I'd love to know this too. I have a hard time believing they consciously made the X1 version worse.
I'd love to know this too. I have a hard time believing they consciously made the X1 version worse.
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.
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.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.
Plenty of worse video game characters than him. Commander Shephard for instance
Nope. Not in this plane of reality.
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.
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.Same way I felt. Geralt might be the worst main character I've played as in a long time.
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?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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Karl Hawk said: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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.Yeah, it's less a texture quality setting and more a texture cache setting.
That's not just true for open world games, but all games. Twice-in-a-decade exceptions notwithstanding.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.
People get really upset and say stupid things when stuff doesn't work out the way they want.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"?
And furthermore, SSDs can easily cause a factor 10 (or more!) difference compared to mechanical drives, if you're bottlenecked by access times.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.
People gt really upset and say stupid things when stuff doesn't work out the way they want.
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!
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.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.
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.
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.
This, it's not and probably will never be a linear thing based on the specs that you can write down.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.
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?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'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..
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
20 fps is no where near the norm when it comes to performance.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.
The music isn't playing for me anymore since the patch. PC version.
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.
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...
This sounds like a straight up lie.
It runs fine on PS4.
It runs fine on PS4.
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
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.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.
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.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