Speak for yourself, the game looks pretty damn good to me. It can't be a port if it's on the same architecture and as it so happens PC, PS4 and XB1 are all the same architecture(x86_64).
What Nvidia settings? If you mean the "Nvidia Effects" video that has nothing to do with Nvidia's tech, that's what the uploader titled the video because it was shown at Nvidia's conference.
How on earth does that look good? That looks horribly unfinished and dated, it's the Witcher 2 renderer that's not even physically based.
It's this renderer, how does that look good at all compared to what the game looks like now?
Yeah, ^^ that looks like absolute crap. I simply know the 'nvidia video' displayed super cool effects like volumetric clouds, bloom shafts, etc. that were used to render subsequent ingame screenshots
This isn't VGX, but holy f*** those look great. This is what I'd expect out of this game, and none of that PAX 'admire the scenery' BS
They do and they're also Ubersampled so bound to look great.This isn't VGX, but holy f*** those look great. This is what I'd expect out of this game, and none of that PAX 'admire the scenery' BS
This version @ 1080p is probably the clearest of them all,
Go Swordsmanship and I get the feeling you'll be perfectly satisfied with the amount of blood in the game.
They do and they're also Ubersampled so bound to look great.
I don't really have anything to say, I'm not getting in any 'downgrade' argument per se, just correcting some (mis)information I noticed. I will say this however, a lot of things depend on multiple factors time of day etc, for example this scene(click to open in new tab), look at how big the difference it makes.
Beautiful. Close to the 35 min gameplay video and not even max setting... No downgrade spotted. The downgrade is a lie wake up people^^
Beautiful. Close to the 35 min gameplay video and not even max setting... No downgrade spotted. The downgrade is a lie wake up people^^
Ok I haven't seen that nice of quality yet, I must say it looks pretty damn good.......so I'll shut up now.
I disagree.
I don't deny that lighting plays a huge part in how good a scene can look. Again, there isn't much to discuss about. There's an obvious downgrade from what the game could've been, should they have used those rendering technologies, but I don't expect more than GDC/PAX/35 min. gameplay. I just don't see the point of showcasing super good graphics with ubersampling and perfect lighting when those won't be reproducible in the shipped game. It's just a cheap tactic by CDPR.
And I truly mean it. There's no f*****g point. Kind of like rendering a photorealistic version of any game just to get better sales, then delivering a product that comes nowhere close to it. What the f**.
---------- Updated at 04:30 AM ----------
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/34018-Graphic-downgrade?p=1563971&viewfull=1#post1563971
You're right, there's no downgrade from the 35 min. gameplay. I've made the comparison myself, check it out.
However, the quality comes nowhere close to VGX or any of the 'wild hunt' tagged pictures
Wait until we get some Dev diaries or they show off ultra settings it might just surprise everyone.
I don't deny that lighting plays a huge part in how good a scene can look. Again, there isn't much to discuss about. There's an obvious downgrade from what the game could've been, should they have used those rendering technologies, but I don't expect more than GDC/PAX/35 min. gameplay. I just don't see the point of showcasing super good graphics with ubersampling and perfect lighting when those won't be reproducible in the shipped game. It's just a cheap tactic by CDPR.
And I truly mean it. There's no f*****g point. Kind of like rendering a photorealistic version of any game just to get better sales, then delivering a product that comes nowhere close to it. What the f**.
The VGX version? I highly,highly would doubt that.
People need stop defending the game with the old build would only run in a Triple Sli Titan x Machine
. Crysis 3 was unplayable at ultra for most of the people on the day of realese . But guess what . There where many many user who buy new graphics card only to reach that level of detail . Hell there was multiple users who run the game at 30fp just to see the amazing crytek engine . And that game works .
why ? becouse was designed for pc gamers in mind . You dont have to be rich to get high settings on new games . 270x amd crossfire or 960 / 970 would make your machine a powerfull one . if in these day the game is impossible to run at ultra ; is okey . Pc gamers will test their machine for years to come with witcher 3 .
Dont defend this new engine stating the old one was more powerfull and demanding that any machine in the world . Please we need to keep this thread with good arguments and not simple attack or defend something with out any proof
OK. Downloaded the whole 1.1GB PAX uncompressed video and took a screenshot with upscaling filters on MPC Home Cinema.
VS
Now you see it?
comparing an empty lake to a city...... i cant facepalm hard enough
The harsher mid/long LOD's are still extremely obvious.
This is one aspect I'm hoping Ultra drastically improves. Let us crank that LOD/Draw Distance up as much as the engine will possibly allow (Or what GPU/s we have can handle). The last thing I want to do is have to turn on DOF because the mid/long LOD's are awful - that was one aspect about The Witcher 1 & 2 which was always incredibly breathtaking, the mid/long LOD's were stunning and turning off DOF enabled you to appreciate that so much more. The entire Prologue sequence of The Witcher 2 still blows my mind to this day, just the sheer detail and breathtaking vista/s throughout was fucking crazy.
I guess it's probably one of those necessary evil's of developing a huge open world, LOD's end up becoming extremely automated, but it'll be really sad if we can't crank them the fuck up if our GPU's will let us.
In regards to recent footage and any downgrades, if *anything*...what we have seen is very inconsistent from each-other.