Support NeoGAF

[ISee]

... when a game is shown off more than 12 months before release - it's impossible for anything we all get to see to NOT be a target....

Then maybe publishers/developers should start calling it 'targets' instead of showing us 'real ingame footage/screenshots' of early in development builds. People expect a game to look better over the years, because of optimization. I think if CDPR would have shown those early screenshots as target screenshots then nearly everybody would be happy right now, because the game is pretty close to them and it looks good. But instead they implied that the game was better then it was. People are just sick about being lied to all the time.

would you rather the game got delayed 2 more years and cost another 30 million to develop just to make it slightly prettier OR does it make more sense to just get it out and move on

I'd rather have a delayed game. Honestly I had enough of pushed out games with bad optimization, bugs or missing (cut out) stuff. Not saying that W3 isn't working or in a bad shape, just in general I do not mind delays. And I think your two years are very exaggerated.

Even Watch Dogs had to do it , clearly ubisoft couldn't get the game to work as well as they wanted with the original special effects and they were required to run the game on an xbox 360 just as well as on a high end PC so a compromise was made.

Of course Watch Dogs had to do it because Ubisoft never even tried to say/show the truth. They even cut out some options in the settings to make the console versions look better in comparison to the PC. That is just stupid and a huge mistake because people were able to find and reimplement those setting very 'easy'.

In the Witcher 3's case I think we should just be thankful it wasn't also cross gen. As it stands I feel like it looks on par with something like GTA5 (in it's PC/PS4/XB1 incarnation) and that's still better than most games.

Yes thank god, that a game doesn't look like shit because the developers want to sell it... Halleluja because they want to make money!

 

[Kaze2212]

Okay but look at what I mean. The top screenshot is from the same demo the screenshot icecold posted. Bottom screenshot is what it looks like now.

As you can see it has been downgraded massively since the demo the top screenshot was taken.

I'm still trying to find the comparison I'm looking for lol.

There is no tesselation in there, just different texture work and some sort of better AO.

Also the draw distance and level of detail are things the PC version can easily be surperior in. The grass does look worse - if any of the additional PC options will have an impact on that I don't know.

But those things that are being pointed out are often just differences between consoles and PC.

Edit:

Also the PS4 version has an additional tree... so upgrade?

 

[Daverid]

As you can see it has been downgraded massively since the demo the top screenshot was taken.

And as you can clearly see, the bottom picture is the PS4 version.

Let's wait for a 1:1 PC Version comparison before saying that the game has been downgraded "ALOT" since the 35 minute demo. I think it's probably going to match up pretty closely, with perhaps a downgrade to the AO/Shadowing on the vegetation and draw distance.

 

[dex3108]

Promises made in trailers? Because I guess that's a different discussion. What statements and promises are being referred to (if this is gonna repeat a whole discussion just send me on my way).

Their community devs and PR claimed that there is no downgrade and that game still looks like VGX trailer and from what we see that is not possible.

 

[cripterion]

Hardly. Had you followed other witcher threads you would know that isn't the case.

I'm in this thread, because I'm honestly interested to have an actual comparison. The whining, anger and other BS are just bonuses.

Yes there's whining, there's downplaying, there's a little bit of everything in this thread. It wouldn't be so long if the actual culprit just came out and set the record straight instead of taking the fans for a ride.

I said it before, but had CDPR never shown the VGX/SOD trailer and replaced it with the launch CGI trailer, and finally ramped up the coverage of the game with the way it looks now, they would still have secured their preorders and not sparked this whole situation.
No one would be comparing versions (except Consoles vs PC, but that's pretty much a given) or calling out the devs for their PR bullshit.

 

[Kaze2212]

Their community devs and PR claimed that there is no downgrade and that game still looks like VGX trailer and from what we see that is not possible.

Also the VGX trailer said "in-game footage". And yes, CDPR said there hasn't been a downgrade and that the scenes form the Sword of Destiny trailer can be recreated in the PC version with all its graphical fidelity.

 

[Etnos]

I keep coming into this thread for some reason. Every time it amazes me how worked up people can get over a games graphics, especially when the game isn't out, the reviews are almost entirely positive and the scope and quality seems far beyond any other open world to date.

