Graphic downgrade

[Scholdarr.452]

I thought they told Gamestar they were seeing only High settings, that Ultra was not ready yet.

Ugh, based on what information? That's clearly not stated in the (teaser) article by Gamestar: http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/news/the_witcher_3,49062,3083995.html -> "who was able to play the game for two full days without any limitation"

But I think they were being candid, and "you can't switch the game into Ultra" meant "we're not ready for it", not "Microsoft and Sony don't want you to see it". I wouldn't be surprised if they were tuning Ultra settings long into the night before the game goes to gold master.

Sure, nothing is set in stone and I guess they will continue to optimize the game even after release. But still ultra settings in their current version were apperently availalbe to Gamestar. For more detailed information we have to wait until the magazine is out next week.

That's a far cry from showing the same build to the public. These guys got privileged access to a WIP.

Yepp. But what's your point?

 

[GuyNwah]

Ugh, based on what information? That's clearly not stated in the (teaser) article by Gamestar: http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/news/the_witcher_3,49062,3083995.html -> "who was able to play the game for two full days without any limitation"


Sure, nothing is set in stone and I guess they will continue to optimize the game even after release. But still ultra settings in their current version were apperently availalbe to Gamestar. For more detailed information we have to wait until the magazine is out next week.

Thanks, that is a more recent article than the one I was working from.

Their reputation is riding on the appearance and performance of the game in Ultra. But the proof of this pudding is in the eating, not in the peeks through the oven window.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Right now my biggest worry is that they will just (further?) reduce the (maximum) draw distance in order to offer more frames at basically the same visual quality. Well, we'll see.

 

[TmTapani]

So you think we should be mocked for discussing the downgrade?

No, not at all. I just think that the discussion has gone a bit... too far on the ridiculous side at times. Besides, it's not what I (a pc player through and through) think about these things. Far from it. I was just mentioning that others WILL, HAVE, and CONTINUE TO mock us because of things like these. Its already hard to discuss with others the virtues of pc gaming without this "nothing is ever good enough" mentality.

 

[jon7882]

No, not at all. I just think that the discussion has gone a bit... too far on the ridiculous side at times. Besides, it's not what I (a pc player through and through) think about these things. Far from it. I was just mentioning that others WILL, HAVE, and CONTINUE TO mock us because of things like these. Its already hard to discuss with others the virtues of pc gaming without this "nothing is ever good enough" mentality.

Let me ask you a question. I havent seen any of your posts so do think the game looks great? I do because well IMHO it looks sweet. Also does anyone know if a GTX 770 can use the hairworks option?

 

[TmTapani]

Let me ask you a question. I havent seen any of your posts so do think the game looks great? I do because well IMHO it looks sweet. Also does anyone know if a GTX 770 can use the hairworks option?

I've said this a few times on this thread already but personally I do think it looks great. Far better than I would have expected. Wasn't the hairworks exclusive to the higher end cards? Not absolutely sure though.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Also does anyone know if a GTX 770 can use the hairworks option?

Yes. Every DX11 nvidia card can use it IIRC.

 

[JasonShepard]

(Quoting again)

Ubersampling (4k) makes a massive difference in terms of detail resolution. Other than that, I have to agree. Comparison below:

edit: will probably reupload picture at a higher res
edit #2: and if it doesn't look obvious on the comparison pic, i'll simply say that it removes all the grainy jagged edges on the foliage, and that alone makes a big difference

Yeah, I never really was wowed by the screenshot. What did wow me were the clouds because damn they looked nice. The foliage and textures did look sharper, but that was definitely because it was a 4k screenshot. The foliage still looked a little patchy, it was just less noticeable because of the lower camera angle of the 4k screenshot. I'm really hoping that the foliage gets filled in a little more and I'm really hoping that we get some displacement going on so those flat textures like the gravel really pop out.
That being said, I think the game looks good in the screenshot. I think it'll look better than the PAX footage easily and I believe that it is confirmed that the screenshot is not Ultra. It's High-Ultra. So I don't know what is ticked for Ultra and what isn't (I do believe that HBAO+ was definitely off and Hairworks might have been). I'm hoping though that maybe we can get some more evenly spread grass and that maybe I can drool over some displacement (I'm a sucker for anything that pops out at me).

 

[jon7882]

I've said this a few times on this thread already but personally I do think it looks great. Far better than I would have expected. Wasn't the hairworks exclusive to the higher end cards? Not absolutely sure though.

Yeah I've only read from about page 60 on I may have missed some posts. As for the hairworks I think your right. On my recent "forced" upgrade (mobo failed had to replace cpu and graphics card and mobo obviously) the best card I could afford was the 770. Still a good setup though.
i7 4790 turbo'd to 4.0
16gbddr3
900gbhdd
gtx 770
win 8.1 64
I think i'm set. May can't come fast enough.:smiling:

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Screenshot comparisons are pointless anyway. A video game is a medium in MOTION (hence the word "video"). It's important how it looks when things are moving. No sane person stares at his monitor looking out for super tiny details while the game is paused. That's not what video games are all about. It's much more important how the whole composition of works and looks in motion in the end. I'm really tired of these endless screenshot comparisons. They imho have - at best - purely academic/theoretical value.

