RespectThySole
Member
I just don't get it. There was no reason to add a double buffer and mess with the XB1 framerate when it performed completely fine before. Did CDPR just decide to go for parity here?
Are you the first person begging for a PS5 remaster?
He's saying that Rocksteady is a far more competent developer than CDPR. And he's right.
Batman didn't require MONTHS of constant patching to finish the game. The fact that they just released a patch that makes performance WORSE, even after commenting about how it was supposed to address it, is just laughably incompetent.
Everybody seems to be drunk off the free DLC and constant patches without realizing that we should be getting a complete fucking game at release.
Alright, my bad. I just hear that quite a bit.I never said this should always happen. Where did I say that? You're getting defensive for no reason. But the common misconception that the PS4 version is only higher res but worse frame rate than the XB1 version is the norm is bullshit. I've pointed this out countless times, but people seem to ignore this.
Not going to get into one of these semantics arguments about what constitutes a "complete" game but I think anyone who actually played through Witcher 3 rather than fretted over its textures and frame timing would consider it a pretty damn complete experience.
I just don't get it. There was no reason to add a double buffer and mess with the XB1 framerate when it performed completely fine before. Did CDPR just decide to go for parity here?
Not surprised to see console users defending Arkham Knight's incompetency. My money will be going to CDPR, at least they care about PC gamers.not surprised in pc users defending this incompetency of a dev. never touching this game now, my money will be going next to rocksteady, at least they give a fuck about console users.
These guys at CDPR have become the biggest joke so far this gen, they may be laughing to the bank, but I'm sure quite a few persons will remember the effort they made on consoles for release, which they still can't fix months after.
There was a thread where a poster mentioned that a dev who left the project prior to W3 shipping; mentioned that the consoles versions were in a total mess and that PC would be the right way to go, I meant to question him on that statement but never got to it and lost track of the thread in question. Even now, Damien Monnier, recommends playing witcher 3 on a low end PC over the XB1 version because you will get to play at 1080p. Putting 2 and 2 together, not only will you do that, but you will be able to use ultra textures, better water effects, better shadows etc....
It's just a bad effort all round, what's worse is that this game has a marketing deal with the XB1 brand, not surprisingly however; another marketing deal shows up where the PS4 version has all sorts of problems running things better over the XB1 in similar scenes. The norm is that the PS4 will hold a higher framerate at a higher resolution than the XB1 every time, sometimes with some added effects and detail, but not here. Not with these XB1 marketed games apparently.
These guys were propped up so much by a few posters here, (mostly pc guys) but clearly these guys have to go back to the drawing board on console development. When you watch what Rocksteady have done and what CDPR have done on consoles there's no doubt as to which dev is more competent...
Tracing their tracks for W3 development does not gain them any traction or boosts one's confidence in their ability to deliver a quality product. Their history on this project looks like this;
1.Witcher 3 announced to a great looking trailer.
2. Witcher 3 gameplay shown and shows a massive downgrade
3. Witcher 3 is delayed
4.Witcher 3 launches and gets great scores
5. Witcher 3 is a technical mess on consoles, even lower end pc's have better textures and effects
6. Devs promises patches to solve console issues
7. Patches are released solving all issues except the most glaring and obvious.
8. Devs makes promises on patches they don't deliver.
If anything, the fact that the Witcher 3 has better textures and effects on a 750ti shows that the consoles should have much better performance there already, since many of these effects are dialed back on consoles. The PS4 should have similar or better effects over the 750ti and run any game better too (as has been shown in many comparisons). This port job is no better than RE-R2, Xenoverse, Remake and Alien Isolation. Some of the performance and missing graphical features in some of these ports had me scratching my head, but nothing made me smh more than double buffered vsync for cutscenes and gameplay and all these lower than low effects and ultra textures which were all possible on lower end pc hardware for Witcher 3. Hell, at least RE-R2 had 16xAF........
I submitted this over in the Witcher 3 PC Performance Thread, but thought it would help out here too. Here are the numbers I'm getting with 1.07. Here is my exact hardware setup along with drivers / overclocks and such. For the initial benchmarks, I'm not using the new Movement Response. Each area was benchmarked at 7pm game time with clear weather using FRAPS for 120 seconds while running around encircling the area.
Benchmarks
Abandoned Village
Min: 45.0 (1.06) 46.0 (1.07)
Max: 54.0 (1.06) 55.0 (1.07)
Avg: 49.7 (1.06) 50.4 (1.07) +1.4%
Hierarch Square
Min: 48.0 (1.06) 46.0 (1.07)
Max: 60.0 (1.06) 60.0 (1.07)
Avg: 53.0 (1.06) 56.7 (1.07) +6.9%
Byways
Min: 40.0 (1.06) 41.0 (1.07)
Max: 50.0 (1.06) 51.0 (1.07)
Avg: 44.4 (1.06) 45.1 (1.07) +1.5%
Crookback Bog
Min: 37.0 (1.06) 43.0 (1.07)
Max: 52.0 (1.06) 53.0 (1.07)
Avg: 45.9 (1.06) 46.8 (1.07) +1.9%
I would trust the Abandoned Village and Byways numbers the most as there are fewer variables in the area. After messing with the Movement Response, there is a negligible performance difference between the two.
If anything, the fact that the Witcher 3 has better textures and effects on a 750ti shows that the consoles should have much better performance there already
Not surprised to see console users defending Arkham Knight's incompetency. My money will be going to CDPR, at least they care about PC gamers.