We are all about ethics man, we can't allow unethical developers to get their way (of developing awesome games regardless of visual fidelity)

its about principles and stuff

 

[Virdix]

And as you can clearly see, the bottom picture is the PS4 version.

Let's wait for a 1:1 PC Version comparison before saying that the game has been downgraded "ALOT" since the 35 minute demo. I think it's probably going to match up pretty closely, with perhaps a downgrade to the AO/Shadowing on the vegetation and draw distance.

Thank you.

 

[Last Hearth]

You can and you can't. Trailers are always advertisements. You can't not make them advertising, and it's no different in gaming, but games basically advertise concept footage that far out.

Nobody really asks what any of that should mean to the people buying the game. What should they do with it? Know it's showing a bunch of things that will change and thus shrug their shoulders? Because who cares if they see a minute or two of something they'll never get to play essentially? That's not worth being excited over. What features do those trailers sell? Ooooooooooh, a big open world. Ooooooooooh, Geralt's back. That's about it - they didn't sell combat, they didn't sell dialogue, their story details were scant etc. They didn't sell the meat and potatoes of the game. Trailers usually don't...... So we're left with visuals.

I'm sick of making these arguments though. Nobody has been able to argue whether marketing uses these tools responsibly (hint hint: they don't) or that any of this smoke and mirrors, regardless of its core intention, will disappear. You can even throw away a lot of the early stuff and go by the 35 minute demo and still come out with a downgrade. At least that was marked.

Trailers for E3 2 years before a game releases is not advertising, it's marketing, yes, but it's not advertising. Has there been a downgrade, of course, I'm not arguing that, I think it's inevitable that the aspirations of developers tend to exceed the hardware capabilities of most consumers. But it's not false advertising.

 

[Kamina]

Okay but look at what I mean. The top screenshot is from the same demo the screenshot icecold posted. Bottom screenshot is what it looks like now.

As you can see it has been downgraded massively since the demo the top screenshot was taken.

I'm still trying to find the comparison I'm looking for lol.

I only see a 160x180 thumbnail when i click, can you link the original picture please?

 

[chromatic9]

56 pages in, I'm still not seeing how it makes sense to direct all of this rage towards CDPR.

They showed off footage of a version of the game that was developed back before they knew that the PS4 and XBone would be drastically underpowered. Before they knew that the latest line of Nvidia cards would be a weak, incremental improvement over what was available at the time.

This isn't CDProjeckt failing us, it's hardware companies failing them, and everyone else as a result. They show us their vision, a vision that will surely be attainable on high-powered next gen tech, only for the makers of that tech to crap out weak products and leave CDPR high and dry. Now they look like the idiots because, like From Software before them, they expected things like DX11 to be standard on all consoles. Things like fur physics and detailed tessellation to be no problem for low-mid end 2015 video cards.

If you told them in 2013 that, two whole years later, a video card with 3.5gb of VRAM was the standard and that it would be outperforming next gen consoles, they'd probably have thought you were crazy.

It's Nvidia and AMD's fault that the PC and consoles are drastically underpowered. Again, a 3.5gb card is the standard in 2015 and far weaker AMD cards are in the consoles. Both companies can and should be putting out 8gb Vram cards as standard by now.

We'll all be having this exact same conversation in a month in the "Batman: Arkham Knight Downgrade Thread." At some point, the hardware manufacturers are the common link in all of this garbage.

Well more vram won't improve performance. Making the original Titan 12GB will still mean it performs like a GTX 970.

It is true the move to 28nm didn't yield much performance by AMD in 2012. The 7970 wasn't a great leap over the 580, Nvidia just had to put out GK104 but 7970/7950 cards launch in Jan 2012. 7850 and 7870 come out in March 2012.

We heard about the specs of 7790 and 7850 for console not long after and people at CDPR should know that Sony and Microsoft aren't' going to make 300W consoles at huge cost and even then that would only give you a 7950/7970. Consoles will go for a ~100w GPU and 20-50w CPU. So I don't think it's an excuse for CDPR.

