Witcher 3 Graphics

[luc0s]

@luc0s
*sigh* indeed, every post you make is filled with incorrect information.

1. The console architecture is not at all like PC, the porting process is not much easier than it was last-gen and still costs a lot of money unless you're using UE4 or another established engine Most devs worth talking about don't do that.
2. "Ultra settings" isn't a necessary benchmark to discuss, if you lower your foliage one setting you gain a ton of frames and lose barely any quality, let alone minor .ini tweaks that also improve your frame rate a lot. You can get ultra-esque settings with Hairworks at 60fps with a single 980 but this is a bad thing, that means the game isn't future proofed if we can cap it already. What a drag.
3. Graphical settings exist for the low-end users. We've also said this to you for the millionth time, so please stop this already.

Also what about five to ten years ago? It hasn't changed in that window but developers spend more money on marketing than they did in the past. That's by far the main reason game budgets have increased. Next you should realize there are more people working on games now but they come out a lot bigger and faster as a consequence, it evens out in the end. Neither of these things are related to what any of us are talking about though yet you brought it up anyway. It doesn't enforce your statement either.

That guy is right and even CDPR agrees, the game is a multiplatform "looks great on all platforms" game aka a console port. It's not a PC game ported down like it was advertised as.

*sigh* Here we go again...

1. The console architecture of the PS4 and Xbone is almost EXACTLY like the PC architecture. Both consoles have overclocked PC hardware in them, which is a huge benefit to us developers because now developing for consoles is actually quite easy and almost exactly the same as developing for PC, while with the previous generation (PS3 and Xbox360) developing for consoles was quite a challenge due to the completely different architecture. Especially the PS3 was a bitch to develop for.

2. That doesn't make any sense.

3. And I said for the millionth time that it's a complete waste of time and money to develop a 'super utlra' graphics settings if only 0,1% of your players will be able to run it. It would be a huge investment to please a very tiny minority. I already said this a million times and I will keep saying this until you finally stop bringing up your bogus arguments.

Game development has changed A LOT in the last 5 years. We got Unreal 4 and a new generation of consoles to work with. Games also keep becoming bigger and bigger and gamers become more and more demanding (as you are the example of, lol). Meanwhile the prices of games have stayed the same while development costs have almost tripled over the last 5 years. Unless you're okay with paying 10 bucks extra for your videogames you're gonna have to accept that developers are working with limited budgets and they're gonna have to make sacrifices in order to make a profit, such as developing the game multi-platform and making the same build across all platforms.

I'm actually writing a paper right now on this subject so I think I know what I'm talking about. If you want I can post my paper, my research and my findings on this forum once my paper is done and accepted.

 

[Cirivia]

Really 102 pages of graphics debating? *sigh* The game looks amazing regardless of platform.

 

[luc0s]

you realize producing game cost them 13 million and marketing it, 21 million dollars + 25 million from publishers,Microsoft and Sony?

And you realize the most sales are coming from console gamers who buy their games on the PS4 and Xbone?

Developing multi-platform is a small investment in comparison to the amount of profit that you'll make from it. CDPR said so themselves. Do I need to quote them?

"If the consoles are not involved there is no Witcher 3 as it is," answers Marcin Iwinski, definitively. "We can lay it out that simply. We just cannot afford it, because consoles allow us to go higher in terms of the possible or achievable sales; have a higher budget for the game, and invest it all into developing this huge, gigantic world.

"Developing only for the PC: yes, probably we could get more [in terms of graphics] as there would be nothing else - they would be so focused, like if we would develop only on Xbox One or PlayStation 4. But then we cannot afford such a game." - Marcin Iwinski (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...he-witcher-3-graphics-downgrade-issue-head-on)

 

[Mozalbete]

Yes, just like Crysis, whose sales were hugely increased after going multiplatform. Oh wait, Crysis 1 sold much more. Or Star citizen, which has a very little budget. Oh wait, it's higher than TW3's. It's almost... almost as if gamers rewarded quality instead of developers selling out.

With no consoles we get a PC game. A 25h PC game is better than a 250h console game. It will be much better done, with mods already which would probably add a couple thosand hours and not having to wait until the Microsoft and Sony overlords give their approval to patches. And we would get a game with no lies, with constant improvements instead of constant "optimization".
The "it wouldn't be as it is!" is just another lie. They said we would get to a certain graphical level to get sales and now they lie to save face and get sales, so don't use PR quotes as anything more than someone desperately trying to get more sales.

