• chavbuster1 - July 4, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    Agreed. Would happily pay £40 for Skyrim+ Edition. -Graphics/ textures overhaul -Improved combat -More weapons, armor and Items. -More NPCs on screen during battles (Siege of Whiterun comes to mind, come on there were only like 15 ppl fighting + the player xD) -Maybe one final DLC? Please Bethesda? Pretty Please?
  • CraZed - July 8, 2013 3:59 p.m.

    Why buy it for half that on PC and get access to the wealth of player created mods while getting the superior experience. Provided you have the PC hardware to run it while having settings on high+ AND ENBs etc. Especially if you want 'more NPCs on screen.' There are all kinds of mods for PC that do that. Heck there are mods for having over 10 followers at once! Console versions just aren't as good.
  • chavbuster1 - July 9, 2013 6:25 a.m.

    Man I would if I had a spare £1500/$2000 knocking around in my booty pipe! xD +I know nothing about constructing a gaming PC so its kinda daunting...
  • avantguardian - July 3, 2013 9:03 p.m.

    this whole pc and console disparity thing is so overblown. as someone who spends an equal amount of time with both, it's just not true. if consoles were so severely holding back the pc, how come none of the pc exclusives (CoH 2, rome 2, starcraft 2, diablo 3, etc) look that great? they look good, yeah, but not leagues above what you can get on consoles, no matter how much pc guys want you to think that. arma 3 is the closest thing i've seen to a 'next-gen' looking game on pc, and when it finally gets past beta i doubt it will be much more impressive (if at all) than what you could get at launch on the new consoles. i mean, i wish they were way better, as that was kind of why i got my pc in the first place. it's actually been pretty disappointing. the truth of it is that pc games are just as tied to their engines as console games. they are both relying on the newest frostbite and unreal engines (etc) to push their games forward. i have 360 and pc versions of witcher 2, borderlands 2, xcom, and skyrim. all of these games run on ultra with no problems. aside from the uptick in resolution, some better textures here and there, better draw distance, and slightly faster loading (i even use ssd), the difference is negligible. certainly not anywhere close to the extent that so-called 'pc elitists' would have you believe. all these games play and feel the same, which is really all that matters. more on topic, skyrim's problems have little to with anything tech related (outside of glitches). they need to completely dismantle and overhaul the combat, as it is just not up to snuff. i'm not saying they should go with a more arcade-y style (though dragon's dogma and amalur had excellent systems), but try to make a realism based system that is frankly just more fun. the inventory is an absolute nightmare. the characters are incredibly boring. that engine is ancient. i would rather see bethesda allocate their resources to fixing the fundamentals of the elder scrolls games in general. sure, i've put my 250ish hours into skyrim, and loved most of it, but i also spent a lot of that time wondering how much better it could have been.
  • mafyooz - July 4, 2013 2:21 a.m.

    "skyrim's problems have little to with anything tech related (outside of glitches). they need to completely dismantle and overhaul the combat, as it is just not up to snuff." "the inventory is an absolute nightmare. the characters are incredibly boring." Damn right. I was starting to find Skyrim very dull for these reasons long before the last in a series of game-breaking glitches made me decide to just trade the damn thing in! They should also overhaul the career paths and make them actually mean something, it feels a bit redundant to have a character that can be the head of a warriors guild, arch-chancellor of a wizards school AND master assassin at the same time. Fair enough, you're not forced to do them all, but in my experience most people will
  • avantguardian - July 4, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    oh yeah, the career path is another thing. sort of the defeats the purpose of another character/playthrough, imo. i'll be the first to tell you my sword and shield nord should not be leader of the mage's guild. but alas, he is. :)
  • mothbanquet - July 4, 2013 4:37 a.m.

    Agreed. The existence (and success) of Skyrim on consoles show that scope and ambition are reserved not only for the PC. The RTS is the only truly 'PC-only' experience, I've found, but most games in other genres have been equal experiences across all platforms. The only thing holding back the scale and scope of games are developers and us, the fickle and easily-placated consumer base, not the hardware.
  • PatHan-bHai - July 4, 2013 5:20 a.m.

