Support NeoGAF

[Black Hat]

I'd love to know this too. I have a hard time believing they consciously made the X1 version worse.

 

[Pjsprojects]

It should be your exclusive everything "console". I have both the XB1 and Ps4 and they feel pretty much obsolete, especially after I got a 980.

Same here sadly. The kids use the X1 a bit but PS4 has sat for months.
Consoles for exclusive games and pc for everything else.The price of console games don't help. My Gog Witcher 3 was £18. Console versions are around £45

 

[FrankT]

Pretty much silliness, but I know one thing after playing for over 300 hours the gfx have improved a good bit with this patch on X1. First thing I noticed when I spawned in Oxenfurt.

I'm sure there is zero mention of that.

 

[Gurish]

You need to read before you respond, I think I've expressed the technical issues with Witcher 3 a million times already. The console versions have abysmal load times, what takes a few seconds on PC takes almost a minute on consoles (after death sequences), pc hard-drives are not from the future. It has inconsistent textures and filtering (bouts of medium textures mixed in with high coupled with low AF at times (4x) makes ground textures look soupy. Shadows and AO are generally at medium quality, but there are times when you will see shadows and AO quality that looks worse than the lower setting. The PS4 version is missing simple shaders on water that the lowest preset on PC has. Pop-in is ridiculous, shameful even, just look at the video in the OP, no need to go further and witness the nasty pop-in and how long it takes for textures to load on buildings as you ride through......

Btw, the 750ti, a lower end card with 2GB of ram handles Ultra textures, why? it's because textures on the Witcher 3 are not amazing, it never goes beyond 1.8GB of Vram. The PS4 has handled much higher quality textures before, it handled mordor's textures on high which uses more vram than Witcher 3's paltry 1.8 GB at max. Ultra textures allows for better caching, it's good for the 750ti, it's double good for the PS4. The problems with their streaming engine on consoles is a joke, bad pop-in, slow loading textures at a mix of mid-high that uses even less vram than ultra, yet the textures still loads like molasses.

The 750ti is such a beast to handle all these things that the more powerful PS4 can't, yet it's languishing in deficit of double digits in other games with certain settings dialed back. I'd wager that the textures would be on low and the load times would still be awful on consoles. Med-high textures, where is the performance gains in texture loads and framerate? also, settings at lower than low, where are the performance gains..... With these type of settings the PS4 should be running this at closer to 60fps. This is a joke of a port, that the PS4 is using lower settings than inferior hardware and it still falls to the teens in cutscenes and running at 20fps in gameplay, it could not be clearer.

There are deep-rooted issues with this game on consoles, streaming engine sucks, load times suck, assets are at abysmal settings and still no performance gains. At this point, I think they would have to redo this game ground up as a remaster concentrating on the consoles, it's clear they can't simply patch this. I imagine the only way to fix this is to patch the whole game.


Like for a split second in the bloater fight? TLOU runs 60fps 99% of the time. The ports I was talking about don't come close to that on PS4, they don't look better than TLOU and they don't have better effects.

Really, is that what you do? and you always play the victim in most threads I've seen of you. I have never said that, as a matter of fact, in this very thread, hell, to the very post which you quoted..(the one just above your post).. .I said this....


You can't make an argument when the port in question is a bad one with better performance and assets (texture loads, load times, water, shadows, AO) on lesser hardware. If the 970GTX was struggling with Witcher, I'd say the PS4 version would be in line for such downgrades, not when lesser hardware has better assets. Just recently the XB1 version run the game at a more consistent clip. This is not the game that you use to make that example.

In any case, every single PS4 game is installed on the HDD, this means that the bluray factor you mentioned is invalidated, but despite that, the PS4 bluray drive is much faster than the PS3 BR drive anyway. Do you believe that the persons who own Witcher 3 digitally have better loadtimes over those who own it on bluray? It doesn't work that way.

The PS4 has more than enough ram to load med-high textures (768MB to 1024GB most probably) and assets into memory for a smooth non-janky looking and performing game. Batman AK is superior in every facet where Witcher 3 fails on the same hardware. Now check batman's textures, load times, pop-in (or lack there of) and effects and that gets you even more perspective on the matter, (that is..) if the better assets on the inferior 750ti or the better performance on the XB1 does not prove it enough already.

I'd also let you know, that 7200rpm drives does not give you a ratio of 50:5 seconds when it comes to loadtimes over a 5400rpm drive, not even super super ssd drives will give you such returns. It should also be known that 5 second load times on PC was the result of a stock drive on the i3/750ti setup or any pc for that matter.

