@wavebend To be fair, you are comparing a panorama of a densely populated city to a panorama of a lake. It's kind of hard to draw any objective conclusions about the graphics from that because one of them is essentially a flatland. And if you look at the hills/trees in the distant background of your first pic you will notice they don't look too different from the hills & tress in the background of your second pic.
- Status
I'm curious, did they make such a claim? Saying that the game will look considerably better than in the trailers? I can't recall so I'll be happy for a link. If they did make such a claim about the VGX trailer, then yes, I'd also prefer a company that's more cautious about their claims and which doesn't throw them around easily with the defense at the ready of "yeah, but things change". Because what's the point? That seems rash.
That being said, I don't recall them promising (which is a strange word altogether here) that the game will look "considerably better than the trailers".
I'm sure they don't want that scandal, and I'm sure they won't face it. Quickly Googling downgrade comparison videos of WD and DS2 will show you video comparisons of both games, between the marketed footage and the eventual product. The comparison takes place between footage of someone demonstrating an actual playthrough, for several long minutes - around 10 minutes, uninterrupted, in each game. Not cherry-picked, possibly cutscene material with different angles and an unlocked camera for the trailer directors to move around as they wish. 10 minutes of raw gameplay. This "scandal" of our forums is clinging to snippets that are around 3-4 seconds each, and separated from one another entirely. What's more, CDPR isn't hiding the changes the visuals underwent, for better or for worse. You won't buy the game and discover only then that the VGX visuals aren't there anymore.
I find comparing this to WD and DS2 utterly ridiculous. They are different situations. Equating them just makes me think people are after blood and some drama.
If I see someone performing a comparison video to the 35min gameplay footage and showing how the actual product looks worse on the highest settings, then there will be a scandal. But a scandal over changes the company is openly showing you that is taking place, changes from tiny snippets from trailers? It's not as the actual playing material released is being overhauled with every video, either. The griffin hunt, the 35 min, the 12 min, the 7 min, they are mostly the same (someone can argue they look slightly better or slightly worse, that doesn't matter - the core is the same, with maybe just small changes).
Don't get me wrong, I like the VGX and Debut trailers, they're awesome. But these claims about how scandalous this might turn out to be, are that point where this turns from understandable wondering to just some irrational protest against CDPR. There's nothing scandalous here, and I really think this rhetoric has got to stop. No deceit is taking place.
Yeah, the problem is, with DOF on, it's hard to see what goes on in the distance in the second pic. We're still in the dark here.
---------- Updated at 12:04 AM ----------
Yes, i remember they said the final game will look even better. But i don't have a link. And i think (maybe i'm mistaken) that it was at the time the 15min gameplay video made the rounds.
In one interview Damien Monnier told that the game is getting optimized, NOT downgraded, he said it specifically, OPTIMIZED, NOT DOWNGRADED, his words. Now I dont know is there a difference between the two, but he should know the difference, so I am asking myself why would he said something like that if there is no difference? It seems much more logical to just avoid that kind of questions, I trust both him and CDPR that they will do the job right.
You do realise the first is a trailer shot? You cant even replicate that shot in game because i doubt you can fly over Novigrad.^^OK. Downloaded the whole 1.1GB PAX uncompressed video and took a screenshot with upscaling filters on MPC Home Cinema.
VS
Now you see it?
People.... nothing against comparison pics! But please take comparaple locations AND more importantly quit comparing TRAILER shots to Ingame Video Screens.
Its totally inconclusive. A comparison between the 35 min Vid to the recent Video would be fair. because it is both true gameplay.
But Trailer vs Screencap.
Can i tell a difference? of course. But its not a fair and valid comparison.
Quit comparing apples to oranges.
To be fair, I'm not really sure how they could answer questions on "the story" and "the politics" without spoiling anything (btw, are there people who are afraid the political themes in TW3 will be offensive or something?) Other than that I don't really have anything to criticize in your post. Except that maybe CD Projekt RED thought they could make the game look like that when they showed off that footage. But in that case your criticism in your first paragraph is still valid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism
Remember how often Nvidia "optimized" their drivers in the past, and after that we had games looking considerably worse?
Oh Jesus Christ, I know I keep saying this over and over again like a broken record, but yes. Ultra footage is something that should be available for consumers to see. People are seeing a huge difference in visual quality from VGX/SoD to now. The lack of Ultra footage is forcing people to either put their faith in CDPR and hope that the quality of Ultra will match what was shown before or make their own inaccurate opinions on the visuals based on the High settings.
I really hope that a dev is reading this thread and is absorbing some of this.
Hope you won't take this personally, but at this point I rather go by links.
It's also a bit weird to me that when the 15min gameplay was out, CDPR would make a reference to the VGX trailer? If you mean they said it will look better than the 15 min, that's one thing. I was referring to Costin saying how CDPR promised the game will look considerably better (not just better, mind you) than the VGX, and I don't have any recollection of that.
I could be wrong.
Fine. Now downloading the 5GB uncompressed video from the 35 minute gameplay. Let's see if we can do a fair and valid comparison.
edit: Looking at the 1080p version on youtube, there are already HUGE differences. This is going to be fun.
Last edited:
Marcin has played many different versions of the game so I'm betting he has a pretty good idea about how the game looks and if things have changed drastically for the worse. If he's lying then it's going to be very bad for CDPR when the game is released; I'm willing to give him enough credit that he'd not make such an obvious mistake which would harm CDPR's reputation. I suppose we'll all find out soon enough.
