Support NeoGAF

[General Lee]

I'm really surprised at the amount of backlash CDP has received from this. I've seen these trailers back when they were released, and honestly at no point did I think the final game would actually look like the obvious bullshot trailers. I do agree calling stuff like this "gameplay" is misleading, but it's fairly easy to tell when the gameplay isn't actual gameplay but in-engine cg that's actually gone through supersampling with all the fixings. 1080p console games have quite obvious faults with aliasing, pop-in and shadow quality that if you don't notice it in a gameplay trailer it's most likely not pure gameplay, but in-engine cg. Devs should be more careful not to seem like they're doing a bait-and-switch. And if they do have to downgrade for performance reasons, they should just admit it and not try to beat around the bush.

 

[Sanctuary]

I was simply providing a counter to the hypothesis that the majority of people that pre-ordered did so because of the footage itself not the quality of the game, I think outside of places like this you would be hard pressed to find people that even know.

But you're right, this is a thread about about graphics, not a thread about reason, my mistake.

You should probably follow the quotes back to the original post, because you're just looking foolish now. My post was entirely based off of reason. I never offered a counter as to why so many had preordered, because one wasn't needed. The only thing I did was guess at why he said what he said (since many people obviously ordered based off of their like of the previous two games).

 

[RudoIudo]

I'm really surprised at the amount of backlash CDP has received from this. I've seen these trailers back when they were released, and honestly at no point did I think the final game would actually look like the obvious bullshot trailers. I do agree calling stuff like this "gameplay" is misleading, but it's fairly easy to tell when the gameplay isn't actual gameplay but in-engine cg that's actually gone through supersampling with all the fixings. 1080p console games have quite obvious faults with aliasing, pop-in and shadow quality that if you don't notice it in a gameplay trailer it's most likely not pure gameplay, but in-engine cg. Devs should be more careful not to seem like they're doing a bait-and-switch. And if they do have to downgrade for performance reasons, they should just admit it and not try to beat around the bush.

It's 2015 , we don't believe trailers anymore.
But when a (well respected) developer says "You can reproduce X trailer quality in the final game" is a very different thing.

 

[Blade30]

I'm really surprised at the amount of backlash CDP has received from this. I've seen these trailers back when they were released, and honestly at no point did I think the final game would actually look like the obvious bullshot trailers. I do agree calling stuff like this "gameplay" is misleading, but it's fairly easy to tell when the gameplay isn't actual gameplay but in-engine cg that's actually gone through supersampling with all the fixings. 1080p console games have quite obvious faults with aliasing, pop-in and shadow quality that if you don't notice it in a gameplay trailer it's most likely not pure gameplay, but in-engine cg. Devs should be more careful not to seem like they're doing a bait-and-switch. And if they do have to downgrade for performance reasons, they should just admit it and not try to beat around the bush.

Yeah. As much as I like CD Projekt (Red), they shouldn't have played innocent and ignoring the downgrade shitsorm and saying stuff like "There is no downgrade". They should have just said that the 2013 trailer was a target render, but couldn't achieve it without taking dragging the development too long, so it got downgraded but it still looks good.

 

[Dictator93]

Yeah. For shame, CDPR.

Did they remove physx objects or something?

 

[Chaos17]

I don't think they were being dishonest at all.

The dishonesty comes in when they started denying that there were downgrades. I highly doubt they made that 2013 footage just for shits and giggles - that was clearly their target. For whatever reason, they were unable to hit that target. They should have been upfront about this rather than attempting to hide it. I feel the reactions would have been much less negative.

Do you think it has to do when one of their pillar/founder/creator left ?
I think he left like 5 or 4 months before the release.

 

[senahorse]

You should probably follow the quotes back to the original post, because you're just looking foolish now. My post was entirely based off of reason. I never offered a counter as to why so many had preordered, because one wasn't needed. The only thing I did was guess at why he said what he said (since many people obviously ordered based off of their like of the previous two games).