Didn't CDP already said that developing for PS4 was very difficult for them because they are used to work in DirectX environment, and they have also said from the start that they wont take advantage of its hardware and its special features too much, that it will be a pretty straightforward port.

It's not too surprising it tuned out like this and there are no excuses when we have a game like Batman running very well while looking even better.
Hopefully by their next game they will have a better understanding of the PS4 hardware and development.

 

[R3TRODYCE]

Plenty of worse video game characters than him. Commander Shephard for instance

Eh I loved playing as Commander Shephard.

Nope. Not in this plane of reality.

According to.....You?

 

[eFKac]

Didn't CDP already said that developing for PS4 was very difficult for them because they are used to work in DirectX environment, and they have also said from the start that they wont take advantage of its hardware and its special features too much, that it will be a pretty straightforward port.

It's not too surprising it tuned out like this and there are no excuses when we have a game like Batman running very well while looking even better.
Hopefully by their next game they will have a better understanding of the PS4 hardware and development.

Well did they say that?
It would be cool to have a source for that.

 

[thelastword]

Same way I felt. Geralt might be the worst main character I've played as in a long time.

It's the highest rated Witcher game too, I wonder if that is so because of the consoles pushing it and the marketing engine at work. How you feel about the protagonist and the game's content is subjective of course, but I'm not too sure that too many reviewers mentioned all these camera issues, the janky combat and the bugs. Farless, the more technical issues on consoles.

Pretty much silliness, but I know one thing after playing for over 300 hours the gfx have improved a good bit with this patch on X1. First thing I noticed when I spawned in Oxenfurt.

I'm sure there is zero mention of that.

Actually this was my first thought, when I heard about the lowered framerates, I imagined they tried to get some consistency in their graphics. Are you saying that some of the issues I mentioned (non-framerate) were taken care of. Do textures look better or load better overall? Has the water and shadows been improved? What type of improvements are you seeing exactly?

 

[low-G]

Well this became a fanboy shitshow of a thread.

 

[roytheone]

It's the highest rated Witcher game too, I wonder if that is so because of the consoles pushing it and the marketing engine at work. How you feel about the protagonist and the game's content is subjective of course, but I'm not too sure that too many reviewers mentioned all these camera issues, the janky combat and the bugs. Farless, the more technical issues on consoles.

Or many reviewers just liked the game a lot more than you did and thought the problems weren't as big of a deal as you. When a game scores higher than you think it deserves, it isn't automatically some marketing conspiracy to push a bad game, it is just that many people apparently liked the game a lot more than you did, nothing weird about that.

 

[Karl Hawk]

Or many reviewers just liked the game a lot more than you did and thought the problems weren't as big of a deal as you. When a game scores higher than you think it deserves, it isn't automatically some marketing conspiracy to push a bad game, it is just that many people like the game more than you do.

That won't mean a thing to him. As far as he's concerned, Witcher 3 is a shit game that doesn't deserve its praises.

 

[thelastword]

Or many reviewers just liked the game a lot more than you did and thought the problems weren't as big of a deal as you. When a game scores higher than you think it deserves, it isn't automatically some marketing conspiracy to push a bad game, it is just that many people apparently liked the game a lot more than you did, nothing weird about that.

I don't think so at all, I respect people's opinions on games, and whatever they grade them is not such a biggie to me. I just figure that certain things about the game should be highlighted a bit more in reviews, certain things that could impact long-term enjoyment of a 90hr RPG etc....Mostly talking the console release btw...I remember last gen we had the IGN's and all the major outlets touching down on technical aspects of games, even marking them down if they were found wanting....Just a flashback and my trend of thought on the issue...I don't read reviews much anymore myself. I mostly know if I want a game through trailers and gameplay videos and I wait for the faceoff to see the performance and if I should bite all things considered.

That won't mean a thing to him. As far as he's concerned, Witcher 3 is a shit game that doesn't deserve its praises.

Ha ha...this is what you get when you venture from the topic ever so slightly, though, I was still talking about the technical aspects of the game, just that reviewers should mention them in their write-ups...as a heads up.

 

[danwarb]

The 750ti is not directly comparable by numbers on the spec sheet, it's an Nvidia card. Witcher 3 isn't the only game it runs better than PS4/XB. Clocked a lot higher and seems just a bit stronger than the PS4 GPU.

