• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Witcher 3 downgrade arguments in here and nowhere else

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fractal

Banned
Mar 25, 2014
1,192
0
290
Yeah, the downgrade is as bad as I feared. Glad I cancelled my pre-order a while back, looking forward to playing the game but I'll wait for a hefty discount, preferably an "Enhanced Edition" like we had with the previous games.

Ubisoft got a ton of backlash for their downgrades, but this is just as bad, if not worse!
 

Fbh

Member
Dec 6, 2013
15,220
10,561
1,070
This is a pretty major downgrade, moreso than other games which have had more backlash, but the final game still looks amazing so it’s not so bad.









I have to say, in this particular scene I'm more bothered by the change in the armor than the downgrade in graphics
 

Krauser Kat

Member
Dec 28, 2009
5,475
0
0
34
They removed global illumination and they admitted it. quite a bit before release. It was in the game at one time or another but its not now and they have said so.
 

jim2point0

Banned
Jan 23, 2013
10,744
0
0
Here
www.flickr.com
especially when they fucking deny it.

Honestly, this is the only problem I have with the whole situation. I was pretty skeptical of the early footage and even called it out in the hype threads here on GAF. But people were still in that "CDPR would never lie to us" mindset. Then they stated that you'd be able to replicate scenes in the Sword of Destiny trailer 1:1, which is definitely not true due to some the ToD\palette changes.

I'm pretty much in that "acceptance stage" now. The game looks pretty good, and I'm sure a lot of people are still going to bring up The Witcher 3 when asked what the best looking open world game is :p
I wont' because GTA5 and Unity
 

-SD-

Banned
Aug 7, 2005
5,196
0
0
They removed global illumination and they admitted it. quite a bit before release. It was in the game at one time or another but its not now and they have said so.
Source?

That would explain the awfully flat lighting that makes it look like a last-gen game. Gotta say this again: Flatcher 3.



I feel like I'm alone in thinking that shot isn't very impressive looking.
You are not. There are a few members in this thread who agree.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Jun 9, 2004
51,621
2,195
2,035
www.eurogamer.net
Yeah, the downgrade is as bad as I feared. Glad I cancelled my pre-order a while back, looking forward to playing the game but I'll wait for a hefty discount, preferably an "Enhanced Edition" like we had with the previous games.

Ubisoft got a ton of backlash for their downgrades, but this is just as bad, if not worse!
Well, there's a big difference between the 2013 footage and the final game but the 2014 demos are all extremely similar. The differences are minor. What we have now isn't very different from that 35 minute demo. There are differences but they aren't that significant.
 

Bebpo

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
30,395
7
0
39
Orange County, CA
The original trailer looks like AC Unity quality lighting and shaders.

Because the areas and assets match up so closely, it doesn't seem like the original was "fake" or wasn't what they intended. It seems like they meant for the game to look like that, but being a huge open world looking like AC Unity visuals, the framerate was probably amazingly poor across the board and they couldn't optimize it so they pulled the lighting/shaders at some point and now it looks flat like a traditional 2013-era PC game.

Shame. We really need more major (not incremental) advances in graphic card technology as it's still a struggle to run good lighting engines smoothly on affordable cards.
 

parabolee

Member
Jul 23, 2007
399
0
0
NJ


PS4 version:


I don't think these are as far apart as people keep claiming. People are not being realistic in my opinion.

Of course the first one is an over polished "bullshot" (or bullvideo) to start with. Everything in it is carefully selected to be perfect.


  • The time of day
  • Season
  • Smoke, clouds and birds
  • Dust (that would be annoying if it was this constant in the game)
  • Extreme sharpness filter that only looks good in short videos or photos but not in gameplay.

Things that probably all appear in the game, but it's rare they all line up for a perfect shot like this.

Add to that it was pre-optimisation. So they had everything cranked higher than the final game allows (outside ini tweaks).

Not to mention the second is taken from the PS4 version which is not running at the equivalent of Ultra settings. And even then you colour correct, sharpen and add dust birds and smoke; and your getting very close.