I don't think it's necessarily fair to Rocksteady to say that. They had zero part of the PC port and delivered immaculate console versions to both Xbox One and PS4. It runs at a close to perfect framerate and it looks phenomenal. I think it looks significantly better than the Witcher 3 on consoles, and runs better too.Agreed. It's not surprising that PC gamers like CDPR. They've been strong supporters of PC gaming. TW3 also runs very well on PC. I'm sorry to hear that console players are having issues with the game, but I'd hardly call CDPR incompetent. They are trying to make a very demanding game work on constrained hardware. Even on PC you aren't going to be running on Ultra settings unless you have a beast of a machine. It's a demanding game.
Come on, it was one Dev. Its not like they put out a PR statement claiming to have fixed it. People make mistakes, blaming the whole company for it is dumb.
Agreed. It's not surprising that PC gamers like CDPR. They've been strong supporters of PC gaming. TW3 also runs very well on PC. I'm sorry to hear that console players are having issues with the game, but I'd hardly call CDPR incompetent. They are trying to make a very demanding game work on constrained hardware. Even on PC you aren't going to be running on Ultra settings unless you have a beast of a machine. It's a demanding game.
not surprised in pc users defending this incompetency of a dev. never touching this game now, my money will be going next to rocksteady, at least they give a fuck about console users.
Not surprised to see console users defending Arkham Knight's incompetency. My money will be going to CDPR, at least they care about PC gamers.
Nah, it's not dumb at all.
If this patch wasn't going to improve the framerate there was ample time between when those statements were made and this patches release to say something and adjust peoples expectations.
Sorry but as a consumer i do not appreciate being lied to like some folks and refuse to be an apologist.
not surprised in pc users defending this incompetency of a dev. never touching this game now, my money will be going next to rocksteady, at least they give a fuck about console users.
Yes, I'm sure despite this game being likely to be a strong contender for GOTY for consumers and media alike, this studio is the biggest joke of this gen. lol
Nah, it's not dumb at all.
If this patch wasn't going to improve the framerate there was ample time between when those statements were made and this patches release to say something and adjust peoples expectations.
Sorry but as a consumer i do not appreciate being lied to like some folks and refuse to be an apologist.
Guys, they didnt put all the work they did on this patch to pull the carpet out from under you and laugh at how they tricked you.
Im not saying to be an apologist, I am actually staunchly against such enabling practices.
But perhaps we could bring the shortcoming to their attention without being screeching dick headed banshees?
Just straight shooting constructive criticism?
I can agree but, in this case, it seems like they should be able to do better. Game isn't especially CPU heavy and a 750ti runs much faster. It shouldn't really be the case, I feel.It is a guaranteed PR shitstorm. According to my personal observations many people believe that these $399 boxes are magic and that a game's poor performance is always due to "lack of optimization" by "lazy devs".
The Witcher forum community must be going crazy right now. I'm not one to complain about frame rates. The XP bug for example really bothered me tough.
But to apply parity in the way CDPR did is just nasty, i'd like to think that it was an honest mistake. I wonder if/how they will respond.
Last I checked, we were in a tech thread. I mentioned that they got good reviews, but watch the point after, the console versions are a technical mess. Good reviews, technical mess, stuttering janky framerate and camera on release. Even now, the pop-in and load times are a mess. There's just so much wrong with Witcher 3 on a technical level, but people make more noise on the most glaring, which is framerate. The last I checked, a developer not only had to deliver a good game in content and design, but one that plays well too, but what do I know.Yes, I'm sure despite this game being likely to be a strong contender for GOTY for consumers and media alike, this studio is the biggest joke of this gen. lol
Which is why you are so desperately eager to put them down as much as possible, no doubt. Your intentions see-through as ever.
Where have you been? That would not be the norm if the PS4 GPU was only slightly better than the XB1 GPU, maybe a 7780.....but you only need to read a couple of faceoffs to know the truth. If you're going to make such a statement, I'll just have to conclude that you are unaware.That's not the norm. You'd expect the 900p Xbox version to run a little better than the 1080p PS4 version, because of the different CPU clocks and GPU difference being consumed by the resolution increase.
There are some exceptions, like MGS:GZ.
Clarification? Rocksteady is a much better developer than CD PROJECT RED. The proof is in the pudding. High quality assets (textures, effects MB, DOF, Pom), minimal to no pop-in issues. A much more solid framerate with much more going on.You're starting to lose me.....
.... yeah, you lost me.
I bet you that will be fixed before W3 on consoles is fixed. In any case, Rocksteady did not develop Arkham Knight on PC, if they did then you would be singing their praises too. Maybe then, I'd beg to wager that you 'd see a "750ti/i3 runs AK at comparable or better than a PS4" thread or more PC guys shouting out how it looks so much better on their rigs over consoles........In the meantime, wait till it gets patched, but Rocksteady does not deserve to be lumped up in this fiasco. It's only fair to blame those responsible only.....Nah, that title is for Wanner Bros/rocksteady/iron Galaxy for the arkham knight PC port. That shit is 10 times worse than witcher 3 on consoles.
He is only right if you talk solely about technical competence on consoles. On PC CDPR is MUCH more competent than rocksteady.
:lol
Tales from your ass.any case, Rocksteady did not develop Arkham Knight on PC, if they did then you would be singing their praises too.
Didn't Rocksteady develop the PC version of Arkham City? That game is still broke in dx11.
I can agree but, in this case, it seems like they should be able to do better. Game isn't especially CPU heavy and a 750ti runs much faster. It shouldn't really be the case, I feel.