Even the best ~100W GPU today, the GTX 960 can only match the 7970 which isn't that great in terms of performance. A nice effort on 28nm from Nvidia all the same

What's holding NVidia and AMD back is being stuck on 28nm and that's nothing to do with them and more about other companies, cost and physics. 2016 should see the GPU get back on track.

Market forces and cost research are the big problems.

 

[flipswitch]

@Kamina,

Click the image it should expand.

 

[EatChildren]

There are scenes where the foliage looks denser, but I'm torn on the quality. I like the old foliage more, but it strikes me less of a technical downgrade and more of an aesthetic change. Like, it's not simply "lower resolution grass". The asset itself looks completely different in colour and tone.

Same can be said for most textures, almost all of which I'm yet to be convinced have been downgraded technically. Resolution looks the same, but changes have been made to the lighting, shading, and tones.

 

[RedSwirl]

Dark Souls 2 was probably the worst downgrade.

The DS2 vertical slice had a massive amount of art assets, environmental detail, and an entire dynamic lighting system that didn't make it into the final game. Not to mention that lighting affected a torch system that ended up being useless in the final game. By comparison, The Witcher 3 in 2015 seems to have maintained virtually all the environmental detail and textures it had in 2013, with the grass being the only big exception. Dark Souls 2 has environments that were completely redesigned to look significantly less detailed.

Look at this shit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykbT03r_9Zo

 

[Lancelot]

Looks like two different games.

 

[cripterion]

Trailers for E3 2 years before a game releases is not advertising, it's marketing, yes, but it's not advertising. Has there been a downgrade, of course, I'm not arguing that, I think it's inevitable that the aspirations of developers tend to exceed the hardware capabilities of most consumers. But it's not false advertising.

It sure is if a representant from the company claims you can reproduce the same graphical fidelity in the final game and find out on launch day that you can't.

I have yet to see this for NPC's with fur coats:

But we can all hope for a hefty day one patch...

 

[Renekton]

Okay but look at what I mean. The top screenshot is from the same demo the screenshot icecold posted. Bottom screenshot is what it looks like now.

http://s10.postimg.org/yx3ztrumh/k_P3_Kat_E.jpg

As you can see it has been downgraded massively since the demo the top screenshot was taken.

I'm still trying to find the comparison I'm looking for lol.

I might be missing some conversation, but shouldn't you only compare PC with E3 build?

Consoles have no business doing that kind of detail anyways, no sane person expects them to.

 

[dlauv]

The pc sharpening filter mutes color and slenderizes. Maybe there's a tad bit of hope for The foliage, outside of mods.

 

[Derp]

There is no tesselation in there, just different texture work and some sort of better AO.

Also the draw distance and level of detail are things the PC version can easily be surperior in. The grass does look worse - if any of the additional PC options will have an impact on that I don't know.

But those things that are being pointed out are often just differences between consoles and PC.

Edit:

Also the PS4 version has an additional tree... so upgrade?

I didn't label the comparison. I'm just posting it to show that there is a huge difference.

And as you can clearly see, the bottom picture is the PS4 version.

Let's wait for a 1:1 PC Version comparison before saying that the game has been downgraded "ALOT" since the 35 minute demo. I think it's probably going to match up pretty closely, with perhaps a downgrade to the AO/Shadowing on the vegetation and draw distance.

We HAD a PC - PS4 comparison, until CDPR ate it to protect their precious sales. We HAVE PC footage on YouTube that shows that there's hardly a difference between the PS4 and PC versions. But yes, let's "wait and see". I'm sure a day 1 patch will come with a magical setting that fixes everything. Seriously I've never seen people more optimistic than you guys regardless of what's put in front of you. Wish I was like that because then I wouldn't be worrying... Until it comes out of course. But then you wouldn't really care anymore would you, because you'd be busy playing the game itself, which happens to be extremely good. CDPR knows what they're doing.

Anyways, here's the comparison i was looking for. Watch Dogs / DS2 downgrade was worse my ass.

 

[BigTnaples]

There are scenes where the foliage looks denser, but I'm torn on the quality. I like the old foliage more, but it strikes me less of a technical downgrade and more of an aesthetic change. Like, it's not simply "lower resolution grass". The asset itself looks completely different in colour and tone.