You recreate that same scene in the right season and time of day in the PC version at Ultra settings and I'll bet it would be damned close. Will NEVER be as good because as I say it's a very carefully crafted promo video as opposed to in game.

The only thing that appears to be greatly different to my eyes is they changed the foliage (does it change for the season?). Call a "downgrade" if you want but they almost certainly didn't do it because they wanted to make the game look worse! They did it because either they thought it looked better in the actual game (rather than crafted shots/video) or because the older method just did not work or was far too much of a performance cost.

You can say that is a shady practice if you want. But I think that video represented a graphical standard they intended to hit. After playing the game, I think they got pretty darn close.

It's not like this was intentional malice or deceit. And to be clear I said the same about Watchdogs at the time too. Although my issue with UBIsoft on that was it ran like stuttery crap on my 4GB FTX 770 unless I ran it at medium textures!

CD Projekt Red can't come out and say "sorry the final game didn't hit the target quality of our earlier videos" because then all the media sites report inflammatory headlines like -

"CD PROJEKT RED FORCED TO APOLOGIES FOR WITCHER 3 DOWNGRADE"

And then an unfair narrative about the company and the game becomes the accepted consensus. When the truth is the game looks and plays incredible. Is quite possibly one of the best games of all time. It's only downside being that the early target footage was a little more ambitious than reality.
 

Fractal

Banned
Mar 25, 2014
1,192
0
290
Well, there's a big difference between the 2013 footage and the final game but the 2014 demos are all extremely similar. The differences are minor. What we have now isn't very different from that 35 minute demo. There are differences but they aren't that significant.
True... but I was really hoping Witcher 3 to be the Crysis of open-world visuals this gen, staying true to the 2013 material, even if that meant it couldn't be properly maxed out by any current graphics cards. Don't get me wrong, I think the final game still looks good, but it looks noticeably flat and ordinary in many of the shots.

Anyways, I also agree with this post:

The original trailer looks like AC Unity quality lighting and shaders.

Because the areas and assets match up so closely, it doesn't seem like the original was "fake" or wasn't what they intended. It seems like they meant for the game to look like that, but being a huge open world looking like AC Unity visuals, the framerate was probably amazingly poor across the board and they couldn't optimize it so they pulled the lighting/shaders at some point and now it looks flat like a traditional 2013-era PC game.

Shame. We really need more major (not incremental) advances in graphic card technology as it's still a struggle to run good lighting engines smoothly on affordable cards.
 

georaldc

Member
Feb 23, 2010
4,304
33
915
Seattle, WA
This is a pretty major downgrade, moreso than other games which have had more backlash, but the final game still looks amazing so it’s not so bad.

...wall of images...

Oh wow, that's a pretty big difference. Is this from one of those trailers CDPR says never existed in public form, equating to a downgrade that was technically never possible (because there was nothing to downgrade from)? Because that doesn't look like something a simple sharpening filter would get you
 

aliengmr

Member
Sep 13, 2014
1,936
0
290
Hate to say it, but you are right. I'm not screaming conspiracy. Its likely those folks aren't covering it because they don't care or because it's Ubisoft's long laundry list of issues that caused the downgrade of Watch Dogs to be a 'last straw' scenario. But there is absolutely no doubt that Witcher 3 was visually downgraded, and its not being harped on the way Watch Dogs was. And there are a ton of people making excuses for it, when those same excuses were shouted down when trotted out for Ubisoft.

Fair is fair guys. C'mon.

Watchdogs was a new IP and visuals became a big part of its initial impressions. The Witcher 3 is the final part of a trilogy. The overall expectations were entirely different. By and large, visuals weren't the biggest selling point at all.

CDPR didn't lie to sell copies, they were going to do that anyway. Does anyone honestly think CDPR stood to lose all sales if they didn't cover up that the game didn't precisely match the 2013 demo? Of course not, they didn't have a reason to lie about it. They knew who was going to buy the game and what they were buying it for, and it wasn't benchmarker's looking for the best graphics ever.

So the visuals were toned down so as to not compromise the far more important aspects of the game. They were making their first open world game to rival the likes of Skyrim on a total budget of half of what Bethesda had. I think downgrading visuals for the sake of the actual gameplay is a good thing.

