Oblivion Shadowing Changes for the Worse?

[Grifter]

I just saw this THREAD (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1011766) over on [H]ard OCP talking about how Bethesda removed all the soft shadows and some of the lighting effects from the final version of the game. There are some comparison shots and the differince is very noticeable and it's not good.

We do need to keep in mind that the screenshots are from two different video sources, one of high quality and the other of medium, so it might not be as bad as it looks. This also just concerns the PC version, nothing has been said about the 360 version but they will most likely be the same.

Editor's Note: This information I believe stems from this recent interview (http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/oblivion/).

Could you discuss the dynamic shadow technique you're using? They appear to be a form of shadow maps.

They are a form of shadow maps, though the technique we’re using currently differs from the one we showed at E3. Our initial shadow tests were done using cube maps on every surface, but after extensive testing we found them to be too slow overall to use as a general solution. We have switched to doing single shadow maps directed at characters. The system supports full self-shadowing and we do multiple samples and depth comparisons to provide a soft-shadowing effect. The net effect we’ve achieved is a system general enough to handle Oblivion’s diverse environments while still providing great visuals and good performance.

Are your dynamic shadow implementation a feature across all supported systems, perhaps scaling the detail on low-end machines, or are they a high-end only checkbox? How would you describe the qualitative jump from Morrowind?

They will be supported across all systems. We will have options to toggle features like self-shadowing and the softening effect, as well as to adjust the number of characters receiving shadows to improve performance for lower end machines. The jump from Morrowind is significant. Since we aren’t doing stencil shadows anymore, our current system is more accurate while using less fill cost. Also, shadows use world space coordinates instead of Morrowind’s screen space coordinates, allowing us to do more dramatic effects like fading out and softening the shadows over distances.
Comparison Shots:
good graphics (http://www.supload.com/free/obliv2.jpg/view/) - Not so good graphics (http://www.supload.com/free/obliv1.jpg/view/)
Good graphics (http://www.supload.com/free/obliv4.jpg/view/) - Not so good graphics (http://www.supload.com/free/obliv3.jpg/view/)

[Sion]

Link to bethesta thread? Posting on a forum talking about people in another forum talking about people in another forum who are talking to developers is what I call a weak chain of communication.

[SMES]

Looks like Beth's Elderscrolls.com site is timing out right now. Maybe as a result of the fallout (no pun intended)? If you look through the HardOCP thread you can get some before and after shots of the change in shadow systems. It's quite a major difference, if it's true.

[Grifter]

Link to bethesta thread? Posting on a forum talking about people in another forum talking about people in another forum who are talking to developers is what I call a weak chain of communication.

you know the point of the thread (Devs cutting major graphic features) and you can look at the comparison pics in the thread I linked to. Honestly what more do you need. Take a look at the pics and state your opinion..or not I dont care. And you can take your chain of communication put it next to Sonys value chain and any other chains out there and shove it. The bethesda forum this was being discussed in is dead at the moment. here are direct links to some screenshots for those that value their communication chains.
Damn I shouldnt be allowed to post if i've been up all night drinking

good graphics (http://www.supload.com/free/obliv2.jpg/view/)

Not so good graphics (http://www.supload.com/free/obliv1.jpg/view/)

Good graphics (http://www.supload.com/free/obliv4.jpg/view/)

Not so good graphics (http://www.supload.com/free/obliv3.jpg/view/)

Good Video (http://bethsoft.com/redirects/video1.htm)

not so good video (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=9QC70N2M) DO NOT CLICK THE BUTTON TO PROCEED

[Chimpbot]

It doesn't look worse at all...not to me, anyway.
It looks like they decided to brighten the game up significantly, is all. If I had to play the game from the "good" screenshots, I'd get annoyed at just how friggin dark it would be. The "not so good" screenshots simply appear to be brighter.

[SMES]

It doesn't look worse at all...not to me, anyway.
It looks like they decided to brighten the game up significantly, is all. If I had to play the game from the "good" screenshots, I'd get annoyed at just how friggin dark it would be. The "not so good" screenshots simply appear to be brighter.

That's what I thought at first, however it seems that on the official forums a dev has confirmed that they switched to a different shadow rendering system a while ago. It's not just the darkness of the old system, the old system also rendered shadows more deeply and dynamically. If you look carefully you should be able to tell the difference beyond the brightness level.

However, I just downloaded the "not so good" video, and I must agree with you Chimpbot that it doesn't look like a huge difference. I still think it looks worse, but the difference isn't neccisarilly big enough to anger me.

[bapenguin]

I'd like to see the posting on the Oblivion boards. YOu have no idea when the screens came out. How do you know the bad looking screeens really aren't the old screens before they put in the soft shadows? I remember the initial screens didn't have the soft shadowing and they put in the soft shadowing right around E3 time last year.

kathode can you make any comments on this?

[captainstrombosis]

It doesn't bother me. The shadows really would have bothered me after a while. I have also never been one to enjoy the shiny/blurr effect on light surfaces (read as: Would rather stab his own eyes out then have that option on) So it works out for me anyway. Framerate for everyone!

[bapenguin]

Just edited this up and moved it to the news items section.

I really don't get this. I mean...I PLAYED the damn thing with every object casting shadows. Everyone remembers the chains in the dungeon from the E3 video. It ran fine on the 360. I guess the large outdoor enviornments f'd with performance or something.

[fushi]

Tears are rolling down the cheeks of PC gamers everywhere as the Xbox 360 claims yet another victim.

[01010]

Don't care. Just give me a good game and I'll be happy.

[Roman]

Tears are rolling down the cheeks of PC gamers everywhere as the Xbox 360 claims yet another victim.
If tears are rolling down your face about a video game maybe you need to get out of the house more.
Don't care. Just give me a good game and I'll be happy.
Agreed, I'm more concerned about the AI than I am the graphics. Morrowind - and most other RPGs, for that matter - feel like you're walking around, talking to a bunch of ATMs who just stand in one place 24 hours a day, blinking at you. If they deliver on the promises they made about the AI, I'll be very pleased.

[Roman]

Also, why are people assuming the changes were because of the 360? Has everyone forgotten the choppy, unoptimized mess that the original PC version was, even on high-end systems? Maybe they want it to run more than 5 fps this time.

[CapnAJ]

Looks a little brighter, but have they scaled down the texture detail aswell?

[Taco]

Why would they cut it out rather than make it an option? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. This is not a console, the graphics can be scaled up and down quite a bit.

Whatever, as I've always said, the graphics in this game are just icing.

[Draft]

Tears are rolling down the cheeks of PC gamers everywhere as the Xbox 360 claims yet another victim.Yeah, no shit.

[fushi]

If tears are rolling down your face about a video game maybe you need to get out of the house more.
There is not enough Nintendo in your heart.

[Taco]

The fastest PC is easily faster than the 360. Given my previous post, I'd call it a screwup by Bethesda, not the claiming of a victim.

[Liquidize105]

Okay I saw the after video.

It does look less impressive, less shine and glim, but 10 hours in I doubt it's gonna matter that much.

I'm more concerned about the NPC animations, which are still sorta stiff.

[01010]

If tears are rolling down your face about a video game maybe you need to get out of the house more.

Couldn't agree more.

Agreed, I'm more concerned about the AI than I am the graphics. Morrowind - and most other RPGs, for that matter - feel like you're walking around, talking to a bunch of ATMs who just stand in one place 24 hours a day, blinking at you. If they deliver on the promises they made about the AI, I'll be very pleased.

AI and Physics are what excite me in games, I'd like to see more use of physics in games particularly, blowing out walls a la Red Faction, but with individual bricks rather than Geo-Mod, that would be awesome. That sort of thing really does excite, especially if it's in a sandbox game. I'm thinking how great a GTA game would be with Radiant AI and a fully destructible world, to a certain limit anyway (maybe have damage that gets repaired thus not being able to flatten the entire game world).

[BenSkywalker]

The fastest PC is easily faster than the 360.

When it comes to running Word no doubt about it. The R600 shader architecture and the available 256GB/sec eDRAM certainly give the 360 areas where it bests/obliterates the current top offerings in the PC realm.

From the screen caps besides the shadowing- huge reduction in shader complexity, reduction in accuracy for shaders that remain combined with/including revamping of the lighting system in general. Looks like they removed HDR and nigh all higher functioning shaders.

[H.Bogard]

Tears are rolling down the cheeks of PC gamers everywhere as the Xbox 360 claims yet another victim.

Spartacus here thinks that if high end PCs lost the self shadowing, theyre going to keep it on the 360 too......heheh....

[Taco]

This (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814143043) plus a dual core CPU would smoke a 360. Let's not even get into the realm of SLI.

