Has anyone been following the "graphical downgrade" controversy? Sounds like its shaping up to be another Watch Dogs. Each iteration of the "gameplay footage" from 2013-2015 appears to show a drastic loss in quality, in part to make room for console viability.
Has anyone been following the "graphical downgrade" controversy? Sounds like its shaping up to be another Watch Dogs. Each iteration of the "gameplay footage" from 2013-2015 appears to show a drastic loss in quality, in part to make room for console viability.
Has anyone been following the "graphical downgrade" controversy? Sounds like its shaping up to be another Watch Dogs. Each iteration of the "gameplay footage" from 2013-2015 appears to show a drastic loss in quality, in part to make room for console viability.
Hopefully this is reversible (to whatever extent is possible) with the post launch PC version.
It'll never look like the reveal gameplay trailer, It won't even look like it did back in 2014.
The consoles have turned out to be the lead platform and as such the pc version looks pretty much the same even on max settings.
CDPR have been very cryptic about the whole thing, denying it at every chance and talking about mysterious super settings for the pc version. Many people up to this point are still writing off any comparison shots or videos as not being the final version, and that the launch version will be fantastic.
So while the game still looks pretty good it has been downgraded and CDPR have decided to not come clean about it.
Has anyone been following the "graphical downgrade" controversy? Sounds like its shaping up to be another Watch Dogs. Each iteration of the "gameplay footage" from 2013-2015 appears to show a drastic loss in quality, in part to make room for console viability.
Hopefully this is reversible (to whatever extent is possible) with the post launch PC version.
If there's an XB1 version, there's your answer.
Anybody who has worked with that thing knows the kind of bottleneck it is compared to gaming PCs...
...from ten years ago.
If they had to make it run on that, they probably didn't bother keeping the PC-only art content in a separate branch, which would have meant QAing and bugfixing two versions of the game that effectively only shared a name and a plot.
Has anyone been following the "graphical downgrade" controversy? Sounds like its shaping up to be another Watch Dogs. Each iteration of the "gameplay footage" from 2013-2015 appears to show a drastic loss in quality, in part to make room for console viability.
Hopefully this is reversible (to whatever extent is possible) with the post launch PC version.
I feel like if you don't have anything good to show then don't show it. Showing something not representative of the actual game is far to common and really sad honestly, tells me the developers aren't confident with themselves and what the currently have to offer.
I feel like if you don't have anything good to show then don't show it. Showing something not representative of the actual game is far to common and really sad honestly, tells me the developers aren't confident with themselves and what the currently have to offer.
So you would rather them not show they game at all than them show you what graphical fidelity they hope to achieve at final ship.
These arguments have all been stupid. They have shown plenty of demos that show the final ship quality if you don't like it don't buy the game. It was a game in development the majority of the time the game is going to look worse at ship because you have to balance for overall performance. This is what happens in game development you make a visual target, then you balance for performance, then you balance for performance across all of the consoles. The game would most likely look the same if it was PC only.
*Also the game looks amazing. Can't wait to pick it up.
So you would rather them not show they game at all than them show you what graphical fidelity they hope to achieve at final ship.
These arguments have all been stupid. They have shown plenty of demos that show the final ship quality if you don't like it don't buy the game. It was a game in development the majority of the time the game is going to look worse at ship because you have to balance for overall performance. This is what happens in game development you make a visual target, then you balance for performance, then you balance for performance across all of the consoles. The game would most likely look the same if it was PC only.
*Also the game looks amazing. Can't wait to pick it up.
So you are supporting the fact that a lot of companies are showing an inaccurate representation of what their game is like? Not that it's a lot to complain about with W3 because it still looks great, but we have other examples and will for sure have a lot more in the future. I simply don't see the reason to do such a thing as it will always backfire and probably hurt the game more than anything.
Played Witcher 1 and 2, can't wait to play this one, but I think I will:),
so that I won't be annoyed with too many bugs.
Yeah I'm also holding off on tw3 partly because I'm not in the mood, partly because their going open world is enough for me to hold off until it's been released for awhile. Not a fan of open world for a number of reasons, so I'd like to see how it plays out first. Plus I've still got Pillars to finish...
So you are supporting the fact that a lot of companies are showing an inaccurate representation of what their game is like? Not that it's a lot to complain about with W3 because it still looks great, but we have other examples and will for sure have a lot more in the future. I simply don't see the reason to do such a thing as it will always backfire and probably hurt the game more than anything.
If it's over a year out from ship and they have several updates showing the final ship quality yes. It's not like they are convincing you that the game looks like that. The game hasn't shipped and you know it doesn't look like that. I fail to see how it is dishonest.