Same can be said for most textures, almost all of which I'm yet to be convinced have been downgraded technically. Resolution looks the same, but changes have been made to the lighting, shading, and tones.

I'm right with you.

As I have said before, while the VGX/Nvidia trailers and clips looked amazing, there doesn't seem to be a large downgrade technically aside from a few key things.

LoD/Draw Distance
Foliage Density in certain areas
Fluid Simulation
and Possibly Areal Perspective fog and Forward lit particles.


Most every other technical bullet point is still in the game, not to mention the addition of PBR, Dynamic Weather, etc. And most of the assets are actually improved (the only notable exception for me asset wise is the fire, and that could be more to do with camera distance than anything)

The tone and colors have changed a bunch, and the game definitely has a majorly different atmosphere and color scheme.

I think if the devs release an early game-play video of an in development Wild Hunt, running around say Novigrad, people would see it as more of a side-grade than a downgrade. They would notice some things look better, but many things looked worse, etc.

Who knows, maybe they will release a photomode complete with a post process preset list that you can play the game through like the Order did, for people who want to play less vibrant color schemes.

I think Far Cry 1 on PC was the first game to do this.

 

[skonvolt]

Okay but look at what I mean. The top screenshot is from the same demo the screenshot icecold posted. Bottom screenshot is what it looks like now.

As you can see it has been downgraded massively since the demo the top screenshot was taken.

I'm still trying to find the comparison I'm looking for lol.

NOT AGAIN PLEASE

confronting pc and ps4 is like confronting a home made T BONE with a MCDONALDS Hamburger

 

[cripterion]

I'm right with you.

As I have said before, while the VGX/Nvidia trailers and clips looked amazing, there doesn't seem to be a large downgrade technically aside from a few key things.

LoD/Draw Distance
Foliage Density in certain areas
Fluid Simulation
and Possibly Areal Perspective fog and Forward lit particles.


Most every other technical bullet point is still in the game, not to mention the addition of PBR, Dynamic Weather, etc. And most of the assets are actually improved (the only notable exception for me asset wise is the fire, and that could be more to do with camera distance than anything)

The tone and colors have changed a bunch, and the game definitely has a majorly different atmosphere and color scheme.

I think if the devs release an early game-play video of an in development Wild Hunt, running around say Novigrad, people would see it as more of a side-grade than a downgrade. They would notice some things look better, but many things looked worse, etc.

Who knows, maybe they will release a photomode complete with a post process preset list that you can play the game through like the Order did, for people who want to play less vibrant color schemes.

I think Far Cry 1 on PC was the first game to do this.

I also agree with you. It's a shame their PR just didn't set the record straight instead of trying to makes us believe the game can look like this

when we see this that is supposed to be ultra
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-PC-237266/News/Maximale-Grafik-1158918/galerie/2373225/

In it's current state and watching the flickr album linked some pages ago it looks damn fine, had they approached us with this, very few would be complaining about the graphical quality of the game.
Oh and just put a sock in Marcin Momot's mouth

 

[Yasae]

Trailers for E3 2 years before a game releases is not advertising, it's marketing, yes, but it's not advertising. Has there been a downgrade, of course, I'm not arguing that, I think it's inevitable that the aspirations of developers tend to exceed the hardware capabilities of most consumers. But it's not false advertising.

It's not advertising? Okay then. I won't argue that with you, but I definitely won't maintain you're correct.

It's this lack of nuance that any materials can be used any way whenever that's killed a lot of developers' image in my view.

I said it before, but had CDPR never shown the VGX/SOD trailer and replaced it with the launch CGI trailer, and finally ramped up the coverage of the game with the way it looks now, they would still have secured their preorders and not sparked this whole situation.
No one would be comparing versions (except Consoles vs PC, but that's pretty much a given) or calling out the devs for their PR bullshit.

Now there's an idea. But sales?

 

[cripterion]

Now there's an idea. But sales?

I can't speak for everyone but I'm pretty sure people would have bought the game even if it looked like Witcher 2 in an open world setting.
Is there no hype and sales for games that are revealed with CGI trailers? CDPR's own Cyberpunk carries a lot of hype and people have yet to see a single aspect of the game lol.

EDIT : Not sure what's going on, Neogaf seems to be awfully slow and buggy for me today.