[bapenguin]

This (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814143043) plus a dual core CPU would smoke a 360. Let's not even get into the realm of SLI.

blah blah blah blah blah. Who cares?

That has nothing to do with this news. Do you really think the target audience of a PC game is the highest end PC available?

[Taran Wanderer]

Let's not do the whiny console vs PC crap.

It doesn't make sense to cut the feature because of the 360 since the 360 is more powerful than midrange PC's. They didn't make it a "checkbox" option because it would've taken a lot of time to test both shadow implementations according to the quote from the thread:

QUOTE(kathode)
Shadows are something that have to be tested throughout the entire world to make sure the system handles every area possible. The system we're using now differs 100% from the one we were using. If we wanted to maintain two completely distinct shadow systems, we'd effectively double our workload as far as testing and bug-fixing goes. That would be what you would call "not smart."

[Kelegacy]

Maybe they cut graphical features to fit it all on one disc.

I'm kidding.

[Thenetcase]

Frankly... even the "bad" shots here look far better than any other RPG on the market right now...
Neverwinter Nights 2 might best this easily though.

-TNC-

[fushi]

Spartacus here thinks that if high end PCs lost the self shadowing, theyre going to keep it on the 360 too......heheh....
I don't get it.
Couldn't agree more.
I don't get it.

Buy Xbox 360.

[Taco]

It doesn't make sense to cut the feature because of the 360 since the 360 is more powerful than midrange PC's. They didn't make it a "checkbox" option because it would've taken a lot of time to test both shadow implementations according to the quote from the thread:

I still don't get it. They don't need to handle it like Monolith did in FEAR. They can treat it like id did with the higher res textures and put it on the extreme end of a slider(or something) with a popup warning. If you can do it the option should be there.

Or hell, at the very least allow you to turn it on in a config file and document it.

[bapenguin]

Or hell, at the very least allow you to turn it on in a config file and document it.

Who says they didn't?

[drakkarim]

i would be quite surprised/disappointed if they did such a step back in the graphics, going from a next-gen title to a 'should've been here 2 years ago' title.

as for the argument, this would be borderline false advertising, like showing people commercials of a beautiful car with all the trimmings/options to get you to go to the dealer and want to buy, then when you get there they tell you that you can't have the leather because since not everyone can afford it, they decided to just not offer it at all.

bait and switch, graphics aren't everything, true, but when you've been showing something for years now, its pathetic to be taking it out at the last minute just because the 360 can't handle it.

i think unless i see some new gameplay videos from the final build i'm not going to be preordering or buying anytime soon, i'll wait for the others to bend over first and see what they get.

[Mason]

OMG broken promises! After we've all invested so much time and money into the title!

No, wait, we've sat around on forums and chatted about it, sorry. Read reviews and look at screenshots when it is released and make your own purchasing decision then.

I'll likely get the PC version, and my 9800 wasn't going to soft-shadow anything in the first place, so I'm having trouble summoning that patented Mighty Mason Madness over this.

[bapenguin]

i would be quite surprised/disappointed if they did such a step back in the graphics, going from a next-gen title to a 'should've been here 2 years ago' title.

as for the argument, this would be borderline false advertising, like showing people commercials of a beautiful car with all the trimmings/options to get you to go to the dealer and want to buy, then when you get there they tell you that you can't have the leather because since not everyone can afford it, they decided to just not offer it at all.

bait and switch, graphics aren't everything, true, but when you've been showing something for years now, its pathetic to be taking it out at the last minute just because the 360 can't handle it.

i think unless i see some new gameplay videos from the final build i'm not going to be preordering or buying anytime soon, i'll wait for the others to bend over first and see what they get.

They only implemented the shadowing around E3 time. Before that all the screenshots didn't have ANY shadowing in it and it was still being praised for how it looked. Download the video linked above, it still looks damn good.

[Atorak]

I'm confused. All of the screenshots that we've seen over the past few months have looked phenomenal, and I definitely didn't see a shadowing difference between ones six months ago and today.

I doubt they had soft shadowing issues in dungeons and stores, there must have been huge performance hits when trying to render shadows from the Speed Trees.

[overdrivechao]

None of this matters because this game is never coming out. That is all.

[Taran Wanderer]

I still don't get it. They don't need to handle it like Monolith did in FEAR. They can treat it like id did with the higher res textures and put it on the extreme end of a slider(or something) with a popup warning. If you can do it the option should be there.

Or hell, at the very least allow you to turn it on in a config file and document it.

Just to clafiry, the claim in the quote is that they chose not to make it a checkbox option simply because it would take to long to test shadows in the entire game world with two completely different implementations. It wasn't due to the idea of not supporting top-of-the-line systems.

If they did make it an option, and it was - for example - unplayably too dark in certain areas due to lack of testing, people would be whining and bitching about an unfinished, unplayable product. Or maybe I'm just being too cynical. Who knows? With the current uproar, maybe they will make it an option.

[Reanimated]

PC version got gimped?

Big whoop.

[Beelzebud]

Both sources look blurry, and washed out. I don't think it's really fair to draw any conclusions from these crappy shots...

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

The final version of the game. Not the PC version of the game. Now stop crying about which is better.

Both sources look blurry, and washed out. I don't think it's really fair to draw any conclusions from these crappy shots...

Agreed.

[Rirath]

Why is it EA is always mad over trivial things, yet when games get delayed many months or features get cut left and right, nobody cares? The previous shadows looked beautiful! Sadly, it doesn't surprise me these guys couldn't make this work. Graphics doesn't seem to be their specialty. I just hope they manage to make a good game, because the screenshots have only gotten progressively worse as it comes close to launch.

And just think of all the people who said it would have been improved since that E3 video...

[Taco]

Trivial things are magnified on great games.

[PantherModern]

They've released screenshots since this interview that I have gone ga-ga over. Personally, if the game even looks a fraction as good as promised I'm not even gonna care. And as far as PC's besting the 360, well, mine doesn't, so that is all I really give a crap about.

But if you do want to get technical, the only other 48 pixel pipe graphics solution for PC's is the new card coming out from ati, as of right now nothing even comes close.

[Rirath]

Trivial things are magnified on great games.

Well, to clarify I wasn't calling the shadows trivial. I think they were very important, one of the things that made Obliv "next gen". Just seems like half this thread is willing to write it off without a second thought.

[Oddmaker]

Why not just add a figgin option in so we can turn what we want on or off.

[bone4ahead]

Why not just add a figgin option in so we can turn what we want on or off.

The new shadow system is totally different from the old one. Bethesda said it would take twice the effort to implement and test both shadow systems. They think it's a waste of resources and time. I agree, but I wish they would just use the old type even if they must delay the game again. :(

[Deathbane27]

Since someone asked for dev quotes and no one has delivered...

http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?act=Search&CODE=getalluser&mid=11

Or go to http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?showuser=11 and Click "Find member's posts"


Relevant Snippets:

The shadows I talked about in the Beyond3D interview ( http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/oblivion ). Only characters get shadows now.

Other than that, no major changes have taken place in either the renderer or art assets that would affect quality of visuals on a global scale, so if you think it looks worse then it's an effect of video compression or low settings (or you've just been looking at Oblivion stuff way too long :) )

Sorry if I was vague. Characters cast shadows on everything. Objects don't cast, they just receive shadows from characters. The exception is the trees - tree canopies cast shadows down on everything like you see in the screenshots.

And from the interview:

Our initial shadow tests were done using cube maps on every surface, but after extensive testing we found them to be too slow overall to use as a general solution. We have switched to doing single shadow maps directed at characters. The system supports full self-shadowing and we do multiple samples and depth comparisons to provide a soft-shadowing effect. The net effect we’ve achieved is a system general enough to handle Oblivion’s diverse environments while still providing great visuals and good performance.

[Mason]

Well, to clarify I wasn't calling the shadows trivial. I think they were very important, one of the things that made Obliv "next gen". Just seems like half this thread is willing to write it off without a second thought.
Yup, at least I am.

Not everyone is a ridiculous graphics whore. If a game looks solid, performs well, and has a good art style, that's all you need. It's gameplay and story that make games great; a pretty but hollow or boring game is useful only for screenshots.

If we start hearing that important gameplay features have been cut, then I'll severely downgrade Oblivion. But a shadowing feature that only people with 360s and high-end graphics cards could use? Not going to lose a wink of sleep for that.

If the graphics, physics, and AI in Oblivion aren't next gen to you, I think you're going to be disappointed by the vast majority of next gen titles.

