Todd Howard Tempers Skyrim Expectations

[someonehairy-ish]

Sorry Mr. Howard but your tempering is easily countered by even just the leaked list of racial abilities and perks I read this morning.

Ooooh? You found this where, might I ask

Wood elves better not get shitty animal taming stuff this time...

 

[toomuchnothing]

Sorry Mr. Howard but your tempering is easily countered by even just the leaked list of racial abilities and perks I read this morning.

Ooooh? You found this where, might I ask

Wood elves better not get shitty animal taming stuff this time...

Read it on PCGamer [http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/09/26/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-perks-and-racial-skills-revealed-be-a-dark-elf-set-yourself-on-fire/] this morning who took it from another source (can't remember).

 

[Paragon Fury]

That's fair. I mean, Skyrim's part of the same generation as Oblivion with he same tech. It'd be almost impossible to improve by quite as much without having new hardware to run it on.

Im pretty sure they re made the engine, unless you emant console wise.

They did, its called the Creation Engine (I think). What I meant is that once you get nearer to the full potential of the thing you're building a game for, i.e. the PS3 and 360, making significant progress becomes harder and harder.

The PC is another thing altogether, but is still limited by having to be able to have it run on the consoles.

The PC is also limited by the fact that many, many PCs still aren't even up to the consoles yet. PCs may outnumber consoles by quite a bit, but the number of PCs actually capable of running many newer games at even a console-comparable level is not nearly as high as people is. As much as the PC gamers will rail against it, there are three things that the PC will never be able to compete with consoles in:

- Uniformity of capability - All mass-produced consoles by their nature are all capable of the same things, whereas even in a sample of 10,000 PC users you're likely to get a hundred different tiers of capability since each PC is likely unique to that user

- Accessibility and ease of use - Tout the ease of PC assembly and use all you want, but to the average customer the "Plug Wires into TV, Put Disc in System, Play" will always be the simpler, easier and the more attractive option

- Multi-user Play - 1 Console, 1 Game, 1 TV, 4 Controllers nets 4 Players. 4 Consoles, 4 TVs, 4 Games, 16 Controllers nets 16 Players. For social and local play consoles can't be beat. Hell, split-screen isn't even an option on most PC games.

Until PC games can prove that they can do all three of these things cheaper, better and more easily than consoles your precious PC will always be "held back" by consoles. Which is a bit of an idiotic idea in the first place - good games will good games regardless if they're developed with the Wii or a monster PC in mind.

Just because the game doesn't get 90x AAA (Ass-Anti-Aliasing) doesn't mean the game is shit.

 

[Tiamat666]

I think Todd is mainly talking graphics quality. Because gameplay wise, things have been gained and lost throughout the Elder Scrolls games. Mainly, atmosphere and accessibility was added while complexity and depth was removed.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

It's being developed primarily for the same systems that were around when Oblivion was released. Of course it's not a huge leap forward. PC is already 2 generations ahead of consoles. Consoles can't play Crysis on Ultra, they can't play The Witcher 2 on Ultra and they won't be able to play Battlefield 3 on Ultra.
No, graphics aren't everything, but they're trying to make the game look as best as they can, whilst being limited to the console hardware. Not just graphically, but in size of the world and entire game, loading times, AI and other stuff that requires GPU and CPU processing that consoles just can't do as well as PC. If this was a PC exclusive title, it would be released a couple of years later on next generation consoles. Not to mention how Xbox 360 is already holding back the industry because of it's lack of BluRay. Mass Effect 2 on 2 discs? Come on.

 

[Hamish Durie]

My guess is that director guy will port skyrim to next console generation so he could fit in that leap that he so dearly wants

 

[CatmanStu]

Oh dear; if Skyrim is as far away from Oblivion as that was from Morrowind, then Skyrim will be one of the shallowest games of the year. Oblivion was a huge step down from Morrowind in every way bar presentation.

Still, even a shallow Bethesda game is head and shoulders above most developers efforts. I just wish they would back to crafting worlds, rather than seeing how much random junk they can throw into the environment.

 

[GonzoGamer]

It's good to see the hype dialed down for once.

I don't think we need a big step forward.
I just want to see them release something that works. If it works on the ps3, I'll be amazed.

 

[DEAD34345]

I was worried there for a moment, but then I realised he was talking about graphics.

I'm still happy playing Arena, Daggerfall and Morrowind, so the graphical quality of the game means almost nothing to me. So long as it's still going to be an epic RPG [sub]with no level scaling,[/sub] I couldn't care less about graphical improvements.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

Fans really should curb their expectations and look at the facts in front of them.

It is clearly being designed for a casual/console market. Which, I don't have a problem with by itself. But for The Elder Scrolls, this is unacceptable.

Fans need to realize what they're getting. Cancel your pre-order and wait a few days after release at the very least. See what the final product looks like.

Why? Graphics aren't everything. They're not even the most important thing. As a PC gamer, I think it's a shame that cross-platform games tend to be held back by the limitations of obsolete console hardware (seriously, phones are now more powerful than the doorstops that are supposed to be dedicate gaming hardware), but a good game is still a good game. There's a reason indie games have become so popular - people have realised that making a game fun is more important than making it look pretty, and Steam and other online services have made it possible to sell such games without anywhere near as much overhead or risk.

Don't get me wrong, I love impressive graphics as much as anyone, and I have a seriously overclocked, liquid cooled PC to prove it. But as long as Skyrim is a good game, it really doesn't matter if it looks like Morrowind. After all, Morrowind hasn't suddenly stopped being a great game just because I bought a better PC.

I am not talking about graphics.

Jim Sterling puts it best. PC games aren't defined by powerful hardware and high quality graphics. It's the complex gameplay, micromanagement, that little extra patience needed for greater reward.

That's a PC game. And that's how The Elder Scrolls should be.

Look, I usually don't bother bringing it up, but it's just nonsense that console equates to casual. You can have just as much micromanagement and complexity on a console that you can have on a PC, there's just no truth in otherwise. I don't have any issue with completely accurate statements that the desperately limited small RAM values in consoles hold back pre-rendering, and other things that would smooth out gameplay, but they do not, at the moment, hold back any of the qualities that make an RPG a "hardcore" RPG. Consoles never dilute a game to the point where it transforms utterly from being one aimed at the dedicated gamer market to the casual one, and this has not occurred with any of the Elder Scrolls. They're just as immersive, epic (in scope), and free as before consoles came to the scene as "competitors" to the PC gaming market.

They're, for the most part, just a different interface. PS3 and 360 are both mouse and keyboard compatible, though not many games make use of this complete unreserved compatibility. If Howards statements about mod conversion, ala UT3, come to fruition, we might even see the console side of things really blossom with the same unhindered potential that PC gets from the likes of TESCK and GECK.

I transitioned from Oblivion on the PS3 to Oblivion on my PC about a year ago, after many happy years of Oblivion on my PS3, so I could start modding, and have since gotten into making my own and tweaking others, so I do hope it's something that they come through on.

Hopefully this doesn't sound hostile; but the notion console gaming is casual gaming, and subsequently blaming dissatisfactory games on them, is absurd. If a game really, really, ignores it's previous demographic in favour of the casual market, it isn't because of the limitations of consoles.

I'm keeping my pre-order because I have no delusions to what I think Skyrim is going to be. I know what I expect from it, and I know it'll deliver there. It'll be, without a shadow of doubt, one of the best RPGs on the market for some time to come.

 

[faspxina]

Oh, okay I won't buy it then. *leaves the room*

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

I smell modified gamebryoooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[Sunrider]

If Oblivion was a huge jump forward from Morrowind, I'm glad I never played Morrowind.

Opinions and all that, but Oblivion was horrible. Mind you, I never played it with mods, but I didn't use mods for Fallout 3 / New Vegas, and they still rocked.

 

[DEAD34345]

I was worried there for a moment, but then I realised he was talking about graphics.

