- Status
Or you could buy the game not for the graphics, but for the story, world,gameplay etc.
Just saying
The only problem with graphics is the textures on some rocks ( wich are the same model of grass on SOD but with better textures on there) and on the grass, but hey, the grass bends not just for geralt but for npcs and enemys, is not like other games where is just have some animations on the foliage that doesnt react realistic, but look the effects, ALL THE FOLLIAGE reacts to the wind, on the new demo you can see the trees bending to one side on the start of the fight and in the end they are bends to other side ( reacting to the wind just like geralt hair etc) Semi- Volumetric clouds, the godamm clouds is awesome, geralt have a lot a more moves. And for those who didn't notice on the demo its suposely not on ultra but have hairworks, wich mean that ultra is not just hairworks and uber, probabily have some more effects, high res textures on everything etc. The game looks gorgeous, there so much phisics and people start comparing games like fallout thats clunky and have poor graphics effects, of course with AA, and maybe some Mods etc will look good, but will always look clunky. ( Sorry for bad english)
It's photorealistic artstyle, for the love of all that is holy and sacred ...
We could speak about the arrow syndrome in quest design, but it would be OT.
I think simply naming the thread "graphics" would have contributed to making the discussion less charged and leave people more open-minded. Some argue that certain aspects (foliage primarily) are downgraded, others argue that other aspects (say, lighting) are upgraded. Some consider the removal of the sharpening filter as having made the game look worse, others consider it now more appealing. Already that picture I described is a bit more complicated than simply "game looks better on all aspects" or "game looks worst on all aspects". I feel that the title is setting off an agitated and agitating tone from the get go. I also find that the constant one-liner posts that mock the 'other camp', whether it's pro-downgrade or anti-downgrade, just serve to annoy other readers (thanks for asking to drop them, Dragonbird). This discussion is delicate enough without us throwing these jabs.
That's about form. About content, I'll copy my post from the general PAX thread with a few adjustments:
I think foliage is the main difference people (myself included) are spotting between the 2013 footage and everything after (ignoring the sharpening filter). I don't think the textures have been revamped and made overall worse. I think there's just a varying quality of them (and honestly, textures weren't ever good - even in the swamp footage from the 2013 trailer, the tree looked really bland). Specifically about foliage, those few seconds snippets of Geralt facing the wolves, the fiend and the flying creatures (ekhidans, I think?). In those tiny parts the foliage does seem better to me - it's more dense and has a nicer variety.
That being said, I still don't think "downgrade" is the only explanation. It's certainly the most appealing because that word is very rousing.
I think that part of it is a play on angles - you don't see in the 2013 footage a top-down camera that will let you easily spot how the foliage is separated by patches of nothing, like we often see in the 2014+ material. Looking at the Brazilian 35min footage, there's a moment when the player moves the camera close to the ground while fighting the harpies, and to me the grass then seems much better than when he moves the camera to a higher point.
The village GIF is often brought up in this topic, but to be honest I'm not seeing much difference between it and the foliage here,
Part of that GIF's beauty was how alive it was, with so many things happening on screen. I find it much less impressive when it's static. I don't see a reason to think that's no longer the case. Just a few seconds before that screenshot I just posted was taken, the leaves were blowing in the wind around Geralt just like in the village GIF, and there was a faint cloud of sand that brushed past Geralt.
Lastly, and I think this has never come up in this topic - I just rewatched the 2013 material, and I don't see the foliage react to Geralt at all. Now it's not completely interactive in all the gameplay material released (big bushes, for example, are static), but grass and bigger plants move according to Geralt's movements, something I haven't seen in the beloved debut and VGX trailers. They might not move perfectly, but they move.
I think that's another step that is required in the discussion - if a downgrade, hypothetically, is justified when it gives you something else? Is this even one at the expense of the other? I don't think we ever talked about it because to me this discussion always felt quite spiteful, with its only end purpose being waving that much wanted result of "downgrade, ha". And that's it.
Hypothetically, if there has been a downgrade and the foliage won't look as detailed and dense as the 2013 material (which I'm still not convinced isn't a matter of angles), it's not taking away for nothing, maybe? When it comes down to it, if I could choose between static but detailed foliage to less detailed foliage but one that responds to my movements, I'd go with the second. But that's up to personal preference. People might prefer better looking grass, even if it doesn't move, and there's nothing wrong about that. Different strokes.
Even as I write this I have this suspicion that there are many users who will jump on this paragraph of mine and think to themselves "there we have it - an admittance of a downgrade", because I can't shake off the feeling that this thread isn't so much about offering interesting posts about what makes a game look good\bad, but instead about reaching this almost vindictive conclusion of "CDPR downgraded, what sellouts", and go home. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I will be.
People who are adamant about there being a downgrade will consider my post as mental gymnastics or excuses. Oh well. Nothing much I can do there. As I said, I think there is a difference, I like the look of the foliage in 2013 more, but I don't think that necessarily means a downgrade.