[laggerific]

Also, why are people assuming the changes were because of the 360? Has everyone forgotten the choppy, unoptimized mess that the original PC version was, even on high-end systems? Maybe they want it to run more than 5 fps this time.

Are you referring to Morrowind? Because I remember that being very smooth with maxed settings.

I really think the PC version would be able to handle those fine effects...and if not now in the very near future. Enough to make completely removing those features a really stupid idea.

[laggerific]

Maybe they cut graphical features to fit it all on one disc.

I'm kidding.

This strikes me as highly unlikely...

[Rirath]

If the graphics, physics, and AI in Oblivion aren't next gen to you, I think you're going to be disappointed by the vast majority of next gen titles.

The features just seem like current gen stuff to me, and taking a long time to release or being on the 360 certainly doesn't make it next gen. Graphics seem about on par with this gen, physics aren't new, and we've yet to actually see what the AI has to offer. I guess I'm putting Oblivion squarely in the "last of the current gen" titles as of this latest setback, or the early ports of next gen. But, who knows. Maybe it'll look mind blowing, or maybe it'll play like mud.

Either way I'll still give it a shot.

[laggerific]

Taking a long time to release or being on the 360 doesn't make it next gen, and the features just seem like current gen stuff to me. Graphics seem about on par with this gen, physics aren't new, and we've yet to actually see what the AI has to offer. I guess I'm putting Oblivion squarely in the "last of the current gen" titles as of this latest setback, or the early ports of next gen.

I agree...this seems like an unfortunate step back...the kind that made games like Halo2 and Riddick just look like they were out of their element on the xbox...I thought that shadows would be significantly improved this generation...

[Mason]

Taking a long time to release or being on the 360 doesn't make it next gen, and the features just seem like current gen stuff to me. Graphics seem about on par with this gen, physics aren't new, and we've yet to actually see what the AI has to offer. I guess I'm putting Oblivion squarely in the "last of the current gen" titles as of this latest setback, or the early ports of next gen. But, who knows. Maybe it'll look mind blowing, or maybe it'll play like mud.
Graphics seem on par with what, in this last console generation? "On par" means average, by the way. So pick the average XBox or PS2 title and compare it to Oblivion, and they'll look about the same, is what you're saying. Gotcha. I'll just go find PS2 titles that Gamespot gave a 6 or 7 to on graphics and note immediately how much it resembles Oblivion...

[Rirath]

Graphics seem on par with what, in this last console generation? "On par" means average, by the way. So pick the average XBox or PS2 title and compare it to Oblivion, and they'll look about the same, is what you're saying. Gotcha. I'll just go find PS2 titles that Gamespot gave a 6 or 7 to on graphics and note immediately how much it resembles Oblivion...

Oh seriously, listen to yourself. We all know Gamespot only gives 6 or 7 to below average games, no matter what the official line about "5 is an average" is. And no, on par does not only mean "average". It also means "An equality of status, level, or value; equal footing." In this case I'm clearly comparing it to the best of the current gen. IE, Far Cry, Doom 3, Quake 4, Half Life 2, God of War, SotC, and so on. Come on, that's obvious.

Now, apart from that nonsense... I just finished watching the video in question and here are some impressions:

1) combat looks like it's going to rock, and the enemies look cool.
2) outdoors look amazing... (But so does Far Cry)
3) Indoors look far, far more bland... I hope the interactivity is high.
4) Faces and hands worry me, the quality is still... hmm.
5) I don't really know what to make of the animation, but it's benefited greatly by Havok physics.

[Taran Wanderer]

Oh seriously, listen to yourself. We all know Gamespot only gives 6 or 7 to below average games, no matter what the official line about "5 is an average" is. And no, on par does not only mean "average". It also means "An equality of status, level, or value; equal footing." In this case I'm clearly comparing it to the best of the current gen. IE, Far Cry, Doom 3, Quake 4, Half Life 2, God of War, SotC, and so on. Come on, that's obvious.


None of the games you're comparing Oblivion to are RPG's. Be fair and start comparing current gen RPG's graphics to Oblivion and then tell me they're on equal footing.

[Rirath]

None of the games you're comparing Oblivion to are RPG's. Be fair and start comparing current gen RPG's graphics to Oblivion and then tell me they're on equal footing.

There aren't any like Morrowind (which is last generation) or Oblivion, you know that. If there were, we'd all be playing them. Just because Obliv is the first really good one to come out of this generation, doesn't make it next generation. It's a really blurry line though, because if we're talking consoles then Obliv probably is next gen. The Xbox couldn't handle it. (Probably, though I don't know... Far Cry Instincts is pretty dang nice.)

However, if we're talking PCs, then Obliv is still looking, at this point, current gen. Especially if you consider Morrowind as the previous gen, which I think is quite reasonable considering it's age.

[Taco]

Graphics affect the other games you listed far far far more than they do games in The Elder Scrolls series.

Granted, this thread is about graphics(and is the only reason I've commented on them), but comparing it to FPS games as a negative is a little silly. In RPG games the focus is a bit less on the graphics. I've always been stunned with what Bethesda has been able to do on top of keeping primo RPG gameplay intact.

[Rirath]

None the less, Morrowind / Obliv are FP-RPGs, and we all know graphic effects are a large part of the hype machine this time around.

[Taco]

I suppose. To be perfectly honest the first gameplay vids are what sold me on Morrowind, not the prior screenshots. And the gameplay of Morrowind is what has me craving Oblivion. Can't speak for anyone else.

[Rirath]

Quite true, though as you say, it's a graphics thread. :) Believe me, I'll still be there on day one. I just wish they would have left it optional for future gen and bleeding edge hardware.

[DigiWiz]

This masturbating over graphics is obscene. Shadows is the first feature you are going to turn off to gain a few fps as a gamer anyway, except, maybe, in games that rely on shadows for realistic stealth depiction (i.e. Thief).

The essential question is whether or not Oblivion has the gameplay to support it's sales, people could give less about shadows, even with a few editors making OMFG! No shadows! posts on their online p/review sites.

I recently replayed Knights of the Old Republic and guess what? There are entire levels without shadows, it's like the developers just forgot them.

Did I notice the first time around? no.
The second time around? no.

Just a blog post about this little fact made me see it the third time around I started the game.

Did it make me stop playing the game for the third time? no.
Did it somehow impact my gaming experience at all during the three times I played the game now? No.

So seriously, what are you whining about. Oblivion an RPG, it's not going to sell on graphics, if the gameplay sucks, it's going to drop like a fly. GTA:SA is the best indication here - the graphics is seriously sub par, the textures look like early 2002 and still most of us keep replaying the game - because gameplay is right.

Now however, those screenshots posted indicate that shadows is the least of your worries. Those who have seen the E3 video remember the "and on this wall we have 50 types of mapping - displacement mapping, reflections, etc, etc" PR line given with it. It's not just the shadows gone from the screenshot, it's all the dynamic lighting (which is the real bitch for the hardware), the reflection maps, etc, etc. If the game looks like in the new screenshots, you can guess that they cut pretty much all dynamic lighting and environmental features out of the engine to make it run. And don't blame the 360 for it, it's more powerful than the average PC out there this year.

I suppose there is some justice here with the "It's going to be the most awesome soil erosion ever" marketing backfiring on Bethesda. Look at the leaked videos and the screenshots and official trailer releases - notice the absense of more than three moving objects at any time? Notice the horrible (or absent) animation blending? Notice the empty huge cities? Why do you think that is? Maybe, just maybe, because you can not expect graphics to be the main feature of an RPG without sacrificing gameplay? Just maybe.



1) combat looks like it's going to rock, and the enemies look cool.

For me it doesn't look that way at all. First off, I don't give a damn if enemies look "cool", I want the to react cool and move smoothly (not with jerky animations and sliding over the floor).

The few videos we have seen indicate that heavy framerate issues and balancing issues will make it a quite interesting experience. It looked a lot like Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines to me, the videos back then didn't look as bad as it was at release either. Look at the end of the E3 video, the fight against the demons at the glowing portal in the city - that looked like teh suck. Fanbois back then cried that the game wasn't balanced and that it was just a demo, but if recent games are any indication, companies tend to show off the best polished gameplay they can get at E3, so it is at least worrysome if your E3 demo looks as unpolished and sucky in the realm of combat as this game did.

So once we finished the collective masturbating over the awesome graphics of Oblivion, maybe we should think about if we rather should have hyped innovative gameplay elements than "omfg, it's making by 7800GTXSLI hot. Over and Out.

[Taco]

Quite true, though as you say, it's a graphics thread. :) Believe me, I'll still be there on day one. I just wish they would have left it optional for future gen and bleeding edge hardware.

Well I think we agree then ;).