 

[JasonShepard]

Screenshot comparisons are pointless anyway. A video game is a medium in MOTION (hence the word "video"). It's important how it looks when things are moving. No sane person stares at his monitor looking out for super tiny details while the game is paused. That's not what video games are all about. It's much more important how the whole composition of works and looks in motion in the end. I'm really tired of these endless screenshot comparisons. They imho have - at best - purely academic/theoretical value.

Honestly, it all depends on the pace of the game. For a fast-paced game like Battlefield, I'm not going to have much time to admire textures. In ARMA though? Oh Christ, that game can move at a snail's pace sometimes. I could end up staring at a bad texture for awhile.
The Witcher games have been relatively slow games. The Witcher 1 was the most painfully RPG I have ever experienced in my life. Geralt literally moved like a snail, it was horrifying without any modification. The Witcher 2 was better, but still slow. Even rolling around to travel felt slow because Geralt paused between rolls and the rolls themselves weren't fast. The Witcher 3? I think it'll still be a slower game. Geralt's sprint didn't look like it was particularly fast, galloping on a horse definitely had some speed to it. And let's consider that The Witcher 3 is an open world game. I think because of the open world nature of TW3 and the scale of it, we're going to be looking at our surroundings more in motion rather than our character.

 

[jon7882]

Honestly, it all depends on the pace of the game. For a fast-paced game like Battlefield, I'm not going to have much time to admire textures. In ARMA though? Oh Christ, that game can move at a snail's pace sometimes. I could end up staring at a bad texture for awhile.
The Witcher games have been relatively slow games. The Witcher 1 was the most painfully RPG I have ever experienced in my life. Geralt literally moved like a snail, it was horrifying without any modification. The Witcher 2 was better, but still slow. Even rolling around to travel felt slow because Geralt paused between rolls and the rolls themselves weren't fast. The Witcher 3? I think it'll still be a slower game. Geralt's sprint didn't look like it was particularly fast, galloping on a horse definitely had some speed to it. And let's consider that The Witcher 3 is an open world game. I think because of the open world nature of TW3 and the scale of it, we're going to be looking at our surroundings more in motion rather than our character.

That's also a matter of taste and playstyle. I thought all the witcher games were greaand had decent pacing. Probalby because my favorite type of games are open world rpgs and used to big areas and walking and such. I remember Looking at Oblivion and it's gorgeous graphics and had no issue with the pacing. Same here. I think the graphics look great and at least 110x better than Oblivion and even better than WItcher 2.

 

[Doctalen]

Geralt literally moved like a snail

Oh man, you never learned to always have your sword out in fast/group style? I feel bad for you. Yeah, The Witcher isn't Vanquish tier fast, but it's not slow either. Like you said, we will be looking at our environment in motion most of the time, most people won't stand around inspecting everything. Screenshots miss a lot of stuff. Like the wind affecting the environment and geralt and leaves flying in the air and the lighting possibly changing. I think the game looks fine, I wish the grass had a bit more density in a lot of places. That's really my only complaint though. I think in motion it looks great and in stills less so sometimes.

 

[JasonShepard]

Oh man, you never learned to always have your sword out in fast/group style? I feel bad for you. Yeah, The Witcher isn't Vanquish tier fast, but it's not slow either. Like you said, we will be looking at our environment in motion most of the time, most people won't stand around inspecting everything. Screenshots miss a lot of stuff. Like the wind affecting the environment and geralt and leaves flying in the air and the lighting possibly changing. I think the game looks fine, I wish the grass had a bit more density in a lot of places. That's really my only complaint though. I think in motion it looks great and in stills less so sometimes.

I did used group style when I could. It really didn't help much.
I'd consider the Witcher to be a slower game. Maybe not ARMA slow or turn-based slow, but I think that exploration and interaction with the world has always been on the slow side. I'd say that combat is really what got faster from game to game. You might miss things like the wind blowing through the grass and trees or the way shadows move as you walk in front of a light source, but that isn't exactly related to the quality of the assets. If you're exploring and there's a bad texture or something else, you're going to notice it. However, if you're talking to another character or in combat, then you probably won't even see anything wrong.
Denser grass is definitely a thing that I would like to see by launch.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Honestly, it all depends on the pace of the game. For a fast-paced game like Battlefield, I'm not going to have much time to admire textures. In ARMA though? Oh Christ, that game can move at a snail's pace sometimes. I could end up staring at a bad texture for awhile.
The Witcher games have been relatively slow games. The Witcher 1 was the most painfully RPG I have ever experienced in my life. Geralt literally moved like a snail, it was horrifying without any modification. The Witcher 2 was better, but still slow. Even rolling around to travel felt slow because Geralt paused between rolls and the rolls themselves weren't fast. The Witcher 3? I think it'll still be a slower game. Geralt's sprint didn't look like it was particularly fast, galloping on a horse definitely had some speed to it. And let's consider that The Witcher 3 is an open world game. I think because of the open world nature of TW3 and the scale of it, we're going to be looking at our surroundings more in motion rather than our character.

