Just a heads up, but VGchartz is banned on a lot of sites for a reason. Their data has been consistently wrong and they often retroactively modifiy their numbers when more official sources contradict them. Wikipedia does not even allow it as a verifiable source.
- Status
And here we have the Problem here.
I know!! they said "ingame footage" but if i look at what that has meant over my 20 years of Gaming.. it mostly means it is rendered in the Game Engine. If its in any way achievable in the End Product is another topic.
As others and me have stated before. VGX Graphics died when they tried to Port it to the Consoles and their Test Consoles propably exploded ^^ And dont fool yourself... CDPR isnt big enough or has a big enough Publisher to Develop Consoles and PC Seperatly it would ruin them. So they had to make some changes to make it run somehow on Consoles.
There ARE real difference between 35-min (best looking gameplay (not to be confused with in-game) footage for me) and Global Hands On\GDC\PAX gameplays. The difference is not so much on the graphics, but in the quality of some effects:
In the old 35min gameplay - was a lot more blood from enemies, but here it is barely visible and immediately disappears.
Compared with the 2015 gameplays , a 35-minute was: nice inventory (not this***) \ puddles of blood (instead of instantly disappearing little spray that barely have time to notice while it was hangs in the air just for the second, and even doesn't drops on the ground, just disappear) \ quality dismemberment even some monsters(Harpy\Drowner and this water dude), in new gameplays - we can't even cut the wolf's head, and of course, without such a large number of blood - blows looks unnatural, and the monsters themselves falls to the ground immediately after death), \ more spectacular effects signs \ beautiful interface (rather than this huge). Just watch bandit fight in 35min gameplay - 21min in video, and then watch bandin fight on GDC video or whatever else. You'll understand me.
In the old 35min gameplay - was a lot more blood from enemies, but here it is barely visible and immediately disappears.
Compared with the 2015 gameplays , a 35-minute was: nice inventory (not this***) \ puddles of blood (instead of instantly disappearing little spray that barely have time to notice while it was hangs in the air just for the second, and even doesn't drops on the ground, just disappear) \ quality dismemberment even some monsters(Harpy\Drowner and this water dude), in new gameplays - we can't even cut the wolf's head, and of course, without such a large number of blood - blows looks unnatural, and the monsters themselves falls to the ground immediately after death), \ more spectacular effects signs \ beautiful interface (rather than this huge). Just watch bandit fight in 35min gameplay - 21min in video, and then watch bandin fight on GDC video or whatever else. You'll understand me.
Last edited:
In addition to what other people have said on the matter, I think it's important to point out the old adage that correlation does not imply causality.
Also, speaking purely from a publication standpoint, I can't remember reading any reviews that negatively highlighted the fact that both Watch Dogs and Dark Souls 2 had undergone an overhaul in the graphics department. By the time both titles had been released it was well known that Ubisoft/From Software had deemed it necessary to lower the visual quality in order to achieve an acceptabel level of performance. This might have disappointed a lot of people (especially in regards to the incredibly hyped Watch Dogs) but it did not kick off some kind of unified shitstorm across the board. Whatever complaints - justified or not - were levelled at both games at launch, the downgrade was not among them, and I highly doubt it had a measurable impact on the sales.
As I said, the only downgrade I can see from the early days of the game (first trailers) to first gameplay are reflections (but I may be wrong in that department) and semi-volumetric coulds, which disapeared completely from what I can see. That is a huge blow for me as even skyrim had them, and the effect is great:
For those of you wanting an acknowledgement of difference between the trailer and the game play from CDPR you can find it at http://www.gamepressure.com/e.asp?ID=51. Specifically:
That statement seems pretty accurate with what I have seen. Some parts of the game look about the same or better. Other parts (such as lighting and foliage) look worse. So they acknowledged the issue from the first trailers to the game play (especially with lighting). But if you watch the PAX footage, the 15 minute footage from January and the 35 minute video, you can see that the game still looks really good (if not as good as the trailers). They have shown us more than an hour of in game footage. No one can claim that they don't know what to expect going into the game purchase. The graphics will be at least as good as the footage we have seen over the past year and potentially a little better (depending on your hardware). If you don't like it now, cancel your pre-order. CDPR is being about as open as any gaming company I've followed. Sure a few statements are inaccurate. You try and talk about something for several years and always remain consistent. It's difficult. That doesn't make CDPR some back-stabbing corporation that has betrayed us all. They seem to take this community's opinions seriously, care about the game deeply, and are trying to give us the best product possible.