It really depresses me. That's why I like many indie games so much, because I can trust they will do their best, with no restrictions, no wider audience, just quality.

 

[bauzzer]

@luc0s

so this is my last post to you

-nobody here wanted witcher 3 to be pc excursive
-CDPR did simple port, game is unoptimized
-ultra looks almost same as PS4, ps4 option is much much cheaper
-you defend simple port, that is it

i won't discuss more with you, cheers

 

[GuyNwah]

Moderator: Members who accuse ANYBODY of lying may find their posts removed or their accounts banhammered. This is not an invitation to debate forum moderation. It is a final decision of the moderators that members will maintain common decency as a condition of being allowed to use the forum.

 

[Herbert2]

I apologize for excerpting your post, but I wanted to reinforce this one point.

It's not even a matter of a choice between a less ambitious game and the one we actually got. The CDPR interviews made that very clear. The choice was between getting the game as it was developed or no game at all.

CDPR is not a hobby shop or a nonprofit. They do not have the luxury of making a game for a market that cannot pay for it; the only manner of game they can make is one that will sell at a price and volume that will earn them a profit.

They were very clear that a PC only title was a nonstarter, and that the only way they could deliver this game at all was to use a common code base and resource base, in an architecture that supported greater performance on the PC. Claims that this is somehow false or misled the actual customers for the game are so baseless as to be not worth the bits to answer.

Let me tell you how i see it. (That´s my opinion, compatible with the forum structure, no need for infraction points spamming here)

We knew it would be Crossplattform, but CDPR told us it would be developed for PC and ported down to Consoles. But Fact is, the early Footage was made on PC for Marketing, the Game itself was developed for Consoles and ported to PC.

That´s my last Post about this topic.

 

[Witcherman]

A 25h PC game is better than a 250h console game.

That's not correct hehe. This is all getting really theoretical and what not though we should probably stop. CDPR may, and should, just patch in all or some of the things they removed. Everyone would be happy then. The game is still good despite being a "console game", it just doesn't look as good as it can. Well in my opinion.

 

[luc0s]

It really isn't, even CDPR had interviews stating that. Microsoft had to optimize their system for the game to run on it, they said they had trouble getting 1080p for both consoles, they claimed they maxed out the PS4 and had to optimize, and delayed the game several times almost certainly because of such optimizations. The game doesn't run that well on either system after all. Other developers have gone into detail on the differences, most notably the ram. It's not a cut and paste job like you assume it is.

You really don't know what you're talking about do you? And quite frankly my patience with you is running low because of it. But I'll explain it to you once more:

The reason why they had trouble optimizing the game for the consoles is because the consoles run on frikkin' GTX 750s! It has absolutely nothing to do with architecture and everything to do with the limited PC hardware that's in the current-gen consoles.

The architecture of the PS4 and Xbone and the PC are the same.

It's not worth discussing a graphical setting of a game if you can optimize the game yourself, increasing performance and visuals which is the case for TW3

Again, this point doesn't make any sense. Quite frankly I don't even understand what point you're trying to make and how this is supposed to help you win the argument about the fact that TW3 as it is already puts the current-gen PC hardware to its limits.

The fact you can tweak ini-files doesn't mean anything. Do you honestly think that with tweaking ini files you can make the game look better AND make the game run smoother? That's not how it works. You can tweak your ini files to make the game look better OR make the game run smoother.

there's no difference between a main game and you're presumed vertical slice of it. From what we know so far it was not a vertical slice however.

Exactly. You've just proved my point. Just because the 2014 demos ran smoothly with such graphics fidelity doesn't mean the real and full game would run smoothly with those graphics. CDPR said so themselves. The reason the downgrade happened is because they couldn't implement those same graphics for the final game. That's what they said. But if you don't want to believe them and instead come up with baseless assumptions and conspiracy theories about why the downgrade happened, be my guest.

Games have been smaller than ever lately from my view. Linear shooters, sequels with less to do than previous titles, 5 hour indie titles, rehash MMOs, underwhelming RPGs, a declining portable game library, Japan increasingly heading to mobile, the list goes on. This is off-topic though.

From your point of view maybe, but not from the developers point of view. The production pipeline of a tipple-A videogame today is almost 10 times as big and 20 times as complex as it was several years ago. Especially with non-linear open-world RPGs like The Witcher 3.

