- Status
I played it last night for like 6 hours before I had to sleep
. Anyway I loved it and graphics are nice but I do think the graphics on GTA 5 are better. Sometimes I have to remind myself that the scene I am looking at is actually a video game in GTA 5. I don't think anyone would mistake Witcher 3 for anything other than a video game. Again, this might be what CDPR was going for all along, but not based on early gameplay footage.Which leads to this. Yes it looks like they had higher hopes of what the hardware would be capable of when they finally released the game or they just didn't have the time or resources to make the entire world look like the early snapshots we saw looked like or maybe they just wanted to make it look different, who knows. I don't think CDPR is obligated to respond to this, but it would be nice I suppose.
Here
http://www.mediafire.com/view/zty03f97hlqdbok/SweetFX_settings.txt
Set gamma in game...
To make game to look like this:
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8858/17856361512_91d7e52d79_h.jpg
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8756/17859200175_f1ec579075_h.jpg
Last edited:
I think we can all agree that the beef is with the plants. They really are kind of terrible, I don't remember them looking like this in the trailers. Also, the bugs. The freezing in the inventory screen is game breaking for me, I can't play it until it's fixed, I'm sick of restarting the game every time it freezes. I need a patch asap.
It looks incredible! Any idea how to use sweetfx on Win8.1 x64?
its not like the real problem is, with those trailers (2013/early 2014) people where hoping to this game to be the next big thing like the witcher 2 was in 2011 they wanted to se a next gen jump in graphics a for my personal opinion i was hoping this game to be the thing that says oh its time to buy new hardware to apreciate next gen graphics (like the witcher 2 did in 2011 moving form a 9550gt to 6870 ) yeh the game looks good but its not at least for me a reason to buy better hardware
like the witcher 2 did
Last edited:
Seriously, I sometimes think some people only bought this game for graphics
At the very least I expected the graphics to be as good as the 35 minute gameplay demo from 6 months ago since that was what most people based their pre-order on. At the time CDPR claimed it would be 40gb on PC... so why is the final release only 25gb?
There was nothing revolutionary about TW2 though. It simply had sublime art direction and highres textures when everyone else was doing lowres console ports.
As for business plans I see why they did this. Not TO us (PC users)
Its not exactly CDR that sold us out but the millions of console buyers.
Now I sincerely hope CDR and other companies will let the modders have their go for it so we the PC users can get what we want graphically.
So my cry out to CDR is. Please be open to modding PLEASE!
Its not exactly CDR that sold us out but the millions of console buyers.
Now I sincerely hope CDR and other companies will let the modders have their go for it so we the PC users can get what we want graphically.
So my cry out to CDR is. Please be open to modding PLEASE!
This has NOTHING to do with the budget. The high quality assets were already created and running when they released the 35 minute gameplay video 6 months ago. It's not like this was a decision made 2 years ago. The game was gutted from 40gb+ to 25gb right after they announced the games install size being the former. Major changes to a game cannot be made that late in the development process, so they took the easy route and simply eliminated the Ultra and Very high settings, and spread out the remaining PS4/xbone quality graphic settings across the choices in the options menu. I can think of no other explanation as to why all graphics settings are almost identical when looking at quality and what changes between the settings is draw distance, ambient occlusion, tessellation, etc. The assets stay the same.
That would be cool if this were true then the eventual upgrade is inevitable, I would think. However I think that they just created small areas of the world to show off and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some post-processing in there.
Edit: I was referring to 2013 video but you mentioned the video from 9 mo ago. I think that gameplay looks pretty similar to what we have today. They might have changed some of the colors and made a few tweaks to improve density but it still has the painted foliage and mediocre draw distance. Their entire livelihoods were riding on the reception of that gameplay so I don't blame them for spicing it up a bit. I would have.
Last edited:
I'd hope for even more optimization especially for 21:9 widescreen. I'm running everything ultra except hair works on a R9 295x2 and I'm only getting 40-50fps.
they are open about moddnig i just hope they dont hold the redkit to much and we can see mods at least at the end of tis year
I'm still hoping CDPR does an official statement and clear some stuff up.
I am one of the people that cancelled my preorder because of the change in fidelity.
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/36987-Witcher-3-Graphics?p=1676516#post1676516
All you people who canceled the preorder, did you buy this game purely for those graphics (I understand that graphics are big thing for some people), in which case
gameplay/story/characters etc. didn't matter at all? I've been playing this game for about 10 hours now and it's already in top 3 best games I have played.
I just can't help but think what awesome experinece you lost...
And graphics, well, they are still better than any other open world game there is.
i agree with you. amazing amazing experience.
about graphics though. if ACU counts as open world i think it has better graphics (but TW3 scope is so much bigger than that is expected). The game looks beautiful though.
I don't know. I used to play Witcher 2 with the ultra+ settings (and sometimes with ubersampling enabled) and it looked awesome. Now I managed to tweak The Witcher 3 to run at 2715*1527 DSR resolution, most settings at ultra, some at low, and it looks awesome (30+ FPS)...
- Status