TurdFergasun wrote on Feb 6, 2012, 18:48:
hmm i might actually bother playing more than 3 hours of skyrim if they do this right. rage looked far, far better than skyrim, unless you played both on consoles, or rage didn't run properly like it seems to have for some ppl, but getting things to work right is part of pc gaming. get used to it or get on the console short bus.

how the hell can complain about the scattered low res textures in rage, but love the entire low res scenes of skyrim? go play gta 4 with how much shit is going on around you, and in the smallest details, the great textures almost everywhere, and it suffered from consolitis worse than either of these two games. same with rage, the scenery looks alive if you have the settings right, and it all helps the big buzzword "immersion". try to look at skyrim after without feeling like it's devoid of any detail or life, there's just no atmosphere at all. skyrim reminds me of playing a dx7 game coming from other titles like witcher2, rage, gta4. basically anything from the past 3-4 years, and worse, unlike rage, there is absolutely no redeeming style to the art in skyrim there is no distinct style at all, it just looks like generic mmo art from 4 years ago. skyrim has a tonne of things rage did not, and vice versa. rage looks and feels good with immersive characters, who are actually talking to you with their mouths(what an amazing concept), but a short, n shitty climactic sequence, where skyrim is incredibly fugly, millions of poorly drawn un-interesting characters, but chalk full of stuff, a never ending list of stuff, miles and miles and miles of stuff... boring... boring stuff. quality over quantity for me thanks.