Skyrim

The sharpened textures makes it look kind of grainy.

Yeah and make that a laa..arge kind of grainy.

A little, but it's still a lot better than the blurry vanilla textures.

Also, FXAA lessens the graininess and most of these screenshots (all but the first and the last) have it disabled.

For comparison, here's the first screenshot without sharpening: http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/6747/tesv2011111900021257.jpg

I think the textures look pretty nice. The first screenshot looks like the second one with auto-levels in photoshop, which mostly looks better.

Woah, are those in-game screenshots? They look like really really good concept art.

They are.

Woah, are those in-game screenshots? They look like really really good concept art.

They are. Skyrim by itself suffers from some technically outdated graphics, which can be immediately seen in how blurry and grey everything is - but it does have a great art style and attention to detail, so just applying some other shaders like sharpening and saturation (which has been done here) fixes the problem to some extent, but it isn't without negatives, like was already mentioned. Well, that's pretty much the best we can do before the mod community gets started for real.

If only they had disregarded consoles.

Well. It's not like I could have run it on the best graphics settings with decent performance anyway, seeing as I can't do it as it is.

Yes, all developers should disregard consoles so the graphics can always be better. 

Yes, all developers should disregard consoles so the graphics can always be better.

Indeed.

I agree. Those with a good gaming rig should get better graphics.

Or we should all be able to enjoy the game and just deal with poopy shadows.

Console users should have to deal with poopy shadows (and low resolution, no AA, low view distance etc.), not PC users.

Console users should have to deal with poopy shadows (and low resolution, no AA, low view distance etc.), not PC users.

Then why don't you send them an angry letter?

Quote from: Blanko on November 21, 2011, 10:52:35 AM

Console users should have to deal with poopy shadows (and low resolution, no AA, low view distance etc.), not PC users.

Then why don't you send them an angry letter?

>implying I already haven't

Quote from: rooster on November 21, 2011, 10:55:28 AM

Quote from: Blanko on November 21, 2011, 10:52:35 AM

Console users should have to deal with poopy shadows (and low resolution, no AA, low view distance etc.), not PC users.

Then why don't you send them an angry letter?

>implying I already haven't

Yes, but secretly hoping that you already had.

Or we should all be able to enjoy the game and just deal with poopy shadows.

>Implying we wouldn't all be able to enjoy the game.

If games weren't made for consoles then we wouldn't all be able to enjoy it. And no, we're not all going to build a PC.

If games weren't made for consoles then we wouldn't all be able to enjoy it. And no, we're not all going to build a PC.

And we're not all going to buy consoles either. Your point?

If games weren't made for consoles then we wouldn't all be able to enjoy it. And no, we're not all going to build a PC.

Why would you need to? The sale of gaming rigs would just compensate for the lack of consoles and the prices would go down because the new brands of consumer gaming PC's would have only exactly what the general public wants. Games would have a normal graphics setting which these PC's could use and higher settings for those with the money, know-how and interest to get better PC's. Buying a PC today is just like buying a console. In some cases, you have one less cable to hook up, too.

I just know that the Skyrim wolves look like some spiky wig thing you'd wear for Halloween.  Red Dead's wolves look like wolves and the scenic parts are superior as well.  I like the game part but I don't get lost in it because of the little graphic irritations.

Anybody who can't get lost in a game because of graphical irritations apparently started playing games just last year, or simply never experiences game immersion. My sympathies, either way.

Really? Were you ever able to enjoy any Nintendo or Sega video games? If you can't get lost in a game because you're hung up on the graphics then you're either missing the point or the developers have failed. If a video game is not beautiful or perfect looking enough for you then go outside.  Honestly, that's probably the most mundane technicality a gamer could possibly get hung up on. Unless a new gen game looks like 007 on the 64, then I'm not complaining.


And I just saw A&A's post. This is why we're lovers. 

Really? Were you ever able to enjoy any Nintendo or Sega video games? If you can't get lost in a game because you're hung up on the graphics then you're either missing the point or the developers have failed. If a video game is not beautiful or perfect looking enough for you then go outside.  Honestly, that's probably the most mundane technicality a gamer could possibly get hung up on. Unless a new gen game looks like 007 on the 64, then I'm not complaining.


And I just saw A&A's post. This is why we're lovers. 

Well, Nintendo and Sega games are rarely something you can "get lost in".

OH MAN IT'S LIKE I'M ACTUALLY A JUMPING PLUMBER ON SHROOMS SO IMMERSIVE nope

Really? Were you ever able to enjoy any Nintendo or Sega video games? If you can't get lost in a game because you're hung up on the graphics then you're either missing the point or the developers have failed. If a video game is not beautiful or perfect looking enough for you then go outside.  Honestly, that's probably the most mundane technicality a gamer could possibly get hung up on. Unless a new gen game looks like 007 on the 64, then I'm not complaining.

Good lord. 

My willing suspension of disbelief is fragile and you're right, I would never describe myself as a gamer.  I didn't say I didn't enjoy it; I said I'm not lost in it. 

I just know that the Skyrim wolves look like some spiky wig thing you'd wear for Halloween.  Red Dead's wolves look like wolves and the scenic parts are superior as well.  I like the game part but I don't get lost in it because of the little graphic irritations.

I agree, but for somewhat different reasons.

Gameplay over graphics, every time. I can still immersed in a game that isn't visually perfect, I can manage to get into Shogun Total War, and that's eleven years old.
Skyrim will, I think, be at the top of the Christmas list this year.

lol, immersion. Wanna hear what's more immersion-breaking than slightly sub-par graphics? Bards who go to a bard's college for two years and learn all of two songs, one of which is all of 46 seconds long; the dudes who send you to another quest giver with the same voice as himself and the physics of the world going insane as soon as you sit up on a horse. I played a tabletop RPG last weekend, and it was much more immersive than Skyrim or similar games will be in a long time, perhaps forever, but that's not really because of the graphics. I just like better graphics.

Yay, broken quest! How do I complete the Forsworn Conspiracy and No One Escapes Cidhna Mine quests on the side that hasn't been assassinating people for seventy years? I would really like to keep my gear and stuff, but when SPOILERS I get out of the mine and the conversation with the leader of the Silver-Bloods should take place, he just attacks me instead and I can't do anything about it. END SPOILERS This makes it impossible to complete the quest and also impossible for me to keep the items you lose during the quest and get back at the end. I could of course side with the other party, but I really don't want to.

Uh, I'm not sure.

Spoilers
I sided with the half naked dudes, and they gave my stuff back just before we left the tunnel leading to the city. The silver-blood guy was there when we came out, and we killed him.
End spoilers

Yeah, I ended up doing that as well. If you go the other way on the PC though, save just before entering Markarth again and if he attacks you, reload and toggle AI detection. He'll start talking to you instead.