Graphic downgrade

[wazaa]

Game still looks awesome, but I also must admit not like those first trailers, and now this "downgrade" problem as all over internet.. But what really bothers me is why CDPR is being quite about that? Why don't they just get us few screenshot of Ultra settings so that they just close all this discussions.. Also why is problem to tell us on which platform was some gameplay video?.. Anyway looking forward to this game, and still having fate in best devs in gaming industry..

? they are doing it. They are putting from time to time new screenshoots, in their website.

And it doesn't matter. Whatever they put people complain. When it is not the texture is the light, when it is not the light it is the haircut, when it is not the haircut is the fauna, when it is not the fauna is the mountain at the back, when it is not the mountain at the back is the fire, when it is not the fire is that the hair is not white enough, when...

And I don't know how much quality will have the game, and if it have a downgrade. And for me it has not a downgrade, and Watch Dogs had not a downgrade, either. A downgrade is that the game looks worse than expected. And what do you expect? what it is shown in a initial state of development? it is not the expected. A game is not easy to do. To me the expected is the previous game. To me a downgrade is, for example: Crysis 2.

Regarding the Witcher 3. I'm sure a lot of people will complain about the problems they have to run it, as usual.

 

[Kinley]

Let's not turn this into a platform war. A post has been deleted.

 

[Ourgekjj]

This thread again ?

Sorry but actual game looks way better than debut/VGX trailer. The only thing missing is volumetric cloud, probably on on ultra.

And stop compare gameplay vs trailer where every shoot and angle are chosen.

 

[Alastre]

Law in hand: do you have any copy of the game for arguing there's a false advertisment?

Until May 19th nobody can claim false advertisment. Further that's is a mater of opinions and taste and speculations.

---------- Updated at 07:23 PM ----------

Sorry but actual game looks way better than debut/VGX trailer..

This is your opinion...and we respect it. Some other people think it different...that's life!

 

[wichat]

---------- Updated at 07:23 PM ----------



This is your opinion...and we respect it. Some other people think it different...that's life!

Thanks. I'm ffflatered.

But without an original copy to compare with it how can anyone want to turn a speculation in a fact?

 

[En-en]

But what really bothers me is why CDPR is being quite about that? Why don't they just get us few screenshot of Ultra settings so that they just close all this discussions..

Why bother? If some people want to waste their time discussing graphic downgrade of the game that is not even out yet or convincing everyone that CDproject joined the dark side and turned into Ubisoft or something, let them do it. It's not like they will not find something to complain about anyway.

 

[Cyrex13]

Why bother? If some people want to waste their time discussing graphic downgrade of the game that is not even out yet or convincing everyone that CDproject joined the dark side and turned into Ubisoft or something, let them do it. It's not like they will not find something to complain about anyway.

Heh.. I understand you, just saying that those people just spreading FUD, and that's not good advertise for CDPR

 

[Kinley]

How about we get back to discussing the possibility of a downgrade and not the people that claim there is one.

 

[SpeeX97]

How about we get back to discussing the possibility of a downgrade and not the people that claim there is one.

you maybe get paid to say there is not mate, but there is.

 

[Agent_Bleu]

A few points and one suggestion.

Watching back the VGX - from eons ago, but still such a beautiful, evocative trailer - notice how at least the the first two thirds are cutscene material, with the opening shot being both a cutscene and Hairworks galore. It's technically true that it's all «in-game footage». But it is also true cutscenes get special high end LoD assets the engine can't and won't handle during regular gameplay.

Then take the last VGX third, which does seem to be gameplay. Take the excerpt where Geralt is galloping through Skellige or the Novigrad aerial panorama. LoD/Draw distance is clearly superior to when Geralt is standing on the plateau overlooking the lake in the latest footage. Everything in a distance now looks very flat, quite flatter, scarcely detailed, certainly less detailed. Additionally, one point that hasn't been brought up too often, everything looks extremely aliased. Just check the grass against the lake backdrop. It's almost as though AA has been turned off there. It's hard for me to see how these problems could be pinned on a disabled sharpening filter.