Digiwiz:
As far as KOTOR, I did actually notice the lack of shadows. If it was a better game I probably wouldn't have.

Just to repeat, many of us are aware of what Oblivion is. But this is a posting and a discussion about the graphics. Should I put a disclaimer about my opinion of the importance of graphics in Oblivion in every post? I've done it twice now.

[Rirath]

Maybe, just maybe, because you can not expect graphics to be the main feature of an RPG without sacrificing gameplay? Just maybe.

Myself, I just want people to try harder at it. I don't really believe in this 'can't' stuff. I'm sure folks once said we'd never have decent gameplay with these fancy shamcy "polygons" as well.

But anyway, I don't have a bleeding edge system, nor do I plan to get one. I've got a Geforce 6600GT and a AMD 3200+. If I can run Obliv a full tilt, excellent! I'm just used to computer games scaling, and I like features that are shown to all the magazines to make it into the final product.

Of course we're all mainly going for the gameplay, but there's nothing wrong with enjoying the visuals.

[Reanimated]

So the trees still cast shadows and the characters still cast shadows...

All we're talking about here is buildings not casting shadows?

Big. Fucking. Deal.

[Taran Wanderer]

There aren't any like Morrowind (which is last generation) or Oblivion, you know that. If there were, we'd all be playing them. Just because Obliv is the first really good one to come out of this generation, doesn't make it next generation. It's a really blurry line though, because if we're talking consoles then Obliv probably is next gen. The Xbox couldn't handle it. (Probably, though I don't know... Far Cry Instincts is pretty dang nice.)

However, if we're talking PCs, then Obliv is still looking, at this point, current gen. Especially if you consider Morrowind as the previous gen, which I think is quite reasonable considering it's age.

Ok, if we're talking PC's, you've got to clarify for me where you draw the line for "current gen" and "next gen", because to me it seems a bit fuzzy. Is it last month? Last year? Last major release of a graphics card/CPU? You can claim anything you like if you get to define what current gen and next gen is.

I think everyone would agree that Oblivion is an RPG. It makes little difference if it's first person or third person (e.g. KOTOR). You can still compare graphics. Do you at least agree that it's unfair to make the comparison that you made with shooter FPS's? That's all I was pointing out.

If we're talking consoles, then Oblivion is clearly next gen. Do you think any of the current gen consoles could run Oblivion? Do you think any of the current gen consoles have games that compare graphically to Oblivion? If not, then it's a fair claim to say that Oblivion (graphically speaking) is indeed next gen.

[Deathbane27]

However, if we're talking PCs, then Obliv is still looking, at this point, current gen.

"Next gen/current gen" hasn't applied to PC games since 1997. :p

[Mason]

Oh seriously, listen to yourself. We all know Gamespot only gives 6 or 7 to below average games, no matter what the official line about "5 is an average" is. And no, on par does not only mean "average". It also means "An equality of status, level, or value; equal footing." In this case I'm clearly comparing it to the best of the current gen. IE, Far Cry, Doom 3, Quake 4, Half Life 2, God of War, SotC, and so on. Come on, that's obvious.
Totally illogical. First of all, we can only compare it to last generation's console games, since PC has no generations. So strike Quake 4, and stick with the XBox versions of Far Cry, HL2, and Doom3. Far Cry and Doom3 got 10s for graphics on the XBox, which is not "on par" by any definition. And HL2 XBox was ugly and had framerate issues, so you should probably leave it off the list.

Face it, you can't make "on par" equal "the best possible". Gamespot gave most titles a 6 or 7 on graphics, so that's par for this particular course. And if you actually look at the character models in SotC or God of War as closely as we do the Oblivion characters, you'd see how much lower res they are.

If you meant "the best looking console games of the last generation look as good as Oblivion", then you should've said that, not that Oblivion was an average-looking game by last generation's standards. I'd still disagree with you, but you wouldn't need to see an optometrist quite so badly.

[Rirath]

All we're talking about here is buildings not casting shadows?

We're talking about objects and such too... Remember in the E3 video where the chains and the rib made them pretty shadows on the wall? Aside from that, looking at the two videos there's a pretty big difference. The fancy shadows on the wall that made the stone look so real look a bit more washed. Same deal with the NPCs in the cell. It's not the end of the world, but it's a little more pronounced than buildings.

[Rirath]

If you meant "the best looking console games of the last generation look as good as Oblivion", then you should've said that, not that Oblivion was an average-looking game by last generation's standards. I'd still disagree with you, but you wouldn't need to see an optometrist quite so badly.

Whatever you like, Mason. I said it was a "last of the current gen", which are, of course, the best looking titles. And I was comparing it to being "on par" with them. Sorry I didn't spell it out.

[Mason]

Whatever you like, Mason. I said it was a "last of the current gen", which are, of course, the best looking titles. And I was comparing it to being "on par" with them. Sorry I didn't spell it out.

Eat 'em:

Graphics seem about on par with this gen

Correcting yourself is fine, just don't pretend you didn't say something.

[Deathbane27]

Now, apart from that nonsense... I just finished watching the video in question...

Any idea what codec it's using? I've got every codec I know of, but I'm still getting audio-only and I'm stumped.

[Reanimated]

Well I've been watching this video:
http://youtube.com/w/Oblivion?v=7srHUGNma5c&search=oblivion

and I have to say that the lack of building and chain shadows just doesn't concern me terribly. The game is fucking gorgeous.

[Zombosis]

It's distinctly possible that keeping the lighting around sacrificed too much application stability. If the trade off is, "Looks awesome, crashes to desktop every 2 minutes" vs. "Looks good and plays for hours across all GPU platforms" then it's pretty easy to see why they might have made the decision. One would hope if this were the scenario that they might plan on a patch in the future? Who knows...

[DigiWiz]

Myself, I just want people to try harder at it. I don't really believe in this 'can't' stuff. I'm sure folks once said we'd never have decent gameplay with these fancy shamcy "polygons" as well.

But anyway, I don't have a bleeding edge system, nor do I plan to get one. I've got a Geforce 6600GT and a AMD 3200+. If I can run Obliv a full tilt, excellent! I'm just used to computer games scaling, and I like features that are shown to all the magazines to make it into the final product.

Of course we're all mainly going for the gameplay, but there's nothing wrong with enjoying the visuals.

I would argue that visuals take time and that it is a matter of priorities. Do I want developers spend tons of time on shadows that could be spent on other features? That depends on what the features are, but judging of Morrowind, there is plenty of things they should fix first and that they haven't. Radiant AI my ass if they can only draw 3 people at the screen at once without the framerate tanking.

[Rirath]

Eat 'em:
Correcting yourself is fine, just don't pretend you didn't say something.

I'll never understand the "let's run one line into the ground because it means what I SAY it means" style of debating... but ok, consider it correcting myself then. Here, nice and easy for you:

My last post was complete and utter bunk and I would like to make it known to all that I have now corrected the terms contained within.

Seriously man, does it mean that much to you?
Can we please get back on track now?

[Rirath]

I would argue that visuals take time and that it is a matter of priorities. Do I want developers spend tons of time on shadows that could be spent on other features? That depends on what the features are, but judging of Morrowind, there is plenty of things they should fix first and that they haven't. Radiant AI my ass if they can only draw 3 people at the screen at once without the framerate tanking.

Very valid points, and concerns I share. You'll see more than three people in the above linked video though, so hopefully it's something that's been addressed.

[Rirath]

Any idea what codec it's using? I've got every codec I know of, but I'm still getting audio-only and I'm stumped.

Honestly, I don't. I mostly use the CCCP (http://cccp-project.net/) with Media Player Classic.

[Mason]

Well I've been watching this video:
http://youtube.com/w/Oblivion?v=7srHUGNma5c&search=oblivion

and I have to say that the lack of building and chain shadows just doesn't concern me terribly. The game is fucking gorgeous.
Nice video, hadn't seen that one. The fire sword seems pretty badass, I'm glad they're giving things such interesting effects.

Animations and postures during conversations still seem imperfect, but the combat animations look quite nice. You can't go wrong with explosions that knock people 3m in the air.

[Deathbane27]

CCCP already installed. I'll try a different media player.

Well, works fine with Media Player Classic, thanks. Wonder why WMP and Winamp didn't want to work...

[DigiWiz]

Very valid points, and concerns I share. You'll see more than three people in the above linked video though, so hopefully it's something that's been addressed.

Yes, the dynamic lighting. That's my point. Right direction, except that you could see that come from a mile away and wonder why they had to hype the graphics so extensively ("every texture is normal mapped, reflection mapped, etc, etc) before scaling them back.