What should be done? Should CDPR apologize for putting out a good game? At best Watchdogs was a so-so game and probably would have gotten a pass if it were better and Ubisoft didn't have an attitude toward the PC that was the polar opposite of CDPR.

Witcher 3 is a great game, this is why its gets a pass. Ubisoft's reputation on PC prior to Watchdogs was saying 90% of PC gamers pirate their games. CDPR's reputation was being steadfastly against DRM and being committed to their games long after companies like Ubisoft move on to their next game. Didn't ask CDPR for the upgrade to the first Witcher game and never expected one, but they did it anyway, that is how you buy a free pass. Maybe if Ubisoft spent a little more time on stuff like that and a little less on claiming PC gamers are all criminals, they might have gotten a pass for Watchdogs. (would've helped if the game itself wasn't so meh too.)
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Jan 29, 2008
36,152
8
0
Australia
are there seasons in the game or why does the grass look golden in the 2013 gif and green in the latter?

No. Something folk need to remember is that games often undergo massive art (read: aesthetic, not technical) changes as a scene/asset/sequence/vista/whatever no longer fits the visual identity of the end goal. Shit gets redesigned over and over. Asset quality / lighting downgrade or not, that entire scene was visually overhauled. It's lusher and far less dry.

I'll also add Wild Hunt has an extremely diverse range of lighting filters throughout the 24 hour cycle and weather conditions. The tiniest overcast versus sunny at the same time of day makes a big difference.

Some stuff is cut from the game outright though. There's no thick, volumetric smoke anywhere like you see from those chimneys.
 

parabolee

Member
Jul 23, 2007
399
0
0
NJ
Watchdogs was a new IP and visuals became a big part of its initial impressions. The Witcher 3 is the final part of a trilogy. The overall expectations were entirely different. By and large, visuals weren't the biggest selling point at all.

CDPR didn't lie to sell copies, they were going to do that anyway. Does anyone honestly think CDPR stood to lose all sales if they didn't cover up that the game didn't precisely match the 2013 demo? Of course not, they didn't have a reason to lie about it. They knew who was going to buy the game and what they were buying it for, and it wasn't benchmarker's looking for the best graphics ever.

So the visuals were toned down so as to not compromise the far more important aspects of the game. They were making their first open world game to rival the likes of Skyrim on a total budget of half of what Bethesda had. I think downgrading visuals for the sake of the actual gameplay is a good thing.

What should be done? Should CDPR apologize for putting out a good game? At best Watchdogs was a so-so game and probably would have gotten a pass if it were better and Ubisoft didn't have an attitude toward the PC that was the polar opposite of CDPR.

Witcher 3 is a great game, this is why its gets a pass. Ubisoft's reputation on PC prior to Watchdogs was saying 90% of PC gamers pirate their games. CDPR's reputation was being steadfastly against DRM and being committed to their games long after companies like Ubisoft move on to their next game. Didn't ask CDPR for the upgrade to the first Witcher game and never expected one, but they did it anyway, that is how you buy a free pass. Maybe if Ubisoft spent a little more time on stuff like that and a little less on claiming PC gamers are all criminals, they might have gotten a pass for Watchdogs. (would've helped if the game itself wasn't so meh too.)

Bravo sir!

 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,812
4
660
No. Something folk need to remember is that games often undergo massive art (read: aesthetic, not technical) changes as a scene/asset/sequence/vista/whatever no longer fits the visual identity of the end goal. Shit gets redesigned over and over. Asset quality / lighting downgrade or not, that entire scene was visually overhauled. It's lusher and far less dry.

I'll also add Wild Hunt has an extremely diverse range of lighting filters throughout the 24 hour cycle and weather conditions. The tiniest overcast versus sunny at the same time of day makes a big difference.

Some stuff is cut from the game outright though. There's no thick, volumetric smoke anywhere like you see from those chimneys.
To say again, the game never had volumetric smoke. That is just a sprite.

