Another beautiful post. There are people around here that make sense. Kudos.
Last edited:
- Status
Another beautiful post. There are people around here that make sense. Kudos.
i am really mad at cd for doing this.. butchering the pc version to cater to a weaker system
at least i hope that the EE version brings something to the table
well, time to stop investing in those upgrades, hmm? The differences between console graphics and PC graphics are vanishing now. And the day will come PC graphics aren't better than consoles, unless you are a very rich guy who can afford GPUs only a graphics designer should ever need. Maybe this is the day? This is the problem. They can build consoles that are powerful enough to run stuff like this, and that are cheap enough to be affordable for the masses. But on PC, we have to run it on windows shit (that gets worse every year), and buy overpriced shit we have to replace every year.
We should get a refund from NVIDIA then, invest it in a console and get the game there.
I will have to run the game on medium. on PC. at least i am able to run it at all.
new nvidia drivers will be out may 18 as far as i know.
this is the last game i preordered. the game is nowhere close to 2013 videos but looks like a ps4 port.
It is nowhere close to the 35 minutes gameplay either.
I hear what you are saying, but I think you are still missing the point. The very essence of owning a PC is that you can (IF YOU CHOOSE - and have the money too) run the best graphics possible. If all games are going to across the board system parity, you are correct in your thought process.
But the reason the PC community is so upset, is because CDPR was strictly a PC company. They have done a complete 180 - showed some in game footage a few years back that made the game look unbelievable, and instead created 1 game to run the same on all 3 systems. I'm in no way saying they didn't work hard or accomplish what they set out to do.
But as far as the PC elitist, and the ones that loved CDPR for the Witcher series - we are left wanting more. If we wanted a console, we could all (I'm sure) save 70% of our money and buy a console.
In no way was this meant to be mean or harsh to you @Jinal. I get your point, but I think you're missing a lot of other people's points.
- To each his own.
Haha - I still don't think watch dogs ever became anything close to the e3 demo, did it? Or am I missing it?
there is one problem with that, its progress, if everything in life was always brought down to the lowest dominator, we wouldn't advance, why would we? everything stays the same, why should they have even bothered bringing out next gen when they could have stayed with the PS3 and Xbox 360.
PC drives gaming forward as new technologies, tweaks, hardware is all brought out on PC first. I noticed that towards the end of the last gen PC was pulling miles away from the consoles, even phones where surpassing them in hardware, however this has shown that consoles still have not caught up, but instead the graphical fidelity has had to be scaled back. its not a matter of cost, its a matter or progressing and advancing.
You couldn't be more wrong. The PC and console versions look alike because the PC version was intentionally lowered to their level. PC will always look better when it's not butchered to cater to the outdated consoles. I don't have a beast PC, hell, I am even playing on a 4 year-old laptop and will be happy if it runs on low but I absolutely hate how consoles butcher the potential of every PC game.
---------- Updated at 08:19 PM ----------
There are always two sides of the discussion when it comes to make a game and in a way I'm glad CDPR chose this one: They decided instead of making the game run on very few PC configurations because you would need Titan X's and Dual Sli 980's to run to make it accessible to more people and make the game very scalable in terms of hardware requirements.
The need of the many (in this case CDPR wanting more people to play their game than less by going multiplatform and making a build that scales very well with your hardware) outweigh the need of the few. Those few that care about graphics in a RPG GAME (PLANESCAPE TORMENT, Gothic, Baldur's Gate and all those amazing RPG's of old say hello and don't give a damn about graphical fidelity have remain in history as being one of the best RPG's of all time) and yet here we are bickering about how dense the fucking grass is on what configuration.
Based off that PCGames Hardware article the game is very optimized and doesn't need a high end CPU to look good and run:
"PCgameshardware.de posted: They are running the game in 4k (downsampled) on a single titan x (w/o hairworks).
- In general they seem to be very pleased with the game (no day1 patch and no nvidia optimized drivers so far)
- Multicore CPU useage is good.
- The game doesn't seem to be very CPU heavy (they mention that they were able to downcloak their test CPU to 2 ghz and the game still ran good).