[Busted_Astromech]

I really don't think these are honest comparisons. Beyond the lighting issues that are dropped in the comparison you can also see that the brick texture has lost most of its detail.

This leads me to believe it's running on a lower-end system with the textures not cranked up to maximum, and the lighting not on "total awesomeness." If these are leaked shots that might explain why they aren't at the best possible--Bethesda's not in charge of making sure these shots represent the best of the game.

Edit: Okay, so it's not leaked. I'm stumped then, because it lost a lot more than dynamic shadows in the indoor areas. The outdoor areas still look sweet, though.

[Deathbane27]

Well, the lighting may look worse, but the Emperor looks a heck of a lot better. More like an old man than a mummy. :p

The entire thing looks overexposed, even the parts that were taken from E3 stock footage. I don't know if they upped the light so they could see on a dark monitor or what.

[DigiWiz]

"Bethesda's not in charge of making sure these shots represent the best of the game."
You mean photoshop?

I would attribute detail loss on the textures to video compression, but remember that textures usually get scaled down when a game is developed, the artists start with high resolution textures first because it is easy to downgrade to achieve your target performance, it is not easy to upgrade textures.

This is why demos before a game is released usually look better than the released game, during development they use 1024x1024 textures and they won't bother to scale those down for demos, for release they will water them down to 512 or 256 in order to make the game run with an acceptable framerate.

"Well, the lighting may look worse, but the Emperor looks a heck of a lot better. More like an old man than a mummy"
I think they fixed something with the scaling, maybe the video was captured with widescreen resolution which is native mode for most 360 games, while the older video was captured on a 4:3 system which means the screen was compressed to fit.

[Rirath]

If these are leaked shots that might explain why they aren't at the best possible--Bethesda's not in charge of making sure these shots represent the best of the game.

The way I understand it the video is from PCGamer.de, which was given to them to run on their included CD. So, it's only 'leaked' in the sense that someone put it online.

[Deathbane27]

Well, that may be the case (he does appear fatter), but I can clearly see they've improved the texture on his face. It used to have a lot less color variation, and a decrease in lighting/shadow detail would make that worse, so they've changed the texture.

I hope they're able to put all the fancy shadows back into the PC version an expansion or two down the line.

Also, the video was authorized, but still not "official". The developers wouldn't release any footage or video that wasn't on max quality settings. PC Games isn't under such restrictions, so we have no idea what settings it was running on. The final game may or may not look better than what they put on the disc.

[Rirath]

Hmm, This comes from HardOCP, and it they think it /seems/ to be talking about this German video. The thread reference is to a December build in which the comment is made.

http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=224781&hl=

Pete:

"That build was not a very good build for a variety of reasons, but it's what we had to go with. The press were told that before they played the game. If they chose to ignore or not believe the warning, that's their call. But we (meaning I) was very upfront about it."

see also:

I just read the German PC-Gamer article (amazingly awesome video btw.!) and they do talk about you mentioning the flawed December version (only running in windowed mode etc.) and that certain bugs occured because of that build.

[Busted_Astromech]

Bethesda forums are up, here's a link to the relevant topic:
Elder Scrolls Forums (http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=226311)
Someone in there has a quote about the game being on medium settings, but it's not cited and it looks like they're talking from their own judgment.

But it definitely would seem to be on medium detail, just changing the lighting so that things like the chains don't cast shadows wouldn't remove the detail from the bricks, or remove the HDR 'bloom' effect you see on the Emperor's collar and face.

[Rirath]

This shuts me up I suppose:

Take a look at this picture.
http://www.elderscrolls.com/images/art/ob_pc/obliv12B.jpg

Every piece of food, every plate, bowl, cup, fork, knife, the books, scroll, soul gems, gold coins, and winebottles, plus everything on the shelves and table in the background, is an object that you can pick up. You can read the books, you can eat the food or combine it to make potions, drink the wine, or sell all of it. Or you can take it somewhere else and put it in a pile. You can drag the items around, you can use telekinesis to manipulate them, you can hit them with your weapon, or you can fire an area effect spell at them and they'll all go flying.

OR, we could change it so that the objects are static -- there's no interaction, they're fixed in place. Instead of an apple in a bowl for example, you'd see a "bowl of apples" object that you could never move, that would act as a container and always looked full of apples even if you took all of the apples out. Either that or there's nothing there but static, non-interactive objects, and we only allow you to place items from your inventory into containers and not into the world. Because that's the type of thing we'd have to do -- on PC or on Xbox 360 -- to allow everything to cast shadows of their own.

So which is more important to you? Shadows on everything, or lots of stuff to interact with, take, drop, use, buy or sell?

[Mason]

It'd be nice of BSoft was a bit more proactive in making sure they only put their best foot forward in the first place. Almost every piece of media post-E3 has come with caveats regarding the quality of the build. Fork your development tree for demos, so that you can fix bugs without continued development constantly adding new bugs. You can merge the fixes over after the demo's ready and you kill the branch. Free and painless form of quality control.

Maybe they are doing this already, but it sure seems like they tried to save a few bucks on their source code control system.

[Busted_Astromech]

Hmmm....from reading the Bethesda forums, it appears that the German magazine was given a build of the game, and as they wanted to make a video, ran it on settings that their computer would run. I think that the shadowing won't make such a difference; after all, look at the shots before the game had shadows implemented and they look miles better than that video.

The video seems to have lost most of the pretty effects which are not a part of shadows at all, so I don't think it's representational of the final quality on high settings (or the X360, for that matter).

[Deathbane27]

Between E3 and X05 they were shooting for a November release. They probably didn't fork the code because they weren't anticipating any more demos.

The video seems to have lost most of the pretty effects which are not a part of shadows at all, so I don't think it's representational of the final quality on high settings (or the X360, for that matter).

Indeed. HDR appears to have been turned off, and possibly all the Shader 2.0 features as well.

The video is probably VERY indicative of the level of quality I will be playing at, though. :/

[Savok]

*Disclaimer, I haven't read a thing, I just love this guy's work*

Sometimes I wonder if Bethesda have any idea with how powerful their stuff is. Remember the faces in Morrowind? Remember how it ran all sluggish even with the questionable textures?

Here's why (http://home.wnm.net/~bgriff/MW_Home.html)

[ElectricMonk]

this is all crap

you can take the 'bad graphics' shots and do some simple level adjustments and it looks just as good as the 'good graphics' shots.

[Deathbane27]

Here's why (http://home.wnm.net/~bgriff/MW_Home.html)

Or, more specificly, at the bottom of this page (http://home.wnm.net/~bgriff/MW_NordF.html)

[DigiWiz]

Hmmm....from reading the Bethesda forums, it appears that the German magazine was given a build of the game, and as they wanted to make a video, ran it on settings that their computer would run.

If it's not running with max setting on the kind of computers that game magazines use for testing (usually top high end systems) now, I don't have a lot of faith to see it running on the average customer's PC with acceptable framerate.

The video seems to have lost most of the pretty effects which are not a part of shadows at all, so I don't think it's representational of the final quality on high settings (or the X360, for that matter).
The 360 has 512 megs of memory. That's one quarter of a technology and game enthusiast's PC system in 2005.

It's graphics chips is decent but well below today's top end systems available on the PC market, especially SLI based solutions and certainly the knowledge of developers about how to exploit the system for maximum performance is well below the knowledge developers had toward the end of the last generation of games (compare chaos theory against the first two splinter cells).

So no, I wouldn't expect the game to look magically better on the 360, just like Call of Duty 2 and most other cross platform launch titles did not look better on the 360.

[Rirath]

If it's not running with max setting on the kind of computers that game magazines use for testing (usually top high end systems) now, I don't have a lot of faith to see it running on the average customer's PC with acceptable framerate.

Well, like it was said in the Elderscrolls forum threads... they ALSO quoted in that same article that the MINIMUM would be a 3500+ AMD with a Geforce 6800. This, is bunk. It was just an all around bad build and these guys put out some bad info.

Or so it seems.

[DigiWiz]

Well, like it was said in the Elderscrolls forum threads... they ALSO quoted in that same article that the MINIMUM would be a 3500+ AMD with a Geforce 6800. This, is bunk. It was just an all around bad build and these guys put out some bad info.

Or so it seems.

Because we all know official minspecs are always so accurate :p. But very well, we will have the performance discussion once it comes out.

Empirical evidence with pretty much every game launch suggest that it's not going to be pretty - if the press builds had noted performance issues the final game had them as well. True certainly for more than 90% of all reviews in the last year or so. If anything, magazines are forgiving when it comes to performance - think Civ4, it was barely running on anything than the lowest world sizes when it came out. Sometimes you get lucky and get a patch, but let's not get started on patches for the 360 just yet.