 

[orochi91]

lol k.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SpPqXdzl7g

It's heartwarming that people in the Youtube comment section are actually noting and calling out the blatant downgrades en masse.

Oh well, hopefully CDPR doesn't compromise the PC version Cyberpunk 2077.

TW3 still looks pretty decent overall.

 

[fierrotlepou]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/127773964@N03/17750624051/in/album-72157652536729480/

Screenshots in ultra 1440p.

It looks great and definitely better than the console versions. It's undeniable that there has been a downgrade, but people are making it sound much worse than it is.

These screenshots are compressed and I think once in motion, the game's going to silence a lot of people.

 

[skonvolt]

I can't speak for everyone but I'm pretty sure people would have bought the game even if it looked like Witcher 2 in an open world setting.
Is there no hype and sales for games that are revealed with CGI trailers? CDPR's own Cyberpunk carries a lot of hype and people have yet to see a single aspect of the game lol.

You can bet on it, people bought Inquisition....

 

[Derp]

I might be missing some conversation, but shouldn't you only compare PC with E3 build?

Consoles have no business doing that kind of detail anyways, no sane person expects them to.

NOT AGAIN PLEASE

confronting pc and ps4 is like confronting a home made T BONE with a MCDONALDS Hamburger

Holy crap at the responses I'm getting. Did everyone just randomly decide that we should ignore the PS4-PC comparison (that showed barely any difference) and the fact that there is PC footage and PS4 footage on youtube that shows barely any difference?

Are you guys honestly telling me that the 35 minute demo can still be replicated on a PC? Okay then. When the game comes out we'll see who's right. Just remember this.

After the whole PCGH debacle, people have already concluded that there really is no difference between the 2. "PC version is a console port" is the new narrative doing the rounds. So we are going to have to deal with this until there is any proof to the contrary. No point calling people out until there is either new comparable media or the game launches and we see for ourselves.

 

[Yasae]

I can't speak for everyone but I'm pretty sure people would have bought the game even if it looked like Witcher 2 in an open world setting.
Is there no hype and sales for games that are revealed with CGI trailers? CDPR's own Cyberpunk carries a lot of hype and people have yet to see a single aspect of the game lol.

True. I think the argument could be made that what CDPR has done would result in better sales (the image of the game is more "tangible") but sure.

 

[viveks86]

NOT AGAIN PLEASE

confronting pc and ps4 is like confronting a home made T BONE with a MCDONALDS Hamburger

After the whole PCGH debacle, people have already concluded that there really is no difference between the 2. "PC version is a console port" is the new narrative doing the rounds. So we are going to have to deal with this until there is any proof to the contrary. No point calling people out until there is either new comparable media or the game launches and we see for ourselves.

 

[Kamina]

Holy crap at the responses I'm getting. Did everyone just randomly decide that we should ignore the PS4-PC comparison (that showed barely any difference) and the fact that there is PC footage and PS4 footage on youtube that shows barely any difference?

Are you guys honestly telling me that the 35 minute demo can still be replicated on a PC? Okay then. When the game comes out we'll see who's right. Just remember this.

The 35m demo is gome for good I'm afraid. But I really think that we have to wait for maxed PC videos/pics to accurately compare.

 

[Kaze2212]

Holy crap at the responses I'm getting. Did everyone just randomly decide that we should ignore the PS4-PC comparison (that showed barely any difference) and the fact that there is PC footage and PS4 footage on youtube that shows barely any difference?

Are you guys honestly telling me that the 35 minute demo can still be replicated on a PC? Okay then. When the game comes out we'll see who's right. Just remember this.

I don't care who's right or wrong. It is fine to have suspicuous and concerns before the official release. Sure it is very unlikely there will be some major difference, but like I said a couple of time: we don't know.

This has nothing to do with clinging to the last straw of hope, I just want to wait for a fair comparison before jumping to conclusions. Do I have my doubts? Well, duh who seriously doesn't in here, becasue everythign we have seen so far probably shows how the game will look.

 

[skonvolt]

Holy crap at the responses I'm getting. Did everyone just randomly decide that we should ignore the PS4-PC comparison (that showed barely any difference) and the fact that there is PC footage and PS4 footage on youtube that shows barely any difference?