On top of the great graphics there are all the other parts of this game that look and sound great: (1) interactive open world; (2) awesome characters; (3) narrative focus; (4) great soundtrack; (5) good dialogue; (6) solid combat; (7) choice and consequence (i.e. 36 different endings). I haven't been this excited for a game for at least a couple of years.
(emphasis added)
That statement seems pretty accurate with what I have seen. Some parts of the game look about the same or better. Other parts (such as lighting and foliage) look worse. So they acknowledged the issue from the first trailers to the game play (especially with lighting). But if you watch the PAX footage, the 15 minute footage from January and the 35 minute video, you can see that the game still looks really good (if not as good as the trailers). They have shown us more than an hour of in game footage. No one can claim that they don't know what to expect going into the game purchase. The graphics will be at least as good as the footage we have seen over the past year and potentially a little better (depending on your hardware). If you don't like it now, cancel your pre-order. CDPR is being about as open as any gaming company I've followed. Sure a few statements are inaccurate. You try and talk about something for several years and always remain consistent. It's difficult. That doesn't make CDPR some back-stabbing corporation that has betrayed us all. They seem to take this community's opinions seriously, care about the game deeply, and are trying to give us the best product possible.
On top of the great graphics there are all the other parts of this game that look and sound great: (1) interactive open world; (2) awesome characters; (3) narrative focus; (4) great soundtrack; (5) good dialogue; (6) solid combat; (7) choice and consequence (i.e. 36 different endings). I haven't been this excited for a game for at least a couple of years.
Did you watch this video ? No Pre - render - No trailer - Full nvdia quality of what the game would have been or would be with ultra settingsI've decided to do a direct scene-to-scene comparison between the uncompressed videos sourced from PAX East and the 35 minute dev commentary gameplay video.
As shocked as I am, there are no discernible quality differences between the footages.
I've made comparisons between 4 specific scenes:
1 -Cloudy mountains in the distance
2 -Foliage quality
3- Draw distance
4- Rock texture quality
If anything looks different to me, it is the very obvious vignette (darkened corners) + contrast (notice the extremely white clouds) filters applied on the 35 min. gameplay video
Link to full album: http://imgur.com/a/991le
So here's my conclusion.
There is no downgrade between the 35 min. footage and PAX/GDC.
There is a downgrade between VGX (not debut trailer) and every ingame footage seen to date.
Why? It looks like VGX was rendered to look as good as possible without the imperative of displaying playable ingame footage. Particle effects, ubersampling, HairWorks, extremely high-res textures, amazing water quality, superb contrasts, bokeh, vignette, sharpening filters, exposure fix, immense draw distance on the eagle-view town scene, color balance, etc. etc.
With that said, we'll most probably never get this type of quality ingame with the shipped game. Those rendering features were never meant to be included in the final product.
Expect to get the GDC/PAX/35 min. quality ingame, or cancel your pre-order.
That's it for me guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SpPqXdzl7g&list=LLHvt_l-UdtZ7Xb7cx-GYz6Q&index=2
I think they're showcasing their new renderer (old video from 2013). I wouldn't expect that to be ultra quality.
After watching the interviews, I'm starting to believe they had to tune the visuals heavily in order to keep a steady 30fps. There is a super huge amount of calculations made in the background at any point while playing, e.g. random spawns, wolves feeding on dead bodies, wind effects, etc. and constantly loading the open world geometry while moving around and actively applying textures probably made the system requirements too high. I have no idea if any of this is true, but that's my personal point of view
BTW, I do think the game in its current state looks like absolute cr*p. I've canceled my pre-order and am waiting for actual footage of ultra settings. The PAX footage almost looks worse than TW2
Last edited:
Not Rly. None of it does not exist in the game world, until you not look at it (on this part(point) of map)
Watch
This man (Jonas Mattsson?) said, that this technology conversely unload system resources.
Last edited:
I'm not confident they're using that technology effectively. Lots of problems with it. e.g. You look away and a building disappears. Does it stop the building from casting its shadow?
That's not how it works. He's talking about things rendered on screen, not everything in the game only loads when you look in 1 direction by that logic how on earth will monsters spawn where they should, how will we follow some if they're not loaded at all if not in sight?
It's used in tons of games, look it up, you'll get your answer from that.
I've seen many of your comments about the blood and whatnot in other threads, and honestly I'm sick of it. Most of it is absolute hogwash and you are completely overreacting. So here we go:
You are aware, and this has been stated many times, that the dismemberment system is not just the same the entire way through the game? Certain purchased skills will determine how intense the dismemberment is and how frequently it occurs.
So you might have two characters at level 30, but one is heavily Swordsmanship focused and dismemberment procs frequently (As seen in the 35 min demo), but then the other might be primarily Magic or Alchemy focused and dismemberment procs very little (Perhaps aside from finishers it might not go off at all).