We must be careful in the words we use. People are throwing around stuff like "lighting" "tesselation" and "volumetric" with the game never even having had changes in these areas.
 

plasmawave

Member
Aug 28, 2013
11,230
375
640
Watchdogs was a new IP and visuals became a big part of its initial impressions. The Witcher 3 is the final part of a trilogy. The overall expectations were entirely different. By and large, visuals weren't the biggest selling point at all.

CDPR didn't lie to sell copies, they were going to do that anyway. Does anyone honestly think CDPR stood to lose all sales if they didn't cover up that the game didn't precisely match the 2013 demo? Of course not, they didn't have a reason to lie about it. They knew who was going to buy the game and what they were buying it for, and it wasn't benchmarker's looking for the best graphics ever.

So the visuals were toned down so as to not compromise the far more important aspects of the game. They were making their first open world game to rival the likes of Skyrim on a total budget of half of what Bethesda had. I think downgrading visuals for the sake of the actual gameplay is a good thing.

What should be done? Should CDPR apologize for putting out a good game? At best Watchdogs was a so-so game and probably would have gotten a pass if it were better and Ubisoft didn't have an attitude toward the PC that was the polar opposite of CDPR.

Witcher 3 is a great game, this is why its gets a pass. Ubisoft's reputation on PC prior to Watchdogs was saying 90% of PC gamers pirate their games. CDPR's reputation was being steadfastly against DRM and being committed to their games long after companies like Ubisoft move on to their next game. Didn't ask CDPR for the upgrade to the first Witcher game and never expected one, but they did it anyway, that is how you buy a free pass. Maybe if Ubisoft spent a little more time on stuff like that and a little less on claiming PC gamers are all criminals, they might have gotten a pass for Watchdogs. (would've helped if the game itself wasn't so meh too.)

You can lie all you want as long as you make a good game!
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Jan 29, 2008
36,152
8
0
Australia
To say again, the game never had volumetric smoke. That is just a sprite.

We must be careful in the words we use. People are throwing around stuff like "lighting" "tesselation" and "volumetric" with the game never even having had changes in these areas.

Huh, I was under the impression it was volumetric. My bad.
 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,812
4
660
What words or phrases would you use?
The one's that actually describe what is happening in the way a renderer actually works. What we conceive as "light" vs how "lighting is done" in a video game are wildly different. So basically, I would just ask to orient the way we talk about graphics using the terms from engine builders themselves. It would just make it less confusing.
Huh, I was under the impression it was volumetric. My bad.
I still love you. "Volumetric", like people obsessing about "ray tracing" or... idk.. PBR are all just catch phrases that are easy to latch on to. And easily abused (even unknowingly).

Real volumetric smoke is completely unmistakeable.
 

DOWN

Junior Member
Aug 2, 2011
24,381
9
925
EAST COAST, USA
Okay, hours in now and it absolutely looks similar in quality to cross gen games. I get that it is likely more complex and on a scale that hasn't been achieved before, and I think it does make graphical achievements in character models, but the world gameplay looks easily as flat as much of Black Flag, the foliage's fine leaves morph into large and low detail texture in obvious ways as they block out lighting behind them, the game does use billboarding foliage, even at its highest quality when you stand right next to it and spin the camera.

Atmospherically, it is strong, but visually, this is absolutely not besting other open world titles this gen. I think people are deflecting when it comes to acknowledging this fact due to their appreciation of the game's scale, style, art, developer, etc.
 

icecold1983

Member
Feb 28, 2010
6,270
0
780
The one's that actually describe what is happening in the way a renderer actually works. What we conceive as "light" vs how "lighting is done" in a video game are wildly different. So basically, I would just ask to orient the way we talk about graphics using the terms from engine builders themselves. It would just make it less confusing.

I still love you. "Volumetric", like people obsessing about "ray tracing" or... idk.. PBR are all just catch phrases that are easy to latch on to. And easily abused (even unknowingly).

Real volumetric smoke is completely unmistakeable.

im asking how you would describe the downgrade/sidegrade/upgrade in that comparison benzy posted of the large view while on horse.
 
