An Analysis of Graphics ( Ultra/High/Normal/Low )

+

mippoh

Forum veteran
An Analysis of Graphics ( Ultra/High/Normal/Low )

I stumbled onto a German article that has screen-shots comparison for all different settings.http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/the-witcher-2-assassins-of-kings/artikel/the_witcher_2_assassins_of_kings,44750,2322215.htmlI know they have said that in the final game you will be able to fine tune settings.I'm no way an expert at these kind of things, but I thought it would be cool to look at what sets the different default settings apart.Based on the screen-shots I drew these conclusion.The character/environment models in game are all the same for all settings as far as I can tell.Low:Texture quality is at low.Basic Lightning at characters and environment. Probably not real time shadows at all.No Depth of field.No antialiasing.No sunbeams light.No motion blur in action scenes.Only setting that removes higher grass.Medium:Texture quality is medium.Basic Lightning at characters and environment, but characters cast a shadow on objects.No Depth of field.No sunbeams light.No antialiasing.No motion blur in action scenes.High:Texture quality is high.Higher quality shadows and lightning, with characters casting shadows.No Depth of field.Use sunbeams light.Use antialiasing.Use motion blur in action scenes.Ultra:Texture quality is high, same as the "high setting".Best quality shadows and lightning, with characters casting shadows.Depth of field.Use sunbeams light.Use antialiasing.Use motion blur in action scenes.What surprised me the most is that the textures seem to be the same at High vs Ultra Textures Ultra: High High : High Medium: Medium Low: Low Please post your opinions, I would love to hear them =D
 
Hi,Great post, I can tell a small difference I believe from high-ultra; it is minimal though I agree. There is a massive depth of field difference and in the lighting though. Thank you for posting this article, unfortunately most of the English articles covering this game are usually quite shallow ( Per American culture, I'm American..help us :( ). I have found a few Russian articles with over 200 high res screen shots; Gamespot and the like have about 4...Thank you,Alex
 
Anathematic said:
Hi,Great post, I can tell a small difference I believe from high-ultra; it is minimal though I agree. There is a massive depth of field difference and in the lighting though. Thank you for posting this article, unfortunately most of the English articles covering this game are usually quite shallow ( Per American culture, I'm American..help us :( ). I have found a few Russian articles with over 200 high res screen shots; Gamespot and the like have about 4...Thank you,Alex
Welcome Anathematic.. guess you came from BW forum? :pOn-Topic.. since the game utilizes DX9, i guess we won't see much advanced HDR, shaders and lighting effects. Most probably differences are the textures, shadows and depth of field.
 
I'll keep my fingers crossed: currently my laptop only can run the game at low and I'm trying to update it, but it isn't easy. There's a huge leap from low to medium. Thanks for the link, very useful, take and oren.
 

mippoh

Forum veteran
DevilsAdvocate said:
I'll keep my fingers crossed: currently my laptop only can run the game at low and I'm trying to update it, but it isn't easy. There's a huge leap from low to medium. Thanks for the link, very useful, take and oren.
Thx. what are orens anyway? never understood what it's used for.
 
i would make sense if textures are highest on HIGH and not UBER. usually there are 3 levels of textures. low looks horrible in grass areas but i gotta admit that medium and high look great as well, so even those who run the game on medium will have a good looking game. personally i dont intend on crancking the res higher than 1680X1050 and i will leave AA on OFF if i will need to in order to crank everything else to max and i won't be bothered by the jaggies. i just hope that the game will by well optimized cuz it looks good on all levels (but low).
 
Going from low to Ultra is a pretty big difference in textures, lighting, and the amount of vegetation. Regardless glad it still looks beautiful on any level of detail.
 
This is nice. I'll probably have to run at low or at best medium, so it's nice to see that the game still looks pretty good at those settings. Now I just need to see what kind of FPS I get. I would like to play the game without spending $170 on a new video card. (If I do have to get one, I'm looking at an HIS HD6850 with 1GB of RAM on Amazon.) As long as I can play on low with around 20 FPS I'll be fine.If anyone knows what kind of FPS I can expect with an HD 4670, I'd appreciate such info. I've got 8GB of ram and a quad core CPU, so I should be fine there.
 
