....we're a year and a half into the consoles and they are still getting trounced by older PC's, my 670 is running locked 30fps on high. Witcher might be struggling to hit 60fps locked on a 970 in places, but that is still a world away from struggling to hit 30 at a mix of Medium & High. Atleast you're dropping into the 50's or high 40's at worst, which is still double that of the consoles at higher settings.
Its not that 1080p 30fps isn't good enough, hell its what I play this game at on my PC because my 670 is getting on 3yrs old now so the latest games are going to start taxing it, but the consoles aren't hitting locked frames at settings lower than PC's that cost a lot less than $1k. The notion that you need to spend that much to perform as well as or above the current consoles is hypebole, you can do the same as for less than $600 and unlike the consoles, its a PC so it will also do everything else (media, general purpose use) so much better.
coupled with remakes that are basically just what people were playing years ago at the same level on their PC and a software line up that is looking pretty barren, I don't see myself actually buying a Playstation or Xbox this time round despite the past two gens buying all the consoles as well as having my PC.
I'm not sure if you read the post I was referring to, but he suggested that he felt a game like Witcher 3 would be running 1080p 60fps on consoles (when they were announced), when cards released after the consoles (even a year + after in some cases) don't run W3 at 1080p 60fps.
I just found the statement to be a bit presumptuous gauging those circumstances, coupled with the fact that the PS4 is only $400 with a controller and a slim design to save power and cost. This is when I alluded to $1000.00, not for PC but for the consoles, if the consoles had to run most wide-open RPG's at 60fps with all the bells, then it would cost at least $1000.00, but how many would be willing to purchase them? (I'm sure we would be back to the famous "work two jobs meme, maybe 4 in this case" and we would just be relegated to the scoffs and scorn that the internet is so apt for. There would be no benefit to the manufacturer, they would just crash and burn in attempting something like this.
This is just a case of boo if you do, boo if you don't. There's no win either way for certain people, they already have an answer/reaction ready for each scenario.
Apart from incredible low LODs, distance shadows, distance detail, low textures, terrible AF, and ... everything, the third screenshot has a flying soldier. That's a win.
I don't think the LOD is low as you say in these shots, how do you determine that, neither are the textures or AF. How do you know the lod is low when it's just a court yard or market in some town? Everything has already loaded in these shots and you can still decipher detail in the distance. I happen to believe this distance shadow thing is overblown only because it's visible in PC vs Console shots. What does it matter that shadows are drawn so far away anyway, when you get to these far locations I'm sure shadows will appear on consoles just fine.
I'm not defending this port at all, it needs work on consoles, that's for sure, just not seeing anything you're saying about the shots in question.
Uploading a video showing this.
DF being DF I guess. Maybe its the unpatched version? Who knows what they are up to.
here's the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNJhkQQukoE
less pop-in than the xbone version. The overhead bridge is always there.
Good video CG, I didn't notice the issues present in DF's videos, but if it's some random occurrence for them, perhaps their might be a random occurrence for you in another scene. Some people said the loading/lod got a tad worse after patch 1.03, so it's still a messy situation, which I believe the dev have to look into and fix. Their loading/lod method is very much bonkers as it is.
In my opinion, a reasonable explanation is this: The Witcher 3 is a massive open-world graphically impressive game that has to run at 1080p or 900p and 30 fps on consoles that in current PC terms can only be described as low-end hardware. CD Projekt Red is a developer that really pushed the envelope with the Witcher 2's graphics on PC and they did so again with the Witcher 3 on all platforms. I have no doubt that some of the game's issues can be ironed out through patching but the core of the issue is that the developers were a bit too ambitious on console, overestimated what the hardware could do and settled on graphics settings that are simply too much for the hardware to handle. They are not lazy, nor were they payed off by anyone. They simply wanted to offer the best looking game around and they went overboard.
First off, this is not a reasonable explanantion, this is not the best the hardware could do based on all the discrepancies I listed from the NXgamer video summary. They bit more than they could chew based on the number of platforms they developed this game for, not because the game can't perform better on the individual platforms. Nothing could be clearer to substantiate that claim, seeing that cutscenes run better on the XB1 over the PS4. I won't even go into the rest, it's already there and listed.
the sooner people come to terms that cdpr aren't the tech wizards some people hype them up to be, the clearer the picture becomes.
I'm inclined to agree. Alot of these hyped PC devs always struggle on consoles. The only thing they know is to just throw more processing power at any task and you better pray you have a top of the line GPU which may even struggle then. Optimization, good efficient code and adapting to the console dev environment is a tough transition for them.
I'm looking at so many PC devs who come to consoles. Crytek has not done one native game on consoles, the framerate on all of their releases have been sub-par just as their resolution. I couldn't stomach the blurry mess that was Crysis 2 on PS3, though I platinumned Crysis 1, the framerate in that last boss battle was 5-10fps, that's what it felt like to me.
Now Witcher 3, anybody who's saying that this is the best W3 can run on PS4 is bonkers, some of the the settings are low and worse than low for no reason, loadtimes for textures and after-death reloads are atrocious, framerate and framerate limiters are mind boggling. Any one who says this game is the best that can be done on the PS4 in an open world game has an angle, moreso when you look at all the evidence presented which says something entirely different. This game is clealrly not finished, not polished on the PS4. This game should have been done on PC first and ported to PS4 after, so that CDPR could learn the console API and dev environment.
There's always one that goes against the rule; like some shining light in the midst of many messes, that vote would go to 4A games, primarily a PC dev, developer of Metro Redux, props to these guys.
A smaller team than so many of these other devs failing so hard. Had so many issues just getting PS4 dev kits into their country, generally bad working conditions and the list goes on. The whole struggle is detailed on the internet, even echoed by Jason Rubin, but somehow people believe we should reward a dev with praise and our money for subpar work and glaring technical issues in our games or even "disagree quieter" or whatever that mess was. If you deliver a good job like 4A did, nobody can point a finger at you. I doubt you can go into any technical thread and hear anyone having trouble parting with their cash for Metro Redux, many people even supported just because of the great work they did. They developed a 1080p 60fps experience on console and nobody spoke of weak consoles or the like, the developer did his job for the platform/s assigned and that is what people expect.