As far as releasing ultra footage goes it's not our "right" as gamers to see such. Whatever materials are released by the devs to advertise their game is completely up to them and consumers have no right to make demands on what the developers show pre-release. Hell, I remember back in the 90's when I'd walk into a game shop and the only things I'd know about a game before purchasing it was the description written on the back of the box along with a few screenshots.
The concern over politics is whether or not we will be involved in changing the outcome of the war and whether or not the politics will be as well portrayed as in TW2. They've never addressed this properly.
With regards to the story, the main concern there is over the pacing of the story in particular and the overall quality. There's been a few encouraging statements about how for instance the side quests will have some impact on the main story but too few of them.
Maybe i misunderstood a bit. I think the original statement was from Mamais that the final game "will look even better" than the gameplay footage. That statement was not about trailers AFAIR.
But i'm sure somebody will provide you with a link. This is a well known statement.
Hm. Well, let's talk about the effects of downgrading on sales and what that could mean for CDPR as a company.
Given solid marketing and a popular franchise, let's say Witcher 3 -does- take the same kind of hit that Watch Dogs and DS2 did.
Will this badly affect the CDPR bottom line? Could Witcher 3 sell millions of copies anyway? If so, why -not- downgrade the game, if it saves money or time, or makes some platforms a more popular buying choice? From a business perspective? Wouldn't downgrading be the smart call?
Watch Dogs did phenomenally well in sales and Dark Souls 2 has excellent ratings and sold millions of copies as well.
If you were a CDPR director and you saw those numbers, and a case was made that spending time and resources on an experience only 3% ( or whatever tiny, top end percentage of the 10 million copies sold market was affected by Watch Dogs downgrading) will experience, could you fiscally sign off on attaining that upper level of performance?
Given solid marketing and a popular franchise, let's say Witcher 3 -does- take the same kind of hit that Watch Dogs and DS2 did.
Will this badly affect the CDPR bottom line? Could Witcher 3 sell millions of copies anyway? If so, why -not- downgrade the game, if it saves money or time, or makes some platforms a more popular buying choice? From a business perspective? Wouldn't downgrading be the smart call?
Watch Dogs did phenomenally well in sales and Dark Souls 2 has excellent ratings and sold millions of copies as well.
If you were a CDPR director and you saw those numbers, and a case was made that spending time and resources on an experience only 3% ( or whatever tiny, top end percentage of the 10 million copies sold market was affected by Watch Dogs downgrading) will experience, could you fiscally sign off on attaining that upper level of performance?
There won't be any effect on sales. Maybe 1% will cancel their pre-orders. It's just a shit move from CDPR.
Again, money speaks
30% on my 5GB uncompressed 35 min. gameplay download. Won't be much longer. I can already spot huge differences. lmao
Marcin wouldn't lie out of bad intention. He could well speak the thruth as he knows it. But there are other things like perception, perspective, politics, business and very important - communication within CDPR. So for me it's hard to rely on something one PR person said, as well intended and thruthful that might be.
You know, in advertising almost nobody lies.
AH the pain. On release date there will be a bunch of people like you who will go to similar spots we got from the first trailers and screenshot and compare every single thing possible within the areas such as the swamp. Of course then it won't be a discussion about downgrading but potentially a bunch of people being defensive about why they had to cut the visuals back, perhaps why they did or did not "lie", why it doesn't matter if the game is fun etc etc. Pfttt by now some can feel the sinking feeling in their guts and the more I dig into it the more I get demotivated and am bracing myself for what is to come. I suppose in the end at least we still get to see Geralt's story end even if it wasn't the visual experience we all craved for.OK. Downloaded the whole 1.1GB PAX uncompressed video and took a screenshot with upscaling filters on MPC Home Cinema.
VS
Now you see it?
Last edited:
Personally Ill be too occupied with the game to go see the hell in the Forums, not that it is a bad thing, Ill be enjoying the game while people attack and pointlessly argue with each other, but yeah, I can see it coming...
I'm a CDPR director and I'm trying to decide whether or not I want to downgrade The Witcher 3 like Watch_Dogs or Dark Souls 2 in exchange for performance right? Would I do it?
Absolutely not. CDPR has acted very consumer friendly and has said multiple times that they are focused on quality. If I were to downgrade my game to hell in exchange for something as small as extra frames, then I think I could expect to lose both current fans and potential fans. Besides, the game has already been delayed twice and a downgrade of that size would be a huge fuck you to any buyers.
Someone? Hell, I can provide links to statements of that sort:
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/30456-Interviews-and-Articles-Part-2?p=1510663#post1510663
http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/34000-The-Witcher-3-Wild-Hunt-PAX-East-2015-Official-Gameplay-Video?p=1562197#post1562197
They say in one way or the other that the actual game will look better than what is shown in the gameplay footage. And of course Damien's saying about the slap to the face.
What I was referring to was, again, promises about how the game will look considerably better than the trailers. Maybe there were such statements, but I can't recall.
Shit in what way? Let's say there is a downgrade. It is a shit move on their behalf to pull back on some of their vision, probably because they couldn't manage to make it work properly (unless you're those who believe there are some malevolent considerations at work), and showing their potential customers that they pulled back in this or that area?
In what way is this a shit move?
Last night I told my mom I'll make her some great pasta. It turned out fine, but not quite it. Shit move on my behalf?
It's a silly comparison, but the principle is the same - there's nothing to suggest foul play at work here. Calling it a shit move is blowing it our of proportion, and that's a shame because there are visual discrepancies people are noticing, and that's worth discussing. It's when discussing them is decorated with all these dramatic statements that this misses the mark.
Then again, I might be wasting my cyber breath here, going by your posts. "This is going to be fun". Not sure how to digest that.
- Status