The cinematic s have always been really impressive for the witcher. I played 1 and 2 and really enjoyed them. The only thing I found limiting was the 'in a tube' experience so if they have to throttle off the graphics quality for an open world approach its fine by me. I have always been a fan of the design and story with the witcher anyhow.
So you are supporting the fact that a lot of companies are showing an inaccurate representation of what their game is like? Not that it's a lot to complain about with W3 because it still looks great, but we have other examples and will for sure have a lot more in the future. I simply don't see the reason to do such a thing as it will always backfire and probably hurt the game more than anything.
You guys probably know this stuff but sometimes developers do a 'vertical slice' of the project and really push the quality sometimes with not much optimisation, this is done for many reasons. One reason may be to impress the publisher or shareholders, another may be to just internally figure out workflows and project management schedules and set a quality bar for 3d artists etc, another may be to impress gamers who will purchase the game. If the publisher or shareholders aren't impressed then it could get pushed back or canned etc etc. Doubt thats the case here but just some things to consider. I dont think most companies would normally show a vertical slice to the public, doesnt seem a great idea to me.
If it's over a year out from ship and they have several updates showing the final ship quality yes. It's not like they are convincing you that the game looks like that. The game hasn't shipped and you know it doesn't look like that. I fail to see how it is dishonest.
They withheld the highest settings on purpose while in reality they don't really do that much.
The fidelity of the PC version has been anyone's guess up to just maybe a few days ago, even CDPR wanted people to believe that it would be amazing compared to the footage that was out.
Itยs not even on the highest settings, weยre saving this for when you buy the game ย we want you to get a bit of a slap across the face, thatยs when you see the highest.
It's not like they are convincing you that the game looks like that. I fail to see how it is dishonest.
Actually this is the biggest flaw in your argument. They have been telling people the game looks BETTER not worse than the previous footage. So yes, they have been trying to convince their target audience that the game looks like that, worse...better than that.
They have been actively talking about how much better the game looks and when questions have been raised they began blaming youtube compression of all things. Its the active denial or refusal to step away from the "it looks better" hole they dug thats rubbing some people the wrong way.
Too many red flags with this one, from the review codes to the rampant censorship on their forums over the subject... Just too much is resulting in bad optics on their part.
Who thinks the quality of a cinematic demonstrates the quality of gameplay? The first cinematic from the witcher was indicative of the quality of a cinematic in the witcher because it was a cinematic in the witcher.
I dont think it would be a good idea to make a movie and call it gameplay, did they do that?
Yeah I'm also holding off on tw3 partly because I'm not in the mood, partly because their going open world is enough for me to hold off until it's been released for awhile. Not a fan of open world for a number of reasons, so I'd like to see how it plays out first. Plus I've still got Pillars to finish...
The reviews I've read says it plays more like a classic linear RPG than a big shallow sandbox like Skyrim. You theoretically can run off in any direction, but in practice the plot and the difficult curve keep you on a fairly straight path.
Who thinks the quality of a cinematic demonstrates the quality of gameplay? The first cinematic from the witcher was indicative of the quality of a cinematic in the witcher because it was a cinematic in the witcher.
Obviously it doesn't say anything about quality of gameplay, but it does give a better feel for the tone and story than any given two minutes of in-game footage would.
Everyone's got a post-doc in real time rendering. Compensating graphical complexity for accessibility is something every dev hates, but it has to be done if you want people to enjoy your game. The super hardcore gamers can create all the "controversy" they want, but it's part of the release process.
regardless of all the bitchery going around about the graphics downgrade, it's still a DAMN fine looking game.
the only thing that confuses the fuck out of me is how turning down all my graphics significantly does NOTHING to the framerate. Everything medium/high with all post effects? 20-24fps.
the only thing that confuses the fuck out of me is how turning down all my graphics significantly does NOTHING to the framerate. Everything medium/high with all post effects? 20-24fps.
everything low, no post effects? 20-24 fps.
wat..
How can that be? Hope someone here can fix this for you.
Thank you everyone for the kind comments on the trailer!
Also, I personally think that this was a pretty good representation of both the game and the world it takes place in, probably the best mix of these elements we've ever done.It made me want to read up on the background lore and appreciate CDPR's efforts a lot more.
There's an unusually high amount of content in this single piece and it's all so effortless, thanks to the quality of the script that we were given. It was also a lot of fun to work on - just consider the ramifications of naked female vampire monsters We've never had such... interesting meetings ever before :P
How can that be? Hope someone here can fix this for you.
restarted it, everything is now on low except textures on medium, vignetting on, and bloom on. I can get 28-32. To be fair, I'm on a 660 which is literally their minimum spec. I just thought it was very interesting how playing with most things all the way up didn't really affect my fps that much. It still looks great on low though, and I'll probably upgrade my card around xmas. I'm just glad to have a steady framerate, and more importantly, more responsive menus/controls.
bah pays for special edition. second disc is scratched to hell. downloading from gog now but probably another 12 hours before play boo! hiss! so pumped for the game though.
restarted it, everything is now on low except textures on medium, vignetting on, and bloom on. I can get 28-32. To be fair, I'm on a 660 which is literally their minimum spec. I just thought it was very interesting how playing with most things all the way up didn't really affect my fps that much. It still looks great on low though, and I'll probably upgrade my card around xmas. I'm just glad to have a steady framerate, and more importantly, more responsive menus/controls.