Witcher 3 runs well on the Xbox and almost as well on PS4 at a higher resolution. Load times are fine if you install/attach a quicker HDD.

 

[Sijil]

That won't mean a thing to him. As far as he's concerned, Witcher 3 is a shit game that doesn't deserve its praises.

If Witcher 3 was PS4 exclusive he'd be singing a different tune and throwing out justifications left and right. His agenda on this website, given his comment history, is well known.

 

[thelastword]

The 750ti is not directly comparable by numbers on the spec sheet, it's an Nvidia card. Witcher 3 isn't the only game it runs better than PS4/XB. Clocked a lot higher and seems just a bit stronger than the PS4 GPU.

Framerate performance is not better on the 750ti, the game assets are just better there by default even at some low settings. It's the only game that I've seen such inconsistencies with graphical settings on consoles against an entry level PC. So many settings below low (some at times, some by default). It's all over the place really.

We also don't know what the PS4 version is running at since it's locked, but I have highlighted that the PS4 version in it's locked state tends to have a better framerate over the 750ti combo in many scenes. I did a comparison in one of the witcher threads where the PS4 version will hold 30fps whilst the 750ti which is unlocked falls below 30fps many times. The witcher 3 was done well on PC though, there's no lower than low settings on PC, even for the entry card, so it's definitely a better graphical consistent looking game on the 750ti combo by default.

If the port was good on consoles (PS4), it would match the 750ti's assets or even better whilst also holding a better framerate as well. That is the norm (as per many games), or at least should be. In any case, I think I've said enough, it's EVO time. I guess will just see how this blows up for CDPR.

 

[KodaRuss]

Damn this is frustrating not sure when I will start this game again.

 

[tuxfool]

I'd also let you know, that 7200rpm drives does not give you a ratio of 50:5 seconds when it comes to loadtimes over a 5400rpm drive, not even super super ssd drives will give you such returns. It should also be known that 5 second load times on PC was the result of a stock drive on the i3/750ti setup or any pc for that matter.

Yet SSD drives can have a massive impact on PC and a very negligible impact on consoles. The consoles aren't bottlenecked at disk reads and writes, but elsewhere.

 

[Durante]

Yeah, it's less a texture quality setting and more a texture cache setting.

Ultra is also (or even primarily) a LoD/filtering setting. Which has nothing at all to do with the amount of space needed in memory, which makes most of the discussion about it on the previous page completely miss the point.

But that's hardly something new.

Unless the port is broken or barebones this will always be the case, and it is especially true for open world games where more obvious concessions need to be made in rendering to maintain performance on console versus the theoretically limitless ceiling on PCs. Optimisation, extras, tweakability, etc all vary of course, but generally the thumb rule with multi-platform open world games is that if you've got a decent gaming PC it will always be the noticeably better option.

That's not just true for open world games, but all games. Twice-in-a-decade exceptions notwithstanding.

I never use the phrase "I can't even", but right now, I can't even.

The Witcher's graphics are average? The story is "meh" and "typical fantasy game"?

People get really upset and say stupid things when stuff doesn't work out the way they want.

Yet SSD drives have a massive impact on PC and a very negligible impact on consoles. The consoles aren't bottlenecked at disk reads and writes, but elsewhere.

And furthermore, SSDs can easily cause a factor 10 (or more!) difference compared to mechanical drives, if you're bottlenecked by access times.

 

[takriel]

People gt really upset and say stupid things when stuff doesn't work out the way they want.

So true, and boy am I guilty of this, too.

My GTX 980 ti will arrive shortly. I can't wait to play this game the way it's meant to be played, with a stable 60 fps!

 

[tuxfool]

People gt really upset and say stupid things when stuff doesn't work out the way they want.

That and the fact that they feel more free to voice their (silly) opinions in a more negative thread. They would be laughed out of other threads otherwise.

 

[Max_Po]

So true, and boy am I guilty of this, too.

My GTX 980 ti will arrive shortly. I can't wait to play this game the way it's meant to be played, with a stable 60 fps!

They are shipping harry potter's magic wand with your card ? ..haha

I have r9 290x a bit oc'ed 1350 mem and 1135 core I can get 66+ with visible foliage set to high. 1080p everything ultra but the frame rate sometimes drop to 46..51.. inhectic places.

Still I feel that ps4 and xbx1 should be able to do high at 1080p and 900p stable 30.

