Skyrim 6GB, Really? Bethesda gonna shove us console textures up in the a$s...

ZOMG THE GAME HAS CONSOLE TEXTURES SO ITS GOING TO SUCK

Just pathetic guys...

KillerJuan77

Good work ignoring the previous posts discussing raising the bar graphics wise.

[QUOTE="KillerJuan77"]

ZOMG THE GAME HAS CONSOLE TEXTURES SO ITS GOING TO SUCK

Just pathetic guys...

Sheppard212

Good work ignoring the previous posts discussing raising the bar graphics wise.

Eh, who cares. The graphics are decent enough. Bethesda stopped attempting to "raise the bar"after Oblivion (i.e. fallout 3).

[QUOTE="Sheppard212"]

[QUOTE="KillerJuan77"]

ZOMG THE GAME HAS CONSOLE TEXTURES SO ITS GOING TO SUCK

Just pathetic guys...

mr_zombie60

Good work ignoring the previous posts discussing raising the bar graphics wise.

Eh, who cares. The graphics are decent enough. Bethesda stopped attempting to "raise the bar"after Oblivion (i.e. fallout 3).

I guess let's toss the fact that they have a new engine that allows for a myriad of extended graphical capabilities out the window.

[QUOTE="mr_zombie60"]

[QUOTE="Sheppard212"]

Good work ignoring the previous posts discussing raising the bar graphics wise.

Sheppard212

Eh, who cares. The graphics are decent enough. Bethesda stopped attempting to "raise the bar"after Oblivion (i.e. fallout 3).

I guess let's toss the fact that they have a new engine that allows for a myriad of extended graphical capabilities out the window.

I know this is 'cheap' to say, but I'll say it again. Who cares (yes i know many people actually care..). I've gradually become more frustrated with the amount of people distraught over the graphics in this game. Does your skyrim experience really need the pc graphics makeover to enjoy the game? I know mine doesn't.

I guess The Witcher 2 and Battlefield 3 have spoiled me then. Sorry to hear that graphics don't contribute to a well-enjoyed game, because to ask for a graphical upscale would be oh so too much for the beleagered Bethesda Softworks! Hopefully the custom retextures will come soon.

I guess The Witcher 2 and Battlefield 3 have spoiled me then. Sorry to hear that graphics don't contribute to a well-enjoyed game, because to ask for a graphical upscale would be oh so too much for the beleagered Bethesda Softworks! Hopefully the custom retextures will come soon.

Sheppard212

No, graphics do. But, the graphics are certainly tolerable. And all this raising the bar business sounds like you do indeed have your standards set too high. Graphics are a bonus, but as long as Bethesda delivers on the core experience, I could care less and you should too. Not to mention neither of the games you mentioned are open world. You may consider that an excuse, but that defintely holds some bearing on the graphics (which I still see no issue with).

Metro 2033: 6.8GB

Crysis: 7.0GB

BFBC2: 5.8GB

...

The Witcher 1: 14.5GB

Dragon Age 1: 15.3GB

Mass Effect 2: 11.7GB

...

I think that you understand what I am hinting at. A games' size doesn't say much about texture resolution unless said textures are EXTREMELY high resolution. Games like Metro 2033, Crysis, and BFBC2 all have pretty good textures but only top 7GB while games like DA:O, the Witcher 1, and Mass Effect 2 all have mediocre textures however they take up a lot more HDD space.

Audio and pre-rendered cut scenes take up a lot of space. If the Skyrim files size worries you... well you shouldn't only be concerned about texture resolution. What about unique spoken dialog? Concerning textures... what about texture variety?

And then there is compression...

I guess The Witcher 2 and Battlefield 3 have spoiled me then. Sorry to hear that graphics don't contribute to a well-enjoyed game, because to ask for a graphical upscale would be oh so too much for the beleagered Bethesda Softworks! Hopefully the custom retextures will come soon.

Sheppard212

[QUOTE="Sheppard212"]

I guess The Witcher 2 and Battlefield 3 have spoiled me then. Sorry to hear that graphics don't contribute to a well-enjoyed game, because to ask for a graphical upscale would be oh so too much for the beleagered Bethesda Softworks! Hopefully the custom retextures will come soon.

jedinat

Yeah, i don't know why people find the graphics so distasteful. I personally love how it looks despite "low-rez textures".