    RTS and Counter-Strike. CS is the only shooter I'm not able to play on a console.
  • avantguardian - July 4, 2013 7:41 a.m.

    yeah, my affinity for rts, particularly from relic and creative assembly, was the main motivation for getting a new pc. the last time i upgraded was for medieval 2: total war. if shogun 2 is anything to go by, rome 2 shouldn't be that fundamentally different, but that didn't stop me from preordering it. :)
  • rodger-walker - July 4, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    The three PC exclusives you mentioned are all strategy games or top down RPGs... Neither require amazing graphics and the main focus of those games was gameplay anyway. The other games you mentioned were MADE FOR THE 360 and then ported to PC. So you can't expect them to become the perfect PC games soon as they pop up on sale on Steam. The closest you can get with those ports is Skyrim because of all the mods that are out there for it. They can do anything from replacing textures so you can barely tell the difference between a Skyrim rock or a real one, to making combat about timing, dancing around your enemy to avoid hits and keeping track of more then just your health and stamina. check out the Skyrim Nexus if you haven't already. Look at what they have to offer, some of it is pretty amazing.
  • avantguardian - July 4, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    i named five games. including an fps. if you could name me any pc exclusives that look 'next-gen' i'd love to hear about it, and play it. but i'm guessing you can't, no one can. which was my original point. i also remember witcher 2 actually being ported to 360, not the other way around. and yeah, i've checked the mods for skyrim (the whole point of buying it a second time). some of it IS pretty cool, but not enough for me, let alone enough to remake the game in a few years for new consoles. thanks for attempting to show me the light, though, you don't come off as smug as most pc guys. cheers. ;)
  • db1331 - July 5, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    LOL. Hey guys, aside from the better resolution, textures, draw distance, faster load times (You forgot to mention double the framerate or more and better controls), there's almost no difference! Seriously though, if you can't appreciate the difference between 20-something FPS and 60+ alone, you are probably better off just sticking to consoles. Hell, I moved my PC to the TV and tried playing Skyrim in Big Picture mode with a controller. I still had all my mods and all the extra bells and whistles of the PC version, I was just using a 360 pad instead of my mouse and keyboard. It was practically unplayable. Only two quick slots, are you serious? Now, if I went all the way with the console experience and removed all my mods, lowered my resolution to 720p, turned of AA, and imposed an artificial 30fps cap, it would be completely unplayable. I mean, I read somewhere that the average load time for Skyrim on the 360 was in the 20 second-range. How someone can play like that is beyond me. I love consoles. I've always owned at least one since the original NES. Right now I have a PS3, Wii, and 3DS. However, I cannot even watch anyone play something like Skyrim on a console. It's just plain awful. I've never once bought something for a console that is also out on PC, and never will.
  • avantguardian - July 5, 2013 1:42 p.m.

    none of those things are that big of a deal to me. nor are they worth the cost for many others. if you're allowed to say something is unplayable, i'm allowed to say something isn't as impressive as others make it out to be. i can directly compare using an ssd vs having it installed on my 360, and 20 seconds is ludicrous. maybe on an uninstalled ps3 version. fact ofd the matter is, if i honestly thought it was that much better, i would probably be playing it right now:P but i tried, it was same old shit, i got bored, and stopped playing. cheers.
  • Mr.YumYums - July 5, 2013 1:50 p.m.

    It took me a lot of playing around with resolutions, frames per second, and different settings while playing Left 4 Dead on my PC to realize what this guy is talking about and could not agree more. I have just separated a lot of games to two list: PC games and Console games. That is games I can only play on either system (and I do mean I, as it is my perspective) Games such as the Arkham series or Uncharted stay on console, and a lot of FPS or RPGS stay on my PC. To this day I have no idea how some people can voluntarily play L4D under 20 FPS.....
  • avantguardian - July 5, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    i also love how, when i, as a pc gamer, disagree with all of your guy's pc master race bullshit, you tell me i'm 'better off just sticking to consoles'. way to perpetuate the stereotype.
  • Mr.YumYums - July 5, 2013 2 p.m.

    What are the specs on your rig? Just out of curiosity
  • avantguardian - July 5, 2013 6:53 p.m.

    i7 3770k, z77, 8 gigs, ssd, gtx 680 superclocked. run it through my tv. why do you ask? and i hope you don't think the above response was to you. gr's comments can be weird like that XD yeah, the idea of playing L4D under 20 frames is appalling, but i could get higher frames in L4D2 on my 2008 ho-hum hp laptop that i bought for school...
  • forestfire55 - July 3, 2013 7:06 p.m.

    There will be a form of skyrim for the ps4, but in mmo form, and akes place not only in skyrim but in the whole elder scrolls land.
  • jacob-bryant - July 3, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    well, considering their making the elder scrolls online for next-gen consoles. I don't see them investing anymore time into skrim, to remake it for ps4 or xbox-one
  • shotgunalchemist - July 3, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    I would definitely buy this, Skyrim on the ps3 was amazing but if they fixed all the bugs and put a bit of spit and polish into it then yeah, one of the best games ever made. But I think the main thing Bethesda and Bethesda Softworks need to do right now is continue with making that Fallout next-gen game that we are all hoping they are making.

Showing 21-40 of 70 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.