 

[thelastword]

Yet SSD drives can have a massive impact on PC and a very negligible impact on consoles. The consoles aren't bottlenecked at disk reads and writes, but elsewhere.

I did mention that the PC have good load times on stock drives, the stock drive on the PS4 should not be in deficit of 45 seconds on account of 1800rpm.

Agreed that consoles are not bottlenecked by the disk reads, they're bottlenecked by sloppy code. Arkham Knight with it's "no load times" says hello.

 

[napata]

They are shipping harry potter's magic wand with your card ? ..haha

I have r9 290x a bit oc'ed 1350 mem and 1135 core I can get 66+ with visible foliage set to high. 1080p everything ultra but the frame rate sometimes drop to 46..51.. inhectic places.

Still I feel that ps4 and xbx1 should be able to do high at 1080p and 900p stable 30.

Why would he need a magic wand? A 980 Ti is like 40-50% stronger than a 290x in the W3.

 

[meanspartan]

I feel it's not better than DA:I in most departments such as combat, storytelling, RPG skill variety, etc.

Great visuals definitely, I bought this to flex the GPU.

I disagree on combat, but fine, that one is where preferences of course can differ.

But storytelling? Come the fuck on. Dragon Age's story is nowhere near Witcher's level. And Witcher's world is so much more interesting than Thedas.

 

[dan2026]

I only have a PS4
Looks like I will never get the game at this rate.

I was waiting to buy it if this patch fixed up the framerate...

 

[Trogdor1123]

I have been waiting for a few patches before I fire up this game. Doesn't seem like it matters. I'll try it soon.

 

[Crossing Eden]

The 750ti is not directly comparable by numbers on the spec sheet, it's an Nvidia card. Witcher 3 isn't the only game it runs better than PS4/XB. Clocked a lot higher and seems just a bit stronger than the PS4 GPU.

Witcher 3 runs well on the Xbox and almost as well on PS4 at a higher resolution. Load times are fine if you install/attach a quicker HDD.

This, it's not and probably will never be a linear thing based on the specs that you can write down.

I did mention that the PC have good load times on stock drives, the stock drive on the PS4 should not be in deficit of 45 seconds on account of 1800rpm.

Agreed that consoles are not bottlenecked by the disk reads, they're bottlenecked by sloppy code. Arkham Knight with it's "no load times" says hello.

First of all, i'm, pretty sure the load times are not 45 seconds long, second of all, the game has no loading screens once you get into the game unless you fast travel, in fact, I JUST started up the game, recorded a video and observed an instance of less than ten seconds of load time with fast travel, and 30 seconds when traveling a longer distance, otherwise, it's all seamless unless ofc the story involves Geralt going a long distance. Third of all, I have arkham knight, there's a load screen as soon as you start up the game that recaps the story, just like the witcher 3. And oh my lord, could you stop with this transparent conspiracy theory nonsense?

It's the highest rated Witcher game too, I wonder if that is so because of the consoles pushing it and the marketing engine at work.

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..

 

[tanooki27]

I only have a PS4
Looks like I will never get the game at this rate.

I was waiting to buy it if this patch fixed up the framerate...

I dunno, sometimes gaf magnifies and distorts certain issues, and that increased attention carries over when you sit down to experience the game.

this feeling is a necessary byproduct of what gaf fundamentally is, and so it's nothing that will go away or even diminish. just something to be mindful of

 

[tuxfool]

I did mention that the PC have good load times on stock drives, the stock drive on the PS4 should not be in deficit of 45 seconds on account of 1800rpm.

Agreed that consoles are not bottlenecked by the disk reads, they're bottlenecked by sloppy code. Arkham Knight with it's "no load times" says hello.

It isn't on account of disk spinning speed (all my disks these days are green 5400 rpm). I suspect you could take that disk put it in a PC and then get better load times across a large variety of games. It would be an interesting test.

yet AK can't stream for shit even on the beefiest SSD on PC. Bloodborne says hello too.

The way the witcher 3 works is obviously not particularly suited to the way consoles handle their data storage, one thing to note is that the witcher on PC can eat a lot of RAM, more than that available on the PS4 for everything.

 

[Megawarrior]

I guess I'll pretend this patch does not exist and stick with 1.05 on ps4.

 

[visiblemode]

Ouch. Patches that negatively impact framerate are so frustrating. Hopefully they'll get it sorted asap.

 

[xam3l]

The frame rate doesn´t bother me as much as the loading textures adn the two times I've had to hard reset my x1 because of some stupid loading. what a fuck CD Projekt, the game was stellar. I hope they really fix this asap.

