- Status
It's not a matter of high level graphics or any other part system of the game. When you buy or thinkg about to buy a game you know you won't get the perfect one, with all differeent parts at 100/100 of level, neither at 90%.
My opinion is that, making a parabola with the options of a tree construction skills of a character, you can choose to put all levels in the medium, or distribute the points according to your needs or interests.
We all aspire to the maximum in all fields, but it is logical to be realistic. An example, Ubisoft spent more than 5000 workers, two years and all the cutting edge technology that his long experience got them to finance for ACIV. Comparing CDPR, its lowest financing facilities, its 200 employees, the original two years (plus delays) for a game that is supposed must equal facing the player, we have a giant automated motivated only by the money, and a small artisan seeking to create a competitive product to sell to the world. And without losing quality, essence and philosophy of its principles.
It is logical to expect along the way there are some losses and many improvements.
I expect to have the game in my hands, on my computer, my keyboard and my monitor, and only then I can decide whether all this effort and hopes to be worth it.
And then judge according to the developer and capabilities.
Meanwhile, I understand most sensible comment on possible failures, tastes and aspirations while avoiding extremism take for granted a hoax, a lie or a scam without evidence or argue anything except what impressions.
Let's critics, not pickey.
Sorry for Google translation
It's a text too long for my absolut control
My opinion is that, making a parabola with the options of a tree construction skills of a character, you can choose to put all levels in the medium, or distribute the points according to your needs or interests.
We all aspire to the maximum in all fields, but it is logical to be realistic. An example, Ubisoft spent more than 5000 workers, two years and all the cutting edge technology that his long experience got them to finance for ACIV. Comparing CDPR, its lowest financing facilities, its 200 employees, the original two years (plus delays) for a game that is supposed must equal facing the player, we have a giant automated motivated only by the money, and a small artisan seeking to create a competitive product to sell to the world. And without losing quality, essence and philosophy of its principles.
It is logical to expect along the way there are some losses and many improvements.
I expect to have the game in my hands, on my computer, my keyboard and my monitor, and only then I can decide whether all this effort and hopes to be worth it.
And then judge according to the developer and capabilities.
Meanwhile, I understand most sensible comment on possible failures, tastes and aspirations while avoiding extremism take for granted a hoax, a lie or a scam without evidence or argue anything except what impressions.
Let's critics, not pickey.
Sorry for Google translation
It's a text too long for my absolut control Regarding:
There's a difference between posting concerns on the forums and making posts like
So everyone has had a nice little break to take a deep breath, and now, if you wish to continue posting here, revert to civil discussion.
Which, for the record, also means no more posts like this:
Yup.
There's a difference between posting concerns on the forums and making posts like
which aren't really capable of being interpreted as "feedback", but simply as flamebait, intended to provoke a negative response from others on this site. (Which is what happened, as a result of which TWO posts got deleted).
So everyone has had a nice little break to take a deep breath, and now, if you wish to continue posting here, revert to civil discussion.
Which, for the record, also means no more posts like this:
I'm sorry, but the second image,... well, I always had though of it as a prerender. Remember that the first trailer had some in game images and some prerendered ones.one of recent gameplay 15 minutes one
one of the first screens from witcher 3 (2 years old probably) scene is from debut trailer
it is not just sharpening filter
in those 2 years they managed to improve character models and lower anything else
And I had nver seen, neither in graphic demos, a landscape rendered with this level of qualirty.
The game looks vastly different from the VGX trailer. If you remove Geralt and the other identifiable characters i would not even be able to recognise that are different builds from the same game. Did it look better back then? YEah it did. PARTS of the VGX trailer had the most incredible visuals i have ever seen, like the swamp area, and the village part with the spinning kid. I never thought that the actual game would look like that. It was a first build that most likely failed. There is no way that this thing would run on consoles, and even on PCs, it seems like it would require a titan Z to play it on medium. CDPR are not stupid, they did not betray us. If it was possible to deploy that build they would. It is just not possible.
THat being said i am not dissapointed in the least. THe game today still looks absolutely gorgeous. I always considered the 35min gameplay as a accurate represantation as to how the game will look, and i see a clear upgrade since then. There is also a slight change in the art direction from the Sword of Destiny trailer, but i still beleive that the game will look as good or better than SoD.
