Is TW3 getting downgraded for the sake of consoles?

[sidspyker]

Hope CDPR will reveal something or confirm that PC will have OR will have not a different UI/Menus/Interface, customised K&M rather than keeping quiet and repeating that ALL platforms will have the best experience.

That was confirmed over a year ago, PC version and console version will have different UIs.
EDIT: Since some pedantic might try to argue semantics, by "UI" here I mean things like the inventory for example, not completely different HUD or something like that.

 

[Scholdarr]

That was confirmed over a year ago, PC version and console version will have different UIs.

Sure, but at the same time they announced the VATS system which was then quietly cut later.

We don't know for sure whether PC (with M/K) will have a different UI. No interview at this year's E3 seem to have addressed the topic and I haven't read any official confirmation/reassurance in the last weeks/months yet...


@Malvus
You don't have to take me seriously. But at the same time you speculate as well. In the end we both even agreed that the difference between high and ultra probably won't be that big - but there will be a difference.

 

[archaven]

Sure, but at the same time they announced the VATS system which was then quietly cut later.

We don't know for sure whether PC (with M/K) will have a different UI. No interview at this year's E3 seem to have addressed the topic and I haven't read any official confirmation/reassurance in the last weeks/months yet...


@Malvus
You don't have to take me seriously. But at the same time you speculate as well. In the end we both even agreed that the difference between high and ultra probably won't be that big - but there will be a difference.

There are actually no official word on about PC is the best platform but PC gamers just keep mentioning it will be the best. Official word from CDPR is that ALL platform will have the best experience. Which mean PC is just the same but with additional graphical effects. They mentioned way earlier there could be separate UI designs for PC. But things may changed. Until then we will all just wait but you know after some times things may get forgotten.

 

[Scholdarr]

There are actually no official word on about PC is the best platform but PC gamers just keep mentioning it will be the best. Official word from CDPR is that ALL platform will have the best experience. Which mean PC is just the same but with additional graphical effects. They mentioned way earlier there could be separate UI designs for PC. But things may changed. Until then we will all just wait but you know after some times things may get forgotten.

Depends on how you define "best experience". For example, I personally don't think that some ultra graphics options make a game substantially better. You will probably have more or less the same amount of fun no matter if you play on high settings on console or on ultra settings on ultra. Then again there are graphics fetishists who really enjoy squeezing every last drop of fidelity out of a game engine. They likely have more fun on PC.

Another two more or less advantages of the PC version are the option to play with M/K on top of the controller input and the very likely availability of mod tools sometime after release. If you don't care about these additional benefits and the fun while playing is everything that counts for you, then yes, the experience will be pretty much the same no matter if you play on console or PC.

 

[val.mitev]

There are actually no official word on about PC is the best platform but PC gamers just keep mentioning it will be the best. Official word from CDPR is that ALL platform will have the best experience. Which mean PC is just the same but with additional graphical effects. They mentioned way earlier there could be separate UI designs for PC. But things may changed. Until then we will all just wait but you know after some times things may get forgotten.

That is pretty much a given.
People love to compare graphics, especially on the consoles.
So when they say the best experience for each platform, they obviously mean the graphics, which will ultimately look best on a powerful machine, no doubt about that, no matter how much you try to argue.

As for the rest of the game, the core game experience, everyone will get the same.

 

[Blooddrunk]

They never said VATS system will end up in the final product, all they said is that they are considering possibilites (personally i'm glad it's gone). It shouldn't even be compared. Creating new UI for PC that's basic stuff. While VATS was a completely new gameplay mechanic.
If Dragon Age will receive a specific UI for PC, i don't see any reasons why Witcher shouldn't get it, especially after it was confirmed last year.

 

[Scholdarr]

If Dragon Age will receive a specific UI for PC, i don't see any reasons why Witcher shouldn't get it, especially after it was confirmed last year.

Well, it seems that CDPR didn't see the need to make a specific M/K UI for Witcher 2. So no, it doesn't seem like a PC specific UI is "basic stuff". Even a big franchise like TES didn't offer a PC specific UI so far.
And DA: Inquisition is a party RPG with a tactical camera so a PC specific UI is imo a must. There are fundamental differences in controlling a party RPG and multiple characters with M/K and controller.

I really hope that there will be PC-specific UI for Witcher 3 as well but I wouldn't bet all my money on it. We have to wait and see.

 

[orblivion]

Well, it seems that CDPR didn't see the need to make a specific M/K UI for Witcher 2. So no, it doesn't seem like a PC specific UI is "basic stuff". Even a big franchise like TES didn't offer a PC specific UI so far.
And DA: Inquisition is a party RPG with a tactical camera so a PC specific UI is imo a must. There are fundamental differences in controlling a party RPG and multiple characters with M/K and controller.

I really hope that there will be PC-specific UI for Witcher 3 as well but I wouldn't bet all my money on it. We have to wait and see.