 

[DrkSage]

Well this thread needs a patch, its running like shit.

So far the only issues I've had are:
Texture streaming in novigrad and a weird thing that crashed my game that happened where the enemies I killed would freeze half way trough there animation of falling to the ground. After a while the game crashed.

 

[boskee]

I only have a PS4
Looks like I will never get the game at this rate.

I was waiting to buy it if this patch fixed up the framerate...

It runs fine on PS4.

 

[dan2026]

It runs fine on PS4.

The whole point of this thread is that it doesn't.
It didn't before and with this patch its even worse.

 

[takriel]

They are shipping harry potter's magic wand with your card ? ..haha

I have r9 290x a bit oc'ed 1350 mem and 1135 core I can get 66+ with visible foliage set to high. 1080p everything ultra but the frame rate sometimes drop to 46..51.. inhectic places.

Still I feel that ps4 and xbx1 should be able to do high at 1080p and 900p stable 30.

Why would he need a magic wand? A 980 Ti is like 40-50% stronger than a 290x in the W3.

To be fair I intend to play at 3440x1440p resolution, so even a GTX 980 Ti won't be able to achieve stable 60 fps with everything maxed out. I should be good with a few graphical tweaks here and there though.

 

[alexandros]

The whole point of this thread is that it doesn't.
It didn't before and with this patch its even worse.

It has never been more clear that the definition of "fine" is a loose one and it differs from person to person. The level of tolerance of framedrops and bad performance in general varies wildly.

 

[heringer]

The music isn't playing for me anymore since the patch. PC version.

 

[dan2026]

It has never been more clear that the definition of "fine" is a loose one and it differs from person to person. The level of tolerance of framedrops and bad performance in general varies wildly.

I dont see drops to 20fps as fine, but anyway read through their patch notes and saw this:

Improves performance in the swamps of the No Man’s Land region.
Fixes an issue whereby the presence of fog could adversely affect game performance.

This sounds like a straight up lie.

 

[DarthWalden]

Played a good hour this morning on xb1 with the latest patch and didn't notice anything different performance wise. It runs just fine IMO.

Maybe I'm just ignorant to this performance hiccups, if that's the case I'm okay with that.

A bit OT but Geralt is a terrible main character with awful writing. I feel like he is intentionally drab though because of his witcher training either way it kind of ruins my enjoyment of the game

 

[Crossing Eden]

I dont see drops to 20fps as fine, but anyway read through their patch notes and saw this:



This sounds like a straight up lie.

20 fps is no where near the norm when it comes to performance.

 

[bede-x]

The music isn't playing for me anymore since the patch. PC version.

It didn't for me either until I went back to the titlescreen and reloaded. Then it worked.

 

[eliochip]

I never had this glitch before the patch but I just completed a quest and got a whopping 1 experience point. Good shit.

This game kinda bored me anyway I have no problem putting it off for a while longer.

 

[Fbh]

I never had this glitch before the patch but I just completed a quest and got a whopping 1 experience point. Good shit.

This game kinda bored me anyway I have no problem putting it off for a while longer.

Were you overleveled?
If you are several levels above the recommended level for the mission it will give you almost no experience

I only have a PS4
Looks like I will never get the game at this rate.

I was waiting to buy it if this patch fixed up the framerate...

It doesn't run THAT badly.
The game does NOT constantly drop to 20fps

This is a map of the Witcher 3 (actually not even the entire thing). The area inside the red rectangle is where the game will often lock to 20 fps.
This is like TLOU Ps4 all over again. Someone saw a video of one specific area where the game drops to like 45fps for a few seconds and they go around saying the entire game has the framerate dropping all over the place and it almost never reaches 60fps.

Yes it sucks, yes that area plays like crap and isn't very enjoyable and they should absolutely fix it. But it's not representative of the ENTIRE game

 

[Summer Haze]

This sounds like a straight up lie.

It's either a lie, or a mistake that they'll rectify soon.

I hope it's the latter, and honestly I can't see CDPR being the sleazy type that would straighy up lie about something like this and also make another version of their game worse on purpose, but the lack of any official comment is worrying.

Then again it's only been around 24 hours since the patch started to drop. *Waits

Spoiler

im

patiently*

 

[Vashetti]

It runs fine on PS4.

Locking to 20fps under any sign of stress is not running 'fine'.

And now XB1 users are subjected to the same 'fine' performance.

