Then buy the game, it still looks good and if you liked the first games, you will probably like this one.Here we go again (i'm saying this more to myself, as i realise where i live, again, LOL).
Well, here the difference is 18.55$. A pre-order is a must if one gotta have that game.
---------- Updated at 12:43 AM ----------
C'mon, guys, back on topic. Don't ruin my precious thread!
Slightly off-topic:
Thanks to the mods for being so quick to strike that I am deprived of the indignity and possible chastisement for posting an ill-tempered response to an unconstructive post.
More on topic:
I look forward to sharing some gorgeous (non spoilerific) screenshots captured on my XB1 once the game releases.
Thanks to the mods for being so quick to strike that I am deprived of the indignity and possible chastisement for posting an ill-tempered response to an unconstructive post.
More on topic:
I look forward to sharing some gorgeous (non spoilerific) screenshots captured on my XB1 once the game releases.
It's pretty obvious that Witcher 3 does not even come close to Witcher 2's graphical prowess and amazing, lush foliage. In my opinion this discussion is useless, it's very obvious that Witcher 3 has your usual run-of-the-mill console graphics with a few nice touches like the wind and stuff. Does *not* even come close to how jaw-dropping Witcher 2 was when it came out.
But that's OK in my book. Witcher 2 had tiny chapter areas. Witcher 3 has a titanic and seamless open world that has x100 the amount of content Witcher 2 has.
I would take an expansive Witcher world full of dozens of monster species and hundreds of hours of quests and exploration over a beautiful Witcher game that is limited in every aspect and ends abruptly and only has Nekkers and Harpies to offer.
But that's OK in my book. Witcher 2 had tiny chapter areas. Witcher 3 has a titanic and seamless open world that has x100 the amount of content Witcher 2 has.
I would take an expansive Witcher world full of dozens of monster species and hundreds of hours of quests and exploration over a beautiful Witcher game that is limited in every aspect and ends abruptly and only has Nekkers and Harpies to offer.
I don't really see the point of this thread to be honest, I don't see what exactly comparing an enclosed game to one of the biggest game in the last few years would achieve, It would be like comparing Myst to any games that followed it for 5 years, when Myst was a series of very detailed static images... Just my opinion, I think it is a bit, well pointless.
I must be having a deja vu - I clearly remember the same threads all over the internet 4 years ago when Witcher 2 came out. People were bashing CDPR for selling their souls, bashing them for console level graphics and so on. And guess what? W2 is now used as an example of completely opposite. How quickly people change their minds.
Oh, btw look at that amazing light effects - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kd7AGWJxFY
Or this combat animations and view distance - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JciyoGmnGyo
Witcher 2 is clearly a downgrade!11oneone
Last edited:
but the console version came out later so why were they angry?
TW2 ranks alongside Crysis and BF3 as the benchmarks for last gen. It's no surprise it still outclasses many modern games.
I love the art direction, the crunchy details, the grimey look of shaders and lighting. This is what i see when someone mentions "dark fantasy". Yeah, TW2, a class of it's own, at least in the visual department.Here's a screenshot I took a while back.
Last edited:
Graphics aside(meaning technical differences). Talking pure artistic style. I much prefer the current style. It varies more. If you've been keeping an eye on the various locations of the game, etc. It evokes styles, and moods from the first game (which imo, was darker in some aspects than the second one).
Plus I like the nice pastel shaded look. As opposed to the over sharpened, radioactive post-processing from the second (imo).
Some nice Witcher 2 shots being posted here, though. I've ran through the game twice so far, with it graphically tweaked past default max, at 1440p. And generally it doesn't consistently look quite that good (sure, in places, yeah it does). A lil bit of cherry picking going on here, me thinks ;p
Nobody is going to argue that TW2 didn't look amazeballs when it came out. Ofc it did. and still does. I was just not personally a real fan of the style they went with, over the first.
Plus I like the nice pastel shaded look. As opposed to the over sharpened, radioactive post-processing from the second (imo).
Some nice Witcher 2 shots being posted here, though. I've ran through the game twice so far, with it graphically tweaked past default max, at 1440p. And generally it doesn't consistently look quite that good (sure, in places, yeah it does). A lil bit of cherry picking going on here, me thinks ;p
Nobody is going to argue that TW2 didn't look amazeballs when it came out. Ofc it did. and still does. I was just not personally a real fan of the style they went with, over the first.
Last edited:
That's more like a good matching version however like I said before TW2 was not a true open world game, it didn't had the scale of TW3 whether you talk about NPCs or the world or the vegetation itself that's why maybe the devs had enough room to make all that beautiful vegetation but TW3 has all that ambitious scale under the hood and all or most of the vegetation is dynamic in movement (not scripted) so if you keep that in mind then it looks very good compared to other games in it's genre (DAI comes to mind and even that has limited/isolated areas).Yes it does.
OPs screen-
A screen I took when I had a HD5850-
Here are two more screenshot that looks very good, once again I am just putting the screenshots released by devs from different builds and unknown settings, I will be able to capture better ones with beautiful lighting and other eye candy when it's out.
@marc_dwonn
TW3 is a huge improvement in character design and expressions and the textures are very sharp, I wonder why you guys just ignore that ? The lighting is a matter of taste, that yellowish dark lighting can be easily achieved with some post processing if you prefer that look and even TW2 doesn't have that all the time, it's just few areas where you get that kind of feel. Anyway some more screenshots from the limited stock lol.
I disagree, Triss looks just as good as ever, if not even prettier in the picture just posted. I do agree that Yennefer is getting more attention, which may be why you think she looks prettier. That being said, they both look amazing, and not out of character imo :halt:
Well here are my shots, I think Witcher 3 looks very nice,
It is all just matter of darker shadows and saturation, nothing it can't be done with sweet fx
In all there is uber setting in files of w3
Lod and distance + grass density can be changed, even water tessellation
so I would not worry
It is all just matter of darker shadows and saturation, nothing it can't be done with sweet fx
In all there is uber setting in files of w3
Lod and distance + grass density can be changed, even water tessellation
so I would not worry
Attachments
Holy crap that second shot! Did you touch up that image? It looks fantastic!