You're still always in motion, no matter if you walk slowly or pace through levels. It's rather pointless how the vegetation looks on a screenshot, it's important how it looks when you walk by. That's what I mean.

 

[Psykosonikninja]

This thread cracked me up. The OP did a horribly biased comparison. Doesn't use the same areas and all the recent shots are zoomed in.

If you compare things properly there is no evidence of an overall downgrade. What I mean is that, sure some small elements may be tweaked back a bit, but if more graphical elements are actually upgraded then the overall effect is that the game looks the same or better.

I agree that some of the recent footage doesn't strike you as looking as good, but I have faith in CD Projekt Red and know that they are doing their best to bring us an amazing looking game.

 

[thislsmadness]

I really don't think that 4K shot was far off, if off at all.

Go back and re-watch SoD, seriously pay attention and pause each "scene", you'll find something iffy on just about every sequence. Whether it's a bad texture, or heavy DOF implementation to take eyes off the LOD.
Compare moments we can compare, like the quality of the house where Geralt slices that guys head off and the Inn Geralt/Vesemir enter in the 15 minutes of gameplay - it's extremely similar in quality. The grass in the 4K shot VS the grass in the scene where Eskel igni's the Wraiths - again, very very similar in quality, if not identical ETC ETC.

I think SoD looked fantastic, amazing even, but I think people just kind of blur their mind to the little details because it's all moving so fast and you're just soaking in the general "amazingness" of the trailer. Whereas when you have a screenshot - you just sit there and stare at it until you notice the flaws, or in the case of the big Gamepaly Demos they get scrutinized and dissected much more than a Trailer ever would, everything is moving much slower and it's raw.

I totally agree. I just scrubbed through SoD scene for scene and I saw nothing that is objectivity better in terms of assets. There are scenes I would say are more impressive but its strictly due to lighting conditions and particle effects, which the screen shot doesn't display.

Geralt's character model looks pretty bad in some of the shots, particularly those where hairworks is off like the opening close up of Geralt. His hair reacts more like a hood and he probably got the scar on his face from that jagged shadow his bang cast. Hes not the only one having a bad hair day, Triss' hair clips through her face in some scenes. The 2D foilage is all over the place; just look at the shrubs Ciri passes in her opening shot or when the Wild Hunt is running down that NPC. You can see plenty of flat ground textures too like shot of all the Witchers together or the last horse riding scene. There also lots of other bad/muddy textures like Triss' under shirt, the Kilt on the Wild Hunt general, the mast of the boat Geralt/Triss/Yenn are on, pile of ropes on pirate ship (ropes in any scene, really), and every drowner/nekker close up.

The trailer still looks incredible but its guilty of many issues people have with the new stuff.

 

[JasonShepard]

You're still always in motion, no matter if you walk slowly or pace through levels. It's rather pointless how the vegetation looks on a screenshot, it's important how it looks when you walk by. That's what I mean.

Well, I'd assume that the vegetation would look the same as it would in a screenshot. Unless there was a ridiculous amount of motion blur in your game, something like vegetation would look the same whether it's in a screenshot or on your monitor while you play. The quality doesn't change in motion.

 

[Psykosonikninja]

I think the biggest difference is that the SOD trailer is comprised of mostly cutscene footage. So people are comparing epic cutscene footage to simple everyday areas of the game and thinking it is evidence of a downgrade. It's so silly. This game is a massive 50 to 100 hour long game and you are going to cover a lot of ground....it's unreasonable to expect every inch of the world to look just as good as its better parts.

The game as a whole is going to look incredible. Of that I have no doubt.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Well, I'd assume that the vegetation would look the same as it would in a screenshot. Unless there was a ridiculous amount of motion blur in your game, something like vegetation would look the same whether it's in a screenshot or on your monitor while you play. The quality doesn't change in motion.

The quality doesn't change. But your perception. And that's all that counts. That has nothing to do with blur. It's just a different kind of information gathering whether you look at screenshots on your monitor searching for differences or similarities or whether you play a game, experiencing it in motion, having a task to do, concentrating on all kinds of different things at the same time. That's a whole different situation. That's why I say the composition is important, whether the game is immersive and well constructed. Who the fu*k really cares about little differences in the quality of ground textures while playing a game. I don't get it...

This whole downgrade thing is imho almost purely theoretical and academic with little to no influence about the actual game experience. Perhaps some people are just bored or they need attention, I don't know. It just makes no sense to me, sorry.