ENB doesn't work with DX11 renderers.
It is cute that people keep suggesting this as a viable strategy.
It is just to build up hype. This is what I mean by people not actually knowing what they want. Even if "we" were to ask for super duper early footage - which "we" didn't - it's always the wrong choice. There's hardly anything of relevance in early media beyond the fact that the game exists at the time the footage was compiled. Those sneak peeks will become obsolete.
It's not that things become obsolete, it's that obsolete things become marketing because every big game has to be announced and shown 50 years early. Battlefront is a great example, and I'm glad they haven't shown much of it, though were I to be honest it'll probably look much worse than what they've shown now. But to go years without showing much of a game? Or alternatively, to go years showing bits and pieces of an unfinished game? That's really what consumers want? I mean wow, I guess I didn't get the memo.
I really cannot see how the lighting is flatter than the 2013 screenshots, which to my eyes is objectively worse on a technical level. That shot above Lunar15 posted is a great example.
Isn't this how the Witcher 2 was operated? But go on, tell me otherwise why it isn't. This is a typical example of a mid-tier studio expanding to AAA and failing to see the demand required to push through.
I did say on average, as there are certainly unflattering screens. The sharpening in particular comes across rly bad in some. I guess i should ammend my statement to specifically focus on the vgx and nvidia trailers. Those are far beyond current footage in nearly every way.
Personally I think on some level, the 2013 trailers did indeed depict a game that was playable internally at CDPR. At worst E3 2013 and VGX 2013 were target renders with in-game assets. And even Ubisoft has been direct with customers whenever showing off target renders.
The E3 2013 build did represent actual gameplay footage - I was there when CDPR did a demonstration. Looked incredible, it was easily the best thing I saw at the show that year.
Don't think the footage was uploaded anywhere - it was like 15-20 mins of gameplay, they didn't allow video to be taken.
Wassup with the color differences? Geralt is...um...Quite "orangey" in the pc version.PC footage is getting out there, so I did some comparison shots between PS4 (top) and PC (bottom). Framerate obviously better on PC, but I'm really not sure how this disparity is possible...
PC footage is getting out there, so I did some comparison shots between PC and PS4. PC's the shots with cursors. Framerate obviously better on PC, but I'm really not sure how this disparity is possible.
In the public forum, optimization is meant to sound like behind the scenes improvement and that's exactly what it is once the heaviest marketing is going on for a game. Downgrade controversies come when the meaty front and center drops happen after the developer already made the mistake of drawing attention to their visuals way too soon to back.Optimization has always been 90% about downgrades.
Only console gamers think it's 100% about improving algorithmic efficiency.
I'm on my phone but what disparity? The look oddly close if anything. Or am I missing something?
The only big difference I see from here is the bathtub texture looks better on PC and the Skin Tone looks better on PS4...
Why is the ps4 version missing a bra?
Why does that woman have a bra in one pic and not the other? Is there a nudity option, or did one the console version get cleaned up a bit?
They look sunburnt on ps4 but I can deffo see a difference between them. Hardly what I would like to see see. This is blatantly no longer a pc focused game. Not much difference on my phone and I mixed up typing on it
. Hardly what I would like to see see. This is blatantly no longer a pc focused game. Not much difference on my phone and I mixed up typing on it
Aesthetically you might prefer the old look, which is a lot more desaturated and grimier. But I feel that the lighting/material technology is definitely outdated, more or less using the same rendering as The Witcher 2. CDPR hadn't implemented their new rendered at that point. The Sword of Destiny trailer first showcased the improved renderer.
Marketing budgets for starters. W2 on the 360 went under the radar because it wasn't well advertised. Remind me of any AAA studio that has used the methodology you suggested.
Crytek (Crysis 1).
How does this stop porting from being "advertised"? 2nd, I don't really think CDPR were AAA (in the context compared to US marketing budget), they just happen to reach that mark the moment their budget escalated with the Witcher 3.
Crysis 1 was never released on consoles (warhead doesn't count).
You port it a year later. Now you need two seperate marketing campaigns. They weren't AAA until witcher 3, which is precisely my point. The marketing budget has to grow to such a degree that it becomes a lot less cost efficient to dedicate the resources in two separate campaigns while doing justice to both. The mindshare gained by being available on all modern gaming systems shouldn't be underestimated.
lol wtf? The PS4 shots look miles better...
CDPR did say there would be no difference between the console and PC versions aside from HairWorks and whatever resolution you play at.PS4 is a beast confirmed!
CDPR did say there would be no difference between the console and PC versions aside from HairWorks and whatever resolution you play at.
I thought a 970 would stomp a PS4 in games. Apparently not. The difference is just one is a higher framerate. What explains this? Optimisation? Why is the PS4 so OP....?