- High End GPUs can render the game in 1440p (ultra, w/o hairworks).
-Mid range GPUs run the game in 1080p (ultra, w/o hairworks).
- VRAM usage is pretty moderate: 2560x1440 ~ 2.5 gb vram (max usage).
-No loading screens."
-Tessellation is not that high (8x-16x), but it still looks good.
-NVIDIA Hairworks is very performance hungry and should only be used with high end GPUs. (keep in mind this is before day 1 patch and Nvidia drivers).
Conclusion is this: Aesthetics > technical..the game looks very pretty even if every pore on every humans face or every wall texture is not crisp and sharpened to kingdom come like in those first screens that, personally, made my eyes bleed. You can do so yourself by enabling that option.
At the end of the day..you play Witcher games for the story not for the graphics.
The need of the many (in this case CDPR wanting more people to play their game than less by going multiplatform and making a build that scales very well with your hardware) outweigh the need of the few. Those few that care about graphics in a RPG GAME (PLANESCAPE TORMENT, Gothic, Baldur's Gate and all those amazing RPG's of old say hello and don't give a damn about graphical fidelity have remain in history as being one of the best RPG's of all time) and yet here we are bickering about how dense the fucking grass is on what configuration.
Based off that PCGames Hardware article the game is very optimized and doesn't need a high end CPU to look good and run:
"PCgameshardware.de posted: They are running the game in 4k (downsampled) on a single titan x (w/o hairworks).
- In general they seem to be very pleased with the game (no day1 patch and no nvidia optimized drivers so far)
- Multicore CPU useage is good.
- The game doesn't seem to be very CPU heavy (they mention that they were able to downcloak their test CPU to 2 ghz and the game still ran good).
- High End GPUs can render the game in 1440p (ultra, w/o hairworks).
-Mid range GPUs run the game in 1080p (ultra, w/o hairworks).
- VRAM usage is pretty moderate: 2560x1440 ~ 2.5 gb vram (max usage).
-No loading screens."
-Tessellation is not that high (8x-16x), but it still looks good.
-NVIDIA Hairworks is very performance hungry and should only be used with high end GPUs. (keep in mind this is before day 1 patch and Nvidia drivers).
Conclusion is this: Aesthetics > technical..the game looks very pretty even if every pore on every humans face or every wall texture is not crisp and sharpened to kingdom come like in those first screens that, personally, made my eyes bleed. You can do so yourself by enabling that option.
At the end of the day..you play Witcher games for the story not for the graphics.
I'm baffled by the rage that's ensued. I remember when we only cared about a great game being made. But now our priorities have shifted to having a game that's better looking than the same game on another platform.
A game is no longer judged by its own merits. It's now by judged by how it measures up against itself on another platform.
A game is no longer judged by its own merits. It's now by judged by how it measures up against itself on another platform.
Not trying to start a fight, but I disagree 100% - At the end of the day - I was 100% impressed with CDPR as a company for not taking any shortcuts and actually producing an amazing series with story and graphics. they never cut corners, (not saying they did - but obviously the PC love isn't there - not with these videos anyway)
and... since when aren't games able to be played on low end machines and high end machines - thats why we choose to play on PCs, right? Am i missing something?
It did, with mods....Haha - I still don't think watch dogs ever became anything close to the e3 demo, did it? Or am I missing it?
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-is-your-system-ready
Look what Intel i7-5960X, 16GB DDR4 RAM with The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt Game Ready GeForce GTX Driver can do with dedicated gpu:
1920x1080, High settings GTX 960
1920x1080, Uber settings GTX 970
1920x1080, Uber settings w/ GameWorks GTX 980
2560x1440, Uber settings GTX 980
2560x1440, Uber settings w/ GameWorks GTX TITAN X, or 2-Way SLI GTX 970
3840x2160, Uber settings GTX TITAN X, or 2-Way SLI GTX 980
3840x2160, Uber settings w/ GameWorks 2-Way SLI GTX 980 or GTX TITAN X
And from mine experience Nvidia geforce experience don't optimize on default for 60fps level of perfomance.
- Status