Feb 7, 2013
2,337
0
0
This is a pretty major downgrade, moreso than other games which have had more backlash, but the final game still looks amazing so it’s not so bad.

*Comparison*

If they wanted to go for a different look for scary skull man because of aesthetics, I'd get it. But to me, it looks like every single change in this scene was purely for multi-platform development on a budget (money, closed box performance ceiling, manpower, time) reasons, not "game development is an iterative process and things change because we wanted to try something different that would work better, because reasons" reasons. Which is lame, considering the constant technological movement PC platform as a whole. By the time I get to this game, I will have dual Pascal x70s that could run the VGX scene just fine. Hell, Titan X lvl hardware will be $500 by that time as well (see the $650 GTX 780 turning into the $350-$329 GTX 970).
 

Primethius

Banned
Jan 20, 2008
17,874
0
0
U.S.
twitter.com
Okay, hours in now and it absolutely looks similar in quality to cross gen games. I get that it is likely more complex and on a scale that hasn't been achieved before, and I think it does make graphical achievements in character models, but the world gameplay looks easily as flat as much of Black Flag, the foliage's fine leaves morph into large and low detail texture in obvious ways as they block out lighting behind them, the game does use billboarding foliage, even at its highest quality when you stand right next to it and spin the camera.

Atmospherically, it is strong, but visually, this is absolutely not besting other open world titles this gen. I think people are deflecting when it comes to acknowledging this fact due to their appreciation of the game's scale, style, art, developer, etc.

Gotta agree with most of this regarding the visual quality.

I've been running the game on pretty much Ultra bar hairworks (to maintain 60 FPS minimum) and aside from the character models, I haven't really been impressed by the game's visuals. The artstyle is actually pretty strong and impresses me on occasion but the overall graphical fidelity of the game doesn't really make me go "wow". Doesn't help that the foliage during the day and in certain parts, really is ugly as shit.
 

ViewtifulJC

Banned
Oct 14, 2010
66,821
1
0
Beaumont, TX
www.neogaf.com


Did the console versions restrict the PC version?

"If the consoles are not involved there is no Witcher 3 as it is," answers Marcin Iwinski, definitively. "We can lay it out that simply. We just cannot afford it, because consoles allow us to go higher in terms of the possible or achievable sales; have a higher budget for the game, and invest it all into developing this huge, gigantic world.

"Developing only for the PC: yes, probably we could get more [in terms of graphics] as there would be nothing else - they would be so focused, like if we would develop only on Xbox One or PlayStation 4. But then we cannot afford such a game."


WELP
 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,812
4
660
im asking how you would describe the downgrade/sidegrade/upgrade in that comparison benzy posted of the large view while on horse.

Well you can point out things and then compare while pointing them out.

1. The pre-downgrade has 2d non-moving skybox (think rage),
2. a stronger depth of field in the distance that activates closer to the camera origin,
3. foliage LODs that do not turn into billboards so quickly (and have dramatically more negative space- Heck there may not even be any foliage LODs there). Folliage draw distance though is lower than on TW3 retail ultra.
4. Smaller thinner foliage sprites, instead of larger vegetation objects
5. Obvious heavy sharpening filter
6. Smoke sprites coming out of distant chimneys which are properly shaded (darkened on one side, lightened on the side facing the sun)
7. Tons of birds probably individually placed at that moment for the shot. It definitely makes it seem action-packed.
8. Completely different horse animation set for the fast gallop.
9. Less secondary motion physics on geralts armour and hair than retail.
8. Same draw distance, but TW3 retail hides any LOD in the distance with a very heavy fog. Presubamly distant textures are not as high detail as the ones in pre-downgrade.
9. colour wise it is a compelety different tone in art direction in the way assets are authored and the way colour grading is applied. One looks like a grainy fields in late summer (primary two tonal and desaturated blue and orange), the other has more plant variety and types and a more saturated / non-uniform colour scheme.
10. Given the amount of static texture detail, it looks like more of the textures are diffuse driven in the top screen while the bottom newer witcher has a more PBR authored texture set, where the material is driving the detail and appearance and less so the painted in colours and shadow micro detail of the previous group. (you can see this same thing occur in star citizen right now as they reauthor older art to fit the newest cryengine).
11. Global relighting is too hard to judge in either.
12. The top one is obviously surpersampled.
----

I definitely prefer the top screen colourwise, for the smoke details, and for the IQ, draw distance not being muddled by fog, and non-billboard LODs (and thinner sprites in general). But I prefer the material definitions in the bottom and physicalization.
 
