All Channels
Popular
460°

Eurogamer: Skyrim triple-format comparison

Eurogamer: Check out the game on Xbox 360, PS3 and PC on max settings.

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
NukaCola5320d ago (Edited 5320d ago )

Well I will say it. The PC screens look like crap, and the PS3 screens look 2x worse.

I have seen this game in action on PS3 and it doesn't look like this. How is it that nothing has texture and everything is so blurry? Fallout New Vegas isn't even this bad looking.

And my God, all the articles of issues of textures on 360 and those pics look better than the washed out PC ones? What is going on here?

I am really confused here. Someone please explain.

fluffydelusions5320d ago

I've only played on 360 but have no texture issues. I think it's only when you install to HD? Looks great here.

Foxgod5320d ago

Yeah, beth send out a statement not to install the game to hd, until the texture issues are patched on the 360.

Perjoss5320d ago

I have to say it looks amazing on 360 considering how old the hardware is, I've got it on both PC and 360. Yes the PC version does look best (at least on my setup) but they have done an amazing job on 360, just remember to not install for now.

ProjectVulcan5320d ago (Edited 5320d ago )

Pc looks fine to me although its not had too much attention on it. The usual higher resolutions, speedy framerates and vsync make a big difference.

As for consoles what did you expect? Much like Fallout 3 and New Vegas the game was built on 360 and ported to PS3. So again just like those games you can see it has meant the PS3 version is compromised with textures, memory management and AA solutions.

PS3 looks like it has slightly lower res assets and most likely some sort of post process AA, full screen, not MLAA, one which would blur the textures a little more and just magnify the differences visible seen here.

You can have FXAA on the PC version with or without MSAA and it does suffer the texture blur issue typical of the technique, but cleans up the alpha textures of foliage very well. Frankly i just prefer to retain the crispness of MSAA alone. This costs a lot more performance but it is worth it if you have the grunt. PS3 could never do a bunch of MSAA on this game, so the choice was either jaggies and crisper textures, or lot less jaggies and slightly blurrier textures. Someone chose the latter it seems.

On the other hand however i have seen videos where the PS3 version appears to suffer a lot less from screen tearing compared to the 360 version.

Anyone interested will have to wait a little longer maybe for a proper in depth performance comparison from digital foundry or LOT.

Everyone else should just enjoy one of the best games this gen....

bozebo5320d ago (Edited 5320d ago )

OK, first of all the PC version clearly has a larger detail distance.

And secondly, the 360 applies a contrast enhancement to it's output image designed to make it look appealing on typical TV setups; apart from the detail distance that is the only difference between 360 and PC (you could open up either in photoshop and tweak the contrast to make them appear extremely similar).

The ps3 also has that adjustment but it is off by default and sites never turn it on before posting comparisons.

I am not sure what their excuse is for the horrible textures and/or AF on the PS3 version, the hardware is certainly capable of pumping out superior graphics to what they have managed.

But anyway, it's elder scrolls - graphics don't matter. Which is why I will be reinstalling morrowind once I am done with skyrim because it makes me want to play it again :P

edit: actually, the PC texture are also higher quality (good example, image 20). I went into the game files and turned on tree self-shadowing (there was an option for this in Oblivion lol),
before: http://media.pcgamer.com/fi...
after: http://media.pcgamer.com/fi...
Why that couldn't be in the options I have no idea, maybe they weren't able to fully test it on different hardware :/

Also lol at disagrees, disagrees to facts...

Blackdeath_6635320d ago

really? i mean im playing it on ps3 and it looks just fine i was actually happy that it didt look worse than the xbox version and that it didnt have the texture issu that the installed xbox version has. i also havent experienced any lag. i really dont know why theres so much negetivity towards the ps3 version theres nothing wrong with it.

Redlogic5320d ago

I agree, I have been playing it on ps3 and it seems fine to me. I've had zero issues with the game. It looks great to me, the game has me totally captured in it's world.

Blackdeath_6635320d ago

@Redlogic
well i guess its a good thing that im satisfied with the game i think maybe people complain too much about pathetic things i would never have found out about a glitch or have even cared about graphics if no one told me or i didnt look for it my self. maybe ppl just expect too much or look for faults in their's or other ppls games.

arnyftw5320d ago

@Fluffy, the graphical glitches on the 360 arent on everything, its just that sometime you look at something its just a bunch of pixels, but its only happened to me once.

Karum5320d ago

Just as you've said you've seen it on PS3 and it lokos nothing like this, the PC version I've been playing on my own PC this weekend looks so much better than that.

I don't know if it's the quality of the images they use or the PC they are using but mine looks so much better than that on Ultra settings.

For me it looks great but even more importantly the gameplay is superb, I've been hooked on it all weekend!

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 5320d ago
MasterCornholio5320d ago

I hate that there's a big difference between the 360 and PS3 versions of the game. I almost feel terrible for ordering it from amazon. But since the game is extremely good I can't afford to miss out on the experience.

I thought that Bethesda would do a better job with the PS3 version but I was wrong.

XperiaRay

Zynga5320d ago (Edited 5320d ago )

Oh so now you finally open your eyes see. I told you way before that the ps3 version looked sub HD. I was pissed and still am, watch when they release the digital foundary and the game not being 720p just like RDR.

