I don't think there is anything wrong with discussing a potential downgrade. The question is whether people can do so in a calm, and civil manner while providing ample evidence to support their opinion, instead of just saying things like:
or
- Status
or
A redpoint for your boundless optimism. We've all seen this topic done to death. It can't go anywhere useful, unless you're got a chip to grind.
There can be no "facts" for various reasons like we haven't got the release versions yet, we can't properly compare screenies with vids, and gameplay with trailers, and day shots with night shots, etc, ad absurdum.
Only facts I can state is I don't see evidence of downgrade, theres no history of such behaviour from the REDs, and graphics aren't everything in a game like this.
Theres some subjectivity in those facts of mine, please realise there is subjectivity in any claims of yours as well.
Objectivity is impossible on this subject at this time.
When a graphic engine is capable of great things, and the developers are good there is no need for a separate work between PC and the other high end platforms aka console. Also I think there is no need for magic tricks, as the game already looks great as it is.
Of course we don't know much about it but I think that the difference between ultra and high WILL matter, otherwise I can't understand why they are holding it off for May 19th
Yah, I think @sidspyker has a video on hus youtube channel of a GDC talk where they basically said their gameplay engine is built to make extensive use of VRAM because console VRAM is more powerful than PC VRAM or something like that. i.e. 8GB of console vram is more powerful than 8GB of PC vram. He can correct me if I am wrong.
Those rules are in line with the general rules of this forum that you as a user accept when you join this community.
Here's a link for your convenience: http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/23532-Forum-Rules-and-Regulations?p=960707#post960707
I wouldn't say downgrade but a forced push to show off the game on Xbone or it's PC equivalent (whatever dinosaur that is) compared to the first trailers and screen shots. I think that's what created the whole argument. Kinda like W_Ds, with their amped up PC footage at E3 and a gimped console build two years later.
Of course. But, if High settings PC = console version, then I want to run it...no, I demand to run it at 30 fps on a 750ti.
What was most controversial on WD was that the E3 graphics were mostly hidden in the game code. Some guys found it and mad a little mod to unlock them. The difference was big
Exactly, while i don't think CDPRed would stoop to such lows to keep their console partners happy, it pains me that because of that partnership we can't even get a lick of a preview running in it's full glory.
Can't reply, as I don't know what GPU does consoles have. I believe we have to wait for post May 19th benchmarks to see what videocard we will need to run the game the way we want it.
Custom 1.75 GHz AMD 8 core APU (2 Quad-Core Jaguar modules), which is the equivalent of a tablet PC in terms of power, but because of it's unified architecture with VRAM and GPU integration it translates to a 7790 1GB benchmark wise.
So the first few responses to this thread were sarcastic and uninformative, intended to derail the thread and distract from it's purpose, from people whom would otherwise defend the game. The post's I've read claiming downgrade have at 'least made an effort to backup their judgement, and at'least the OP had the courtesy to backup their claim with "evidence".
Everyone just be civil. BOTH parties to this discussion get too carried away. Thank you mods for keeping the thread open.
Everyone just be civil. BOTH parties to this discussion get too carried away. Thank you mods for keeping the thread open.
What I found strange is that, obviously, CDPR knows well that those kind of gameplay video will provoke a hornet's nest...and again not a word from them after many fans claimed a downgrade...wouldn't be easier just say "Yes, this is the real graphic" or "don't worry, the higher settings will blow you away"...even in the first case i think REAL FANS of Geralt will buy the game anyway...coz of course is not just a graphic issue...just please be clear for once! 
Can't see why the devs can't come out and say why these screens look vastly different from each other.
Yes, lightning, location etc play a part but you can clearly see a difference. Subjectively good or bad, but a difference non-the-less.
Last edited:
What I found strange is that, obviously, CDPR knows well that those kind of gameplay video will provoke a hornet's nest...and again not a word from them after many fans claimed a downgrade...wouldn't be easier just say "Yes, this is the real graphic" or "don't worry, the higher settings will blow you away"...even in the first case i think REAL FANS of Geralt will buy the game anyway...coz of course is not just a graphic issue...just please be clear for once!
Marketing is not that simple. They can't reply to every single claim and have to be very careful. Any mistake may cost them a lot.
Sometimes it is best to impress people with a never-shown-before ultra setting!
I think what i said before made it obvious... First trailer: clearly PC model renders, gameplay running Ultra on a PC, all the gameplay footage after that: Xbone and PC running settings lowered to match Xbone's.
- Status