Real rpg fans don't care about graphics. LOL, It's just an indictment of Beths fanbase.

Reminds me of Far Cry 2, which weighted 3.7GB, and had a pretty big open world and very nice visuals.Nighteg

I've just spotted 2 vids of 10 mins showing the beginning of the game pld on x360. Console textures are as bad as we expected, and npcs textures are up to par..

Thats a good point you have there. Elder Scrolls games have no cutscenes, which are hard to compress, but instead have lots of speech which is easy to compress. Also, remember they build about 6 different bodies and then clothe them with 100's of differnt heads, which they can create procedurally. The story AI is only a database really and AI generally, even when good, takes up little room.

I bet if you took away the cutscenes from the Witcher 2, it would be well under 10gb, for example.

...wasnt rage releasing a 130gb texture pack?

Metro 2033: 6.8GB

Crysis: 7.0GB

BFBC2: 5.8GB

...

The Witcher 1: 14.5GB

Dragon Age 1: 15.3GB

Mass Effect 2: 11.7GB

...

I think that you understand what I am hinting at. A games' size doesn't say much about texture resolution unless said textures are EXTREMELY high resolution. Games like Metro 2033, Crysis, and BFBC2 all have pretty good textures but only top 7GB while games like DA:O, the Witcher 1, and Mass Effect 2 all have mediocre textures however they take up a lot more HDD space.

Audio and pre-rendered cut scenes take up a lot of space. If the Skyrim files size worries you... well you shouldn't only be concerned about texture resolution. What about unique spoken dialog? Concerning textures... what about texture variety?

And then there is compression...

Tezcatlipoca666

The 3 games with the least amount of content happen to be the 3 smallest on your list.

Skyrim is supposed to have more content than Oblivion yet is smaller than any of those games.

...wasnt rage releasing a 130gb texture pack?

laliberte11

[QUOTE="laliberte11"]

...wasnt rage releasing a 130gb texture pack?

DanielDust

i still thinks its ridiculous that people can brush off this S*** with "oh the mods will fix it" you gamers should be demanding a MUCH higher quality product for your money. Its because of this mentality that Bethesda thinks they can get away with a sub standard product

i still thinks its ridiculous that people can brush off this S*** with "oh the mods will fix it" you gamers should be demanding a MUCH higher quality product for your money. Its because of this mentality that Bethesda thinks they can get away with a sub standard product

seanmcloughlin

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

i still thinks its ridiculous that people can brush off this S*** with "oh the mods will fix it" you gamers should be demanding a MUCH higher quality product for your money. Its because of this mentality that Bethesda thinks they can get away with a sub standard product

Prexxus

And everyone will tell you that unmodded vanilla crysis has some pretty bad textures in places. Its one of its downfalls.

Modded crysis with a 2 gig texture pack looks better

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

i still thinks its ridiculous that people can brush off this S*** with "oh the mods will fix it" you gamers should be demanding a MUCH higher quality product for your money. Its because of this mentality that Bethesda thinks they can get away with a sub standard product

Prexxus

[QUOTE="Prexxus"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

i still thinks its ridiculous that people can brush off this S*** with "oh the mods will fix it" you gamers should be demanding a MUCH higher quality product for your money. Its because of this mentality that Bethesda thinks they can get away with a sub standard product

seanmcloughlin

And everyone will tell you that unmodded vanilla crysis has some pretty bad textures in places. Its one of its downfalls.

Modded crysis with a 2 gig texture pack looks better

[QUOTE="Prexxus"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

i still thinks its ridiculous that people can brush off this S*** with "oh the mods will fix it" you gamers should be demanding a MUCH higher quality product for your money. Its because of this mentality that Bethesda thinks they can get away with a sub standard product

DanielDust

[QUOTE="Prexxus"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

i still thinks its ridiculous that people can brush off this S*** with "oh the mods will fix it" you gamers should be demanding a MUCH higher quality product for your money. Its because of this mentality that Bethesda thinks they can get away with a sub standard product

DanielDust

Also this.