MasterCornholio5320d ago (Edited 5320d ago )

Yeah and the 360 version is sub HD as well. Current generation of consoles are starting to show their age so most games are going to be sub HD. They honestly could have done a better job with the 360 and PS3 versions if this game.

Not tying to attack you or anything but when you said that the PS3 version was a crappy almost unplayable port I didn't believe you because I didn't even see any comparisons between the different versions. If I don't like the way it looks on my console I could always sell it and buy something else.

XperiaRay

bozebo5320d ago

Not sure what troll coward disagreed with you.

The PS3 version is obviously upscaled (or moreso than the 360 version is).

Zynga5320d ago (Edited 5320d ago )

@MasterCornholio

Actually I never said the ps3 was unplayable ( it actually ran very well and loaded very fast) but that it only looked inferior that's all. Im just glad I rented it before buying it and got myself the 360 version.

Edit @bozebo

No its not and thats how it exactly looked liked on my 46 in. Stop trolling!

bozebo5320d ago (Edited 5320d ago )

I am just going by the article. It could be bias for all I know.

And I am not trolling, at all. (I was actually replying to you but the other guy posted before I did... Sub HD i.e. Upscaled to display on a 720 or 1080 screen... I was defending YOU)

...

And another disagree ninja disagreeing to something that is undisagreeable I see.

ilovemyps35320d ago

i love my ps3 (just read all my comments), but i'm really disappointed when i see those VGA graphics on the ps3 version.

folliage look awful, it looks like they used 128x128 textures, to fit 512x512 areas.

i hate xbox brand. oh man, i really hate it. after crysis 2 (which i bought and played only 30 minutes, textures were so awful i couldn't see the enemies, so i stopped playing it), and a few other games that look great on xbox, but are awful on ps3, and now, i see those screenshots of the ps3 version, i guess it's time to buy a 360, next Christmas. i will still buy games for my ps3, but for games like skyrim, sorry, dear Sony, i won't be paying for the worst version. really, look at skyrim on 360, and then, on ps3. it's not the same game. it CAN'T be the same game.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 5320d ago
Christopher5320d ago

I've been playing the PS3 version, it looks good. Not a graphical powerhouse on either machine but better than previous games from Bethesda and I haven't had a single freeze or noticeable glitch after about 12 hours of playing it.

news4geeks5320d ago (Edited 5320d ago )

It's quite ironic when people like yourself won't buy a game because it is a 'poor' port from the 360, and the reason it is ported in the first place is because more people play the game on the 360.

Maybe if you started supporting their games, the ps3 would be lead console or at least have equal attention.

Blacktric5320d ago (Edited 5320d ago )

Oblivion sold 3.3 million copies on the Xbox 360 and 2.29 million on the PS3. Fallout sold 3.5 million copies on Xbox 360 and 2.5 million on the PS3. And you're telling him that he should support the PS3 versions more? Bethesda is in bed with Microsoft since the first Xbox. Morrowind was going to be a launch title for the system but released a year after Xbox's release yet still sold sh*t ton of copies and they decided to play it safe and kept cutting deals with Bethesda for Oblivion, Fallout 3, New Vegas and Skyrim. The issue is money Microsoft's been paying to Bethesda here not the sales. Look at Call Of Duty 3 and 4 on both systems. Both look very identical and then look at Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops and Modern Warfare 3. All of them are better on the Xbox 360 on every front.

moegooner885320d ago

i Agree with NukaCola, i have the game on PS3 and it doesn't look anything like this.Xbox 360 version looks the best though!

Chuk55320d ago

I love how people used that one flawed video to compare the clearly gimped 360 and PS3.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

All the other comparison (including my own experience with the 360 version) say other wise.

bozebo5320d ago

:O

Looks almost like that vid has the sides the other around from what the screenshots in this article are labelled :S (or er... the other way around)

Soul Train5319d ago

Wow can people please stop posting that one bull$hit video of the burned 360 version?

The Digital Foundry gallery proves otherwise, as does Lens of Truth's screenshot comparison. So two sites whos main focus are comparisons are showing the exact same thing. Yet all anyone can say in defense is "I saw the AllGamesAlpha video and these screens are BS".

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

http://www.lensoftruth.com/...

Right.....

THC CELL5320d ago

I think.u should all get back to gaming cause deep down nd showed all you blind fanboys up the ps3 power is amazing and developers Mp developers really need to get there act together

Captain Tuttle5320d ago

keep up the good fight console warrior

5320d ago
Show all comments (50)
70°

Skyrim Switch 2 Update Boosts Visuals, But Performance Falls Short

A new Skyrim Switch 2 update delivers major visual upgrades, surpassing some console settings, but locks the game to 30fps and introduces noticeable input lag.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
gigoran8177d ago

they can't get a 14 year old game to run smoothly?

jjb1981177d ago

That's ridiculous, lol. I'm waiting for the guy that says its too cpu-intensive for the Switch 2. This game is old af and has been released like 17 times.

60°

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim’s iconic bucket-head stealth was a complete surprise on launch

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim lead designer Bruce Nesmith explains that the game's bucket stealth was an unintended feature of the game.

70°

This massive Skyrim mod adds a whole new region, 50 new dungeons and more

Lordbound is finally here.