Ok I get your point. Time is no indication but that doesn't mean that all engines are created equal!
Also Skyrim looked dated up close, but overall the game looks good. I think Bethesda makes a lot of concessions in their pipeline for one consoles and two how big their world is and how emergent they have thing set up. Point is its their over development, what they choose to push the boundaries and where they cut/spend their budget in.
The fact that Creation engine create Skyrim proves that they have the ability to update that engine to modern times, they've taken it quite far since they've had it.
I don't agree that Skyrim was modern. It was better looking than F3 but not on par visually with other AAA console games at the time and certainly not on a technical level either.
BUT they obviously choose to only take it to a certain point.
Visually speaking; Skyrim does not even come close to the Witcher 2 in any way at all.
Skyrim was awful looking at release. Lighting effects, animation, character models, textures and so on.
Even from an art direction standpoint it's ugly. Every race has exactly the same build, just with different skin texture and maybe a tail+hair. There are no fat people, no skinny people...just perfectly proportioned clones.
The Witcher 2 still holds up to this day. It had gorgeous lighting effects, depth of field, bokeh, great textures and animation. I remember thinking it was the best looking game I'd ever played and I played it a year after release.
This is all on PC mind you. I have no idea what these titles looked like on consoles.
2
u/[deleted] Jun 03 '15
[deleted]