Oneironaut said:
If anyone knows what kind of FPS I can expect with an HD 4670, I'd appreciate such info. I've got 8GB of ram and a quad core CPU, so I should be fine there.
Hmm, the 4670 is a slower card than the minimum required card. Since you do have a quad core processor I'm not sure if it will make up enough FPS to make the game playable for you or not. We'll have to wait and see.
 
High resolution screens- ultra , medium and low - http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/jonelo/The%20Witcher%202/bigimage1_ultra.jpghttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/jonelo/The%20Witcher%202/bigimage1_medium.jpghttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/jonelo/The%20Witcher%202/bigimage1_low.jpghttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/jonelo/The%20Witcher%202/bigimage2_ultra.jpghttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/jonelo/The%20Witcher%202/bigimage2_medium.jpghttp://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/jonelo/The%20Witcher%202/bigimage2_low.jpg
 
archaven said:
archaven said:
Hi,Great post, I can tell a small difference I believe from high-ultra; it is minimal though I agree. There is a massive depth of field difference and in the lighting though. Thank you for posting this article, unfortunately most of the English articles covering this game are usually quite shallow ( Per American culture, I'm American..help us :( ). I have found a few Russian articles with over 200 high res screen shots; Gamespot and the like have about 4...Thank you,Alex
Welcome Anathematic.. guess you came from BW forum? :pOn-Topic.. since the game utilizes DX9, i guess we won't see much advanced HDR, shaders and lighting effects. Most probably differences are the textures, shadows and depth of field.
Hello again :p,By BW I assume you mean Bioware? I have not been a member there before, I'm just fresh out of the box new to the Witcher forums; to game forums in general as well. I'm curious, what made you assume I was from the BW forums? I know it wasn't an insult and I'm not trying to come off odd. I wish they had utilized Dx11 properly, especially for a "PC exclusive" game of 2011.Alex
 
have you seen any advanced features of dx11 that aren't already present in dx9? chances are, you have not. and you're talking about tessellation, that's actually been exposed as a gimmick quite some time ago.
 
seamusgod said:
have you seen any advanced features of dx11 that aren't already present in dx9? chances are, you have not. and you're talking about tessellation, that's actually been exposed as a gimmick quite some time ago.
Hi,Logically, since I have not seen or heard about this "gimmick" I will not refute it. I have played around with the Heaven benchmark, and its visual effect is clearly not a "gimmick". That being said, I assume you're implying it's nothing that can't be done on dx9? I looked around for articles on tesselation being a "gimmick" and did not find any of real substance. Since you seem to know more, or at least presume; present to me a few articles or examples of your findings. Until that time, I will stick to my present opinion of tesselation being quite astounding visually, whether its available on dx9 and dx11 or not; I have heard nothing about it being in the Witcher 2. I will agree as far as the "improved depth of field" dx11 features are not more impressive than the Witcher 2's in dx9; using Metro 2033 as an example.Edify me, and spare conjectureAlexAlex
 
seamusgod said:
have you seen any advanced features of dx11 that aren't already present in dx9? chances are, you have not. and you're talking about tessellation, that's actually been exposed as a gimmick quite some time ago.
Hardware tessellation's not a "gimmick", it's just that every implementation of it to date has been a bad or merely useless one. The "Heaven" benchmark is a great example of how to use tessellation to waste resources.When the graphic artists figure out how to use tessellation to produce worthwhile realistic high-poly scenes, and the code monkeys figure out how to mechanize tessellation without having to compute kajillions of sub-pixel polys, then we will get some worthwhile DX11 content. That hasn't happened yet, and it may take another year or two before it does.
 
I'll only be able to play it on low or medium since I still need to upgrade...even still, it looks GOOD even on low-medium quality
 
ScepticMatt said:
Looks like Ultra has better shadows (SSAO?)
SSAO is in all levels except low . And in medium there is not DOF . A big diference between Low and the other levels of graphic - low resolution textures , no SSAO , less grass ... seems like in medium will be nice .ps/ motion blur only in ultra and high and sorry for me engrish lenguage ... xd
 
you guys need to stop talking in terms of low/medium/high, etc because things like ssao can reduce the framerate a lot especially if you have a weaker video card. playing on medium with ssao might be worse than playing on high with it off.
 
Top Bottom