THat being said i am not dissapointed in the least. THe game today still looks absolutely gorgeous. I always considered the 35min gameplay as a accurate represantation as to how the game will look, and i see a clear upgrade since then. There is also a slight change in the art direction from the Sword of Destiny trailer, but i still beleive that the game will look as good or better than SoD.
Amazing. It is hard to believe.
But I'm not sure what kind of computer will be able to run it.
And from your video it still feels as some stress gpu test that has not made the final cut.
One of the cornerstones of PC gaming is selecting your own settings, though. I have no doubt that the original visuals would cause most PCs to struggle immensely, but that's why graphics options exist. There's no reason to take the option away from people because not everyone can run it. The idea of PC graphics settings is to cater to the highest common denominator and then provide options to scale it back for lower-end rigs, not the reverse.
(As an aside, I see that GingerEffect from CDPR is currently browsing the thread. Here's hoping he's here to take our concerns on board. I have no disrespect for the REDs, it must be said, and I mostly expect us to receive the promised graphics settings on ultra when the game comes out. Our dear friend Marcin came out and explicitly said 'yes' in response to a question on whether we would be able to exactly replicate the SoD trailer's scenes at their full graphical fidelity when the game releases, which makes me think they are going to deliver that. There'd be no reason for CDPR to lie about such a thing - it'd just harm their reputation permanently for little gain).
(As an aside, I see that GingerEffect from CDPR is currently browsing the thread. Here's hoping he's here to take our concerns on board. I have no disrespect for the REDs, it must be said, and I mostly expect us to receive the promised graphics settings on ultra when the game comes out. Our dear friend Marcin came out and explicitly said 'yes' in response to a question on whether we would be able to exactly replicate the SoD trailer's scenes at their full graphical fidelity when the game releases, which makes me think they are going to deliver that. There'd be no reason for CDPR to lie about such a thing - it'd just harm their reputation permanently for little gain).
Last edited:
I agree, in some ways it already looks better than the SoD trailer and at least as good.
I think the shading has noticeably regressed since the 35-minute gameplay trailer, and the lighting overall looks a lot more 'flat'. If you look at Geralt's armour in the new footage, for instance, the blue parts almost seem like they're Photoshopped in, they don't have any shadows cast on them and the material just doesn't seem to interact or reflect with the light at all.
That said, of course, we never learned what settings the 35-minute gameplay trailer were on, and if I had to guess, they were probably on ultra or somewhere around ultra. Given that the newer footage is confirmed to be running on high settings, I have high hopes that the 35-minute gameplay trailer's visuals are basically what we'll see ultra being on launch, which is, honestly, all I ever expected. Those visuals are honestly about on par with everything we've ever seen - a lot of the earlier stuff was extremely heavy tech demo material and also set up to perfectly show off the engine and tech. Gameplay videos are never going to look as good as trailers for that reason, but I have confidence that CD Projekt won't allow a downgrade in the end.
Maybe this was mentioned before but I have to wonder: Why is nobody talking about upgrade? Ever? Watching the very first gameplay footage and comparing it to what we got later, it is absolutely obvious that textures, lighting (!!!) and Geralt's face were massively improved! Anyone else noticed that?
:look:
:look:
Looking back to the very first trailer, especially the first image, I started to think (or to hope ) that those kind of details are from Ultra\Uber settings...I'm thinking that coz if you take a closer look at the ground textures, they are pretty like the ones in TW2 uber...
[/
) that those kind of details are from Ultra\Uber settings...I'm thinking that coz if you take a closer look at the ground textures, they are pretty like the ones in TW2 uber...
Oh, I did it, in other forums. They post a trailer comparation to talk about downgrade but to me... it was an upgrade.
Lighting is clearly far better than on the first trailers. It is something very clear.
Easily the best post I've read on the matter, here or anywhere else. This is Christopher-Hitchens-kind of sagacity at work here, advancing through the savannah of knee jerk reactions and defensive lingo.