There's no downgrade to the dismemberment, or at least not that we can correctly extrapolate at this time.
As for the blood, here's some comparisons.. Just for you mate.
PAX East Blood - Lasts for 7 seconds. 35 minute demo blood - Lasts for 5 seconds. GDC Demo - There is most certainly plenty of Blood Buddy.
Blood will also be tied into dismemberment, so the more you dismember (And brutally so), the more blood you'll get.
There's no blood downgrade there.
Enemies have always fallen limp to the ground immediately after death, when has this ever not been the case? I can't recall any footage where an enemy was sitting there gargling blood for 2 minutes or their body would continue to spasm for 10 seconds after dying.
Inventory/HUD? Subjective. Also the HUD can be adjusted reasonably well we've been told (You brought up huge, well Marcin confirmed we can at least re-size it).
More spectacular effects? This could be affected by skill trees also, although admittedly there's no confirmation on this one. However the Yrden effect actually looks improved and even more spectacular, presumably because it's upgraded. Igni in the GDC Demo is the same but it is blown away by the wind, which perhaps might have made it seem like it had less particles or "spectacular" (Although I think the wind pushing the spell is pretty fucking spectacular). As for Igni's flamethrower, well I have no hard evidence on that one but even if we say that it does look a little weaker in the PAX Demo, it could very easily be contributed to the fact that it hasn't been 'skilled up' and we're seeing a weaker version of the flamethrower than what is happening in the 35 minute demo.
Welp. Then why does the game look so ugly? Is it a true console port?
Is the engine so badly optimized that they can't manage to render the 2013 nvidia settings on high end computers with the open world OR the visuals were tuned down to make the game run better on consoles? If it's the latter then I'm clearly disappointed
Last edited:
Truth. Not everything, only graphic part if it. Monsters\NPC\building - its all scripts, programmed to be in a designated location. And when you look at this point - visual part of this script being instantly loaded.
So, or am I wrong, or you saying that the scripts are loaded GPU resources too?
As sid said, there's a lot happening (and using resources) that's not shown on screen. Catch some of the PAX interviews where the team were talking about the AI, and monsters spawning and converging on sites where there's been a kill, because they can smell the blood. That won't be rendered until it comes into view, but it's still consuming resources.
That's exactly what I've said. Still, the game looks ugly as hell in some areas. like at the end of the PAX video when Geralt is fleeing the scene on the horse. The game doesn't look immersive at all. The grass and foliage don't seem to clip correctly to the ground. Looks super unpolished. If the game needs good lighting to look good (im referring to the GDC footage with the sunrise), then that's a serious concern for me
Last edited:
Speak for yourself, the game looks pretty damn good to me. It can't be a port if it's on the same architecture and as it so happens PC, PS4 and XB1 are all the same architecture(x86_64).
What Nvidia settings? If you mean the "Nvidia Effects" video that has nothing to do with Nvidia's tech, that's what the uploader titled the video because it was shown at Nvidia's conference.
How on earth does that look good? That looks horribly unfinished and dated, it's the Witcher 2 renderer that's not even physically based.
It's this renderer, how does that look good at all compared to what the game looks like now?
Thank you for this comparsion, still, when you look at bandit fignt here and here
Im not talking about dismemberment right now (i rly did not know before about this dismemberment proc stats) just look at normal fight (untill bandits alive) i mean how Geralt sword hit the bandit and how ridiculous blood flows from him in the second example(the same idiotic happening with moster fights in the latest gameplays).
---------- Updated at 04:13 AM ----------
Well, its from the first TW3 early 2013 screenshots. What about this?
You really think that today's game graphic looks better than even this
Last edited:
Well most of the blood occurs when he dismembers the guys, which again, is dependent on how you place skill points and how much you focus on dismemberment. The more you dismember, naturally the more blood you'll get.
As for the blood when he strikes, it seems like there's a lot more on Geralt's sword when he strikes, but the blood popping from the NPC still exists, and it seems to be roughly the same amount. The issue here is the video quality is really shit and so the blood popping can kinda be hard to see.
This version @ 1080p is probably the clearest of them all, and if you look closely you can still see roughly the same amount of blood coming out on the strikes (Probably slightly less, but there's also way more on Geralt's sword than the 35 minute demo). Just remember that the Bandit blocks multiple strikes, so Geralt doesn't actually 'hit' him to cause the blood until the 2nd/3rd+ strikes.
Go Swordsmanship and I get the feeling you'll be perfectly satisfied with the amount of blood in the game.
- Status