Crysis is a lot smaller than Skyrim seems to be. So 6 gigs for a game that size is alarming. Crysis is just tree after tree after rock after grass.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Prexxus"] Here we go people saying Skyrim is sub standard before it's even released based on the size of the files for the game! If i'm not mistaken your holy grail of graphics which is Crysis was under 6 gigs no?Prexxus

And everyone will tell you that unmodded vanilla crysis has some pretty bad textures in places. Its one of its downfalls.

Modded crysis with a 2 gig texture pack looks better

Which brings me back to the point of it being sub standard and people are just rolling over and accepting it instead of demanding a higher quality product, its silly

[QUOTE="Prexxus"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

And everyone will tell you that unmodded vanilla crysis has some pretty bad textures in places. Its one of its downfalls.

Modded crysis with a 2 gig texture pack looks better

seanmcloughlin

Which brings me back to the point of it being sub standard and people are just rolling over and accepting it instead of demanding a higher quality product, its silly

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Prexxus"] Well then wait for Qarls pack then! >.>Prexxus

Which brings me back to the point of it being sub standard and people are just rolling over and accepting it instead of demanding a higher quality product, its silly

Of course not but old non HD muddy looking textures are not acceptable either in this day and age. Also don't treat people as Pariah's just for liking good graphics in their games. Its a big part of the industry right now. Bethesda are touting a new engine and how amazing it looks but if their textures are low then it completely cripples the whole aesthetic

[QUOTE="Prexxus"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Which brings me back to the point of it being sub standard and people are just rolling over and accepting it instead of demanding a higher quality product, its silly

seanmcloughlin

Of course not but old non HD muddy looking textures are not acceptable either in this day and age. Also don't treat people as Pariah's just for liking good graphics in their games. Its a big part of the industry right now. Bethesda are touting a new engine and how amazing it looks but if their textures are low then it completely cripples the whole aesthetic

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Prexxus"] Quality of a TES game =/= it's graphics. For most of us. I hope.Prexxus

Of course not but old non HD muddy looking textures are not acceptable either in this day and age. Also don't treat people as Pariah's just for liking good graphics in their games. Its a big part of the industry right now. Bethesda are touting a new engine and how amazing it looks but if their textures are low then it completely cripples the whole aesthetic

That video does nothing to aid your cause. A compressed video is not the same as the final game when you get up close to those textures. And never trust screenshots. I learned that from BF3

back in ye olde 2006....

But really....nobody plays TES games for visuals, modders do it for eye candy.

Look at my Oblivion -->

6 gigs? Pirates rejoice! dangamit

Hahahaha, quote for awesome.

To everyone saying graphics don't matter - Yes they do; one of the reasons I own a good PC is to play pretty games, they still should be good in other aspects, but there is no video games without video. That and the fact that this is an all new engine, and if it's just going to look like Oblivion then what's the point?

To everyone saying mods will fix it - True, but it would be nice if a game is good from day 1 from the developer so you don't have to depend on mods.

To everyone saying the trailers and pictures look really good - Have companies never beefed up previews before? o.O

To Bethesda - What are these magical new compression algorithms that can make a high quality video game shrink in size to less than half that of many other well compressed, good looking games?

I guess we'll have to wait until it's out to see though. I pre-purchased it before I saw that spec and now I'm getting a little worried. It certainly seems like a giant open ended game with lots of voice and good graphics and stuff would take up a much larger amount of space, but maybe it is just compressed really well or used efficiently or something. I was certainly expecting around 30 GBs for this game and would not have been surprised or disapointed at all if it had been over 50. I also have to wonder if more/better compression means that load times or performance will suffer, if that is indeed the reason for the small size.

I dunno, probably complaining for nothing. I'm sure I'll like it either way, but I do hate being disapointed.

meh , an ENB mod is all it needs.

kinda like gta4

Send your suggestions to Boris (enb developer)

http://enbdev.com/index_en.html

seriously is like bethesda have some useless developers, they deliver games half done and release them for the mod community to do their work.

u know whats funny, sacred 2 and incredible action rpg in my book delivers 20 gbs of content and gets 7.5and this gets 9. Hopefully it is as good as i expect.