The game has been in development for a number of years and has a little over two months before it launches. It will go gold, what?, 1 month before release. Do you believe this final stretch of roughly forty days will run contrary to the recent trend of degradation and out of the blue outshine the past 3 years in development? I find that an extremely hard case to make, but go ahead.

REDs would only showcase game on lower settings if they considered it advantageous, at which point they would certainly say so, otherwise it would have no positive PR impact. They didn't. End of story, this is PC on high.

Suggestion: for future reference, CD Projekt, please refrain from ambiguous language such as «in-ham,e footage». Reserve the term for regular gameplay only. Also, when showcasing optional exclusive tech such as Hairworks, possible particle effects, special AA, etc., be very cautious and sure to mention the fact. If possible alongside or shortly after show scenes where those goodies aren't at work. Please do tell us which platform and on which settings footage is on. That should be your default position.

More transparency would go a long way in avoiding future uproar.

 

[Vixraine]

*blinks* Wow, that took no time at all to revert back in to personal attacks and stawman arguments.

Maybe I'm alone here (I've seen a few other level-headed individuals in the thread though) but all I'm really asking for is data.

Currently, we have a lot of mutli-compressed raw gameplay footage which shows off the current state of the game running on undisclosed hardware. But as a PC gamer, there is quite literally no possibility of knowing what the game is going to look like on your given system. None.

For a company that is selling a PC game, it seems like a pretty silly company line to say 'You'll find out what the game looks like when it releases.' (No Ultra footage till after people buy our game on day one).

Now I don't think anybody can rightfully claim false advertising, given that all of the raw gameplay footage has remained consistent within the last couple of years of development. Nor can anyone /prove/ deception beyond the shadow of a doubt.

But it doesn't feel good when the game is advertised on some polished engine work, and then two months from release nobody will give out any 'polished footage' of the current build or advertised graphical effects. That doesn't inspire confidence.

What is needed, for PC Gamers, is to see what the game is capable of, and to know what performance one gets and on what hardware. That provides a reference point. A piece of actual data from which consumers can figure out what type of hardware they are going to need to play the game on their desired level of fidelity.

I don't know about others, but I work a lot. I rarely have time to finish a game, and so when I set aside some time to play a game it's because I want the full experience. I want the game to 'Wow' me. And when the game was introduced to us it did that. Unequivocally. The latest footage doesn't, but that's okay. The latest footage has already been stated to not be running at max.

But when we don't get /any/ footage that wows like the early advertisements, I've got no way of knowing if I need a good computer to run the game at max, if I need to wait a couple years, and use mods to re-capture the full experience of the game, or if I'll never be able to play the dream that was sold to me in those first few trailers and nvidia tech demonstrations.

Any of those eventualities could be the case, and in order to properly plan my time (100 hours is a lot to try and allocate, I'm just saying), having the data is what makes the difference.

On a positive note, this was released as a "1080p screenshot".

http://www.gamepur.com/files/images/2015/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt.jpg

It shows some fantastic modeling similar to the SOD trailer, and very polished lighting (much more polished than has been given to us in gameplay trailers recently. I do consider this to be hopeful, even if it still provides absolutely no data from which to make hardware and time decisions from.

 

[sidspyker]

you maybe get paid to say there is not mate, but there is.

Dammit, we've been found out. Time to secure ourselves

Now please, don't stray from the topic at hand and follow the rules it's that simple.

 

[crimsonwarrior]

can you applay sharpenig filter or other effects you talk about on some recent screens, if that what are you saying is true, this will look like sod or vgx.
Now this is only your words, with pictures your arguments would be 100x times stronger, please do this

Seeing as how I don't have access to the textures, or the engine running them. No I can't apply any filter effect to them or increase their native resolution. So why even ask?

 

[web-head91]

Dammit, we've been found out. Time to secure ourselves

omg :hrhr:, you made my day good sir. ty

 

[DBag]

Then take the last VGX third, which does seem to be regular gameplay. Take the excerpt where Geralt is galloping through Skellige or the Novigrad aerial panorama. LoD/Draw distance is clearly superior to when Geralt is standing on the plateau overlooking the lake in the latest footage. Everything in a distance looks very flat, quite flatter than before, much less detailed.