Witcher 2 came out on PC a full year before the console version, so that actually is a specific M/K UI.

 

[dragonbird]

Sure, but at the same time they announced the VATS system which was then quietly cut later.

They never said VATS would be in the game, they said they were considering a VATS-like system. Which they did, and then decided against.

 

[Scholdarr]

They never said VATS would be in the game, they said they were considering a VATS-like system. Which they did, and then decided against.

You're right. But to be honest the one article on eurogamer from early 2013 is the only one that mentions a PC/M+K specific UI IIRC and it doesn't feature a direct quote on the topic. We don't know whether CDPR said "There will be a PC specific UI" or whether theay said "We strongly considering making a PC specific UI" to the eurogamer journalist...

@orblivion
Well, you can play Witcher 2 on PC with a controller as well. It's obvious that CDPR didn't have the time, money or will to make two seperate UIs for controller input and M/K input. Imo no good UI designer would implement a ring menu for a M/K game. If you use a keyboard you have lots of hotkeys to directly command for example spells. That's why PC RPGs with M/K input usually offer a hotbar for the keys 1-10. Controllers don't have that many buttons. To be able to quickly access spells in combat UI designers invented the ring menu which uses the input methods of a controller (one hotkey for the menu and navigation with the sticks). On PC with M/K that's kind of clunky and more inconvenient than necessary imo. Same is for example true for list inventories. They are the best option if you play with a controller but clunky and inconvenient if you use a mouse/keyboard configuration...

The question is if there will be a M/K specific UI or not. PC is probably a mistakable term here.

 

[orblivion]

You're right. But to be honest the one article on eurogamer from early 2013 is the only one that mentions a PC/M+K specific UI IIRC and it doesn't feature a direct quote on the topic. We don't know whether CDPR said "There will be a PC specific UI" or whether theay said "We strongly considering making a PC specific UI" to the eurogamer journalist...

@orblivion
Well, you can play Witcher 2 on PC with a controller as well. It's obvious that CDPR didn't have the time, money or will to make two seperate UIs for controller input and M/K input. Imo no good UI designer would implement a ring menu for a M/K game. If you use a keyboard you have lots of hotkeys to directly command for example spells. That's why PC RPGs with M/K input usually offer a hotbar for the keys 1-10. Controllers don't have that many buttons. To be able to quickly access spells in combat UI designers invented the ring menu which uses the input methods of a controller (one hotkey for the menu and navigation with the sticks). On PC with M/K that's kind of clunky and more inconvenient than necessary imo. Same is for example true for list inventories. They are the best option if you play with a controller but clunky and inconvenient if you use a mouse/keyboard configuration...

The question is if there will be a M/K specific UI or not. PC is probably a mistakable term here.

The ring menu is really a matter of opinion. Crysis had a ring menu on it as well and didn't see a console release until 4 years after it's PC release. I liked the ring menu from both Crysis and W2.

Just because the UI worked on consoles with very few changes doesn't mean they intentionally designed it for the lowest common denominator, you're just assuming they did.

 

[gettis]

Here's hoping that CDPRED doesn't pull a Watch Dogs.

Downgrading or handicapping the PC version to not make the console crowd feel left out seems like a terrifyingly feasible solution for a lot of developers these days.
I'm concerned for TW3, to say the least.

 

[Scholdarr]

The ring menu is really a matter of opinion. Crysis had a ring menu on it as well and didn't see a console release until 4 years after it's PC release. I liked the ring menu from both Crysis and W2.

Just because the UI worked on consoles with very few changes doesn't mean they intentionally designed it for the lowest common denominator, you're just assuming they did.

Almost every PC gamer and every PC review complained about the UI in Oblivion or Skyrim for example. List based UIs are just not the best option for a mouse/keyboard controlled game. Maybe some people like it but the big majority doesn't. Or why do you think that mods which change the UI in TES games are always among the most downloaded files?

Crysis wasn't an RPG but you're right, it offered a kind of ring menu as well. I personally don't think that it was a good idea. I'm not so sure though if you really needed to use it in Crysis or if you could just use keyboard hotkeys for the same purpose...

Of course to a certain extend everything is up to taste. But denied that there are certain design principles in developing games and UIs is not reasonable. I'm assuming (yes) that CDPR used only one UI in Witcher 2 for both controllers and mouse because they wanted to spare the extra work/money and because they thought that the UI is good enough that also mouse/keyboard users would get along with it without being unable to play the game. But that doesn't mean that it was the perfect solution for a mouse/keyboard configuration and I don't see a reason why you shouldn't try to improve on that if you have the time and funds to do so...

Here's hoping that CDPRED doesn't pull a Watch Dogs.
Downgrading or handicapping the PC version to not make the console crowd feel left out seems like a terrifyingly feasible solution for a lot of developers these days.
I'm concerned for TW3, to say the least.