Are you guys honestly telling me that the 35 minute demo can still be replicated on a PC? Okay then. When the game comes out we'll see who's right. Just remember this.

I tell you this:

There is probably a graphic downgrade, but still we are speculating on how big it is, and yet i can't accept a comparison PC to PS4 or even PC to PC if we are not sure about the config of the machine that MUST be the same

 

[ufo8mycat]

I keep coming into this thread for some reason. Every time it amazes me how worked up people can get over a games graphicse

I totally agree with this. I reckon people need to calm down. They would enjoy gaming more if they didn't worry so much about graphics. But hey everyone is different.

This game is going to be so much fun regardless.

 

[chromatic9]

lol k.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SpPqXdzl7g

Some are saying it wasn't for the public but haven't we seen the ocean bit in other trailers?

Right now it just looks like they were at one time ready to go with pushing the PC with nice enhancements and do what they could with the console but then became console focused.

 

[Derp]

The 35m demo is gome for good I'm afraid. But I really think that we have to wait for maxed PC videos/pics to accurately compare.

I don't care who's right or wrong. It is fine to have suspicuous and concerns before the official release. Sure it is very unlikely there will be some major difference, but like I said a couple of time: we don't know.

This has nothing to do with clinging to the last straw of hope, I just want to wait for a fair comparison before jumping to conclusions. Do I have my doubts? Well, duh who seriously doesn't in here, becasue everythign we have seen so far probably shows how the game will look.

I tell you this:

There is probably a graphic downgrade, but still we are speculating on how big it is, and yet i can't accept a comparison PC to PS4 or even PC to PC if we are not sure about the config of the machine that MUST be the same

The original point I was trying to make was that it has been significantly downgraded since the 35 minute demo. There are so many comparisons showing that there are drastic changes since that demo, there's no way in hell it still exists. If you guys are honestly saying we should wait for a fair comparison to confirm that, then you've been ignoring everything in this thread.

I do agree, however, that a proper comparison when the game comes out is needed, but NOT because of the 35 minute demo, because we've already established countless times that the 35 minute demo is 35 minutes of bullshit we will never see.

 

[TCRS]

Anyways, here's the comparison i was looking for. Watch Dogs / DS2 downgrade was worse my ass.

'tis just sad :/

 

[alexandros]

Really, they think we are stupids. So 60 fps and resolutions are features because two teams. Holy shit. Who cares about a wall.

Yeah, this is embarassing. CDPR should just come clean and explain the situation. I'm sure most people would appreciate that. This sort of obfuscating and dancing around the issue is going to blow up in their face. I love CDPR and I'd hate to see them become the next Crytek.

 

[viveks86]

The original point I was trying to make was that it has been significantly downgraded since the 35 minute demo. There are so many comparisons showing that there are drastic changes since that demo, there's no way in hell it still exists. If you guys are honestly saying we should wait for a fair comparison to confirm that, then you've been ignoring everything in this thread.

I do agree, however, that a proper comparison when the game comes out is needed, but NOT because of the 35 minute demo, because we've already established countless times that the 35 minute demo is 35 minutes of bullshit we will never see.

I'm going to shortlist a bunch of posts on both sides of the debate that will go up on a wall of shame on Monday/Tuesday depending on what we find out from 1:1 comparisons. You have been selected as the first candidate. Congrats!

 

[skonvolt]

The original point I was trying to make was that it has been significantly downgraded since the 35 minute demo. There are so many comparisons showing that there are drastic changes since that demo, there's no way in hell it still exists. If you guys are honestly saying we should wait for a fair comparison to confirm that, then you've been ignoring everything in this thread.

I do agree, however, that a proper comparison when the game comes out is needed, but NOT because of the 35 minute demo, because we've already established countless times that the 35 minute demo is 35 minutes of bullshit we will never see.

Well if you ask me, i think there was a downgrade, but the problem here is that we have to ask to CD PROJECT the rig of the "GAMEPLAY", in order to show without bullshits who is right.

I don't know how but i think that the only comparison that can solve this, is also the only one that we will never see, this is how a conspiracy theory is born.....