If you haven't already you should update your NVidia drivers, they pushed out a driver today that fixed most of the problems I was having with the games visuals.
I'm on a 760 and running on mostly high/ultra at 30+ fps. The biggest performance sink for me is NVidia's hair effects which runs like complete garbage, I had to disable it completely.
Yea I have a 770 and turning off Hairworks by far boosted my fps more than anything else. I'm not rocking probably in the 40-60 range most of the time which is fine by me. Everything else is maxed out at 1080P
I hate those games that give me this "must play now!" vs "let's wait till I can afford a new video card for the highest settings!" dilemma
PS. if someone experiences crashes at launch, that GoG galaxy program just downloaded 2.6 MB of something and then it worked, over the regular GoG installer + 1.01 patch.
Congrats on the peeps at CDR. They did an amazing job. Played for a couple of hrs this morning, and its breathtaking how detailed everything is. Woods are not sparse, they are super dense. Loving it. Also the combat is infinitely much better than previous games. So thank goodness for that.
The wind and the trees, and how everything reacts to the weather. Just awesome stuff. Epic sunsets, and clouds. Its like a good mix of skyrim and red dead redemption.
Yeah, I got the game as well from there, only problem was that the shortcut for the game opens GoG Galaxy instead of the game, but quickly fixed that by making a new one directly to the exe.
It's running pretty smooth on my rig, but I do have some issues with flickering flowers and such, and had a blackscreen crash, however I have downloaded the new nVidia drivers and going to install it and see if that solves it.
My biggest problem at the moment is that I keep getting off my horse every 5 seconds, because "I just need to pick the herb".
Apart from that, has been great, haven't gotten so far yet, but it looks good and works well. If anything, I have a problem with the default 'walk/run', it's too fast when I just want to walk around, it feels a bit jerky. Prefer to be able to run when I press a key.
My biggest problem at the moment is that I keep getting off my horse every 5 seconds, because "I just need to pick the herb".
Apart from that, has been great, haven't gotten so far yet, but it looks good and works well. If anything, I have a problem with the default 'walk/run', it's too fast when I just want to walk around, it feels a bit jerky. Prefer to be able to run when I press a key.
Wound up hiding my minimap last night because I was looking at it more than the game. It takes some getting used to but it actually makes the game feel more natural for exploration.
Replies
Has anyone been following the "graphical downgrade" controversy? Sounds like its shaping up to be another Watch Dogs. Each iteration of the "gameplay footage" from 2013-2015 appears to show a drastic loss in quality, in part to make room for console viability.
http://www.gamepur.com/news/18811-new-witcher-3-near-finish-build-vs-2013-build-comparison-screenshots-shows.html
Hopefully this is reversible (to whatever extent is possible) with the post launch PC version.
Yea looks a lot alike, still a good looking game, but the first videos were far too impressive to be final i guess.
It'll never look like the reveal gameplay trailer, It won't even look like it did back in 2014.
The consoles have turned out to be the lead platform and as such the pc version looks pretty much the same even on max settings.
CDPR have been very cryptic about the whole thing, denying it at every chance and talking about mysterious super settings for the pc version. Many people up to this point are still writing off any comparison shots or videos as not being the final version, and that the launch version will be fantastic.
So while the game still looks pretty good it has been downgraded and CDPR have decided to not come clean about it.
If there's an XB1 version, there's your answer.
Anybody who has worked with that thing knows the kind of bottleneck it is compared to gaming PCs...
...from ten years ago.
If they had to make it run on that, they probably didn't bother keeping the PC-only art content in a separate branch, which would have meant QAing and bugfixing two versions of the game that effectively only shared a name and a plot.
Woah..
So you would rather them not show they game at all than them show you what graphical fidelity they hope to achieve at final ship.
These arguments have all been stupid. They have shown plenty of demos that show the final ship quality if you don't like it don't buy the game. It was a game in development the majority of the time the game is going to look worse at ship because you have to balance for overall performance. This is what happens in game development you make a visual target, then you balance for performance, then you balance for performance across all of the consoles. The game would most likely look the same if it was PC only.
*Also the game looks amazing. Can't wait to pick it up.
so that I won't be annoyed with too many bugs.