I said my mistake, what more do you want from me?

edit: oh I think I see, you think the 'reason' part is about you not providing reason, no, it was simply in reference to the point of this thread entirely, it's simply about the 'downgrade' (urgh I hate that term) to graphics, not anything else, hence my "my mistake" comment

 

[Dreathlock]

Didn´t Sega get sued for their massive Aliens:Colonial Marines bullshots?
Seriously, after the seeing "real" PC footage i think this is just as bad as the Aliens thing.

 

[KyleCross]

This whole thing just frustrates me. Not that the game doesn't have the visuals it was originally shown to have, but that so many will shit on a good game and developer because of it. Everyone goes "Graphics don't matter, gameplay does." all the time, but apparently not.

What do you expect developers to do? Visuals getting bumped down is a normal thing with game optimization. They can either:

A) Not show the game until the optimization is done, but in which point people will end up not seeing footage until right before the game releases. No one would be pleased with that, nor is it smart marketing.

B) Just make the game ugly so the developer has breathing room, which is marketing suicide.

I'm not talking about GAF members, because honestly I haven't read much discussion here. But I'm talking about the whole situation from reactions all over, and not just about the Witcher 3. I just needed to vent a bit, pardon my dust.

 

[Dreathlock]

This whole thing just frustrates me. Not that the game doesn't have the visuals it was originally shown to have, but that so many will shit on a good game and developer because of it. Everyone goes "Graphics don't matter, gameplay does." all the time, but apparently not.

What do you expect developers to do? Visuals getting bumped down is a normal thing with game optimization. They can either:

A) Not show the game until the optimization is done, but in which point people will end up not seeing footage until right before the game releases. No one would be pleased with that, nor is it smart marketing.

B) Just make the game ugly so the developer has breathing room, which is marketing suicide.

I'm not talking about GAF members, because honestly I haven't read much discussion here. But I'm talking about the whole situation from reactions all over, and not just about the Witcher 3. I just needed to vent a bit, pardon my dust.

I think many, including me, feel tricked. CDPR said countless times that there is NO downgrade at all throwing more bullshots at us. And now look at the results hours before the release. This is a great game for sure, but for me the lies ruined a great release experience.

 

[artsi]

This whole thing just frustrates me. Not that the game doesn't have the visuals it was originally shown to have, but that so many will shit on a good game and developer because of it. Everyone goes "Graphics don't matter, gameplay does." all the time, but apparently not.

What do you expect developers to do? Visuals getting bumped down is a normal thing with game optimization. They can either:

A) Not show the game until the optimization is done, but in which point people will end up not seeing footage until right before the game releases. No one would be pleased with that, nor is it smart marketing.

B) Just make the game ugly so the developer has breathing room, which is marketing suicide.

I'm not talking about GAF members, because honestly I haven't read much discussion here. But I'm talking about the whole situation from reactions all over, and not just about the Witcher 3. I just needed to vent a bit, pardon my dust.

C) Show whatever footage you have, label it properly as pre-rendered / gameplay and if your finished product doesn't look like the footage you labeled as "gameplay" then tell it honestly, instead of spitting this PR bullshit.

I'm not mad about the downgrade, that shit happens, but how the company is dancing around this issue.

 

[The Llama]

I was simply providing a counter to the hypothesis that the majority of people that pre-ordered did so because of the footage itself not the quality of the game, I think outside of places like this you would be hard pressed to find people that even know.

But how could you possibly know much about the quality of the game before it's released/reviewed/streamed/etc.?

 

[KyleCross]

Oh, CDPR is flat out saying that the game looks as good as it ever did?

Hm...

 

[Locuza]

Thank God, they fixed the color palette a bit:
(The old save-files still work, so it's the same time of the day and everything else)

Preview-Version:

Review-Version with Day-1-Patch:

Source PC Games Hardware technic check with benchmarks live-ticker:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-PC-237266/Specials/Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1159196/

 

[Alienous]

This whole thing just frustrates me. Not that the game doesn't have the visuals it was originally shown to have, but that so many will shit on a good game and developer because of it. Everyone goes "Graphics don't matter, gameplay does." all the time, but apparently not.

What do you expect developers to do? Visuals getting bumped down is a normal thing with game optimization. They can either:

A) Not show the game until the optimization is done, but in which point people will end up not seeing footage until right before the game releases. No one would be pleased with that, nor is it smart marketing.

