By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - (Video) case you are wondering, this is what Skyrim looks like on PC in Max Settings

Crappy youtube video doesn't really do it justice. Needs to be seen on a proper PC or in a proper vid as it looks better on my PC (and I don't have an especially good graphics card).

Needless to say, draw distance, textures and effects look better on PC. I'm impressed by what they managed to squeeze out of the consoles though.



Around the Network
vlad321 said:
Boutros said:
Kasz216 said:
I'm just happy thanks to consoles I can play it on "High".

Can't comment on the highest end settings, but I can say that thanks to consoles crappy graphical ability there probably was much more focus on performance for those of us with PC's that are 3-4 years old.

Which is why the "You have to upgrade your PC every year" argument makes me laugh.

''Consoles crappy graphical ability''?

That's just trolling..

I am fairly sure that you can objectively count the polygons and resolutions of textures as well as distance downgrading to show that consoles have a crappy graphical ability.

Err not really.

Consoles are obviously not as powerful as a PC but their power certainly isn't ''crappy'' or anything close to that. They are still very modern and they can easily keep up with today's standards.



Boutros said:
vlad321 said:
Boutros said:
Kasz216 said:
I'm just happy thanks to consoles I can play it on "High".

Can't comment on the highest end settings, but I can say that thanks to consoles crappy graphical ability there probably was much more focus on performance for those of us with PC's that are 3-4 years old.

Which is why the "You have to upgrade your PC every year" argument makes me laugh.

''Consoles crappy graphical ability''?

That's just trolling..

I am fairly sure that you can objectively count the polygons and resolutions of textures as well as distance downgrading to show that consoles have a crappy graphical ability.

Err not really.

Consoles are obviously not as powerful as a PC but their power certainly isn't ''crappy'' or anything close to that. They are still very modern and they can easily keep up with today's standards.


What is "Today's standard" though? 



Scoobes said:
Crappy youtube video doesn't really do it justice. Needs to be seen on a proper PC or in a proper vid as it looks better on my PC (and I don't have an especially good graphics card).

and the frame rate! , goodness the first part of the video i tried to keep walking to test the frame rate not dropping , but youtube went on a tear it to pieces xD 

but the last part in the cave shows the PC details mostly, because of the effects, lightning and density of the snow.



PullusPardus said:
Boutros said:
vlad321 said:
Boutros said:
Kasz216 said:
I'm just happy thanks to consoles I can play it on "High".

Can't comment on the highest end settings, but I can say that thanks to consoles crappy graphical ability there probably was much more focus on performance for those of us with PC's that are 3-4 years old.

Which is why the "You have to upgrade your PC every year" argument makes me laugh.

''Consoles crappy graphical ability''?

That's just trolling..

I am fairly sure that you can objectively count the polygons and resolutions of textures as well as distance downgrading to show that consoles have a crappy graphical ability.

Err not really.

Consoles are obviously not as powerful as a PC but their power certainly isn't ''crappy'' or anything close to that. They are still very modern and they can easily keep up with today's standards.


What is "Today's standard" though? 

I like the dictionary definition of standard: something considered by general consent as a basis of comparison.

Maybe Skyrim looks a little better on PC but I'm still impressed by how Skyrim looks on my PS3.



Around the Network
Boutros said:
PullusPardus said:
Boutros said:
vlad321 said:
Boutros said:
Kasz216 said:
I'm just happy thanks to consoles I can play it on "High".

Can't comment on the highest end settings, but I can say that thanks to consoles crappy graphical ability there probably was much more focus on performance for those of us with PC's that are 3-4 years old.

Which is why the "You have to upgrade your PC every year" argument makes me laugh.

''Consoles crappy graphical ability''?

That's just trolling..

I am fairly sure that you can objectively count the polygons and resolutions of textures as well as distance downgrading to show that consoles have a crappy graphical ability.

Err not really.

Consoles are obviously not as powerful as a PC but their power certainly isn't ''crappy'' or anything close to that. They are still very modern and they can easily keep up with today's standards.


What is "Today's standard" though? 

I like the dictionary definition of standard: something considered by general consent as a basis of comparison.

Maybe Skyrim looks a little better on PC but I'm still impressed by how Skyrim looks on my PS3.


yes i know, but what do you think the standard of today's graphics? , i personally don't think there is a standard , if  a game looks good it looks good, to me personally i think Skyrim looks better than Battlefield because its optimized well, BF3 sure has MAOR! effects and "BLOODY SCREEN SO REAAAL" effects but they focused too much on special effects that they forgot the game looks like a wet turd without them.

Skyrim is just beautiful looking with or without the effects , on consoles and PC  as well

so what i am saying is , over doing it in graphics section will not make the game look better, it will make it look worse.



Can't see the difference from high, and I'm playing it on my gaming laptop. Guess I'm not missing out. Also, the snow and water in uncharted 2/3 looked better.



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

Boutros said:
Kasz216 said:
I'm just happy thanks to consoles I can play it on "High".

Can't comment on the highest end settings, but I can say that thanks to consoles crappy graphical ability there probably was much more focus on performance for those of us with PC's that are 3-4 years old.

Which is why the "You have to upgrade your PC every year" argument makes me laugh.

''Consoles crappy graphical ability''?

That's just trolling..

How so?  Due to console's low standards and general poor level ability (IE, lesser then actually my crappy off the shelf 3 year old PC) games are made at a much lower standard graphically.

Which is good, because it means i can run them.

Back when Morrowing came out.  There was no way you were running it on a three year old computer and getting framerates that good.

 

Console graphics are objectivly crappy in power compaired to PCs.



I'm sure high and ultra don't hold to many differences, but nice nonetheless.



           

Kasz216 said:
Boutros said:
Kasz216 said:
I'm just happy thanks to consoles I can play it on "High".

Can't comment on the highest end settings, but I can say that thanks to consoles crappy graphical ability there probably was much more focus on performance for those of us with PC's that are 3-4 years old.

Which is why the "You have to upgrade your PC every year" argument makes me laugh.

''Consoles crappy graphical ability''?

That's just trolling..

How so?  Due to console's low standards and general poor level ability (IE, lesser then actually my crappy off the shelf 3 year old PC) games are made at a much lower standard graphically.

Which is good, because it means i can run them.

Back when Morrowing came out.  There was no way you were running it on a three year old computer and getting framerates that good.

 

Console graphics are objectivly crappy in power compaired to PCs.

There are like 3 PC games that have much better graphics than games on consoles. The rest all look about the same.

Calling it crappy is trolling and you'd think you know that by now.