[Rirath]

Because we all know official minspecs are always so accurate :p. But very well, we will have the performance discussion once it comes out.

Empirical evidence with pretty much every game launch suggest that it's not going to be pretty

I'm more inclined to believe the devs when they say they can run it great on a 9800 PRO than a German PC mag which put out a video running on low/med detail, no HDR, and no paralax mapping, myself.

[DigiWiz]

I'm more inclined to believe the devs when they say they can run it great on a 9800 PRO than a German PC mag which put out a video running on low/med detail, no HDR, and no paralax mapping, myself.

You mean believing the PR department of the developing company over a games magazine. Fair enough.

I, on the other hand, bet that there is no way you will run HDR, paralax mapping and med detail on a 9800 when this game releases. Farcry can't do that, which was released two years ago. Call of duty2, a shooter without "radiant AI" and good but not excessive graphics won't run with these settings on a 9800. Maybe the developer's definition of great is 15 frames with occasional spikes to 20 in empty dungeons, like Morrowind when it was first released on a mid range graphics card at the time.

We'll finish this discussion in a couple of month, and I will be the first to admit that I was wrong, but right now, the experience from several dozend game reviews pointing out performance issues that ended up in the final game is with me.

[Rirath]

You mean believing the PR department of the developing company over a games magazine. Fair enough.

What is it with people today and telling me what I mean? No, I mean the dev. There's an older quote about them using 9800pro cards on their dev machines. But, here's something new.
http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=221258&st=140&p=3938149&#entry3938149


Pete might beat me up for posting here, but I will say this without giving out any real info....

I have one of the oldest systems here at work. Its about 4 years old and has only had minor upgrades since then. I tested today with EVERYTHING turned on and maxed out. I didnt think it would do it, but it worked. And yes, it was higher than 1024x768 on a fairly dated card. Extremely beautiful. I do recommend something better than what I have here for "complete" enjoyment, but by knocking down some of the bells and whistles (and there are MANY options to play with), it is still a great time while being pretty.

I would love to share my actual system specs with you all to compare, but that is a no go. Hopefully, you can take my word for it with what I COULD tell you, so that you know that you dont have to get a 2nd job flipping burgers just to buy new gear. New gear helps and allows Oblivion to shine in 100% of it's visual glamour, but lower specs dont mean you cant enjoy it and have a lot of goods at the same time.

Relax, you all will still be surprised. I am still in awe that it can run as well is it does and still look insanely beautiful. :)

[t3g]

Guess what guys? The Xbox 360 is more than willing to pull its weight and its only $400 and will drop in price! Put that into consideration when you pull your fanboi PC stuff our way. Go spend thousands while we consolers spend over half that.

[Kelegacy]

Guess what guys? The Xbox 360 is more than willing to pull its weight and its only $400 and will drop in price! Put that into consideration when you pull your fanboi PC stuff our way. Go spend thousands while we consolers spend over half that.
remember, to get the full 360 experience, you'll need an HDTV. That's no cheapie, bud.

[DigiWiz]

Guess what guys? The Xbox 360 is more than willing to pull its weight and its only $400 and will drop in price! Put that into consideration when you pull your fanboi PC stuff our way. Go spend thousands while we consolers spend over half that.

Decent HDTV .... 1800$
360 ... 400$
Game ... 69$

Dual SLI 7800GT PC with Flat Screen 20" monitor ... 2000$
Game ... 59$

over half that. A lot over.

[GrinR]

Dual SLI 7800GT PC with Flat Screen 20" monitor ... 2000$


Link me, please, I'd like to purchase!

[DigiWiz]

Link me, please, I'd like to purchase!


Dell 2005FPW 20" Flatscreen
Dual 7800GT
Athlon X2 3800
2 Gig RAM

go newegg.com and check around a bit.

[bapenguin]

Dell 2005FPW 20" Flatscreen
Dual 7800GT
Athlon X2 3800
2 Gig RAM

go newegg.com and check around a bit.

Dell 2005FPW - 450
Dual 7800 GT (299x2) 600
Athlon X2 - 300
2 Gig - 200
SLI motherboard - 150
80 gig HD - 60
total - 1750

Not bad...of course you are gaming on a 20" screen vs. a 42 or bigger.

The real difference is your HDTV/Home Theater stuff serves a dual purpose. While a PC is a general purpose device.

These whole arguments are getting so old because there's so much gray area. Don't people just wanna have fucking fun anymore?

[zsears]

This (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814143043) plus a dual core CPU would smoke a 360. Let's not even get into the realm of SLI.

Yeah right. The New Ati 1900XTX is practically the same card that is in the 360 and that smokes your 7800 piece of crap. Link (http://www.gamepro.com.au/index.php/id;548859104;fp;16;fpid;0)

[DigiWiz]

Pure resolution wise, the 20" LCD is already better than the cheap HDTV you're getting out of your 360, non interlaced of course.

And then you might want to look at that new Dell 30" LCD later.. :)

Yeah right. The New Ati 1900XTX is practically the same card that is in the 360 and that smokes your 7800 piece of crap. Link (http://www.gamepro.com.au/index.php/id;548859104;fp;16;fpid;0)

Point here was that dual sli 7800 GT (especially those copper heat sink versions) is already way over the 360 chip in terms of raw power, even dual 6800GS smoke the 360 chip by a huge length. Now imagine how things will look at the end of this year. Not that this is not a reason to buy a 360 if you're into console game, but please stop those strawman arguments about the 360 outperforming a decent PC gaming rig, it won't happen.

In the end it doesn't matter, as the original point of this thread was that graphics is not what should sell a RPG and nobody should whine about a few shadows lost.

[Shawk]

You all gone stupid? you are comparing 360 graphics to pc graphics.... you do realize the xbox 360 is going to look ALOT better then any PC will right now..

You cant even get a graphics card near as good as the one in the 360, they will obviously have to get rid of a few things to make it run good on the PC.. and making it an "option" just proves how utterly clueless you people are.

"Hey guys, look, here is a screenshot of the 360, and here is one of the PC! OMG XBOX 360 IS KILLING PC's OMG OMG OMG!!! THIS ISNT FAIR! MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

And for all you tools saying you cant get a HDTV for a good price, you can use a normal LCD monitor to use with the 360, which in turn makes it HD.. you just need to buy a HD LCD hookup.. which costs 40 bucks.

So, for all you clueless no it alls, this is how it works..

Normal Monitor = 200$
Xbox 360 = $400 + HDLCD Hookup $40
PC = $1000+

Good Xbox 360 hookup = $640
Good PC hookup = $1200+

Xbox 360 is cheaper.. and it looks 20 times better.

[DigiWiz]

You all gone stupid?

No, but some of us have an idea of the technical specs and capabilities of the box you are talking about and basic understanding of graphics programming.


you are comparing 360 graphics to pc graphics.... you do realize the xbox 360 is going to look ALOT better then any PC will right now..



The 360 ships with 420p, 720p and 1080i HDTV modes. 1080p would be better than most PC resolutions today, but it doesn't support it. 1080i is rendered with 720p internally and scaled up for most games (i.e. Halo) using framebuffer memory. FSAA is limited to x2 for memory reasons on higher resolutions. 1280×720 with 2x FSAA (360) is certainly 20x better than a 1680x1050 @ 8x or 16x FSAA (PC), right.

So what are you talking about when you are talking about "alot better"?
Fact is, the 360 has a very decent graphics chip, but it doesn't have any features that would make it's output "alot better" than what you get with the latest ATI or Nividia solutions, not even taking crossfire or sli into account.

And really, if you want a HDTV (not a crappy 420p HDTV ready TV), you'll shell out at least as much as for a decent PC gaming rig, just for the TV, and your resolution will still be lower with less FSAA and other full screen effects than what a PC is capable of.


Xbox 360 is cheaper.. and it looks 20 times better.


20x 16xFSAA = 320x FSAA. Sweet. That will be awesome. Or maybe not.

If you want to learn some facts about that machine you are hyping, how about checking out the 360 HDTV FAQ instead of touting things about how stupid people have gone for not repeating Microsoft Hype about 20x better
http://www.coldforged.org/archives/2005/10/26/xbox-360-high-definition-faq/

I'll even supply you with a free 360 FAQ entry here:

Q: Will games be 20x better on the 360?
A: Sure, of course, I mean, what more could you ask for than HDTV? Gameplay? what are you talking about? You'll get soft shadows instead of gameplay? It will take developers 20x more time to create the awesome HDTV content, why would they waste time on things like gameplay?