 

[bryjoered]

The game still looks great for what it's worth. Witcher 2 sold 1.8 million copies, Witcher 3's PREORDERS were that many. The consoles have a huge install base, bigger than the high end PC gaming crowd that can run this game. The whole "PC games generate more revenue" is purely and simply because of MOBAS like league of legends and their microtransactions.

When it comes to AAA cutting edge titles consoles trump PC sales. I love my PC and I wish everyone had one, but facts are facts. I run this game maxed out and it hurts my GPU very much. The new patch also improves graphics.

CD Project REd: ADD SOME TESSELATION TO THE TERRAIN I also wouldn't mind having some of the volumetric fog and particle effects back, but other than that the game looks great to me.

 

[web-head91]

please ladies and gentlemen, keep calm. the last thing we need is to have this thread to turn into an other flamewar involving which platform is superior and such.
we're here to discuss the witcher 3 graphics: past, present and future.
we may argue about what happned and what ifs. the points that @luc0s have raised are legit, but there's other technical reasons we may not know of.
allow me to explain: as we all know, the Red engine 2, which was used for TW2, was very demanding in terms of resources. when the game was first launched, people struggled to get it maxed out on their PCs, and it was still a marvel to behold even at low/ medium.

however, one has to wonder, what does that have to do with the TW3 and the RED engine 3 ? well it's quite simple !
the new engine, is an evolution of the old one (kind of like linux OS, there are multiple iterations/evolutions, but they still share the same core/kernel). therefore, it may take many of its strengths, improove upon them and add some more features, especially considering the third game's nature (non linear open world => more complexity). however, it may be inevitable to inherit some of its problems, such as the highly demanding resources. thus leading us to the same situation we had with the TW2: no one will be able to max out the game for a few years to come. and this may be very problematic, not for PC users, but for consoles considering their limitations.

However, this time around, things are different. TW3 is a multiplatform game and needs to work properly on all platforms, thus the drastic changes in the original game engine. despite all that, we may still yet get the visuals we were promised before, with a possible new jump in hardware and software coming VERY soon, i.e. new hardware and new software like DX12, and may have not to wait a year or two before we'll be able to max out the game with the stripped features.

i hope the post i wrote made sense, and thanks for your attention.

 

[Zat0ichi]

Its clear the graphics are not going to get an overhall on PC (judging from cdpr press) I'm going to put witcher 3 on the shelf (as in not buy it yet). Ive got two kids so my gaming time is precious. This was going to be my beautifully crafted world to escape to and its not finished yet.

I'm old, I have patience.

2 years on it before cyberpunk you say?

 

[Witcherman]

The architecture of the PS4 and Xbone and the PC are the same.

The architecture of the PS4 and Xbone and the PC are the same.

You say this with nothing to back it up while stating contradictory statements. You say the consoles have a 750 in them but a 750 is more powerful than both of them which are using much older and weaker GPUs, a 750 on PC runs this game(and most others) better than them to boot. Both systems have odd ram configurations developers constantly speak about having troubles with in the porting process, they are -not- the same. The PS4 doesn't even use DirectX.

Do you honestly think that with tweaking ini files you can make the game look better AND make the game run smoother?

That's what I said and yes it does. A good example is the new mipmap addition, reducing that gives returns many frames and makes the game easier on the eyes. Another example lies in the shadow and foliage tweaks, you can increase the shadow draw distance so it affect tree lods and decrease the tree range to give you much better performance. You don't notice the change since the trees are shaded but you notice a big boost in frame rate. I have an old PC and this game isn't pushing it to the limit at all, guys with 970s can tweak the game to get 60fps with mostly ultra+hairworks at all times, the game runs fine.

. CDPR said so themselves. The reason the downgrade happened is because they couldn't implement those same graphics for the final game. That's what they said.

They explicitly said they were talking about the 2013 trailers, not the 2014 gameplay which you know was running real-time and on PC. It was, at one point, the build we were going to get as many Red posters have confirmed.

The production pipeline of a tipple-A videogame today is almost 10 times as big and 20 times as complex as it was several years ago

Feel free to prove this but it's looking grim for your argument when you look at some facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_video_games_to_develop

 

[bryjoered]

Its clear the graphics are not going to get an overhall on PC (judging from cdpr press) I'm going to put witcher 3 on the shelf (as in not buy it yet). Ive got two kids so my gaming time is precious. This was going to be my beautifully crafted world to escape to and its not finished yet.

I'm old, I have patience.