Dec 4, 2010
17,050
1
620
AZ
Did the console versions restrict the PC version?

"If the consoles are not involved there is no Witcher 3 as it is," answers Marcin Iwinski, definitively. "We can lay it out that simply. We just cannot afford it, because consoles allow us to go higher in terms of the possible or achievable sales; have a higher budget for the game, and invest it all into developing this huge, gigantic world.

"Developing only for the PC: yes, probably we could get more [in terms of graphics] as there would be nothing else - they would be so focused, like if we would develop only on Xbox One or PlayStation 4. But then we cannot afford such a game."


WELP

They already got their preorders
 

SliChillax

Member
Aug 1, 2014
4,007
207
485
Tirana, Albania
Well let's hope for an Enhanced Edition with all the patches, future dlc and maybe some visual improvements after a year or so. More powerful GPU's will have come out by then to handle the upgraded visuals (if there will be any)
 

ViewtifulJC

Banned
Oct 14, 2010
66,821
1
0
Beaumont, TX
www.neogaf.com
Well let's hope for an Enhanced Edition will all the patches, future dlc and maybe some visual improvements after a year or so. More powerful GPU's will have come out by then to handle the upgraded visuals (if there will be any)

"And for those who are still not 100 per cent decided, I definitely encourage them to wait and see what we will be releasing in patches, updates and whatnot."


GOTY VGX Graphics Edition coming 2016
 

KoopaTheCasual

Junior Member
Jun 5, 2013
8,817
0
340
New York, NY
So pre-release: "Just wait for the game to come out, then judge."

post-release: "It's the consoles' fault."

Ubisoft should take notes with that deflection.
Some of you guys act like if there was a evil intend, for the record business realities != lack of ethics

You have to operate within the range of what is possible to achieve, its called economy
I don't think anyone finds their realistic answer "evil", just pretty lame that they couldn't say these same exact words weeks ago, instead of the hand-waving.
 

icecold1983

Member
Feb 28, 2010
6,270
0
780
Well you can point out things and then compare while pointing them out.

1. The pre-downgrade has 2d non-moving skybox (think rage),
2. a stronger depth of field in the distance that activates closer to the camera origin,
3. foliage LODs that do not turn into billboards so quickly (and have dramatically more negative space- Heck there may not even be any foliage LODs there). Folliage draw distance though is lower than on TW3 retail ultra.
4. Smaller thinner foliage sprites, instead of larger vegetation objects
5. Obvious heavy sharpening filter
6. Smoke sprites coming out of distant chimneys which are properly shaded (darkened on one side, lightened on the side facing the sun)
7. Tons of birds probably individually placed at that moment for the shot. It definitely makes it seem action-packed.
8. Completely different horse animation set for the fast gallop.
9. Less secondary motion physics on geralts armour and hair than retail.
8. Same draw distance, but TW3 retail hides any LOD in the distance with a very heavy fog. Presubamly distant textures are not as high detail as the ones in pre-downgrade.
9. colour wise it is a compelety different tone in art direction in the way assets are authored and the way colour grading is applied. One looks like a grainy fields in late summer (primary two tonal and desaturated blue and orange), the other has more plant variety and types and a more saturated / non-uniform colour scheme.
10. Given the amount of static texture detail, it looks like more of the textures are diffuse driven in the top screen while the bottom newer witcher has a more PBR authored texture set, where the material is driving the detail and appearance and less so the painted in colours and shadow micro detail of the previous group. (you can see this same thing occur in star citizen right now as they reauthor older art to fit the newest cryengine).
11. Global relighting is too hard to judge in either.
12. The top one is obviously surpersampled.
----

I definitely prefer the top screen colourwise, for the smoke details, and for the IQ, draw distance not being muddled by fog, and non-billboard LODs (and thinner sprites in general). But I prefer the material definitions in the bottom and physicalization.

so which of the above point(s) do you feel we are mistaking for lighting? the 2013 gif to me looks to have much better lighting and shading and is much higher fidelity in general.
 

