Graphic downgrade

[sidspyker]

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

It's still the same renderer. Yes EASILY looks better, how on earth does that look good in any sense?

 

[wavebend]

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?

Yeah, ^^ that looks like absolute crap. I simply know the 'nvidia video' displayed super cool effects like volumetric clouds, bloom shafts, etc. that were used to render subsequent ingame screenshots

This isn't VGX, but holy f*** those look great. This is what I'd expect out of this game, and none of that PAX 'admire the scenery' BS

Add some 16xAA from the Nvidia panel and this simply looks gorgeous, unlike PAX/GDC

 

[Jasheon]

Yeah, ^^ that looks like absolute crap. I simply know the 'nvidia video' displayed super cool effects like volumetric clouds, bloom shafts, etc. that were used to render subsequent ingame screenshots

This isn't VGX, but holy f*** those look great. This is what I'd expect out of this game, and none of that PAX 'admire the scenery' BS

I hope we get those Gfx but reality has set in and we won't come close.

 

[sidspyker]

This isn't VGX, but holy f*** those look great. This is what I'd expect out of this game, and none of that PAX 'admire the scenery' BS

They do and they're also Ubersampled so bound to look great.

I don't really have anything to say, I'm not getting in any 'downgrade' argument per se, just correcting some (mis)information I noticed. I will say this however, a lot of things depend on multiple factors time of day etc, for example this scene(click to open in new tab), look at how big the difference it makes.

 

[minicrom]

This version @ 1080p is probably the clearest of them all,

Go Swordsmanship and I get the feeling you'll be perfectly satisfied with the amount of blood in the game.

Beautiful. Close to the 35 min gameplay video and not even max setting... No downgrade spotted. The downgrade is a lie wake up people^^

 

[wavebend]

They do and they're also Ubersampled so bound to look great.

I don't really have anything to say, I'm not getting in any 'downgrade' argument per se, just correcting some (mis)information I noticed. I will say this however, a lot of things depend on multiple factors time of day etc, for example this scene(click to open in new tab), look at how big the difference it makes.

I don't deny that lighting plays a huge part in how good a scene can look. Again, there isn't much to discuss about. There's an obvious downgrade from what the game could've been, should they have used those rendering technologies, but I don't expect more than GDC/PAX/35 min. gameplay. I just don't see the point of showcasing super good graphics with ubersampling and perfect lighting when those won't be reproducible in the shipped game. It's just a cheap tactic by CDPR.

And I truly mean it. There's no f*****g point. Kind of like rendering a photorealistic version of any game just to get better sales, then delivering a product that comes nowhere close to it. What the f**.

---------- Updated at 04:30 AM ----------

Beautiful. Close to the 35 min gameplay video and not even max setting... No downgrade spotted. The downgrade is a lie wake up people^^

http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/34018-Graphic-downgrade?p=1563971&viewfull=1#post1563971

You're right, there's no downgrade from the 35 min. gameplay. I've made the comparison myself, check it out.

However, the quality comes nowhere close to VGX or any of the 'wild hunt' tagged pictures

 

[Jasheon]

Beautiful. Close to the 35 min gameplay video and not even max setting... No downgrade spotted. The downgrade is a lie wake up people^^

Ok I haven't seen that nice of quality yet, I must say it looks pretty damn good.......so I'll shut up now.

 

[D4rKy2014]

Ok I haven't seen that nice of quality yet, I must say it looks pretty damn good.......so I'll shut up now.

I disagree.

 

[Jasheon]

I disagree.

Wait until we get some Dev diaries or they show off ultra settings it might just surprise everyone.

 

[minicrom]

I don't deny that lighting plays a huge part in how good a scene can look. Again, there isn't much to discuss about. There's an obvious downgrade from what the game could've been, should they have used those rendering technologies, but I don't expect more than GDC/PAX/35 min. gameplay. I just don't see the point of showcasing super good graphics with ubersampling and perfect lighting when those won't be reproducible in the shipped game. It's just a cheap tactic by CDPR.

And I truly mean it. There's no f*****g point. Kind of like rendering a photorealistic version of any game just to get better sales, then delivering a product that comes nowhere close to it. What the f**.

---------- Updated at 04:30 AM ----------



http://forums.cdprojektred.com/threads/34018-Graphic-downgrade?p=1563971&viewfull=1#post1563971

You're right, there's no downgrade from the 35 min. gameplay. I've made the comparison myself, check it out.

However, the quality comes nowhere close to VGX or any of the 'wild hunt' tagged pictures

Yeah I have seen your comparison Nice job ! Even if it doesn't look as good as the VGX trailer I don't feel they lied to me. I mean they didn't show the game like Ubisoft did with Watcg Dog. They show a trailer (I mean you know with a trailer you don't really see the real game)then they have shown real gameplay which is 35 min gameplay. And this real gameplay always stayed like this. Sometimes less good because for console purpose I think but 7 days before we get this astonishing GDC vid that proves that the game on pc is not a fake... As far as I am concerned I can upgrade my pc safely now.

---------- Updated at 04:58 AM ----------

Wait until we get some Dev diaries or they show off ultra settings it might just surprise everyone.

Well they just could make me blind. I am already surprise enough that an open world can already look that good.

 

[thislsmadness]

I don't deny that lighting plays a huge part in how good a scene can look. Again, there isn't much to discuss about. There's an obvious downgrade from what the game could've been, should they have used those rendering technologies, but I don't expect more than GDC/PAX/35 min. gameplay. I just don't see the point of showcasing super good graphics with ubersampling and perfect lighting when those won't be reproducible in the shipped game. It's just a cheap tactic by CDPR.

And I truly mean it. There's no f*****g point. Kind of like rendering a photorealistic version of any game just to get better sales, then delivering a product that comes nowhere close to it. What the f**.