About ultra settings - I don't think they will change this. Maybe they will affect the draw distance, but actually change the look of grass? Seems too hopeful to me. Maybe there are others games that do this which I'm unaware of? I think there might be too many expectations pinned on how much of a difference ultra will provide - in no small part due to Damien saying it'll be like a slap to the face. I think he's just exaggerating so it won't affect me too much, because my expectations about the differences between High and Ultra are low (no pun intended - OK, maybe it was), but I worry that some people are thinking too much will be better.
That's about form. About content, I'll copy my post from the general PAX thread with a few adjustments:
I think foliage is the main difference people (myself included) are spotting between the 2013 footage and everything after (ignoring the sharpening filter). I don't think the textures have been revamped and made overall worse. I think there's just a varying quality of them (and honestly, textures weren't ever good - even in the swamp footage from the 2013 trailer, the tree looked really bland). Specifically about foliage, those few seconds snippets of Geralt facing the wolves, the fiend and the flying creatures (ekhidans, I think?). In those tiny parts the foliage does seem better to me - it's more dense and has a nicer variety.
That being said, I still don't think "downgrade" is the only explanation. It's certainly the most appealing because that word is very rousing.
I think that part of it is a play on angles - you don't see in the 2013 footage a top-down camera that will let you easily spot how the foliage is separated by patches of nothing, like we often see in the 2014+ material. Looking at the Brazilian 35min footage, there's a moment when the player moves the camera close to the ground while fighting the harpies, and to me the grass then seems much better than when he moves the camera to a higher point.
The village GIF is often brought up in this topic, but to be honest I'm not seeing much difference between it and the foliage here,
Part of that GIF's beauty was how alive it was, with so many things happening on screen. I find it much less impressive when it's static. I don't see a reason to think that's no longer the case. Just a few seconds before that screenshot I just posted was taken, the leaves were blowing in the wind around Geralt just like in the village GIF, and there was a faint cloud of sand that brushed past Geralt.
Lastly, and I think this has never come up in this topic - I just rewatched the 2013 material, and I don't see the foliage react to Geralt at all. Now it's not completely interactive in all the gameplay material released (big bushes, for example, are static), but grass and bigger plants move according to Geralt's movements, something I haven't seen in the beloved debut and VGX trailers. They might not move perfectly, but they move.
I think that's another step that is required in the discussion - if a downgrade, hypothetically, is justified when it gives you something else? Is this even one at the expense of the other? I don't think we ever talked about it because to me this discussion always felt quite spiteful, with its only end purpose being waving that much wanted result of "downgrade, ha". And that's it.
Hypothetically, if there has been a downgrade and the foliage won't look as detailed and dense as the 2013 material (which I'm still not convinced isn't a matter of angles), it's not taking away for nothing, maybe? When it comes down to it, if I could choose between static but detailed foliage to less detailed foliage but one that responds to my movements, I'd go with the second. But that's up to personal preference. People might prefer better looking grass, even if it doesn't move, and there's nothing wrong about that. Different strokes.
Even as I write this I have this suspicion that there are many users who will jump on this paragraph of mine and think to themselves "there we have it - an admittance of a downgrade", because I can't shake off the feeling that this thread isn't so much about offering interesting posts about what makes a game look good\bad, but instead about reaching this almost vindictive conclusion of "CDPR downgraded, what sellouts", and go home. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I will be.
People who are adamant about there being a downgrade will consider my post as mental gymnastics or excuses. Oh well. Nothing much I can do there. As I said, I think there is a difference, I like the look of the foliage in 2013 more, but I don't think that necessarily means a downgrade.
About ultra settings - I don't think they will change this. Maybe they will affect the draw distance, but actually change the look of grass? Seems too hopeful to me. Maybe there are others games that do this which I'm unaware of? I think there might be too many expectations pinned on how much of a difference ultra will provide - in no small part due to Damien saying it'll be like a slap to the face. I think he's just exaggerating so it won't affect me too much, because my expectations about the differences between High and Ultra are low (no pun intended - OK, maybe it was), but I worry that some people are thinking too much will be better.
Last edited:
What is photorealistic? Do you mean the new footage?
I do not want to step into off-topic territory here, so this will be my only response on this subject, what would be considered cartoony is an artstyle similar to DAI, but W3's artstyle (yes, the recent gameplay bits) are photorealistic when you compare the two artstyles.
And we 2 already did that
And the 'arrow-syndrome' does not ruin ALL the gameplay anyway
Yeah, no. I want to see how it runs first, if it can look as advertised and keep min 60fps. Is that too much? Oh wait, i think not.
Yeah I also felt like the GDC video even looking horribly as it was, actually would look amazing if it was uncompressed.
The host of the panel was some Xbox dude so I am not surprised if that was xbox footage after all.
maybe there will be an "enhanced edition patch" for the pc version like in tw2, to upgrade the graphics and effects
Sorry, I have totally different priorities I seek in games so we will never agree on that.
Yeah I think we re clearly on Pc at console setting. That's it. The game can't have been downgrade in 7 days. And seriously if it really is how console will run it's more than amazing.
Last edited:
It's been confirmed by a developer that it was PC at high settings.
- Status