 

[DodgerSan]

It runs fine on PS4.

I concur.

 

[misho8723]

A bit OT but Geralt is a terrible main character with awful writing. I feel like he is intentionally drab though because of his witcher training either way it kind of ruins my enjoyment of the game

I have the opposite opinion about him.. he is one of the best written characters in videogame history.. great antihero with feelings and with the kind of sarcastic humor I really like and enjoy

 

[Daingurse]

I have the opposite opinion about him.. he is one of the best written characters in videogame history.. great antihero with feelings and with the kind of sarcastic humor I really like and enjoy

One of my favorite protags from last-gen, I love Geralt.

 

[thelastword]

It isn't on account of disk spinning speed (all my disks these days are green 5400 rpm). I suspect you could take that disk put it in a PC and then get better load times across a large variety of games. It would be an interesting test.

yet AK can't stream for shit even on the beefiest SSD on PC. Bloodborne says hello too.

The way the witcher 3 works is obviously not particularly suited to the way consoles handle their data storage, one thing to note is that the witcher on PC can eat a lot of RAM, more than that available on the PS4 for everything.

Looking at AK (for PC), there's definitely an issue with streaming data from the two memory pools efficiently. The spliced up architecture perhaps serves as a bottleneck for their streaming engine as it were.

On the flipside, we all know how efficient the single pool of ram is on the PS4 relative to bandwidth or data flow on the HPB. AK is not the only game on the system that has demonstrated a good streaming engine though, if you've been following faceoffs and have seen some recent previews, streaming and load times on PS4 should not be as archaically demonstrated as it is on the PS4 for W3, the entire streaming engine is borked for consoles in that game, as it affects everything from asset load times, game refresh to texture streaming. I think CDPR know they messed up too, hence the animosity on forums et al. of not being able to fix the issues after the millionth patch.

I invite you to read this . Can you imagine the state of this project if it was not delayed, ( as bad as it is now, it was much worse then) it definitely suggests that something was awry with the console conversion very close to release, but It's clear that they did not have enough time to properly fix the console releases in time for launch or dedicate proper console algorithms so it would run efficiently there. Clearly it's much harder to go fix it now, so I really don't think we should be making excuses for them or this effort, there are just too many better performing, better looking open world games out there on consoles which excel at everything W3 falters at technically.

On the point of SSD's, I've seen many tests which show that you can get better loadtimes using SSD's for PS3 and PS4 as well (not all games of course). You mentioned bloodborne, but I do remember persons getting reduced loadtimes in BB on account of their SSD's, so I don't think you should call that negligible at all. I remember reading lots of data on that recently, in the bloodborne thread and elsewhere, but I won't delve too much in getting that info for you now since I'm watching a few games (EVO), but the data is there.

The point however is that if your streaming engine is poor it will reflect how your games perform with loadtimes, lod, textures etc....For the next bloodborne the devs really need to rethink/redo how they go about streaming, but by then I'm pretty sure the tech/tools would be commonplace, especially for second party efforts taking a page from Infamous Second Son, the upcoming Uncharted and Horizon Zero Dawn. FROM was never the greatest at tech though, but I give them a pass because they have such a great looking game graphically with a top shelf physics and animation system, great lighting and effects, fur/feathers, POM, high Quality MB and the framerate is a solid 30fps (for the most part). I do hope that AK makes third party devs re-think their strategy on load times and lod on consoles, this has to infiltrate everywhere at this point.

I think CDPR messed up on consoles, I don't think this can be fixed easily now, I'm sure they regret the situation they're in at present, so we can only see what they do to redeem themselves next. To all those saying I hate W3 as a game, I don't, I don't like subpar technical work however because it muddies playablility. There's nothing better than playing a good/great game when you can see through it's visuals and performance that the effort the developer put in is commensurate to the platform you're playing on, you're gleeful in that instance and you keep going, damn "these guys did great work". I believe that's why Arkham is getting so much props, and rightfully so.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I have the opposite opinion about him.. he is one of the best written characters in videogame history.. great antihero with feelings and with the kind of sarcastic humor I really like and enjoy

Too many confuse "I don't like this character" with genuinely terrible writing. Since he's a character who's originally from a well written novel, Geralt is better written than a vast majority of game protagonists. Which is quite the feat since they allow players to make decisions when they could've just made the player follow a completely set in stone story with no branching paths compared to say, Jodie from Beyond Two Souls, who genuinely is a terribly written character, even more so since you can make decisions for her.