2 years on it before cyberpunk you say?

I actually think that they will add some features back into the game, regardless once the redkit is released to the public the mods will make the game look even better than the 2013 trailer, so don't worry about it.

 

[Septerra_Core]

The reason the downgrade happened is because they couldn't implement those same graphics for the final game

I think you're missing something. The right sentence should be:

The reason the downgrade happened is because they couldn't implement those same graphics for the final game in consoles.
Then the reason why the downgrade happened on PCs is because the investors demanded parity. And it is totally their right since who would pay for console graphics instead of the Next Gen Nvidia Gameworks and other stuff?

This is the most rational explanation could anyone give I think.

 

[luc0s]

Yes, just like Crysis, whose sales were hugely increased after going multiplatform. Oh wait, Crysis 1 sold much more. Or Star citizen, which has a very little budget. Oh wait, it's higher than TW3's. It's almost... almost as if gamers rewarded quality instead of developers selling out.

Crysis 1 also went multiplatform later, but I guess you conveniently forgot about that. Even so, the lack of sales of Crysis 2 has jack-all to do with the fact it went multi-platform. I mean if you want to play it this way, then fine: The Witcher 3 is selling more than The Witcher 2 and The Witcher 1 combined. So yeah, go figure.

Gamers are indeed rewarding quality, and the quality of CDPR's games are extremely high. That's why we love them. The Witcher 3 is an amazing high-quality game.

Or do you really mean "graphics" when you say "quality"? In that case: no, you're wrong. Most gamers don't give a damn about graphics as long as the game looks pleasing. Case in point: Minecraft.

With no consoles we get a PC game. A 25h PC game is better than a 250h console game.

No, without consoles you'd not get The Witcher 3 at all.

"If the consoles are not involved there is no Witcher 3 as it is," - Marcin

And if you think a 25h PC game is better than a 250 multi-platform game then... well.. I guess you're entitled to your opinions, but I think that's a ridiculous statement.

It will be much better done, with mods already which would probably add a couple thosand hours and not having to wait until the Microsoft and Sony overlords give their approval to patches. And we would get a game with no lies, with constant improvements instead of constant "optimization".

Keep dreaming.

The "it wouldn't be as it is!" is just another lie.

No it isn't.

They said we would get to a certain graphical level to get sales and now they lie to save face and get sales, so don't use PR quotes as anything more than someone desperately trying to get more sales.

Yaay, more tin-foil hattery! Please do tell me more about how evil and greedy CDPR is.

It really depresses me. That's why I like many indie games so much, because I can trust they will do their best, with no restrictions, no wider audience, just quality.

You have a very cute and idealistic image of the indie scene. Almost adorable. Man are you in for a rough awakening when you realize that the indie scene is the most corrupt scene of the entire game industry. If anyone lies a lot and uses PR much it's the indies.

The whole "indie" thing is nothing more than PR bullshit. There is absolutely no real difference between an indie studio and a studio like CD Projekt RED. The only difference is the size of their budget and the quality of their games (CDPR having a bigger budget and better games).

 

[Witcherman]

Witcher 2 sold 1.8 million copies,

It sold a lot more than this, Steam spy says it has 3 million owners and I know many people bought it from GOG. I think CDPR said The Witcher series sold 5+ million too and you know most of those were the second game.

 

[bryjoered]

I think you're missing something. The right sentence should be:

The reason the downgrade happened is because they couldn't implement those same graphics for the final game in consoles.
Then the reason why the downgrade happened on PCs is because the investors demanded parity. And it is totally their right since who would pay for console graphics instead of the Next Gen Nvidia Gameworks and other stuff?

This is the most rational explanation could anyone give I think.

Yes, you're right they optimized the game for the consumer group that earns them the most money. They didn't purposely downgrade the PC, they did a half-assed port of the console build and slapped hairworks on it, it's clear. But they can still fix it.

 

[essenthy]

her's a more accurate version, PC ultra, i tweaked the ini files but i dont think it has any influences on geralt signes effects

 

[bryjoered]

Yaay more tinfoil hat conspiracy nuttery!

You do realize CDPR is an independent company and their investors are people outside of the games industry who couldn't care less about parity, right? Oh you didn't? Well, now you know.

So I hope you now realize how insane your baseless conspiracy theory sounds.

I don't think most sane people think they reduced quality for parity. The quality is reduced we clearly got the console build with slapped on hairworks and virtually identical visuals.