B) Just make the game ugly so the developer has breathing room, which is marketing suicide.

I'm not talking about GAF members, because honestly I haven't read much discussion here. But I'm talking about the whole situation from reactions all over, and not just about the Witcher 3. I just needed to vent a bit, pardon my dust.

When did you start to believe this? That isn't an objective fact, and actually that's the reason why instances of downgrades are highlighted (it isn't a common thing).

This isn't any more nuanced than developers being honest about how their game looks, and maintaining honesty if it doesn't look the way it had been shown previously. It's extremely comfortable to produce what amounts to a in-engine CG trailer and feed on the hype that it generates all while affirming that 'This is what the game will look like'. It's uncomfortable to admit that the game doesn't, or can't, look like what was shown previously, and that's what CDPR isn't doing.

Instead of being honest they are dolling out PR double speak, like 'Well, you can't say it was downgraded because the 2013 version of The Witcher 3 wasn't a fully playable game'. It is, quite simply, bullshit that CDPR deserves to be called on, regardless of how good a game The Witcher 3 is currently. That does not absolve a company that knowingly misled people.

 

[AmyS]

Instead of being honest they are dolling out PR double speak, like 'Well, you can't say it was downgraded because the 2013 version of The Witcher 3 wasn't a fully playable game'. It is, quite simply, bullshit that CDPR deserves to be called on, regardless of how good a game The Witcher 3 is currently. That does not absolve a company that knowingly misled.

Bravo.

 

[Tankshell]

Thank God, they fixed the color palette a bit:
(The old save-files still work, so it's the same time of the day and everything else)

Preview-Version:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2015/05/The_Witcher_3_Preview_20150518115710-pcgh.png

Review-Version with Day-1-Patch:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2015/05/The_Witcher_3_Review_20150518115713-pcgh.png

Source PC Games Hardware technic check with benchmarks live-ticker:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-PC-237266/Specials/Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1159196/

That actually looks considerably better (I really did not like the yellow taint on everything before). Maybe I wont need to use my own SweefFX colour correction after all...

 

[kinggroin]

More disturbing than the CDPR dishonesty up till release, are the apologies from fans.

Personally, I thought the initial trailer was in-game realtime for the PC, showing off whatever areas were finished up until that point. Not once did I think BS, considering what the previous game looked like years ago on the PC platform.

The only downgrade I expected, was on the console side, as their exists an actual ceiling to potential.


It is what it is. Glad I got this title for free.

 

[thelastword]

Wow, so many people hyped up the Ultra settings of W3 as a differentiator against consoles. I just watched the candyland footage of PC Ultra vs PS4, it looks eerily similar, textures are the same, foliage looks about par, I even prefer the shadows on the PS4 version. Of course sun shafts, bloom, AF etc are all better on PC. AA is pretty good on consoles too.

 

[FreezerGeezer]

Wow, so many people hyped up the Ultra settings of W3 as a differentiator against consoles. I just watched the candyland footage of PC Ultra vs PS4, it looks eerily similar, textures are the same, foliage looks about par, I even prefer the shadows on the PS4 version. Of course sun shafts, bloom, AF etc are all better on PC. AA is pretty good on consoles too.

I think this was when people did not have a reason to believe the graphics would be downgraded significantly from early gameplay footage.

 

[MayMay]

Didn´t Sega get sued for their massive Aliens:Colonial Marines bullshots?
Seriously, after the seeing "real" PC footage i think this is just as bad as the Aliens thing.

Yeah, you cannot be serious - right?

 

[tuxfool]

Did they remove physx objects or something?

They reduced physx objects, especially indoors because it was messing up with ai pathfinding.

 

[ISee]

Now your'e being silly. You cannot POSSIBLY think the background "detail" in the low detail shot is superior in any way

Hmm? I never claimed it was superior. I said that I would expect a much higher difference between low and ultra settings. They seem to be way closer to each other, in the regard of maximum visibility, then they should.

 

[artsi]

More disturbing than the CDPR dishonesty up till release, are the apologies from fans.

It's truly a strange world with consumers defending these publicly traded corporations that in the end are looking out only for their own financial gain.