Offtopic:

Spoiler

Spoiler

There is no confirmation why Ubisoft didn't use these files. It is pure speculation that they didn't use it because of graphical parity. Imo this is a pretty weak argument and I highly doubt it. My personal guess is that their Ukrainian studio (which is responsible for the PC port/optimization) just wasn't able to optimize the game in time to run with these settings properly. I mean the game already has problems to run with the reduced fidelity and maybe it was Ubisoft's hope that reduced fidelity would also reduce the problems. I think with some additional weeks or months of polishing they would have been able to optimize the game with the maximum settings properly. But in game development that is only rarely the case and I think all these whining about the PC version of Watch_Dogs is greatly exaggerated. After all, the game looks really good on PC nevertheless.

 

[sidspyker]

Or why do you think that mods which change the UI in TES games are always among the most downloaded files?

Yes like SkyUI...... which is entirely list based except it's perfect for mouse and keyboard.

 

[archaven]

Since DAI has PC UI and interface. I really hope CDPR dont disappoint!.

 

[Sam44]

Offtopic:

Spoiler

Spoiler

There is no confirmation why Ubisoft didn't use these files. It is pure speculation that they didn't use it because of graphical parity. Imo this is a pretty weak argument and I highly doubt it. My personal guess is that their Ukrainian studio (which is responsible for the PC port/optimization) just wasn't able to optimize the game in time to run with these settings properly. I mean the game already has problems to run with the reduced fidelity and maybe it was Ubisoft's hope that reduced fidelity would also reduce the problems. I think with some additional weeks or months of polishing they would have been able to optimize the game with the maximum settings properly. But in game development that is only rarely the case and I think all these whining about the PC version of Watch_Dogs is greatly exaggerated. After all, the game looks really good on PC nevertheless.

Their PC version is just a straight out port (badly optimized at that) without any effort to make something more of it and if they infact didn't have any deals about console parity, why would they downgrade it to look identical? I'm sure a lot of people's attitude is now something like- "Why should I buy a very expensive high-end PC if it looks the same on MS/Sony, much cheaper consoles and I'm sure I wont have any performance issues there?"

 

[val.mitev]

From what I've seen for the UI in W3, it looks very easy to use with M+K, I see no issue there, yet.
Also the UI in W2 worked pretty well, especially after the updates.

The Skyrim UI was bad, it was so simplified that it hurt, please don't compare the Witcher to that abomination.

 

[501105]

From what I've seen for the UI in W3, it looks very easy to use with M+K, I see no issue there, yet.
Also the UI in W2 worked pretty well, especially after the updates.

The Skyrim UI was bad, it was so simplified that it hurt, please don't compare the Witcher to that abomination.

Maybe so, but a bit of love for the pc crowd in the form of atleast making sure that M+K works great is the minimum of what they should do imo.

 

[Scholdarr]

Spoiler

Spoiler

Their PC version is just a straight out port (badly optimized at that) without any effort to make something more of it and if they infact didn't have any deals about console parity, why would they downgrade it to look identical? I'm sure a lot of people's attitude is now something like- "Why should I buy a very expensive high-end PC if it looks the same on MS/Sony, much cheaper consoles and I'm sure I wont have any performance issues there?"

OFFTOPIC:

Spoiler

It doesn't look identical. That's just wrong. It even looks better on my mid-range card than on PS4...

And there is imo no reason to buy a beefy PC for graphics alone with next-gen consoles now. Most traditional PC gamers play on this platform because they like M/K inputs, mods, flexibility, relative freedom and stuff AND the possiblity to get great graphics. If you only buy a PC because of graphics you make something wrong, sorry. I don't know why so many people nowadays think that PC gaming was all about graphics. It's not. And PC gamers are also not entitled to better graphics than console gamers just because they invested more in their hardware. Or do they pay more to the game devs for better graphics? I don't think so. I think PC gaming would be much healthier again if we wouldn't be that elitist and arrogant anymore. We should thank every multiplat dev who decides to both develop for PC and to even uptrade the tech for PC customers to whatever extend.
Of course the E3 2012 demo of Watch_Dogs looked slightly (!!!) better than the game on PC on maximum settings but that's really just a minor thing. The game isn't more or less fun on PC just because it looks 5 or 10% less good or whatever...

From what I've seen for the UI in W3, it looks very easy to use with M+K, I see no issue there, yet.
Also the UI in W2 worked pretty well, especially after
the updates.

The Skyrim UI was bad, it was so simplified that it hurt, please don't compare the Witcher to that abomination.

So why do I have to use a ring menu in TW2 for casting a spell if I could just use a hotkey instead without any forced pause?
Why is my inventory in TW2 list based forcing me to endlessy scroll through it until I find something (just like in Skyrim)?

Don't get me wrong, The TW2 was at least kind of optimized for mouse/keyboard configuration. But at its very core, it was still made "with a conroller in mind".

 

[sidspyker]

Enough, continue your Watch Dogs discussion here and get back on topic.
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/29230-Watch-Dogs