its a 6 years old console ..imagine not changing any component in your PC for 3 years.. you would defo notice. Still game looks very good for concole that old that have clearly reach its limits. Just wait for PS4 and x720 ..it will run as good as most expensive PC 60FPS and cost 1/3 of the price.
It's a good looking game and was made for consoles anyway without sacrificing too much on the PC. Consoles still have powerful hardware, it's just mainly limited by memory. Just remember that Witcher 2 on the PC in tech wise is out of date, despite looking really good.
Just a note that the Witcher 2 won't be on new consoles and they will cost a bomb on release as they always do.
Just a note that the Witcher 2 won't be on new consoles and they will cost a bomb on release as they always do.
No one is arguing the 360 is technically superior but as the Eurogamer article says, there are instances where 360 lighting affects are more pleasing artistically if not technically
Mainly with regards to technicolour half naked Geralt, character faces in general, and an overabundance of overly vivid lighting.
Mainly with regards to technicolour half naked Geralt, character faces in general, and an overabundance of overly vivid lighting.
Keep in mind that was the EE on the 360 being compared to the vanilla PC version. The article even expressly stated CDPR wasn't able to get Eurogamer the PC Enhanced Edition in time for the article. They also stated "all the work carried out on the console version is being rolled back into the original game."georaldc said:
Indeed but what the op is referring to is that from the first half hour or so of the EE there are none of the changes to the aesthetics of the lighting present in the 360 version, which is meant to have more naturalistic lighting on faces for instance.darkeningday said:Keep in mind that that was the EE version on the 360 and the 'vanilla' edition on PC. The article even expressly stated CDPR wasn't able to get them the PC Enhanced Edition in time for the article.
Although the 360 has clear technical lighting shortcomings as shown by the same Eurogamer article.
Grayvern said:
It's hard to say why such changes have been made but marketing plays a big part in why such changes where made. I really hated the video where the guy was prising the XBox360 version like the PC version was low quality, I mean he was standing next to a massive screen and noticed some extra detail which he didn't notice in the PC version.
In reality there is no comparison to the PC version maxed out but CDPR are marketing it like a lot of devs do and make it seem like they're equal in fidelity, when they're not. It's probably to do with maximising sales on the console version.
Yeah when I'm playing the enhanced edition I'm not really thinking about other versions artistic differences. To be honest I'm a platform agnostic but I do end up mostly on pc, because frankly the amount of games I play I'm saving lifetime by seeking out shorter load times.
The colors really are more vivid than in the PC version, though. I was struck by just how red Triss's hair was when I first saw her out of the tent, and the entire prologue was filled with colors that I hadn't noticed before. Some of the atmospheric lighting was gone, obviously, such as in the tent and outside on the boat after escaping from the prison, but otherwise the Xbox version has far more vivid colors.n4meless1 said:
On the basis that what constitutes a superior experience for someone depends entirely on how said person defines a "superior experience." Some people couldn't care less about a 30FPS limit. Someone who defines "good graphics" as colorfulness and reined-in bloom could conceivably consider the Xbox version superior in those ways, and the same could go for any of the little differences that separate the two versions.n4meless1 said:
I prefer the PC, myself, but it's important to remember that other people define what's better and worse in completely different ways.
Lol stop this console vs PC wars... Again and again the same shit 6 years back you could say that PS3 and X360 were stronger than a PC because in the same money of a PS3 and a X360 you couldn't afford a PC stronger than them...Nowdays the consoles have too old hardware than a cheap PC. So today every PC that is 2 years old is way better and stronger than the consoles. Still 6 years ago you could build a PC stronger than the consoles but it will cost you TOO MUCH.
So yeah Wicther 2 is way superior in graphics in PC.
6 years back you could say that PS3 and X360 were stronger than a PC because in the same money of a PS3 and a X360 you couldn't afford a PC stronger than them...Nowdays the consoles have too old hardware than a cheap PC. So today every PC that is 2 years old is way better and stronger than the consoles. Still 6 years ago you could build a PC stronger than the consoles but it will cost you TOO MUCH.So yeah Wicther 2 is way superior in graphics in PC.
Again you have to becareful with such videos showing you comparisons, they quite frequently misleading, whether by the people who put them up on youtube or by the technical aspect. Aften the video on youtube are pretty poor quality to even make a fair comparison since even 1080p PC videos or not the quality of the ingame fidelity and the XBox unscaled looks a lot worse.
Also, if you take Crysis on the console for example, they used the Cryengine 3, which used deferred lighting. This wasn't around when Crysis on the PC was made, so it's a totally apples, oranges comparison. The Witcher 2 on the PC is actually use old graphics technology and even missing out on some graphics that other DX9 games have, not to mention DX10/11.
Also, if you take Crysis on the console for example, they used the Cryengine 3, which used deferred lighting. This wasn't around when Crysis on the PC was made, so it's a totally apples, oranges comparison. The Witcher 2 on the PC is actually use old graphics technology and even missing out on some graphics that other DX9 games have, not to mention DX10/11.
It can be simpy testedAncient76 said:
Take PC such as :Radeon X800 Pro
AMD Athlon II X3 450
512mb 700mhz ddr ram
and run the Witcher 2 on it. It should be comparable with x360 ( but still a little faster i think ).
But remeber you can still do awesome thing on old tech. It all depends of time/resources. It's like making 4kb intro, right?
http:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YWMGuh15nECan you explain me one thing?In this rig, at 99 per cent The Witcher 2 even starts. Is it correct?tnz said:It can be simpy tested
Radeon X800 Pro
AMD Athlon II X3 450
512mb 700mhz ddr ram
and run the Witcher 2 on it. It should be comparable with x360 ( but still a little faster i think ).
Why on Pc we need at least a 8800gt or a 4850 to run it?
The Witcher is an example, I'm curious about this.
"360 is technically superior" ...What?Grayvern said:
Xbox360 is superior to modern PC? You must be kidding me.. ok, the Xbox360 version looks great, but far from the what you can see on a modern PC
misho87233 said:
Can you guys even read. He says NO ONE is arguing that the 360 is technically superior.misho87233 said:
However, doing blind tests on a sibling who hardly plays video games, they state that the 360 version looks either the same or better.
What we have here is a difference between art and graphics. The 360 version has better art and that is what is important. I'm pretty annoyed that the EE didn't give us PC users the changes to scene lighting.
This thread should be closed. Moderators please add a rule to stop Pc vs 360 threads!!!
The PC version is technically out of date, DX9 came out in 2002, DX11 is more than 2 years old and TW2 doesn't even use it.
Consoles do have powerful hardware plus the added bonus of no overheads like PC's, so they can actually do more graphically with the hardware they have being direct to metal.
Consoles do have powerful hardware plus the added bonus of no overheads like PC's, so they can actually do more graphically with the hardware they have being direct to metal.