 

[Dictator93]

Wow, so many people hyped up the Ultra settings of W3 as a differentiator against consoles. I just watched the candyland footage of PC Ultra vs PS4, it looks eerily similar, textures are the same, foliage looks about par, I even prefer the shadows on the PS4 version. Of course sun shafts, bloom, AF etc are all better on PC. AA is pretty good on consoles too.

What about the "shadows" do you like more?

 

[UrbanRats]

The game clearly never looked like that. In engine CG stuff.

But I take it you are running two titan x's based on what you're saying... Because if not there is no way you would have been playing a game that looks like that even if they gave you the option to.

Moot point, since you can release a game now and future proof it, like Crysis 1 did.
If i can't play it like that now, doesn't mean i won't be able to in 2 or 3 years (or less).

Then again, Crysis 1 also didn't really look like some of the promotional material, un-modded.

 

[skonvolt]

Well, here is what i think,

Ultra settings more or less are the same

old high settings are now the old medium

old medium settings are now set as the old low

the old low settings are now "NINTENDO 64"

this is the easiest way to explain what i think without entering in tech deatails.

This also explain the "big jump" on Ultra settings as well as the "little problem" that if you expect to play ultra on a 770 2 GB as in the sys req you must forget it.

The 770 will probably be able to run Medium settings with something on high.

In the Nvidia post for settings they didn't even mention the 770, start with a 960 and the 960 is a GPU just for casual gamers that want to play games "more or less".

Imagine this on CDPR SITE:

Dear customers we were a little bit to optimistic and now we realise that the mentioned GTX 770 is the Minimum Requirements.

now imagine the reactions.............

 

[Easy_D]

It's truly a strange world with consumers defending these publicly traded corporations that in the end are looking out only for their own financial gain.

I'm personally looking out for myself and I don't perceive Witcher 3 to be worth less than what they're asking for it . It looks like a ton of fun really. But yeah, I hope CDProjekt takes the criticism to heart, they have done so in the past.

 

[tuxfool]

Thank God, they fixed the color palette a bit:
(The old save-files still work, so it's the same time of the day and everything else)

Are they saying the screenshot was taken at the same point in time?

The reason ask is because of the clouds. If they are in different positions how is the picture taken at the same time. Also given that weather also affects lighting can it be concluded that the change in tone is due to changes in the review version?

 

[Cave Johnson]

I'm a game designer (other development studio). I know how this happens. And believe me, everyone on the dev team wants the game to look super pretty. But guess what: development happen during development.

Doesn't exactly gives an excuse for bad unrealistic PR. "Development happens" should be, like Peter Molyneux's ideas, should be behind the scenes until a more accurate representation can be viewed to the public.

Usually the game gets build super pretty for a vertical slice. Framerates aren't important because the code isn't optimised yet. There will be tons of improvements so hopefully we'll keep these shiny graphics. Than 1 year before release there is a meeting: "So the game has this audio system now. It allows for actual sounds in the game, it's pretty important but heavy on the system. So we'll have to cut some of the graphics.". Particles are heavy, cut those. Draw distance, texture quality, shaders, they all need to be turned down.

The devs make these changed not because they suck, or they're evil. They make these changed to make the best product possible for everyone. Vertical slices are almost always prettier than the final product. It's a tool to convince you, the consumer, the publisher and to inspire the development team.

This is the main cause of this debacle. Trying to set-up an unrealistic marketing stunt does not exempt you or anyone to be under scrutiny - especially if you fail to deliver those expectations.

Changes are a thing; that is well documented, but trying to wipe away the initial reveal's impressions because developers are incapable of fulfilling it is an example of being deceitful. Period. There are no good intentions trying to sell off snake-oil trailers because that would mean the LACK of confidence on the final product. Sometimes I wonder if these kinds of developers are only in to gain player sales rather than establish a player base.

 

[PetriP-TNT]

They really should have addressed downgrading in a PR post. Something like

We are sorry that you are disappointed that your expectations didn't match the end product. In the future try to downgrade your expectations to reasonable levels while keeping in mind the realities of multiplatform releases

and so on would have gone a long way.

 

[Alienous]

Moot point, since you can release a game now and future proof it, like Crysis 1 did.
If i can't play it like that now, doesn't mean i won't be able to in 2 or 3 years (or less).

Then again, Crysis 1 also didn't really look like some of the promotional material, un-modded.

Exactly. Crysis 1 released without giving a fuck if people could run it on its highest settings. It was basically 'They'll be able to someday'.

Someone did mention earlier in this thread that maybe certain effects were removed because CDPR and Nvidia wouldn't want people with the powerful hardware the game's bundled with not being able to shift all the sliders to the maximum settings. I think there might be a modicum of truth to that.

 

[Angel_DvA]

Ubisoft was destroyed last year and they seem to have learned their lesson ( AC Syndicate isn't bullcrap so far ) I really enjoy CDPR as a developer and I really appreciate how they threat their fans and gamer in general BUT they don't need to lie to make us pay for their games, They don't need to make bullshit trailer and calling out people when we tell them they're bullshitting us.

I understand how the reveal was important to them and I'm sure big numbers came with what people expected to see, " wait for the Ultra version to get blown away" need to be a meme, a lying one, they knew the game wasn't like their first trailers but they tell us to wait, I wish huge website like Kotaku, IGN, Gamesport etc ... reports it.

The video game industry needs to stop doing this now, there was a time when they use PC gameplay as console version but it was ok because the game could look like what they shown, now they're using some kind of CGI to hype their games but it will never look like this, Stop your crap now.

 

[skonvolt]

I'm personally looking out for myself and I don't perceive Witcher 3 to be worth less than what they're asking for it . It looks like a ton of fun really. But yeah, I hope CDProjekt takes the criticism to heart, they have done so in the past.

i agree totally, and i'll be in radio silence for 1 week during first run and i'm sure my girlfriend, and many of my friends too.

 

[Vash63]

Exactly. Crysis 1 released without giving a fuck if people could run it on its highest settings. It was basically 'They'll be able to someday'.

Someone did mention earlier in this thread that maybe certain effects were removed because CDPR and Nvidia wouldn't want people with the powerful hardware the game's bundled with not being able to shift all the sliders to the maximum settings. I think there might be a modicum of truth to that.

Funny thing about using Crysis as an argument is that it was widely panned as not optimized and people hated how top end cards wouldn't run Ultra smoothly even though it was clearly meant for the future and a generational leap over the competition.

 

[Locuza]

Are they saying the screenshot was taken at the same point in time?

The reason ask is because of the clouds. If they are in different positions how is the picture taken at the same time. Also given that weather also affects lighting can it be concluded that the change in tone is due to changes in the review version?

Yes:

Beim direkten Vergleich mit dem selben Savegame und zur gleichen Tageszeit und Wettersituation fällt außerdem das offensichtlich unterschiedliche Color Grading auf. Das Bild der Review-Fassung wirkt weniger bunt.

translate:

A direct comparison with the same savegame and at the same time of day and weather conditions also obviously showing a different color grading. The image of the Review version seems less colorful.

 

[artsi]

I'm personally looking out for myself and I don't perceive Witcher 3 to be worth less than what they're asking for it . It looks like a ton of fun really. But yeah, I hope CDProjekt takes the criticism to heart, they have done so in the past.

Sure, I also bought the game for the full price and I'm sure it's worth it.
If a product is good, why not buy it, it's for our own enjoyment. That's the way it should be.

I just wonder why some people go all the way fighting these wars on behalf of companies that never cared for them, except for their money.

 

[AXE]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDilcyyyKJM

This pretty much sums it.

Brilliant.

Oh CDPR, how have you fallen. You talk the talk but certainly don't walk the walk.

 

[Easy_D]

Funny thing about using Crysis as an argument is that it was widely panned as not optimized and people hated how top end cards wouldn't run Ultra smoothly even though it was clearly meant for the future and a generational leap over the competition.

Which was dumb, I mean the Enthusiast setting was there for the (then) current top of the line machines. Hence enthusiast. Maximum was just whole other ballgame

 

[Killer]

Feel bad for anyone who bought new GPU for this game. I like CD Project but this is basically bait and switch. Witcher 2 was amazing at the time.