If it's over a year out from ship and they have several updates showing the final ship quality yes. It's not like they are convincing you that the game looks like that. The game hasn't shipped and you know it doesn't look like that. I fail to see how it is dishonest.
You guys probably know this stuff but sometimes developers do a 'vertical slice' of the project and really push the quality sometimes with not much optimisation, this is done for many reasons. One reason may be to impress the publisher or shareholders, another may be to just internally figure out workflows and project management schedules and set a quality bar for 3d artists etc, another may be to impress gamers who will purchase the game. If the publisher or shareholders aren't impressed then it could get pushed back or canned etc etc. Doubt thats the case here but just some things to consider. I dont think most companies would normally show a vertical slice to the public, doesnt seem a great idea to me.
They withheld the highest settings on purpose while in reality they don't really do that much.
The fidelity of the PC version has been anyone's guess up to just maybe a few days ago, even CDPR wanted people to believe that it would be amazing compared to the footage that was out.
http://wccftech.com/cd-projekt-the-witcher-3-ultra-will-be-a-slap-in-the-face-new-gdc-gameplay/
Actually this is the biggest flaw in your argument. They have been telling people the game looks BETTER not worse than the previous footage. So yes, they have been trying to convince their target audience that the game looks like that, worse...better than that.
They have been actively talking about how much better the game looks and when questions have been raised they began blaming youtube compression of all things. Its the active denial or refusal to step away from the "it looks better" hole they dug thats rubbing some people the wrong way.
Too many red flags with this one, from the review codes to the rampant censorship on their forums over the subject... Just too much is resulting in bad optics on their part.
It was amazing on every level a cinematic could be. Stunning art, animation, combat, sound and self contained narrative.
Been a long time since a cinematic has floored me like this one. Cant wait for the game as well
I dont think it would be a good idea to make a movie and call it gameplay, did they do that?
"slow mo speed up slow mo speed up slow mo, flashy fx, slow mo.... speed up SLOOOW MO... slow. mmmmoooooo"
something like that...
The reviews I've read says it plays more like a classic linear RPG than a big shallow sandbox like Skyrim. You theoretically can run off in any direction, but in practice the plot and the difficult curve keep you on a fairly straight path.
Obviously it doesn't say anything about quality of gameplay, but it does give a better feel for the tone and story than any given two minutes of in-game footage would.
edit: removed 2nd paragraph, happy monday!
the only thing that confuses the fuck out of me is how turning down all my graphics significantly does NOTHING to the framerate. Everything medium/high with all post effects? 20-24fps.
everything low, no post effects? 20-24 fps.
wat..
Also, I personally think that this was a pretty good representation of both the game and the world it takes place in, probably the best mix of these elements we've ever done.It made me want to read up on the background lore and appreciate CDPR's efforts a lot more.
There's an unusually high amount of content in this single piece and it's all so effortless, thanks to the quality of the script that we were given. It was also a lot of fun to work on - just consider the ramifications of naked female vampire monsters We've never had such... interesting meetings ever before :P
restarted it, everything is now on low except textures on medium, vignetting on, and bloom on. I can get 28-32. To be fair, I'm on a 660 which is literally their minimum spec. I just thought it was very interesting how playing with most things all the way up didn't really affect my fps that much. It still looks great on low though, and I'll probably upgrade my card around xmas. I'm just glad to have a steady framerate, and more importantly, more responsive menus/controls.
I'm on a 760 and running on mostly high/ultra at 30+ fps. The biggest performance sink for me is NVidia's hair effects which runs like complete garbage, I had to disable it completely.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/292030/discussions/0/617335934149733152/
PS. if someone experiences crashes at launch, that GoG galaxy program just downloaded 2.6 MB of something and then it worked, over the regular GoG installer + 1.01 patch.
The wind and the trees, and how everything reacts to the weather. Just awesome stuff. Epic sunsets, and clouds. Its like a good mix of skyrim and red dead redemption.
Looking forward to playing some more of this.
It's running pretty smooth on my rig, but I do have some issues with flickering flowers and such, and had a blackscreen crash, however I have downloaded the new nVidia drivers and going to install it and see if that solves it.
except if i turn on hairworks then everything became a bit slow hahaha, oh well i guess untill next 2-4 years until we can get proper hair in 60 fps
gameplay wise, finally no more confusing sidequest vs main quest tracking like in witcher 2 ... , now everything feels much easier to track.
Apart from that, has been great, haven't gotten so far yet, but it looks good and works well. If anything, I have a problem with the default 'walk/run', it's too fast when I just want to walk around, it feels a bit jerky. Prefer to be able to run when I press a key.
There are way to many herbs
Must. Pick. Up. Absolutely. Everything.