I'm still happy playing Arena, Daggerfall and Morrowind, so the graphical quality of the game means almost nothing to me. So long as it's still going to be an epic RPG [sub]with no level scaling,[/sub] I couldn't care less about graphical improvements.

Oh no, we couldn't be doing with that dreaded level scaling which was in Arena, Daggerfall and Morrowind!

It was technically there, but it wasn't nearly as obnoxiously done as in Oblivion. Sorry, but that argument just doesn't work.

In Oblivion it didn't matter what level you were because everything instantly scaled up to match you (both enemies and loot). Morrowind made use of levelled lists in many dungeons, but you could still be way out of range of those levelled list, and there was still plenty of enemies and objects that weren't levelled in any form.

Admittedly, in Daggerfall and Arena it is present enough to be an issue to me, but it's still not quite as bad as Oblivion (because again, not everything is levelled).

 

[Furious Styles]

]The PC is also limited by the fact that many, many PCs still aren't even up to the consoles yet. PCs may outnumber consoles by quite a bit, but the number of PCs actually capable of running many newer games at even a console-comparable level is not nearly as high as people is. As much as the PC gamers will rail against it, there are three things that the PC will never be able to compete with consoles in:

- Uniformity of capability - All mass-produced consoles by their nature are all capable of the same things, whereas even in a sample of 10,000 PC users you're likely to get a hundred different tiers of capability since each PC is likely unique to that user

- Accessibility and ease of use - Tout the ease of PC assembly and use all you want, but to the average customer the "Plug Wires into TV, Put Disc in System, Play" will always be the simpler, easier and the more attractive option

- Multi-user Play - 1 Console, 1 Game, 1 TV, 4 Controllers nets 4 Players. 4 Consoles, 4 TVs, 4 Games, 16 Controllers nets 16 Players. For social and local play consoles can't be beat. Hell, split-screen isn't even an option on most PC games.

Until PC games can prove that they can do all three of these things cheaper, better and more easily than consoles your precious PC will always be "held back" by consoles. Which is a bit of an idiotic idea in the first place - good games will good games regardless if they're developed with the Wii or a monster PC in mind.

Just because the game doesn't get 90x AAA (Ass-Anti-Aliasing) doesn't mean the game is shit.

I totally agree. I also don't like mouse and keyboard as an interface. Its too fiddly and lacks the instant accessibility of a controller actually designed for the purpose. Of course, you can get controllers for PCs, but lots of people seem to love.

Wait, reading through this... did you think I was a PC gamer? Oh heavens no! I was just pointing out that tech has advanced since 2005, but games still have to be designed with people who don't own mega PCs in mind.

 

[imnot]

That's fair. I mean, Skyrim's part of the same generation as Oblivion with he same tech. It'd be almost impossible to improve by quite as much without having new hardware to run it on.

Im pretty sure they re made the engine, unless you emant console wise.

They did, its called the Creation Engine (I think). What I meant is that once you get nearer to the full potential of the thing you're building a game for, i.e. the PS3 and 360, making significant progress becomes harder and harder.

The PC is another thing altogether, but is still limited by having to be able to have it run on the consoles.

Yeah as a consoletard I like to think of it as the 'Knowing for sure the game I just brought will work' tax

 

[Atmos Duality]

If it doesn't crash every motherfucking hour, then I'd say it's a large jump in quality.

 

[Braedan]

Is it sad that the part I'm looking forward to/hoping for the most is game stability and less bugs? I mean, they built their own engine so it SHOULD be a tonne more stable... right?

 

[Furious Styles]

The PC is another thing altogether, but is still limited by having to be able to have it run on the consoles.

Yeah as a consoletard I like to think of it as the 'Knowing for sure the game I just brought will work' tax [/quote]
That is pretty sweet, I'm glad I'm not a computer gamer.

 

[Epona]

There was a 4 year gap between Morrowind and Oblivion and a 5 year gap between Oblivion and Skyrim. Of course Oblivion and Skyrim both have to run on the same hardware so that would hold Skyrim back I guess.