 

[alexandros]

What do you expect developers to do? Visuals getting bumped down is a normal thing with game optimization.

On fixed hardware platforms, yes. On an open and ever-evolving game platform like the PC there is zero reason to remove effects and features. Back in the day Doom 3 had an ultra quality level that was too heavy for all but the graphics cards with the most available VRAM. The menu displayed a warning that if you didn't own such a card you shouldn't use that quality setting. What's wrong with a solution like that?

 

[Chariot]

Feel bad for anyone who bought new GPU for this game. I like CD Project but this is basically bait and switch. Witcher 2 was amazing at the time.

It's not like the GPU is lost in limbo because of CDPR

 

[BigTnaples]

Thank God, they fixed the color palette a bit:
(The old save-files still work, so it's the same time of the day and everything else)

Preview-Version:

Review-Version with Day-1-Patch:

Source PC Games Hardware technic check with benchmarks live-ticker:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-PC-237266/Specials/Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1159196/

Interesting! Can't say I minded the old color pallet tooo much. But this definitely looks closer to earlier iterations.

 

[PetriP-TNT]

Feel bad for anyone who bought new GPU for this game. I like CD Project but this is basically bait and switch. Witcher 2 was amazing at the time.

Yeah, it's sad really. Now they have a GPU that can play the game in the first place instead of not having a GPU to play the game at all.

 

[Fasty]

If that looks better to you than the motherfuckin' Witcher 3, I don't know what to tell you....

Even on PC it doesn't compare whatsoever.

I didn't say Skyrim looks better. I said the Witcher 3 doesn't look that much better than a late-gen ps3/360 game (which I then ammended to a decent pc port of a ps3/360 game). Do I really have to google image search a screenshot of Assassin's Creed or something to prove it to you? Fine.

Actual 360 screenshot of Black Flag.

PC port of last-gen game (Farcry 3)

Are you saying they look worse (resolution notwithstanding) than:

?

Your example isn't exactly good either. Skyrim looks horrible, even next to a downgraded Witcher 3.

Agreed, Skyrim is pretty ugly, but still better than the examples that were thrown up. Here, have a screenshot of RIsen 3 for X360 (ignoring resolution)

You can't be serious. Those are Dragon Age: Inquisition and Shadow of Mordor.

And at what resolution was RDR rendered internally on PS3? It wasn't 1080p.

Cool, a game that I never had any interest in because of how bland it looked to me and a notoriously bad last-gen port. Awesome choices. And my original statement specifically said "apart from resolution", so those Red Dead screenshots are valid (thanks to whoever posted those btw).

 

[Sanctuary]

Thank God, they fixed the color palette a bit:
(The old save-files still work, so it's the same time of the day and everything else)

Preview-Version:

Review-Version with Day-1-Patch:

Source PC Games Hardware technic check with benchmarks live-ticker:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-PC-237266/Specials/Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1159196/

Please let this be true. While it's not exactly where I would want it, it looks a hell of a lot better.

 

[eero94]

 

[BigTnaples]

I didn't say Skyrim looks better. I said the Witcher 3 doesn't look that much better than a late-gen ps3/360 game (which I then ammended to a decent pc port of a ps3/360 game). Do I really have to google image search a screenshot of Assassin's Creed or something to prove it to you? Fine.

Cool, a game that I never had any interest in because of how bland it looked to me and a notoriously bad last-gen port. Awesome choices. And my original statement specifically said "apart from resolution", so those Red Dead screenshots are valid (thanks to whoever posted those btw).

Holy shit. The Downgrade argument as been downgraded to hyperbolic shit like this?


Was the game downgraded? Yes, in some ways, no in others.


Does it look like a last gen port? Not even fucking close. The game is a generational leap over The Witcher 2.Lighting, Lip Syncing, Character Models, Animations, Draw Distance, Phyics, Water, Particle Effects, Shadows, Textures, Shaders/PBR, etc etc etc.

Even on XBO and PS4 Wild Hunt absolutely destroys Skyrim PC unmodded.

It's not even fair.

 

[Ostinatto]

http://i.imgur.com/kONibAa.jpg

Wheres is the 980?

 

[Sanctuary]

Any idea if HairWorks is included in this?