• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

So the first 25 minutes of Skyrim got leaked - and it's looking bad guys

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
After the trailer they showed, I expected a brand new engine, dx11, super duper tessellation, and everything you would expect from a cutting edge game that supposedly took a year to build and this is what is produced? One word: Gay. A gay piggyback of something that was successful 7 years ago. Ok fail, next....
 
Wow, the combat.. you think they could have updated it a bit from oblivion? Looks really clunky still.

Dx9 isn't a surprise but that doesn't really bother my that much.
 
has it ocured to anyone that it coulda been low settings instead of high?.. a duno but i seen the trailers & something else & the graphics were top notch.
 
Update:
***THIS VIDEO IS NEW, ADDITIONAL RACES ARE SHOWN IN THIS VIDEO ***




has it ocured to anyone that it coulda been low settings instead of high?.. a duno but i seen the trailers & something else & the graphics were top notch.

One of the developers said on his twitter yesterday that all of the footage shown has been on the 360. There is no doubt PC users will get better textures as well as FPS. But my point was the earlier engineering samples (that were said to be on XBOX) had textures that looked far better than the leaked gameplay, meaning texture compression has happened somewhere between then and now.
 
I'm still excited. I'm sure on PC we're going to get a better experience, and more importantly, regardless of how much of an advancement, the true test of the game is the content. If we get a truly innovative game system and good mechanics, can you really complain about graphics? So far what I've seen has made it seem like a step up from oblivion.

if everything *feels* more like fallout (engine wise) I'll be a happy camper.

The most important thing, and I can't stress this enough (and I'm waiting on reviews for this): if they made it so the game doesn't crash every 10 minutes, it will be a massive jump in the right direction.

oblivion crashed so often it should have had it's own drinking game.
 
I would care more about the combat/animation system than the real graphics. As I pointed out, the enemies get slashes multiple times with a sword and don't change until they keel over and die. Reminds me of chainsawing a pink demon in the original doom.
 
NPCs not reacting to being hit is really terrible. Amateur hour over at Bethesda.
 
don't forget playability, there's not a lot of other games out there that you will take a week or more to finish then the juicy mods n dlc that come along.

and a game that lasts for 4hours is a crime against gamers.
 
Not if the four hours are fantasic... (portal(1), braid, etc) and that you aren't paying $60 for only 4 hours of gameplay and nothing else.
 
Not if the four hours are fantasic... (portal(1), braid, etc) and that you aren't paying $60 for only 4 hours of gameplay and nothing else.

I agree. Mirror's Edge was epic, even if it was short and to play something semi-familiar yet so blatantly different from anything else I was playing during those days... wonderful.

sometimes a play a game & blank out the story just so i can play thru it again.,,, ano sad :p

Thank god we aren't robots with idetic memory. I think people with idetic memory are actually cursed. Being able to forget so much about something that you can go back through it (TV show, game, movie, book, etc) and enjoy it like you've never done it is wonderful. It's probably my favorite part of the human condition, being imperfect and all.

:D
 
Not if the four hours are fantasic... (portal(1), braid, etc) and that you aren't paying $60 for only 4 hours of gameplay and nothing else.

That had better be a very good game then.

Thats what i enjoy about the CIV series, The TES series, Baldurs Gate etc. I was mad that MW2 was so short (i know, its unpopular with most, but i liked the story, not better than COD MW however), but 5 1/2 hours, on normal? Thats lame. It only made up for it with multiplayer. For $59 for a new game, i better have multiplayer, or at least 100 hours of gameplay. Thats what i expect. Im sure there are many that dont agree, or feel its not realistic, but thats my criteria.

With the titles i previously mentioned, hundreds and hundreds of hours of game play and exploring.
 
I would look at a game to fulfill at least $2/hr of gameplay between multiplayer and single player. So a $60 game to have around 30 hours of gameplay is fine to me (Dragon Age 2 for example, one single [complete] play-through was about 35 hours). Having multiplayer in a game should (but doesn't always) add to its play time if it is terrible (read: Duke Nukem Forever's multiplayer for example). It just depends on the game and its quality.

what I was saying is that the original portal, nor braid, or other indie games (world of goo, is another) cost $10-$15 and have a good 5 hours of gameplay, some games don't need to be any longer as they are just the right length (keeping coming back to the original Portal, I think is one of the greatest [short] games I've ever played/seen) and replayability if you want to do so.
 
2ph? for 60 i want to be playing it for a month :p

i remember playing my final fantasy & that was for about a month "playing every night".

i mod fallout & theres a lot of work, but then i can turn out a good quest in about 1month that would last 2/3 hours.... these guys have a full team onboard, they should be able to add a story that lasts a good couple of days.
 
Back