There is a point though. The point is that video game development is extremely complex and expensive and, along the way, every developer will have to make sacrifices. The more ambitious the project, the more sacrifices you will likely have to make. Considering this is a young developer making the largest and most expensive game in its history, and they are doing it in a huge open world and launching simultaneously across 3 platforms... its absolutely possible that they misjudged what would be feasible.

If this were an attempt to deceive consumers then why would they spend the last 9 months showing off ~150minutes of footage that does not live up to the VGX? Its nothing like the Alien: CM situation where a few months from release they continued to show off "new" demos that did not resemble the final product. Its not even similar to Dark Souls who quietly stripped out their dynamic lighting a month before launch.

 

[prince_of_nothing]

The VGX version? I highly,highly would doubt that.

It's possible. A lot of developers will use whats called a "vertical slice" of a game to showcase it in it's best light to prospective investors. These vertical slices usually have unachievable graphics, and only show a very small portion of the game.

A GTX 680 is still a fairly powerful card, and I have no doubt it could run those scenes in the VGX trailer if it didn't have to render anything else.

 

[Agent_Bleu]

I just would like to point out the obvious: the thesis claiming the visual degradation was an unavoidable compromise indispensable to finishing and shipping the game is incompatible with the other thesis saying that there is no visual degradation whatsoever.

Some individuals could perhaps make up their minds?

And if you subscribe to the former there's still a fairly uphill road ahead of you. You have to justify why the North American Community manager categorically and vehemently denied any kind of visual degradation whatsoever. I know the road is uphill because I myself am in that camp.

 

[erxv]

People need stop defending the game with the old build would only run in a Triple Sli Titan x Machine

. Crysis 3 was unplayable at ultra for most of the people on the day of realese . But guess what . There where many many user who buy new graphics card only to reach that level of detail . Hell there was multiple users who run the game at 30fp just to see the amazing crytek engine . And that game works .

why ? becouse was designed for pc gamers in mind . You dont have to be rich to get high settings on new games . 270x amd crossfire or 960 / 970 would make your machine a powerfull one . if in these day the game is impossible to run at ultra ; is okey . Pc gamers will test their machine for years to come with witcher 3 .

Dont defend this new engine stating the old one was more powerfull and demanding that any machine in the world . Please we need to keep this thread with good arguments and not simple attack or defend something with out any proof

crysis 3 was developed with PC in mind? LOL hahahahah nice one..... both crysis 2 and 3 were massively less advanced for their time than the first crysis because of consoles......

---------- Updated at 09:36 AM ----------

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?

comparing an empty lake to a city...... i cant facepalm hard enough

 

[Vigilance.492]

comparing an empty lake to a city...... i cant facepalm hard enough

The harsher mid/long LOD's are still extremely obvious.

This is one aspect I'm hoping Ultra drastically improves. Let us crank that LOD/Draw Distance up as much as the engine will possibly allow (Or what GPU/s we have can handle). The last thing I want to do is have to turn on DOF because the mid/long LOD's are awful - that was one aspect about The Witcher 1 & 2 which was always incredibly breathtaking, the mid/long LOD's were stunning and turning off DOF enabled you to appreciate that so much more. The entire Prologue sequence of The Witcher 2 still blows my mind to this day, just the sheer detail and breathtaking vista/s throughout was fucking crazy.

I guess it's probably one of those necessary evil's of developing a huge open world, LOD's end up becoming extremely automated, but it'll be really sad if we can't crank them the fuck up if our GPU's will let us.

 

[JasonShepard]

The harsher mid/long LOD's are still extremely obvious.

This is one aspect I'm hoping Ultra drastically improves. Let us crank that LOD/Draw Distance up as much as the engine will possibly allow (Or what GPU/s we have can handle). The last thing I want to do is have to turn on DOF because the mid/long LOD's are awful - that was one aspect about The Witcher 1 & 2 which was always incredibly breathtaking, the mid/long LOD's were stunning and turning off DOF enabled you to appreciate that so much more. The entire Prologue sequence of The Witcher 2 still blows my mind to this day, just the sheer detail and breathtaking vista/s throughout was fucking crazy.

I guess it's probably one of those necessary evil's of developing a huge open world, LOD's end up becoming extremely automated, but it'll be really sad if we can't crank them the fuck up if our GPU's will let us.

That scene could have really been a lot better with improved draw distance/LOD. You can't really stop to admire the scenery when the scenery is blurry.

Oh, would anyone happen to have a good screenshot of what the leaves on trees look like in The Witcher 3? I'm playing through The Witcher 2 again to prep for TW3 and I'd just like to compare the quality of foliage, textures, etc in each game.
And this is off topic, but sweet Jesus I love how The Witcher 2 looks!
View attachment 11197

 

[xDeithwenx]

In regards to recent footage and any downgrades, if *anything*...what we have seen is very inconsistent from each-other.

 

[freakie1one]

In regards to recent footage and any downgrades, if *anything*...what we have seen is very inconsistent from each-other.

That is going to be one of the side-effects of having such large, diverse areas and differing graphical conditions (lighting, shading, clouds, weather, location, etc.). I'm betting that if the exact same game version was used to take a few screenshots and videos in different locations, lighting conditions, time of day, weather, etc. that people would still complain that there was a downgrade between the different screenshots and videos, despite all of them being taken in the exact same game version. It would be an interesting test .

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that changes haven't been made during development. But I suspect that some of the arguments are due to people mistaking the dynamic nature of the graphics as being discrepancies in quality.

 

[dragonbird]

Two posts deleted. Please make your points WITHOUT resorting to insulting forum members who disagree with you.
Thanks.

 

[Neeedles]

Does it ever rain in The Witcher 3?