Anyhow, back to Oblivion. I'll enjoy that custom content when it is out, I mean the custom content made by other players that you don't have to pay for...

[Reanimated]

ATTN: Morons,

There is a VGA cable available for Xbox 360, so no, an HDTV is NOT required to get "full enjoyment".

But if we want to play the "add up the costs" game, I guess we could start throwing in shit like electricity and housing... Idiots.

[Grifter]

Ok I understand everyone has an opinion and you obviously prefer the pc digiwiz but your understanding of technology is tragicly flawed or your leaving out details to make your argument sound better.

First of all the cost of a PC that could run a new game at
1680x1050@ 8x or 16xaa would cost a hell of a lot more
than $2000. That is of course unless you turn down the texture and lighting quality as far as it will go and possibly lower the geometry as well and even then...?

Personaly I think this resolution argument is Bullshit. 720p with 2x to 4x anti aliasing on a 36inch tv is plenty smooth. To me what makes next gen graphics is texture detail, depth and lighting and shadow quality of games. Don't forget the huge level sizes and insane amounts of detailed geometry on screen while all this is happening.

Also, don't bring up the gameplay bullshit a good dev has the ability to give us both graphics and gameplay. It's all one package.

New PC games are 39.99 to $49.99 and new 360 games are $49.99 to $59.99 which I will pay for the achievment features, Gamer Score and XBox Live features.

If you knew anything about console tech VS PC tech you would know that 512 megs in a console is closer to 2 gigs in a pc if not more and a console dev is able to use every ounce of that.

Compare the min. requirements for doom3 and half life 2 for the pc not listed but the lowest speced system you can keep a constant 25 fps at medium settings @ 800x600 I guarantee you that those specs are atleast twice that of what the xbox is and you don't get the benafit of a 27 inch or bigger display or true digital surround sound. So any one who honestly claims that any card within the next year (possibly 2) will completely outperform the 360 or PS3 is full of themselves or misinformed.

Oh yeah and Fuck Dell. If I want a gaming machine I will
choose my own parts and brands and build it myself. Dell
will never be able to outperform a custom built pc for under $4,000.

In case your curious I have been a pc gamer since I was 8 years old and building my own PC's since I was 14 and have built myself a new system every year since then soley for gaming So don't even bring up the console fanboy bullshit.

[Rirath]

Did this really need to be back to 360 vs PC? Seriously folks, the Elder Scrolls forums are nearing 1,000 posts on the topic of shadows in the 'official' threads alone. We're being trounced.

Sometimes I think the cumulative attention span of EA is around 4.76 seconds.

[Grifter]

3.2 actually. Mix that with hundreds of know it all's with a sprinlke of fanboyism and a touch of evil and you get EvAv.

Sometimes I think we are all some kind of sick lab experiment.

[Shawk]

The 360 ships with 420p, 720p and 1080i HDTV modes. 1080p would be better than most PC resolutions today, but it doesn't support it. 1080i is rendered with 720p internally and scaled up for most games (i.e. Halo) using framebuffer memory. FSAA is limited to x2 for memory reasons on higher resolutions. 1280×720 with 2x FSAA (360) is certainly 20x better than a 1680x1050 @ 8x or 16x FSAA (PC), right.

So what are you talking about when you are talking about "alot better"?
Fact is, the 360 has a very decent graphics chip, but it doesn't have any features that would make it's output "alot better" than what you get with the latest ATI or Nividia solutions, not even taking crossfire or sli into account.

And really, if you want a HDTV (not a crappy 420p HDTV ready TV), you'll shell out at least as much as for a decent PC gaming rig, just for the TV, and your resolution will still be lower with less FSAA and other full screen effects than what a PC is capable of.



20x 16xFSAA = 320x FSAA. Sweet. That will be awesome. Or maybe not.

If you want to learn some facts about that machine you are hyping, how about checking out the 360 HDTV FAQ instead of touting things about how stupid people have gone for not repeating Microsoft Hype about 20x better
http://www.coldforged.org/archives/2005/10/26/xbox-360-high-definition-faq/

I'll even supply you with a free 360 FAQ entry here:

Q: Will games be 20x better on the 360?
A: Sure, of course, I mean, what more could you ask for than HDTV? Gameplay? what are you talking about? You'll get soft shadows instead of gameplay? It will take developers 20x more time to create the awesome HDTV content, why would they waste time on things like gameplay?


Anyhow, back to Oblivion. I'll enjoy that custom content when it is out, I mean the custom content made by other players that you don't have to pay for...

Anyhow, considering everything you just said was complete bullshit, if you cant figure out that I was overexagerating about the 20 x's then you truely need help.

If you want to be a complete ass about it, i'll say about 3 x's better then the AVERAGE PC, and a good amount better then your $3000 waste of money you got beside you.

Sure, you can go out and buy a "better" monitor, or better tv, but you would be paying the exact same price as you would for a pc, you are basicly paying $2500 for a decent rig and monitor to play this game, I am paying about $1000, and you are saying PC is better why? because you can make shitty maps that a bunch of amateurs thought would be better? I play it for the original good game, not the half ass mods people make for it.

The fact is, most people wont have these $2000 computers to get these graphics, 360 is more affordable plus you actually get those graphics.. we can do the pc vs xbox 360 all day, but in the end 360 wins in every department exept the customization, if that is worth $1500 to you.. then that is your problem.

420p, 720p, and 1080i is good enouph for me, And Ps3 will make up for the 1080p, which will pretty much be the killing blow for the pc.

[Grifter]

Anyhow, considering everything you just said was complete bullshit, if you cant figure out that I was overexagerating about the 20 x's then you truely need help.

If you want to be a complete ass about it, i'll say about 3 x's better then the AVERAGE PC, and a good amount better then your $3000 waste of money you got beside you.

yeah and another thing, If the PS3 has anymore than 3 games at 1080p with quality next gen textures and lighting not only will I eat that hat but I'll eat the shoes that go with it.

Sure, you can go out and buy a "better" monitor, or better tv, but you would be paying the exact same price as you would for a pc, you are basicly paying $2500 for a decent rig and monitor to play this game, I am paying about $1000, and you are saying PC is better why? because you can make shitty maps that a bunch of amateurs thought would be better? I play it for the original good game, not the half ass mods people make for it.

The fact is, most people wont have these $2000 computers to get these graphics, 360 is more affordable plus you actually get those graphics.. we can do the pc vs xbox 360 all day, but in the end 360 wins in every department exept the customization, if that is worth $1500 to you.. then that is your problem.

420p, 720p, and 1080i is good enouph for me, And Ps3 will make up for the 1080p, which will pretty much be the killing blow for the pc.

Wow..you didnt make a single valid argument that entire post besides pricing. If your going to argue that somthing is better you could atleast throw in one FACT about why you think it's bettern In the end your opinion is shit to everyone else and doesn't mean any more than digiwiz's.

Digiwiz's info may have been a bit scewd but at least he tried to make a valid comparison to support his view. your argument boils down to I think the 360 is better because I say so and it's cheaper.

One more thing, if the PS3 has more than 3 games that support true 1080p with average quality textures, lighting and effects for that generation of game not only will I eat that hat but also the shoes that go with it.

Personaly I dont think we will see any but I don't like eating shoes so I'm hedging my bet.

[GrinR]

Dell 2005FPW - 450
Dual 7800 GT (299x2) 600
Athlon X2 - 300
2 Gig - 200
SLI motherboard - 150
80 gig HD - 60
total - 1750

I asked because I thought there was a bundle or something. I've been looking to upgrade my PC (I have x360 and a 40" Bravia LCD, so I'm not partisan) and this pricing is just unrealistic.

No CDR? No case? No power supply? I don't mean to nitpick, but I can't price out a new PC for myself without breaking 1500 easy (not counting monitor or tax, of course).

[overdrivechao]

Check this out guys!

I just got off a conference call with AMD, Intel, MSI, Nvidia, ATI, Apple, D-Link, Linksys, Corsair, Alienware, Maxtor, Seagate, Adobe, Symantec, Sony, Compaq, Gateway, Microsoft, Netgear, Samsung, PNY, Panasonic and Motorola and guess what?

Evidently even if the 360 turns out to be the vehicle to usher the second coming of Christ, they will still be making components and games! I guess those silly companies just like making money too much to stop now, even though they should know better!

