Barbas said:
Yes, those are all stills from the YouTube videos I was talking about. And they don't look bad. They might not be as nice as you'd like, but bad is a different thing entirely. They are, in fact, objectively better than anything I've seen in either Fallout 3 or New Vegas.
As for the UI, it's minimalist. Stylistically similar to the 90s? Maybe; I didn't play enough 90s FPS games to compare it accurately. The graphics and HUD are similar to what they were going for with Skyrim. Looks good to me; it's on-target. Mods will eliminate any niggles I'd have with it anyway (and those usually show up in ones or twos a good long while after I've finished taking in the bigger stuff). So it won't matter how the UI looks anyway, because you'll be looking at a placeholder.
Well then of course youtube compression did its job in making it look muddy. I guess we will have to wait for real screenshots.
Yes, they are better than 3 or New Vegas, but do note that both of those have been underwhelming in terms of graphics (not to mix up with the armosphere/style) even at launch, and they are now 7 and 5 years old respectively.
See, in the 90s UI was minimalistic because it had to be. computers were simply not good enough to waste processing on fancy UI. however sadly it is now becoming a fashion to make ui look ugly and unfunctional. and thats exactly what vanilla skyrim ui was.
Yes, modders will most definitely fix it, but how long can we rely modders to do the developers job? modders will make good textures and bump/normal maps too as they did for oblivion (some amazing bump maps in there nowadays), but thats something developers should have done to begin with. Its not like Bethesda is some indie dev that cannot afford a graphics artist.
Adam Jensen said:
Strazdas said:
i agree that telling the revolution this is for should be a thing now.
but i dont agree about the 720p part. according to steam 1.28% of users have 720p as their primary screen resolution. thats hardly a lot.
Primary screen resolution isn't the same as in-game resolution. I have a 1440p monitor yet I hardly ever play at that resolution if the game is too demanding. I'm fine with 1080p and all the other effects turned up higher. Plenty of people sacrifice resolution for things like ambient occlusion and draw distance etc.
It is for basically anyone using IPS monitors. Your example is quite rare as 1440p monitors is still a very rare thing (despite owners loving them) and most people play on 1080p, with 1080p monitors. very few people upsample (play in lower resolution on higher resolution monitor) on PC. most just lower graphic settings instead. this is because upsampling creates horrible blurs and scaling artifacts.
Theoretically it could be. But it would have to be a complete mess considering the difference between the 550 Ti and 7870. As an owner of R9 280x I hope it's not indicative of optimization. The game doesn't use any proprietary tech from Nvidia. In fact it uses Havok for physics simulation which runs flawlessly on AMD. Not to mention that consoles use AMD as well. So there's absolutely no justifiable reason for this game to be badly optimized for AMD.
Well, its not like it hasnt happened before (cough, watch dogs, cough). But yes, i think it may rather be a mistake in requirements instead. maybe the drivers they tested it on were exceptionally bad or something. There is one real exception though - tessellation. Nvidia cards are much better at tessellation than AMD cards so on games with high tessellation (witcher 3, Crysis 3 for example) Nvidia cards perform better. Its not some fancy Nvidia tech or anything, just Nvidia has better Tesselation processing cores in the cards. AMD GPUs have their advantages too, but sadly many of them are outside of gaming.
valium said:
isnt the 'recommended' usually around what it would take to absolutely max out EVERYTHING?
ech, i find this to not be the case for majority of games that arent just console ports with very little options. usually its the "high settings" requirements rather than max everything out. particularly shadows and supersampling can really kill performance when maxed.
otakon17 said:
Crap I'm worried, apparently my GPU isn't hefty enough to run it... I can run Crysis 2 on near maximum settings
Crysis 2 is a simple console port, its not graphically demanding game. Crysis 1 requires more to max out than Crysis 2 actually. Its a bad game to benchmark performance on.