 

[Cerity]

Can we stop with the bad comparison pictures already? The new colour grading makes things look much different (worse) compared to the 2013 colours. Comparing console screens where LoD and object/population density is lower to the PC version is a bad idea. The game uses sharpening to give an illusion of higher detail, they learnt their lesson with TW2 and have it off by default, yet sharpened vs unsharpened comparisons are still popping up.

I'm not doubting the downgrade, it definitely exists but the pictures that get reposted are just making the situation worse.

 

[skonvolt]

Can we stop with the bad comparison pictures already? The new colour grading makes things look much different (worse) compared to the 2013 colours. Comparing console screens where LoD and object/population density is lower to the PC version is a bad idea. The game uses sharpening to give an illusion of higher detail, they learnt their lesson with TW2 and have it off by default, yet sharpened vs unsharpened comparisons are still popping up.

I'm not doubting the downgrade, it definitely exists but the pictures that get reposted are just making the situation worse.

well i could not find better words

 

[viveks86]

The game uses sharpening to give an illusion of higher detail, they learnt their lesson with TW2 and have it off by default, yet sharpened vs unsharpened comparisons are still popping up.

If you go by the ini files, sharpening is actually on by default for high post processing preset alone. But people are either manually switching it off or it's off by default in preview builds. Interesting eh?

 

[ISee]

I'm going to shortlist a bunch of posts on both sides of the debate that will go up on a wall of shame on Monday/Tuesday depending on what we find out from 1:1 comparisons. You have been selected as the first candidate. Congrats!

Oh come on, rethink that please. Pointing fingers at people and shaming someone on a wall or a new thread isn't a good thing. We shouldn't do that on GAF. If someone accepts an avatar bet (or something similar) it is ok, but just pointing at someone is a no go.

That said, this thread is very enjoyable so I understand where you are coming from, but still...

 

[viveks86]

Oh come on, rethink that please. Pointing fingers at people and shaming someone on a wall or a new thread isn't a good thing. We shouldn't do that on GAF. If someone accepts an avatar bet (or something similar) it is ok, but just pointing at someone is a no go.

That said, this thread is very enjoyable so I understand where you are coming from, but still...

I was kidding. I'm just enjoying posts where someone has so firmly planted their stake in the ground that anything even remotely contradictory would make them regret they did

 

[ISee]

I was kidding. I'm just enjoying posts where someone has so firmly planted their stake in the ground that anything even remotely contradictory would make them regret they did

haha... yeah happend to me before too...

 

[Dictator93]

When I am loading up a PC game, I always think about how lucky I am that it runs at the res of my monitor as well as how it syncs to my native refresh rate. These guys just treat me so right and know which buttons to it. Damn, "best port ever" I whisper under my heavy panting as the first level loads.

I slowly but steadily climax as I realize that it was made specially, for me, by an entirely different team.

 

[BigTnaples]

I think if the devs implimented something like this, or if the mod community comes up with something similar, it would do a lot to make people upset with the pallet change/associating it with the downgrade happy.

Far Cry 2004

I think between this above,

Sharpening filter on
.ini tweaks for meshlod and vegetation
proper ToD/Weather/Lighting scenarios
and the fact that HBAO+ seems glitched/inactive is some shots.

you will get something that is very comparable to most of the Sword of Destiny/2013 E3 trailers.

No, it won't bring back fluid simulation or the old color scheme completely, but the gap will be narrowed to the point where it is just another change of a work in progress.

 

[Sid]

There are scenes where the foliage looks denser, but I'm torn on the quality. I like the old foliage more, but it strikes me less of a technical downgrade and more of an aesthetic change. Like, it's not simply "lower resolution grass". The asset itself looks completely different in colour and tone.

Same can be said for most textures, almost all of which I'm yet to be convinced have been downgraded technically. Resolution looks the same, but changes have been made to the lighting, shading, and tones.

Even if it is an aesthetic change why do you think they'd want to change it when everyone liked the old one so much?

 

[skonvolt]

I'm just considering that a thread on the witcher 3 has 115 pages, and not even Kojima leave Konami reached 115 pages, this mean that, no matter what we say or what we think but the hype is there and no one can deny that, if the thread was on an little indie game things were different