes. I'm not saying protest or some other shit but don't just accept it because it's a company you like.

I have bought quite a few Bethesda titles over the years and never really paid much attention to the plethora of bugs until Skyrim. I always just chalked it up to the complexity of the games, but after experiencing the sheer amount of game breaking issues with Skyrim I changed my tune. The difference between Bethesda and other developers is that they have always been bad at QA while other companies have just recently started consistently releasing games in unfinished states. Obsidian doesn't really count because they are slaves to their publishers where as ZeniMax and Bethesda are pretty much one and the same.

And until we hit them where it hurts they will continue releasing poorly done games. If we stopped buying the games on release date and had a unbiased "Here's whats wrong" sort of group who bought it to inform us of the problems then we could use our heads to buy rather then just because "it was _____ who released it."

And by unbiased here's whats wrong I mean people who will play to find the bugs and report them online so people can read no matter what the game or developer is. Not reviews. Just Bug Reports.

my god its beautiful

RevRaptor:

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.

I wasn't addressing the implementation of game assets as much as the creation. Obviously larger, more detailed worlds take more time to construct because all of the visual and audio elements coming into play - recording for SFX, voice actors, models and textures, debugging, integration into the engine, etc. (You know what I mean). What I'm implying is that better looking games don't always require a VERY significant marginal financial investment in contrast to games with inferior (subjectively) visuals, as there are hundreds of powerful level design tools (Sandbox, GTK Radiant) that implement the vast majority of the eye candy to the benefit of the dev, simply by setting a few parameters for lighting and shaders. Sure, the quality (and expenses required to obtain) of the assets is definitely variable between better and worse looking games, but the actual "prettification" isn't the major money drain in that regard. I used modding as an example of exactly how you can come out with a great looking product disregarding the creation of assets and staff pay. Hope that clarifies :)

Also, kind of unrelated, but have any PC users been getting random crashes to desktop after the release of 1.5.26? Funny considering the patch was supposed to FIX that issue.

I gotta say, for me the only game engine that really is showing promise against the Cryengine 3 is the Red Engine from The Witcher 2. Goddamnit that game looks amazing in full HD.

Is it just me of does the second video just look like a brief scene from the Dear Esther remake?

Anyways, I'd rather Elder Scrolls games ran smoothly than looked amazing. I still think Morrowind and Oblivion both had more character than Skyrim.

When it comes to visuals, I have always preferred good animation over good graphics...THERES A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANIMATION AND GRAPHICS DONT ARGUE WITH ME...doesn't matter how good and realistic a person/object/creature looks while they are standing still, if their legs move like sticks while they walk it completely ruins the immersion for me.

Can't remember the title at the moment, but there was a plat-former flash game that's main draw was it's focus on animation, and I have to say this flash game looked more impressive to me than many PC/console games simply do to their focus on the animation.

I realize the challenge programmers face with proper animation, but I think someone will eventually make a break through on how to streamline good animation.

Video 1 - pretty but it doesn't elicit the same sublime response that Skyrim vistas do. I don't see having the overwhelming urge to conquer that rock in the background like I would a mountain in Skyrim.

Video 2 - similar to the northern seas in Skyrim but Skyrim's water physics work better. The water is a bit too ethereal, like it doesn't have the mass to remain liquid for more than a few seconds.

Video 3 - I could easily see something like this in a mod that adds Morrowind to the title but it's too clean. A bit cartoony, like what a next gen MMO might look. Also, low framerate, a side effect of using such a beefy engine. It needs actual clouds, not just a skybox. One cool thing about Skyrim is clouds and fog are practically their own character. They hide the tallest peaks from view and drape over the sides of low lying peaks, hide rivers and streams. The right weather effects add to the environment, not take away.

Robert Ewing:
snip...

But y'know, the only thing holding the PC back? It's... hefty price tag.

500 for a PC that can run anything at 1080p. That's not far off console when you bung in the cost of games (i.e. the lack of a lovely steam deals) and the cost of your subscriptions. In addition, that 500 PC will double up as a word processor, proper media centre, tv etc if you want.

The real thing holding back PCs (in my opinion) is a perception they are complicated to use. This is a perception gleefully perpetuated by Sony.

I am amazed by the number of console owning friends who claim "viruses" are a reason not to buy a computer. They remain convinced anti-viral software is costly and difficult to use, rather than free and a "one time, then forget" install. This is of course only one aspect of running a computer effectively but it displays a point.

*insert mandatory rage about consoles not actually holding back graphics and explanation that almost no developers can fit this into a dev cycle*

Yeah, that looks nice. You know what would look good with this kind of engine? Shadow of the Colossus. Imagine colossi rendered in that kind of detail. *drools*

Well... it looks good theres no doubt... but you have to take in consideration every single thing skyrim has (items, npc's, events), in the world happening at the same time (with the help of a healty stream), and the fact that if you had everything happening at the same time, your computer would literally be butt-fu**ed..

Or even the console.

And just think about the loading times...

TitanAtlas:
Well... it looks good theres no doubt... but you have to take in consideration every single thing skyrim has (items, npc's, events), in the world happening at the same time (with the help of a healty stream), and the fact that if you had everything happening at the same time, your computer would literally be butt-fu**ed..

Or even the console.

And just think about the loading times...

OR the console? You have that backwards. It'd be impossible on the current gens as they can barely play Fallout 3 let alone Skyrim worth a damn. I'm all for game that can push high end gaming PC to the max as opposed to console ports that barely run at 720p, medium texture settings and sub 30 FPS on the consoles but run at hundreds of FPS on PC.

PCs have the hardware to handle a game like this, but market is too small to justify the investment by the game devs/pubs to make such a PC only title. I believe this is the argument presented by the OP in a roundabout way. Consoles are holding game progress back due to their ancient hardware.

Clive Howlitzer:

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.

Why can't we just have both?

It looks pretty, but I've seen some very pretty games that are boring, lame, dull and down right unplayable.
So yea, graphics are not the end-be-all for games - and should be the last thought on developers mind when making a game.

Make a game that work, is fun, has mechanics that a player can understand and don't break. And only then ONCE they have that nailed down, polish the graphics up to "ultra real" quality.

Zack Alklazaris:

Clive Howlitzer:

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.

Why can't we just have both?

Typically because developers only have so much time to develop a game and so much money. However, I do agree. In a perfect world...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked