• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Witcher 3 probably not 1080P on consoles

I was complaining about aliasing. That happens even at 1080p =).

I think we should expect more from developers on the next generation of consoles. I don't see what's so wrong with that.
It's still not convincing evidence to saying that a game is ugly. 1080p or not this and bloodborne are definite must buys. Compare this game'a visuals to last gen open world games. It's leagues upon leagues ahead of last gen
 
Kinda disappointing if they can't get 1080p at least on the PS4.
I can deal with 900p but I vastly prefer a native res even if it means toning down some of the eye candy.

I'm the same way but I'll get over it. Besides, they've mentioned in the past that they do want to try to hit 1080p if possible and they still have time. This is one of the games I did not expect to ht 1080 anyway before the E3 comments.
 
Not surprised. Whatever they need to do to get it running smoothly.
This basically. I really don't care what resolution the game runs at, as long as it's a smooth 30fps. I wish I could see some PS4 footage as that's the only console I own.
 
It's still not convincing evidence to saying that a game is ugly. 1080p or not this and bloodborne are definite must buys. Compare this game'a visuals to last gen open world games. It's leagues upon leagues ahead of last gen

I just expected more from a supposedly awesome developer pushing a $60 product on me. I don't see anything wrong with that. I expect much from my PS4. I should, I paid $400 for the thing.
 
I just expected more from a supposedly awesome developer pushing a $60 product on me. I don't see anything wrong with that. I expect much from my PS4. I should, I paid $400 for the thing.

They have always targeted pc first it's not their fault if the consoles don't provide the power necessary for it to be full resolution.
 
They have always targeted pc first it's not their fault if the consoles don't provide the power necessary for it to be full resolution.

well, ps4 has proprietary api, plus it's not nvidia. as we all well know, cdpr likes dx and nvidia.

it is just a matter of how well they'll try to optimise for it. i'm guessing as long as they can keep a stable 30 fps they won't push it any further.
 
I just expected more from a supposedly awesome developer pushing a $60 product on me. I don't see anything wrong with that. I expect much from my PS4. I should, I paid $400 for the thing.
So I'm guessing the extremely huge yet dense open world, the major improvements to animation and character model fidelity, the lack of loading screens, the GI, the day and night cycle, the dynamic water physics, the open sea, and the dynamic weather and tons of other things that add to the visuals just isn't enough for you? Yea we should totes expect more
 
I just expected more from a supposedly awesome developer pushing a $60 product on me. I don't see anything wrong with that. I expect much from my PS4. I should, I paid $400 for the thing.

You shouldn't. It's $400. It's years behind in tech and it's a disposal piece of electronics. Not an investment.
 
I think this resolution stuff has really gone to people's heads.

I'm honestly expecting both XB1 and PS4 to be 900, but it's still gonna look freaking incredible no matter what. CDP is primarily a PC dev anyway so it shouldn't be much of a surprise, but still, the 360 port of Witcher 2 was incredible so I'm not worried at all.
 
I think this resolution stuff has really gone to people's heads.

I'm honestly expecting both XB1 and PS4 to be 900, but it's still gonna look freaking incredible no matter what. CDP is primarily a PC dev anyway so it shouldn't be much of a surprise, but still, the 360 port of Witcher 2 was incredible so I'm not worried at all.

what i don't want is parity, especially from the people who shout from the mountain top how they always try to push hardware to the limits.
 
what i don't want is parity, especially from the people who shout from the mountain top how they always try to push hardware to the limits.

who the fuck is talking about parity? that's not the issue here.. the truth is that current gen consoles aren't powerful enough to run this game with high settings at 1080p.
 
Guys, an open world like The Witcher 3 without loading is very taxing. Sadly, neither the Xbox One or PS4 can take that at 1080p@30fps. It's too much. Uncharted 4 can get to 1080p@60fps, but it will be linear, with loading screens and all. Don't expect 1080p with open-world games like The Witcher 3 unless there are sacrifices.
 
Kinda disappointing. I was hoping to get away with not having to upgrade my PC for a little while longer but if its the only way to get 1080p and most effects for my most anticipated game I will do it.....eventually.

I just hope they don't gimp the ps4 version because of the xbox.
 
Guys, an open world like The Witcher 3 without loading is very taxing. Sadly, neither the Xbox One or PS4 can take that at 1080p@30fps. It's too much. Uncharted 4 can get to 1080p@60fps, but it will be linear, with loading screens and all. Don't expect 1080p with open-world games like The Witcher 3 unless there are sacrifices.

Then give me loading screens. Damn.

Somehow I think later in the generation we'll wonder why this couldn't hit 1080p, though, if it ends up being the case. Games always look nicer as a generation moves forward.
 
Then give me loading screens. Damn.

Somehow I think later in the generation we'll wonder why this couldn't hit 1080p, though, if it ends up being the case. Games always look nicer as a generation moves forward.
You would rather have loading screens over losing a few pixels? Seriously?
 
A lot of guys saying the consoles can't run The Witcher 3 at 1080p... it will be fun if at release it runs at 1080p better than what was showed at E3.

My bet is that it will run at 1080p on PS4... XB1 I'm not sure... and Unity will be 1080p too.
 
Guys, an open world like The Witcher 3 without loading is very taxing. Sadly, neither the Xbox One or PS4 can take that at 1080p@30fps. It's too much. Uncharted 4 can get to 1080p@60fps, but it will be linear, with loading screens and all. Don't expect 1080p with open-world games like The Witcher 3 unless there are sacrifices.

doesn't infamous second son have no loading? and that is open world. no man's sky will be open universe and it's 1080p/60 fps. so yes, it is possible. it is more about the problem with streaming assets and eliminating bugs while doing it. i think devs face more challenges trying to stream an open world without breaking the game than it is taxing the hardware for performance.


also, uncharted games never had loading screens, loading were hidden during cutscenes. but now uc4 will use real-time cutscenes, so...i dunno. in some way or another they will have to stream assets anyway.
 
There is not parity clause for this game. I totally expect the PS4 resolution to be better like 900 p vs 792 p.

Same. I'd rather take loading screens. For the sake of parity they won't even optimize for the PS4 version.

I'll get this on a steam sale next year. Ain't giving these incompetent hacks $60.
 
Then give me loading screens. Damn.

Somehow I think later in the generation we'll wonder why this couldn't hit 1080p, though, if it ends up being the case. Games always look nicer as a generation moves forward.

Then it wouldn't be the same Witcher 3 in terms of gameplay experience. Do you really want to sacrifice that for graphics?

Also, hardware doesn't magically improve. Optimization also means cutting effects or lowering resolution to "push" more graphics people can see better. Like I said, you can sacrifice the game experience. I would never choose that though.
 
Same. I'd rather take loading screens. For the sake of parity they won't even optimize for the PS4 version.

I'll get this on a steam sale next year. Ain't giving these incompetent hacks $60.
If your going to get it on steam then chances are you have a competent PC that can play this game at 1080p I presume. Why not just buy it on PC if you want 1080p that much?
 
Then it wouldn't be the same Witcher 3 in terms of gameplay experience. Do you really want to sacrifice that for graphics?

Also, hardware doesn't magically improve. Optimization also means cutting effects or lowering resolution to "push" more graphics people can see better. Like I said, you can sacrifice the game experience. I would never choose that though.

as far as i'm concerned, with every generation the effects got better and they still performed well as the generation progressed.

heavy rain to beyond two souls is an example. same thing with uncharted 1 to 3. infamous 1 to 2. gran turismo 5 to 6, and so on.
 
doesn't infamous second son have no loading? and that is open world. no man's sky will be open universe and it's 1080p/60 fps. so yes, it is possible. it is more about the problem with streaming assets and eliminating bugs while doing it. i think devs face more challenges trying to stream an open world without breaking the game than it is taxing the hardware for performance.


also, uncharted games never had loading screens, loading were hidden during cutscenes. but now uc4 will use real-time cutscenes, so...i dunno. in some way or another they will have to stream assets anyway.

They're really different games, though. Infamous is way shorter than The Witcher 3 is terms of playable area. Did you notice on the last demo how many NPCs and others things were happening while Geralt was on his horse? Then he goes to a pub, starts a conversation and still no loading screens or cutscenes.

No Man's Sky is not hand-crafted and doesn't push as many graphical effects. Again, a different game.

Finally, Uncharted was always very linear. I don't know of they'll make the levels more open, but it will still probably be a linear level design. And the initial loading was always veeery long. Not the same.
 
I can't take people seriously who dismiss a videogame because it can't it 1080p.

I mean any game can get to 1080P, they just might look/feel like shit playing them.

I mean The Witcher at 900p or 1080p is still the same game, but somewhat sharper. It's not going to make the game or anything.
 
Also why can't I care about resolution on a console? I thought this was supposed to be a new generation. Meaning we should be moving away from resolution compromises. Shouldn't we expect more from developers? If Uncharted 4 can hit 1080p/60 FPS and look as good as it does, surely we can expect this to hit 1080p/30 FPS?

Then give me loading screens. Damn.

You're willing to compromise on FPS, seamlessness, etc., all for the principle that 1080p should be a default feature for new platforms. The thing is, a scenario where those things have to be compromised on to such a degree is not a scenario where 1080p should be a given. These consoles are not actually that powerful, and it's perfectly fine for a game to occasionally push things in a variety of areas such that resolution must be diminished a bit from the ideal. I mean, I'm sure there's a variety of things games on your $400 console can do to justify your purchase, right?
 
