SPH1 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Got it for free since I own the complete copy and tried it out yesterday. Yes, it is better than vanilla. In fact, (and since you can still play the original) I'm thinking that SE may be better than my modded game with Vividian ENB and Vividian Weathers (which I thought a little better than the excellent RCRN and COT.) Watched a youtube vid last night that had a good analysis: Cannot really compare SE with a modded Skyrim, as SE is still a seed, as was the original. The original grew from that seed into a beautiful tree via mods. SE is starting with a larger seed and has the potential to grow into a much more massive and beautiful tree. I'm thinking you liked windows 8 as well. Windows 8 wasn't bad for the short time I had it before 10. 10 is a great upgrade, as is SE. Now we just need a new generation of modders to make mods exclusively for SE's true potential. IMO "porting" isn't enough. People waste $60 every month...SE is worth it (and IMO, everyone should have had the full game to begin with anyway.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSChase Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 (edited) Got it for free since I own the complete copy and tried it out yesterday. Yes, it is better than vanilla. In fact, (and since you can still play the original) I'm thinking that SE may be better than my modded game with Vividian ENB and Vividian Weathers (which I thought a little better than the excellent RCRN and COT.) Watched a youtube vid last night that had a good analysis: Cannot really compare SE with a modded Skyrim, as SE is still a seed, as was the original. The original grew from that seed into a beautiful tree via mods. SE is starting with a larger seed and has the potential to grow into a much more massive and beautiful tree. I'm thinking you liked windows 8 as well. Windows 8 wasn't bad for the short time I had it before 10. 10 is a great upgrade, as is SE. Now we just need a new generation of modders to make mods exclusively for SE's true potential. IMO "porting" isn't enough. People waste $60 every month...SE is worth it (and IMO, everyone should have had the full game to begin with anyway.) I think the players should lobby Nexus create a new primary mod page setup for the 64bit version and rename the original 32bit. This way players don't have to hunt down for 64bit mods as it will be already in the New Recently list. It looks like the SE page exist after allhttp://www.nexusmods.com/skyrimspecialedition/? Edited November 1, 2016 by WSChase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iXenite Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 If you're running the same hardware you went out and bought just to play Skyrim 5 years ago, then the SE is an absolute downgrade, and is twice as unstable as the original game. *Fanbois who are about to gainsay the above sentence....save it. I'm in no mood. If you're using low end hardware it is obvious you will have performance issues, but that does not mean it is a "downgrade". As for stability, there are many people who disagree with you. The 64-bit engine that the new Special Edition uses makes the game a lot more stable then it used to be. Gopher made a video discussing how performance is better in the Special Edition actually. SKYRIM vs. SKYRIM Special Edition - Performance/FPS: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantompally76 Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) I hate to keep sounding like a broken record, but STABILITY IS MEANINGLESS WHEN COUPLED WITH POOR PERFORMANCE. I'm fully aware there are gamers who are running the SSE just fine. The split stands at 60/40, and it is no coincidence that is the same score the SSE currently bears on Steam. And that split is not divided between old and new hardware, but rather between the intangible variants of the interplay between graphic cards, operating systems, monitors, and blind luck. There are individuals with top-of-the-line hardware who can't pull more than 25 fps on low settings, and there are individuals who are above the cap on gpus that were ancient in 2011. If you're running SSE well, then consider yourself lucky, and consider that if it were anywhere near as good as you want to believe it is, it wouldn't have mixed reviews on Steam. And for the record, a video comparison by an individual who plays video games for a living, and who has invested heavily in gaming hardware that allows him to play the game at a higher framerate than the engine can even properly support, is hardly an accurate representation of the common Skyrim mod user. Edited November 3, 2016 by phantompally76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeofaTsavo Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Well, I can't be blamed for any bad review on Steam. My copy of SSE has run, cumulatively, a total of 4 minutes and I don't feel like doing another minute of log/crash cycles to get to the 5 mins needed to review it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iXenite Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 And for the record, a video comparison by an individual who plays video games for a living, and who has invested heavily in gaming hardware that allows him to play the game at a higher framerate than the engine can even properly support, is hardly an accurate representation of the common Skyrim mod user. The important part of his video is that it showcases areas of the game where he previously got bad performance with the same hardware, and is now getting much better performance with the Special Edition. Over time with patches from the devs the game will probably level out performance wise for most people. That obviously excludes very old hardware, but I would suggest those people to just cap the game at 30fps to increase stability. From the vast majority of reports I have seen, people getting bad framerates with competent hardware are extreme outliers that are hardly representative of the much larger picture. Either way, I'm not trying to get in an argument with you. I was merely pointing out you're being overly negative. The 64-bit engine has brought a host of welcome improvements, and over time it should pan out to be the superior version of Skyrim. That's all I'm saying. P.S. Also, those "negative" Steam reviews are garbage. Most of the people posting bad reviews for the Special Edition are idiots complaining that they got the game for free and that Bethesda didn't make their game look as good as their modded one. Those people missed the point entirely. This release is mainly for the console users, but it does also offer some good benefits for the PC. Granted it will take some time for all of those benefits to pan out, but I am certain it will all pan out eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethreon Posted November 3, 2016 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Ah yes, the moment the reviews don't work with your view of life, they are garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iXenite Posted November 4, 2016 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Ah yes, the moment the reviews don't work with your view of life, they are garbage. If you actually took the time to read those negative "reviews" you would know better than to say something like that. It's filled with people that had really stupid expectations for a game that was primarily done for the console players benefit, and complaining that it's a "cash grab" even though most people on PC will be getting it for free anyway. Skyrim is very soon to be a five year old game, I'm not really sure what people were expecting. A whole new experience that you can reengage yourself in? Skyrim 2? It was never going to get new content, it always going to be a slightly better looking old game. You want to know why that was so amazingly obvious? It's remaster, not a new game. I can't believe this is so hard for people to understand. Everyone should have known exactly what to expect with this release. Bethesda literally told everyone what to expect, and they didn't hold back any surprises. It was exactly what they said it was going to be, yet people still found reason to complain. We already knew mods would need to be converted. Anyone that thought this was going to be "bug free" must have forgot which company was making this game. The graphics are better than the original release, and no one should have anticipated it would match modded games. They remastered the original game, not your modded game you've been playing around with for five years. Anyone that thought that something incredible was going to happen was fooling themselves. It's remaster, no more no less. Anyway, I'm done with this discussion. I won't be replying to this thread anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantompally76 Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 My ONLY expectation for the SE was that it would run properly on my rig. It does not. Hence, I do not support or endorse it. The original game runs just fine. Therefore, I will be sticking with it, regardless of whether the rest of the community abandons it or not. As far as dividing the community, the SE will finish what Modgate started, and those of you blinded by the sickly yellow fog of the SE won't see that until it's well-too late to do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolfHawk Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 Well there is a first time for everything...I know you can't run a modded up Legendary save on SE. How about the opposite? Can an SE save run on Legendary? I suspect not. I am playing SE at the moment but am finding myself really missing some mods that aren't ported yet - SKSE for one and many of the great mods that use it. Guess I got spoiled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts