Graphic downgrade

[freakie1one]

Almost every game in development is "downgraded" in some way, shape or form during development. People act like this is some new trend but it's a normal part of game development. Developers add as much as they can to the game and they must tweak things as they go to make it all work together. An example; a game might have amazing visuals before more advanced AI behaviors are added to NPCs. After adding the AI the game takes a performance hit so the devs have to scale back something else in the game since they consider the AI behaviors to be a top priority.

Balancing all the different components that make up a game is a completely normal part of development and this occurs for most of the development cycle. This is why screenshots and videos have a "WORK IN PROGRESS" statement to alert people that things are likely to change (sometimes for the better, sometimes worse).

 

[CostinRaz]

Here's some simple indisputable facts.

1) The Game looks worse then it did in previous trailers.
2) CDPR claimed, inside said trailers, that this was gameplay footage.
3) CDPR also claimed that the final version of the game would look considerably better.
4) When confronted with allegations that they downgraded the graphics they have flat out denied it every time.

The real problem isn't in so much that they might have downgraded the graphics because no system could run the game otherwise the problem lies in two things:

a) That they downgraded graphics on all platforms even though PCs might have been able to handle the more advance version. As was the case in other titles and there's plenty of reason to believe this might be the case considering what they've mentioned in interviews about parity.
b) That they have constantly lied to their audience and engaged in false advertising.

To me personally although a pisses me off it is b cause if they lied about the graphics why wouldn't they lie about other aspects of the game? In particular the story. The largest concern everyone has had is in their capacity to deliver an amazing story in an open world game. They've claimed time and time again that they will deliver on this but why should I believe them?


Mod Edit: Let's not call arguments by other people as excuses, shall we?

 

[gregski]

From reading the article it's just confirms what I have been saying/thinking all this time. Console version vs pc version will only have small differences in terms of Gfx.

All new pc games at ultra settings look nearly identical to the console counterparts. It's just going to be that way for awhile until the end of this console cycle then pc games will start to pull away with Gfx.

I wouldn't take Badowski's words literally. I think he tries to be diplomatic and not alienate a big part of their audience by clearly stating that one version will be superior to another.

And how will the PC ultra compare to consoles?

You will be able to find some small differences like Nvidia Hairworks for example but they are very demanding graphically so you must have a strong machine. It’s not a political thing to say but in the future you will be able to turn on Ubersampling that killed the Witcher 2 at release and now it will do the same, so we don’t want to unlock it now. The game looks better but has absurd requirements.

Please note the part I highlighted. It all might also work the other way. The studio knows that cranking it all up to Ultra, with all the bells and whistles from those oh so praised VGX/SoD trailer will require a TRUE beast of a PC. So they also don't want to "scare" people with mid-range PCs.

I think there's this false image of PC gamer in many people's heads which says PC Gamer = i7, GTX TITAN in SLI, 32 GB RAM, water cooling etc etc. In reality, not every PC gamer can afford truly big iron and only a small percentage of people will be able to play this game on Ultra.

Only the devs know what it takes to crank this game all up to the max and maybe they have their reasons for all those cautious statements, as I tried to show above.

 

[Agent_Bleu]

Almost every game in development is "downgraded" in some way, shape or form during development. People act like this is some new trend but it's a normal part of game development. Developers add as much as they can to the game and they must tweak things as they go to make it all work together. An example; a game might have amazing visuals before more advanced AI behaviors are added to NPCs. After adding the AI the game takes a performance hit so the devs have to scale back something else in the game since they consider the AI behaviors to be a top priority.


Balancing all the different components that make up a game is a completely normal part of development and this occurs for most of the development cycle. This is why screenshots and videos have a "WORK IN PROGRESS" statement to alert people that things are likely to change (sometimes for the better, sometimes worse).

Hi freakie1one.

That's a valid point. And you needn't even bring AI into the equation. Balancing graphics is a tough act to pull in its own right. But then the question becomes why have REDs denied it so categorically? Because according to Marcin and the North American Community manager things are as they've always been, i. e., development didn't degrade the graphical fidelity of the game at all. Would you be disagreeing with them and saying that in your eyes development did degrade it?

Another question would be why Damien delivered that nugget of the slap across the face, of only showing ultra after release. Didn't sound like impromptu to me. So what's the reason behind this strategic decision, which, if true, would nullify Marcin's previous words?

Please don't suggest watching playthroughs on Youtube on ultra. I really want to play the game Day 1 and above all without having to first sift through spoilerific LPs to determine whether or not it's worth spending a thousand quid on hardware that will arrive no less than 5 days after I order it anyway. Thanks, but no thanks.

Glad you joined in freakie1one. Hope to see you more often in this neck of the woods.

 

[mico11]

The textures aren't downgraded. It's the angles they chose + sharpening filter.

Witcher 2 looked like this at it's worst. Everything even the plants and faces of people looked like they were made out of fabric, because of the sharpen / sharpening effect on textures.

http://i1.minus.com/iR6r2oepAEs7O.png

Some people played it without sharpening, which made it look so

http://i4.minus.com/ibp7mCfRmY7cY7.png

I think it was better with that effect for Witcher 2, but if they decided to go without the filter for Witcher 3 I'm ok with it. It was too distracting / weird art style choice

 

[CostinRaz]

That's a load of bilge Gregski, in fact that's the largest load of bilge when it comes to defend CDPR on this particular subject. If they were "so afraid about people with mid range PCs" then why did release system requirements that were that high? Whey did they point out said system requirements wouldn't allow you play the game at more then 30 FPS? Why did they release trailers with such amazing graphics?

I think there's this false image of PC gamer in many people's heads which says PC Gamer = i7, GTX TITAN in SLI, 32 GB RAM, water cooling etc etc. In reality, not every PC gamer can afford truly big iron and only a small percentage of people will be able to play this game on Ultra.

No game in existence has ever demanded PC specs that were this ludicrous...well Crysis 1 did but that was a long time ago and it was an exception. I look at Inquisition I see reasonable specs, high end sure but within reason. I look at Crysis 3 which has the best graphics of any game ever made and I see this: http://www.ign.com/wikis/crysis-3/System_Requirements

Those Hi-Performance requirements represented what was at the time a pretty good system but without the SLI, Watercooling, OC, 32 GB bullshit. CDPR went to E3 with the Witcher 3 and an interview claimed that the game was capable of running at 30 FPS on a 680.

For the record I have an I7-3770k, GTX 780 and 8GB of DDR3 that are not overclocked. I wouldn't expect to run the game at a constant 60 FPS but I sure as shit would expect it to run better then Inquisition which for me runs at a constant 50+ FPS on MAX settings and I'd expect CDPR to make the game look better because Bioware is known for horrible optimization.

 

[JackalJ]

Honestly, I would wait till they release more material and the dev diary this month. The closer to release we are, the closer the material released will be to the final product.

And it's well known that almost every dev is very political correct in interviews. Sure I would have loved for CDPR to only develop for the pc, but they need the bigger audience to grow as a company.
This means they might have to make some sacrifices. And in a open world game, these graphics and background systems are still impressive.

 

[CostinRaz]

it's well known that almost every dev is very political correct in interviews.

Please DO explain how developers like DICE, Bioware and Sledgehammer ( Call of Duty ) all went on record exalting the virtues of their PC versions when their primary markets are consoles and not PC.

When EA and Activision both are responsible for far less bullshit in their marketing then you are then that's the point where you should be slapped.

EDIT: Some might ask: Well why don't you wait until the game comes out. Because by that point it will be to late to change anything really meaningful abut it. The only time real change can occur is when you've got over 200 developers working on the title not after they've finished working.

 

[wichat]

Why should not believe them?

As the same reason a little % of people see a downgrade another % don't see it and another % don't care. But doesn't allow nor right anyone to suggest that anyone who thinks differently is less clever, less educated or worse player.

Any newcomer who has never played nor read The witcher series, reads this thread would conclude that the developer and his game, not worth anything or have any credibility. In other threads other parts of the game are discussed, but none so aggressive as this one breathes.

If anyone wonders why it is so low percentage of users who have dared to question this view on the downgrade, the answer is simple. Most are not used to enter personal discussions, especially when only CDPR has the answer and it will only be given on May 19.

I will read them all, I reread, and the more I do it the less I understand that recalcitrant castling stripped of all option to accept a possible "we'll see".

It is sad that, given a second chance, this issue could have been nice discussions facing views and not people.

 

[harkinsteven]

If CDPR claim that has been no downgrade in the graphics then provide us with current screenshots that are taken from the same area as the early screenshots so we can see for ourselves.

 

[GuyNwah]

Moderator: There will be no demands made of the developers. If I were them, I would tell you that I have better things to do than listen to unsubstantiated carping by armchair engineers, because I'm not as polite as they are.

This thread is for discussion of anomalies you actually observed and can provide substantiation for.

And accusations of lying that aren't strong enough to survive a "No True Scotsman" objection will result in action against your account.

 

[freakie1one]

Hi freakie1one.

That's a valid point. And you needn't even bring AI into the equation. Balancing graphics is a tough act to pull on its own. But then the question becomes why have REDs denied it so categorically? Because according to Marcin and the North American Community manager things are as they've always been, i. e., development did not degrade the graphical fidelity of the game at all. Would you be disagreeing with them and saying that in your eyes development did degrade it?

Another question would be why Damien delivered that nugget of the slap across the face, of only showing ultra after release. Didn't sound like impromptu to me. So what's the reason behind this strategic decision, which, if true, would nullify Marcin's previous words?

Please don't suggest watching playthroughs on Youtube on ultra. I really want to play the game Day 1 and above all without having to sift through spoilerific LPs to determine whether or not it's worth spending a thousand quid on hardware that will arrive no less than 5 days after I order it anyway. Thanks, but no thanks.

Glad you joined in freakie1one. Hope to see you more often in this neck of the woods.

The main reason I brought up AI was to point out that a game isn't 100% composed of graphics. I've noticed people tend to focus on graphics since they are one of the more obvious changes people can recognize during development but graphics alone don't make up a game. It's easy for graphic artists to include very high quality assets in the game before it's feature complete due to having more available resources which aren't being utilized by other parts of the game (yet to be implemented or finalized). Part of the optimization process is balancing all aspects of the game to achieve satisfactory performance.

In regard to what Marcin said about the graphic fidelity not degrading, this can be substantiated by the fact that "graphics fidelity" is a highly subjective phrase. I definitely have noticed many changes in the various media released; some aspects arguably better, some things worse, but it's hard to determine the overall quality without actually playing the game and comparing two playable versions side-by-side. Simple videos and screenshots do not represent an accurate gaming experience. For example, let's say the grass isn't as impressive as in a previous build but they also added ten new visual enhancements which they deemed more important? It could be argued that despite the grass being lower quality the overall game is actually higher quality. Without actually playing the game it's really hard to get an accurate idea of all the details which are not shown in current media released to judge the overall quality.

I'm not sure what you mean by Damien's words nullifying what Marcin said. Not showing the game on ultra quality pre-release doesn't mean the game is going to be lower overall fidelity post-release?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and thanks for the kind welcome

 

[wichat]

I celebrate you have read and heard.all the interviews and you are keeping abreast of every detail that aim you to your certitude, accuracy and conviction. I envy you.

Cheers,

 

[erxv]

Because they've lied multiple times?

why do you want impossibly good graphics if the game would run at max 2 fps with those settings????

how does every person who cries downgrade expect such impossible standards??

and @CostinRaz you saying that Crysis 3 had the best graphics ever in any videogame..... you know that Crysis 3 was severely downgraded in vegetation right ?? just look at the early videos with vegetation and chopper wind...... nothing to that extent in the game.....

and also...... why FOR F SAKE do you think that a total of like 10 seconds of snippets of video.. with no HUD whatsoever.... is more representative of the graphical quality than over 1 hour of ACTUAL IN GAME FOOTAGE... with HUD and everything....

imo from the last gameplays.. the january one and pax one, the game still looks like it is going to be one of the best looking games to date...... period.

 

[JasonShepard]

Why should not believe them?

As the same reason a little % of people see a downgrade another % don't see it and another % don't care. But doesn't allow nor right anyone to suggest that anyone who thinks differently is less clever, less educated or worse player.

Any newcomer who has never played nor I read The witcher series, read this thread would conclude that the developer and his game, not worth anything or have any credibility. In other threads other parts of the game are discussed, but none so aggressive as he breathes.

If anyone wonders why it is so low percentage of users who have dared to question this view on the downgrade, the answer is simple. Most are not used to enter personal discussions, especially when only CDPR has the answer and it will only be given on May 19.

I will read them all, I reread, and the more I do it the less I understand that recalcitrant castling stripped of all option to accept a possible "we'll see".

It is sad that, given a second chance, this issue could have been nice discussions facing views and not people.

It has been an overall nice discussion if you've read the thread. Very few people on either sides have gotten aggressive. Even to those who have, I understand why they could be feeling angry like this guy

That's a load of bilge Gregski, in fact that's the largest load of bilge when it comes to defend CDPR on this particular subject. If they were "so afraid about people with mid range PCs" then why did release system requirements that were that high? Whey did they point out said system requirements wouldn't allow you play the game at more then 30 FPS? Why did they release trailers with such amazing graphics?



No game in existence has ever demanded PC specs that were this ludicrous...well Crysis 1 did but that was a long time ago and it was an exception. I look at Inquisition I see reasonable specs, high end sure but within reason. I look at Crysis 3 which has the best graphics of any game ever made and I see this: http://www.ign.com/wikis/crysis-3/System_Requirements

Those Hi-Performance requirements represented what was at the time a pretty good system but without the SLI, Watercooling, OC, 32 GB bullshit. CDPR went to E3 with the Witcher 3 and an interview claimed that the game was capable of running at 30 FPS on a 680.

For the record I have an I7-3770k, GTX 780 and 8GB of DDR3 that are not overclocked. I wouldn't expect to run the game at a constant 60 FPS but I sure as shit would expect it to run better then Inquisition which for me runs at a constant 50+ FPS on MAX settings and I'd expect CDPR to make the game look better because Bioware is known for horrible optimization.

You see this Debut Gameplay trailer that features great texture work, lovely foliage, a good draw distance, a nice balance of colors, models look great, lighting looks great, etc. Then about 2 years later, you see footage of a game that has a completely different look. Vegetation is patchy, trees look like they've lost detail, the draw distance is shorter, ground textures look weaker along with other textures, there seems to be a smaller NPC population(still skeptical on this), and you hear the game is running at 30fps on High when it was running at 30 on Ultra before on a 680(thanks for pointing that out by the way Costin, forgot they mentioned what it was running on). People are going to be frustrated considering that this is way different than what they've seen, Ultra footage STILL isn't released, and The Witcher had its roots on PC. The previous entry in the series was and still is one of the most gorgeous games of all time and this lacks in some places The Witcher 2 didn't.
And I get that CDPR has been a really honest and down-to-earth group of dudes that make good games. The devs are actually spending time in the forums and are contributing to The Witcher 3 discussions. There's really no reason for any fans to doubt them and it's probably hard to see them receive this kind of criticism. They have said that the downgrade doesn't exist and that's good for a lot of people due to how well they've treated their customers.
So yeah, I can see why people are frustrated. Being frustrated doesn't really help though and voicing your frustration through accusations of lies/demeaning others concerns is really not constructive. What I think would help is maybe a visit from the devs to clear up some concerns about the state of The Witcher 3's visuals. Maybe we can get an idea of what's going on with the Ultra settings for PC.

So yeah that's my opinion again. Hopefully everyone can calm down a bit and hopefully someone from CDPR would be willing to visit to calm down everyone on the web worried about a downgrade.

 

[scratcherpen]

Actually i can tell the textures not downgraded, but upgraded. For examples on the Ladies gameplay you often can see the chainmail on Geralt shoulder look flat, smeared all other. Now on 15 min. gameplay as we can see Vessemir and Geralts chainmail doesn`t looks like that. Its all 3d relief object that dont have that flaws. I `m not even speaking about the textures of leather , metal, hairs, skin and other things -they looks great(i wonder what size textures the designers used for that-i`m sure no less than 2k). Someone complains about picture is cartoon-i can say for that-its just sharpness, light and time of the day. On twillight, night or in forest, when trees covers the sun or crypts the athmospere will be completely different. Off course sometimes there are graphic bugs and glithes(like sword and scabbards ,Geralts coat skirt goes through the Roach and many other small bugs), and we can see them even on videos, so do CDPR. And they fixing that now and will fix that later with many patches. As for complaining about ultra settings-guys ok, ok. but before that -can your system specs really afford it? With all Nvidia features, and all graphic settungs turned to max . Dont you think that the story of the Crysis can repeat, when even now no one cant turn it on max, but still can very much enjoy it on high settungs?

 

[Jeeers]

Been lurking in this thread since the beginning. ... Wow, such accusations! Some valid, some not, IMHO!
Felt like writing really long peace of text, but my english is not my native language, so I will not go into details.... What I wanted to say is...

... I bet REDs are working their asses off to deliver the best product possible, and they will deliver ... not the perfect game we all dream of, but something worth remembering.
Have you ever encountered a perfect game? ... Or anything perfect for that matter? Do you really think, I that was possible - considering time constrains, workforce, developement strategy - to make a product that satisfies everyone? They ARE doing theyr best - that I truly believe! ... They seem a very passionate bunch of developers...
Regarding so called downgrade - I am not so blind to see some compromises made in the name of framerate, because hardware is hardware - with it's limits. I bet, they have a very good reason to cut some assets or lower their quality. But, if the game itself overall is going to be what I think it is going to be ... oh, boy, then the sacrifice is justified!
I guess, we are too spoiled as a cosumer and hopes are too high. I will not lie - my hopes skyrocketed when I saw the first trailers - I thought - this will be MY LAST GAME - "the crowning achievement", but we also must be realistic...
My guess W3 will come out buggy, unoptimized, "downgraded" but loved by most of gaming world, ...after a year or so It will be polished, mods will start to appear and it will be played for years to come. Just remember Skyrim.

 

[JackalJ]

Please DO explain how developers like DICE, Bioware and Sledgehammer ( Call of Duty ) all went on record exalting the virtues of their PC versions when their primary markets are consoles and not PC.

When EA and Activision both are responsible for far less bullshit in their marketing then you are then that's the point where you should be slapped.

EDIT: Some might ask: Well why don't you wait until the game comes out. Because by that point it will be to late to change anything really meaningful abut it. The only time real change can occur is when you've got over 200 developers working on the title not after they've finished working.

Right.. because EA, Activision, Bioware, Ubisoft, COD devs, DICE, hell... Even Nvidia or AMD and many others have never awnsered interview in certain ways to apease to fans. But now that CDPR does it, the world 'grows up' and decides to not believe them and take their anwnsers with a grain of salt.

And most people on this forum are willing to hear your side of the argument. They just need actual proof, and thats why they keep repeating; wait till the game is out.
The other people on here, are just tired or not interested in this topic.

And know that it's never too late, if you really are that disappointed or feel cheated by CDPR and that they have been dishonest with you. Take a step further and do what other people have done to Colonial Marines, sue 'em.
But don't expect to make a lot of friends with that, or even to win. You are comparing a end product with early released footage that was not reprisenting a finished product, so W.I.P. And seeing that game development is a dynamic proces and a lot can happen in 2 years. No way anyone should have expected that to be the final result. This might have been the fault of CDPR marketing, but not much more than that.

 

[wichat]

Well, I, as agnostic, I cannot denied nor afirm something I cannot verify with real and objective prooves.
On the one hand, some people say that claiming after the realease has no sense because it would be to late for improving the downgrade. On the other one, some people (a few the same of the first group) say that how will CDPR avoid this downgrade if there's not time to do it before that date.

Merging promotionals videos and trailer demos which noone can verify if the hardware where they were generated were the same, exactly the same, in every detail.

"Demo" :demonstration

Spoiler

dem•on•stra•tion /ˌdɛmənˈstreɪʃən/n. [countable]
•exhibition, display, or illustration that shows how something works:
a demonstration of the new manufacturing process.

•an example or series of examples that provides proof of something, as of a theory:
a convincing demonstration.

•a showing or expressing of emotion:
demonstrations of affection.

•a march or public show of strong opinion:
a huge demonstration in the city's main square.

Trailer

Spoiler

a series of short extracts from a film, used to advertise it in a cinema or on television

Always with small print added saying under devolopment

I can see differences in every picture and image shown by CDPR the last 2 years, but I cannot affirm with such certitude that there's an obviuos downgrade. I only can give my opinion. And posts a few MEME of cats

If the 20th I get disappointed by TW3 I'll just go for another game, or read a good book at the park.

---------- Updated at 11:54 PM ----------

I mean... I love CDPR ... but they are not my saviour.

 

[jantherocker]

I hear this argument about VGX graphics not being a realistic expectation and yet CDPR was able to get the game running on THOSE graphics at a reasonable framerate.

They also have flatly denied that there's a downgrade.

And now imagine the Machine they needed for VGX Graphics. I doubt even one here has such PC at Home. Yeah VGX was running... on a 4000€ Developer PC.
You cant release that.