While you would expect that he would be in a position to know precisely how well W3 is performing, in the second half of the interview, he's asked about the PhysX implementation and whether it will run on AMD hardware and his answer is a little odd.

He says, "I think so, they’re doing so that it works on every system. It’s gonna be the same on every platform." Which is sort of a curious answer, since it was confirmed last year that W3 would be using GPU PhysX and it's fairly well settled that advanced PhysX features are a no-go with AMD cards (crippling performance penalty as the effects are offloaded onto the CPU).

So, it may be that he doesn't have a complete picture of the performance situation, after all?
 
Compare a game like Resistance: Fall of Man to a game like The Last of Us and you'll see that games improve over the course of a generation, sometimes by massive amounts.

Not really like last gen though because of the easier to get the full amount of processing power immediately. Don't think we will see that big of a jump to be honest other then game engine improvements and techniques. Resistance ran 720p as did tlou but in many games we watched game resolution drop as the generation went on. Things could get worse from a resolution stand point.
 
as far as i'm concerned, with every generation the effects got better and they still performed well as the generation progressed.

heavy rain to beyond two souls is an example. same thing with uncharted 1 to 3. infamous 1 to 2. gran turismo 5 to 6, and so on.

Compare a game like Resistance: Fall of Man to a game like The Last of Us and you'll see that games improve over the course of a generation, sometimes by massive amounts.

Of course there were improvements. What I meant is that it doesn't magically improve. Which means you can't expect what's not possible. There will be optimizations, there will be improvements, but there will be sacrifices in the name of those as well. Why do you think we finished the last generation with many sub-HD games? Some got to 720p, some even 1080p, but the majority was sub-HD until the end. The new generation is way better but not the best hardware available, not even when the new consoles were launched. I don't mean this as a platform war of any kind, I really wish they had better hardware, but they don't. Still able to provide great experiences, though.
 
Considering what they're shooting for, I'm not surprised.

Consoles will look amazing. I bet most of you console warriors wouldn't even be able to tell the difference until DF tells you otherwise.

Personally I'm saving up for a new graphics card specifically for this game. My consoles are for exclusives.
 
They're really different games, though. Infamous is way shorter than The Witcher 3 is terms of playable area. Did you notice on the last demo how many NPCs and others things were happening while Geralt was on his horse? Then he goes to a pub, starts a conversation and still no loading screens or cutscenes.

No Man's Sky is not hand-crafted and doesn't push as many graphical effects. Again, a different game.

Finally, Uncharted was always very linear. I don't know of they'll make the levels more open, but it will still probably be a linear level design. And the initial loading was always veeery long. Not the same.

the game isn't storing the whole map on the ram. it's streaming assets from the hdd everytime. i bet fast travel would not be instantaneous as walking into a bar in town. all those assets are being streamed. so what if there were a lot of npcs? they will disappear once you go off the distance and they'll stream back in if you go back to town.

that is why some devs can afford to make big maps even on ps3 or ps2. it's not the size that's supposed to make it hard to render, it's how they will be able to stream assets to and fro the hdd. a lot of games are sporting the no cutscenes or loading thing. division did that as well on their e3 demo where the guy went from the new your streets into a building and then back out, without loading, while playing online, and i suspect most open world games will be like that. destiny doesn't have loading screens when you're on the map as well. you can enter caves, go back out, enter buildings, etc. and no cutscenes.
 
From an interview with Jose Teixeira, he's the Visual Effects Artist.



http://www.worldsfactory.net/2014/0...ably-not-1080p-on-consoles?PageSpeed=noscript

They said at E3 it's already 1080P on PS4 and 900P on X1 but I guess they couldn't keep a stable frame rate so they've lowered the resolution?

Just did a Google search on this, and yeah there's a Eurogamer article from a very optimistic dev about the quality of the game improving with time, alongside the on-stage 900p XB1 live demo from E3.

Eurogamer article

I'm ever the optimist, so I believe in John Mamais, not this pessimist Jose Teixeira.
 