Lucifon

Junior Member
Jun 29, 2012
5,605
2
0
UK
www.twitch.tv
They already got their preorders

Come on dude. They answered that statement honestly, without the money from a console release the game would be potentially much less grand in scale. Making a game for a single platform always means it can look better than a multi platform release - this is just the obvious truth. Sense of damned if you do damned if you don't.
 

irriadin

Member
Mar 1, 2011
395
0
620
I have to say, in this particular scene I'm more bothered by the change in the armor than the downgrade in graphics

I have to agree. It pains me more than anything else about the downgrade to see the King of the Wild Hunt's visual design go from what was shown in the VGX trailer to a Skeletor rip-off =/
 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,812
4
660
so which of the above point(s) do you feel people are confusing as lighting?

The colour of the assets drifven by diffuse textures, the sunlight colour due to TOD, and the colour grading. (the TOD and the colour grading is fantastic looking)

Technically the lighting system between the two is basically the same (sun casts shadows, shadows are somehow relit so they aren't pitch black), but the shading is probably more physically accurate in the bottom shot. It just looks worse in number of other more glaring ways IMO (the LODs for those bushes and plants should just die in a fire and the distance fog turns everything into a smudge).
Developing only for the PC: yes, probably we could get more [in terms of graphics] as there would be nothing else - they would be so focused, like if we would develop only on Xbox One or PlayStation 4. But then we cannot afford such a game."

Well, there it is. AS if we needed confirmation of the obvious.
 
Dec 4, 2010
17,050
1
620
AZ
Come on dude. They answered that statement honestly, without the money from a console release the game would be potentially much less grand in scale. Making a game for a single platform always means it can look better than a multi platform release - this is just the obvious truth. Sense of damned if you do damned if you don't.

They are telling the truth now, after the game went on sale.

I have no problem with anything to do with the graphics in the game. Just with the way the company marketed the game
 
Q

Queen of Hunting

Unconfirmed Member
so before release they were saying the version were seperate and pc wouldnt be limited by consoles.

post release

the game wouldnt have been possible without consoles.

slimey fuckers basically
 

DOWN

Junior Member
Aug 2, 2011
24,381
9
925
EAST COAST, USA
Yikes, that does seem a bit icky to more plainly admit limitations after release having tried to imply no limitations multiple times before release.
 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,812
4
660
I think it'd be cool if a mod could edit the title

I definitely think we can safely say it got downgraded from 2013 (and a title change is necessary), but the shit that PR guy said doesn't make much of any sense unless you read between the lines (gosh is that annoying).

He says something about the 2013 trailer and a world "would have required lots of dynamic lighting". He obviously has no idea what he is talking about.
 
Feb 7, 2013
2,337
0
0
K, so it was:

1) Primarily the need for front loaded console sales. They argued that consoles financed this big game.

I'd like to hear why doing a Witcher 2 for 360 equivalent for PS4/X1 wouldn't have worked out. Why would this have been a bad idea? The lack of a manufactured marketing hype machine monster to get 'dem day 1 pre-orders?

2) Stuff that worked on it's own didn't work when put together in the whole game, even on PC. I'd argue that a concentrated coding effort focused on one initial un-hindred platform, instead of dumping something because it doesn't immediately work (and you're running out of time to get 3 versions of the game running), would have been a much better option for the end customer.

Regardless, it sounds like DX12/Vulkan should have been out 3 years ago. Thanks for finally moving forward games industry.
 

Coflash

Member
May 6, 2012
553
915
780
Yikes, that does seem a bit icky to more plainly admit limitations after release having tried to imply no limitations multiple times before release.

Who couldn't predict this would happen? It was said multiple times. By the same people who weren't blind enough to notice the downgrade to begin with.

Fear not, though, because somehow, some people will still be in denial. That's the next prediction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.