The second REDs would admit to the game now looking inconsistent with VGX and SoD and calmly explaining the very sensible reasons compromises had to be made for the sake of the greater good, the second that would happen this thread would suddenly deflate like a pierced tyre. While I now have come to terms with the inconsistency, I don't welcome it nor do I deny it. Denial would leave the door open for a similar inconsistency to plague CP2077 or TW4. And statements like «we won't show ultra beforehand» run contrary to any efforts to be open and honest about the matter.
The «graphics don't matter» apologists might want to consider looking for a different developer to stand indefectibly behind, one that didn't once list «near CGI graphics» and now lists «Genre defying, truly next generation audio-visual fidelity» as a top goal for their current IP. These individuals have been trying to pull this off for years now and it just doesn't seem to dawn on them that going up to people who crave cauliflower and asserting that cauliflower is unimportant is plain futile and does not amount to a point. Even if their case wasn't as shabby as it is, at the end of the day I would still crave cauliflower and seek to have the craving quenched.
I do know this is the official forum, as the North American Community Manager was recently kind enough to illustrate and moderators will routinely show. But regular members, please don't take it upon you to defend CD Projekt above and beyond the call of duty. Look, criticizing some graphic aspect isn't necessarily the same as criticizing the game as a whole, which in turn isn't necessarily the same as criticizing CD Projekt RED altogether. Being keen on graphics doesn't necessarily mean one deems them the only possible virtue a game can have, not even its most important virtue. Yet a variation on these strawman arguments will keep creeping back into the discussion. The least you could do is realize it hasn't worked out.
Last edited:
Well the early released screenshots were made on the old renderer (I prefer the early style and color pallette) and has a sharpening filter over it and I believe other effects applies to them.
So the early screenshots never really gave a realistic view of how TW3 would look. It showed us what the devs thought the game could look like. Or wanted it to look like. I mean can we really expect that the game would look like that, or even better? 2 years before a release date was even given and CDPR in full production of TW3.
-(The next part is just speculation on my part, I think it's plausable)-
It was the first time for CDPR aswell, working with the new consoles. And since they might not have been as powerfull as people hoped/expected, the devs had to dail the game down. I mean look at the pc Specs, not a easy game to run. And even if CDPR would want to make a separate version for the pc (so no sharing of any assets between platforms) the costs of developing TW3 would be way to big.
So the early screenshots never really gave a realistic view of how TW3 would look. It showed us what the devs thought the game could look like. Or wanted it to look like. I mean can we really expect that the game would look like that, or even better? 2 years before a release date was even given and CDPR in full production of TW3.
-(The next part is just speculation on my part, I think it's plausable)-
It was the first time for CDPR aswell, working with the new consoles. And since they might not have been as powerfull as people hoped/expected, the devs had to dail the game down. I mean look at the pc Specs, not a easy game to run. And even if CDPR would want to make a separate version for the pc (so no sharing of any assets between platforms) the costs of developing TW3 would be way to big.
Last edited:
Some things have been improved, like reflections on metal and those have been mentioned in thread, but in the end even if a game has the best metal reflection in the world it wouldn't make anyone not notice the the bad vegetation.
It's exactly this. In order to keep the VGX build, they would need to create 2 completely different versions of the game, 1 for consoles and one for PCs, and this would propably drive CDPR bankrupt. And even if they did, we should all ask ourselves, for whom they develop the game? It is clear that even with the current build, which BTW looks absolutely gorgeous, high end PCs are already struggling. If they kept the VGX build,it would be an elitist behaviour that lead the game to be unplayble for 99% of the PC player base on anything above low with the current hardware.
It is the same thing with music. I am a professional musican and music teacher with a master's degree. I have worked in a studio and i have heard mixes and materings that sounded absoulutely amazing on 5K focal monitors, but really sub par on averange 50$ headphones that 99% of the people have. So these mixes are beng rejected for others to sound good on every situation, even if the absoultely best sounding result on super high end hardware is sacrifised abit.
We don't want just a great looking game. We want a playble game. Other studios are not stupid as well. EVERYONE could push the graphics to the absolute max, if they ignore the crowd that is actually going to buy and play the game. In the end we have a game that still looks stunning and we should be grateful.
Last edited:
- Status