Of course there were improvements. What I meant is that it doesn't magically improve. Which means you can't expect what's not possible. There will be optimizations, there will be improvements, but there will be sacrifices in the name of those as well. Why do you think we finished the last generation with many sub-HD games? Some got to 720p, some even 1080p, but the majority was sub-HD until the end. The new generation is way better but not the best hardware available, not even when the new consoles were launched. I don't mean this as a platform war of any kind, I really wish they had better hardware, but they don't. Still able to provide great experiences, though.

we are at the start of the gen. who are you to tell what's possible or not? did you look at uncharted 1 and went, "oh this can improve but certainly not a lot and without sacrifices..." and guess what uc2 and 3 looked like. they certainly did not sacrifice anything.

what...most games i played were 720p. i don't know what kind of games you were playing...gran turismo 6 even pushed for 1280x1080 resolution.
 
the game isn't storing the whole map on the ram. it's streaming assets from the hdd everytime. i bet fast travel would not be instantaneous as walking into a bar in town. all those assets are being streamed. so what if there were a lot of npcs? they will disappear once you go off the distance and they'll stream back in if you go back to town.

that is why some devs can afford to make big maps even on ps3 or ps2. it's not the size that's supposed to make it hard to render, it's how they will be able to stream assets to and fro the hdd. a lot of games are sporting the no cutscenes or loading thing. division did that as well on their e3 demo where the guy went from the new your streets into a building and then back out, without loading, while playing online, and i suspect most open world games will be like that. destiny doesn't have loading screens when you're on the map as well. you can enter caves, go back out, enter buildings, etc. and no cutscenes.

Sure. Of course they're streaming. But do you think it's the same to load the content Witcher 3 demands and, say, a very linear level in Uncharted? Every AAA engine needs to stream today, even for linear games, but it's one thing to do that for an open-world game and another for a linear one. You just can't expect the same results. Being linear makes you, as a developer, able to push more graphical effects. It's a reality for game development for ages.
 
Sure. Of course they're streaming. But do you think it's the same to load the content Witcher 3 demands and, say, a very linear level in Uncharted? Every AAA engine needs to stream today, even for linear games, but it's one thing to do that for an open-world game and another for a linear one. You just can't expect the same results. Being linear makes you, as a developer, able to push more graphical effects. It's a reality for game development for ages.

your argument is that ps4 can't push the witcher more because the game is so high-end that it's not possible.

1) you don't know that.
2) past generations dictate games looked better as gen progressed without sacrificing performance, so it is more likely that witcher 4 (if there is one) would look better than witcher 3 and would still perform as good.
3) witcher 2 isn't even on best looking games this past gen lists.
4) no matter what anyone says, optimisation is always key. it is the key. ever wonder why a ps3 can run god of war 3 at 40+ fps and why a souped up pc can't run an average looking ubisoft game at 60 fps? one is well-optimized, the other is poorly-optimized. so the hardware isn't the end-all be-all argument.
5) let's come back to this thread 5 years from now and compared the future open-world games to witcher 3 and let's see how well witcher 3 has pushed the hardware so far it is impossible to render at 1080p any further.
 
we are at the start of the gen. who are you to tell what's possible or not? did you look at uncharted 1 and went, "oh this can improve but certainly not a lot and without sacrifices..." and guess what uc2 and 3 looked like. they certainly did not sacrifice anything.

what...most games i played were 720p. i don't know what kind of games you were playing...gran turismo 6 even pushed for 1280x1080 resolution.

Some games were upscaled to 720p though. That's different. Again, yes, it's expected to have improvements. Developers will find ways to improve their engines, Sony and Microsoft will optimize the Operating Systems for both consoles, new optimizations techniques will be found, but there are still limits. I didn't say "not a lot" and, if you understood that, I'm sorry if I didn't express what I meant in the best way. I just meant you can't go beyond what the hardware is capable. For example, you know that they won't be able to push graphics and stay at 60 fps because of hardware limitations, right? They can choose to stay at 60 fps, but it wouldn't be possible to get an open-world Uncharted 4 on the same level. You can get a linear game, though. That's a good compromise for a game in that franchise.

Please don't think I'm trying to do a platform war here, it's just an example: my current PC is from 2012 and its superior in terms of hardware compared to Xbox One and PS4. But I already plan an upgrade next year, because I know it won't be able to handle games at max soon. Also, I know it's currently easier to code to the metal in consoles (which is why it's better to optimize games in consoles now), but again, you can't go beyond what the hardware lets you.

I still plan to buy a PS4 and I love that I'll be able to play Uncharted 4 like Naughty Dog is promising. It's brilliant. But I plan to buy it knowing about its limits. I hope devs can push it to show impressive games visually, but I know I can't expect 1080p all the time and, even though I hoped for that before the consoles were announced, it doesn't mean I'll be disappointed at devs working with the hardware they got and call them incompetents.

Oh, and to be clear, I didn't rule out Witcher 3 in 1080p. They might be able to do that, since they still have months of optimization. But we need to see what graphical effects will be enabled and disabled. That's what I meant when I said before that optimization sometimes also means having to reduce or disable effects.
 
I don't really care what the resolution is, it won't look bad regardless. After seeing the 35 minute gameplay video, I know I'm purchasing this game. It sounds like they are putting an emphasis on keeping at least 30fps, which is good.
 
Top Bottom