The fact is that when a new console comes out, if it doesn't give modern PC's a run for their money, it will fail. The 360 is cheaper and more accessible and easier to take care of than a PC. And in 3 or 4 years, like the PS2 and Xbox, will start looking obsolete. It doesn't matter though because we are all going to play FFXII when it comes out for PS2 in 2009 so let's play nice. :)

[Grifter]

Agreed, and Christ sucks at CoD 2 but owns at Halo 2

SSSHHH He is in the next room, don't think anything bad he might hear you.....oh wait we don't think before we type :D never mind then continue

69 posts! yeah! Does that make you horny baby? Does it? Yeaaahhh! damn! lost it

The post below mine is the perfect ending to this thread I think it's time for a lock.

[overdrivechao]

Agreed, and Christ sucks at CoD 2 but owns at Halo 2

SSSHHH He is in the next room, don't think anything bad he might hear you.....oh wait we don't think before we type :D never mind then continue

69 posts! yeah! Does that make you horny baby? Yeaaahhh!

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040804h.jpg

Sorry it was perfect.

[DigiWiz]

First of all the cost of a PC that could run a new game at
1680x1050@ 8x or 16xaa would cost a hell of a lot more
than $2000.


1950$ to be exact. Be it CoD2, King Kong or Fear
Dual SLI GT's

[DigiWiz]

420p, 720p, and 1080i is good enouph for me, And Ps3 will make up for the 1080p, which will pretty much be the killing blow for the pc.

You haven't been around long in, haven't you? we heard the same remarks when the PS2 hit the shelves and then the original Xbox.

[DigiWiz]

I asked because I thought there was a bundle or something. I've been looking to upgrade my PC (I have x360 and a 40" Bravia LCD, so I'm not partisan) and this pricing is just unrealistic.

No CDR? No case? No power supply? I don't mean to nitpick, but I can't price out a new PC for myself without breaking 1500 easy (not counting monitor or tax, of course).

Case with 600W PSU 75$ unless you want some glowing shit. CDR is 35$, if you want dual layer DVD it's like 40$ these days.

[Morratut]

I love the way this thread ended up being another console vs PC war.

[CapnAJ]

Rated this thread *****

Quite possibly the most pointless rant ever and over nothing to begin with.

[Grifter]

Hey! anythread that stears us to a penny arcade comic is ok in my book.

[Taco]

Yeah right. The New Ati 1900XTX is practically the same card that is in the 360 and that smokes your 7800 piece of crap. Link (http://www.gamepro.com.au/index.php/id;548859104;fp;16;fpid;0)

They both smoke it. I'm an equal oppurtunity console basher. Calling it a "piece of crap" is showing your bias though.

[Taco]

You all gone stupid? you are comparing 360 graphics to pc graphics.... you do realize the xbox 360 is going to look ALOT better then any PC will right now..

That's the whole point, it should, I expected it to, it doesn't. With the exception of the PS2 pretty much every previous new gen console has looked better than the highest end PC. Not this one. Whether that's PC hardware at an all time high or console at an all time low I don't know.

Notice I'm not making an argument on costs, that's a no brainer win for the 360. But personally I'd pay 5k for a PC before I'd pay more than 100 for a console.

[bapenguin]

I love the way this thread ended up being another console vs PC war.

And the only people that care about it are PC Gamers. I mean really...this is all a moot point. Everyone has those friends that are console only gamers. They may not even own a PC, or if they do it's that 400 dollar Dell model. They don't care about PC gaming. All they care about is what Sony is bringing out next. How the next Madden will look.

People can argue which system is better all the time. PC vs 360. PC vs. PS3. It doesn't fucking matter.

[Taco]

The people on the short end of the stick whine the loudest ;).

[Mortis]

If those screens are accurate I am pretty disappointed. Objects not casting shadows sucks but I could live with that, what I am concerned with is the fact that the lighting looks totally different in those shots. Before it looked very realistic as if the torch was giving off the light in the room, in the other shots it has a generic "place ambient light here" feel.

[BenSkywalker]

Is that why you do whine so...?

The X360 is not utilizing anything based on currently available PC hardware- it is packing a unified shader architecture and a feature set based on the R600- ATi's DX10 GPU that won't be showing up until MS manages to get Vista along a lot further then it is. Let's throw a few shaders with multiple conditional branches and a few hundred instruction count length at them and watch the X360 obliterate 512MB 7800GTXs(we'll ignore the old low clocked 256MB parts). Unless nV implements some considerable design changes with the G71(7900) improving the relative performance of complex shaders and particularly those with heavy branching the the X360 will also likely pull well ahead of SLId 7900GTXs. Oh yes, the x1900XT is included in those parts with an inferior design to that which is already in the X360 for those who prefer team red to team green.

Also- why are the PC advocates ignoring the staggering bandwidth limitations of their oh so powerful system of choice? Start dialing up the MSAA samples and watch your framerate tumble- why is that? You aren't chewing up any additional fill? If your system of choice is so uber powerful then why is their any fall off?

For the record- I'll be picking up Oblivion for the PC almost certainly. Bethesda has proven themselves to be a train wrecked abortion when it comes to coding console games. ES:III Morrowind for the XBox is BY FAR the worst game in terms of code ever released for any console. I can crash the game at will using two spells(without fail) and can't walk around in Vivec late in the game due to crashes every few minutes(apparently no matter what I do). At least their inept coding skills can be masked on the PC side with patches- the game plays quite nicely on my platform of choice for ES(that would be the PC).

[Kelegacy]

I'm disappointed, that is a given, but I'll still be buying and playing the game regardless. Scraping the great shadows makes the game take a hit and look less like a "next-gen" RPG title. I am the first to admit that looks are not everything in the videogame world, but with something like Oblivion, a game that puts you in a lush, fantastic world, helping you suspend your disbelief for a spell, graphics are very important.

Disappointing but I'll still be playing the game. And that's all that really matters to Bethesda.

[CapnAJ]

Wasn't the video taken with the game visuals set at medium?

[Mason]

If your post count is in the single- or double-digits and you feel the overwhelming urge to hijack a thread into a very generic and pointless debate, maybe you should just use the search function to find the people who've argued about the exact same things a dozen times before.

Games are entertainment, figure out what you like and buy it. Your enjoyment has nothing to do with what anyone else is doing. It's like people are threatened by the possibility that someone's possibly having more fun than they are. It's old, it's pointless, and if you have to have those sorts of pissing contests, at least make them funny.

Kelegacy: Did you watch the German video? It has the new shadows and is running at medium settings, but still looks pretty damn nice. Chin up.

[Deathbane27]

I go to bed and wake up to find this thread has turned into a Richard Simmons-rimjobbing heap of fermenting maggot vomit.

No more sleep for me!

[Busted_Astromech]

Not to necro an old thread, but I just want to get something across:

It's my impression, from reading the Bethesda forums, that's it's generally accepted that the German video (where those icky comparisons came from) was running at medium settings.

The new lighting only affects the shadows traced from objects. Shadows from objects are barely noticable--look at Bethesda's newer screenshots and you'll realize the objects aren't casting shadows there either and they still look great; certainly nothing like the shots from the German video.

So, cheer up. It's not going to look like those comparisons, it'll look like the newer screenshots (which look like the game we know).

[Shawk]

For the record- I'll be picking up Oblivion for the PC almost certainly. Bethesda has proven themselves to be a train wrecked abortion when it comes to coding console games. ES:III Morrowind for the XBox is BY FAR the worst game in terms of code ever released for any console. I can crash the game at will using two spells(without fail) and can't walk around in Vivec late in the game due to crashes every few minutes(apparently no matter what I do). At least their inept coding skills can be masked on the PC side with patches- the game plays quite nicely on my platform of choice for ES(that would be the PC).

Odd, that never happend to me and I have over 100 hours play time in that game + unrecorded hours... I actually never crashed once, wish I could say that about any pc game.

Your problem would be the problem a few people had, bad disc drive, has nothing to do with the game.

[BenSkywalker]

Odd, that never happend to me and I have over 100 hours play time in that game + unrecorded hours... I actually never crashed once, wish I could say that about any pc game.

I was talking about the XBox version- not the PC. If you didn't have a single crash on the PC version then you must have bought the game pretty far after its release- there were hundreds of bugs that they fixed.

Your problem would be the problem a few people had, bad disc drive, has nothing to do with the game.

If you are stating that about the XBox I can hard lock the game at will using two spells(high power levitate then try to dispel) on any system I've tried it on. I never tried the 'patched' version(GOTY which includes the expansion packs)- there is no way I was going to bother given how inept Bethesda had proven themselves in terms of writing code for consoles. It's too bad, as ES:III is one of the best games to have come out in years and is the best game of its type I've ever played period.

[overdrivechao]

Again, if PC wasn't rivaled by a new console, that console would most certainly fail. I for one am glad Microsoft and Sony are catching console gamers up to speed with modern graphics. Let's see if they can make any games, now.