Oblivion looked amazing at the time. I remember seeing a screenshot of a forest and a shrine there, fantastic stuff.
And honestly, all the other games had their amazing moments, Skyrim absolutely too. But I do get what DF means, a lot in that presentation was beautiful.
Speaking of Oblivion, as much as I adore Skyrim, I would love if they go back to a bit more colors for VI. I get it, Skyrim, it makes sense but it was a bit too colorless I guess, for my liking. We’ll have to see if they go for a realistic look again.
I’ll say this: Creation Engine 2 is going to be introduced with Starfield. If it fires all cylinders, people are going to have visual o—y on the next Elder Scroll.
Skyrim was the best looking open world fantasy game on 360. And it ran pretty well on 360. Looked more consistent, had better materials and fps than Risen, Two Worlds, Dragons Dogma, Gothic 4, Kingdom of Amalur or Fable 3.
Yeah, stepping out of the sewers for the first time in Oblivion was a holy shit moment for many. The faces and lighting (dat bloom) of NPCs was questionable but Bethesda fixed that in Skyrim.
Witcher 2 on 360 looked really good, yes. But its also not really open world, has problems with black crush on 360 and the day/night cycle and weather is rather limited compared to Skyrim iirc.
I will never forget the simple but awesome stuff such as the physics in that chain right in that jail cell. And of course how the walls really appeared bump mapped with a HDTV back then, amazing.
As for Witcher 2. I was talking about PC. but your point still stands. World size wasn’t comparable at all. True that.
Skyrim was definitely a step up over Oblivion but I still never considered it a great looking game in the end. I’ve always thought Bethesda games suffered in the materials and lighting departments, especially games like Fallout 4 where their implementation of physically based rendering was especially lacking imo.
Starfield is the first game where their materials and lighting really impressed me. The more I watch their direct, the more impressed I am. What they are doing with the atmospherics and how neighboring planets effect how things are lit is pretty nuts. As good as Starfield looks, I can’t wait to see how good ESVI looks. I’ve always been more of a ES fan over Fallout and it wouldn’t surprise me if they made animations an even bigger focus there. The team is already doing some amazing work here and it’ll only get better.
I don’t see it. DF is one of the most unbiased outlets imo. They got all platforms covered and just spent 45’ praising a pc/xbox game. Some of y’all are hung up on a throw away comment.
I don’t mean bias as in ‘deliberately biased’ just that John particularly strikes me as having a mainly console gaming history. They have views heavily skewed by what they played back in the day on console.
Pretty much all of them have discussed, multiple times, their PC gaming background. I don’t even understand how a console bias would influence that view considering Oblivion was on consoles. The answer to every opinion isn’t just some sort of bias. They do a pretty good job explaining their views imo.
Considering the character models, blown out bloom, repeated textures, samey wood environments, and so on, it shouldn’t be that hard for it to be believed that the impact of Oblivion’s graphics dies down rather quickly after you exit the sewers. It had impressive aspects, but many, many elements took me out of the game graphically.
There’s now someone on Twitter that made a “analysis” of a indoor part of the Starfield Direct where a lot of combat happens and he claims the fps goes from 30 to like 20 and below. Claims DF did not mention this at all.
Perhaps DF realized this was an older build, that the game is still in development, being polished as we speak. It’s like some people really just want to find a reason to crap on it, I guess we can’t have too much positivity now.
If the finished game has it, sure go ahead, complain, until then these “arm chair analysis” things are just not to be taken seriously, except DF I guess.
Yup, best not to pay attention to people who are clearly discussing the game from an angle. The footage did look to have frame drops, but it’s never a good idea to come to any conclusions on pre-release footage. The recommended specs on PC gives me confidence it’ll hit a solid 30fps. May not be locked, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was the best running Bethesda game at launch.
Fallout 4 was a while ago and I would say it was mostly smooth for me, but I can’t be 100% sure on it. I’m getting older, I could very well be misremembering and that it was much worse on Xbox One.
It’s interesting that Todd said they had it at 60fps on X, just not concistent. So I’m hoping it’ll at least be mostly 30fps concistent. But maybe some drops during very heavy gun battles.
Worst case scenario it’s dropping more, but it won’t stop us playing it. Not when Zelda drops easily into the 20s and folks adore it. And in that case they will patch it. But we hope for the best, of course.
Youtube put this in my recommended feed, probably because of all the Starfield videos I’ve been watching. Love watching these type of making of videos. It’s an interesting retro look at some early tech in their engine.
but your point still stands. World size wasn’t comparable at all. True that.