It pains me to admit that I sad-chuckled a bit when Peter Gelencser said "But let's just take a quick moment to appreciate the scenery". It pains me because this is not the kind of a reaction I would want myself or others to have when looking at TW3 footage.

Also, let's not forget that Peter Gelencser has said that he thinks "the game is more and more beautiful" (context: as development goes on), so... yeah.

 

[joacko_1990]

No I really don't think you do. Again I am not going to dig up the mammoth corpse of a thread to show you the examples, but I assure you the primary difference in textures is post processing effects. How do you think the low and high settings work on PC settings in the first place?

Stop thinking you are some AAA developer of Crytek .
What people want to really know is what happend with Ultra Textures . Not bash the game dont get the facts wrong .
We saw a Official interview of Cd projekt stating this game will use the same textures in all platform .
Pc gamers right up start to ask what happend with that .

Then people said all e3 trailers and gameplay trailers where Cinematic and not using the render engine .
This Video proove all are wrong : The game was running like they promised

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SpPqXdzl7g&list=LLHvt_l-UdtZ7Xb7cx-GYz6Q

Stop defending something you cant . We need to grow up and discuss this with valid arguments .

I came here with facts not theories . i want people to do the same thing

We know there are ps4 owners / xbox one on this tread defending the game like hell . We want anwsers ; not fighting each others


The Downgrade textures i real and I know how games Post-processing works and the effects you can put in the game :

• High dynamic range rendering
• Bloom
• Motion blur
• Screen Space Ambient Occlusion
• Cel shading
• Crepuscular rays
• Film grain simulation
• Depth of fields

 

[Mezziaz]

This is very obvious downgrade in my opinion:
Before:
http://i.nextmedia.com.au/News/witcher.jpg
After:
http://imgur.com/yXV8G8X.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/2hwomXo.jpg
Better now?

Just tweaked the colours/contrast a bit to better match the SoD trailer and I honestly don't think Geralt's model looks all that different. Plus that image has towns of compression artifacts, hiding the smallest of details. While the SoD one is a "doctored" promo shot.

 

[Vixraine]

Seeing as how I don't have access to the textures, or the engine running them. No I can't apply any filter effect to them or increase their native resolution. So why even ask?

Because you are attempting to undermine others concerns of graphical disparity by stating, with full confidence, that what is being witnessed is an effect which you have not provided demonstration nor evidence of.

So, as a reasonable individual, he asked you to provide evidence and/or demonstration of what you claim is happening. If you could provide that, then you would have a very solid foundation and argument. If you cannot, which you seem to be saying, then you have none.

---------- Updated at 08:51 PM ----------

http://i.imgur.com/2hwomXo.jpg
Better now?

Just tweaked the colours/contrast a bit to better match the SoD trailer and I honestly don't think Geralt model looks all that different. Plus that image has towns of compression artifacts, hiding the smallest of details. While the SoD one is a "doctored" promo shot.

That's awesome, thanks for taking the time to remove the poor lighting so we can actually compare the models.

I'm still noticing a lot of difference in the hair strand variety/texturing (which probably comes down to Hairworks) and some noticeable lessening in subsurface scattering (used to make facial textures more realistic), but the two images definitely look much more comparable and easily the difference between 'post-processing max settings' and 'raw gameplay at high settings'.

 

[McGregg]

On a positive note, this was released as a "1080p screenshot".

http://www.gamepur.com/files/images/2015/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt.jpg

It shows some fantastic modeling similar to the SOD trailer, and very polished lighting (much more polished than has been given to us in gameplay trailers recently. I do consider this to be hopeful, even if it still provides absolutely no data from which to make hardware and time decisions from.

Eeeee, the chest is flat... and the right boob is down... obvious downgrade... It needs to be up-lifted!.... Sorry I had to

I'm still noticing a lot of difference in the hair strand variety/texturing (which probably comes down to Hairworks) and some noticeable lessening in subsurface scattering (used to make facial textures more realistic), but the two images definitely look much more comparable and easily the difference between 'post-processing max settings' and 'raw gameplay at high settings'.

Maybe that's the difference between high and ultra setting (with all maxed)... my computer would melt anyway....

 

[Vixraine]

*chuckles* I think chest 'downgrades' have got another thread on this forum somewhere.