So was Watch Dogs when people noticed the downgrade.The game is still half a year from being completed, folks!
Would you stop comparing Ubisoft to CDPR? Ubisoft literally said they don't care about PC optimization or PC, their ports are the worst and are the most unoptimized,So was Watch Dogs when people noticed the downgrade.
Was it addressed? NOPE.
Why do they need to address it? It was obvious the game didn't look as good. If you still chose to buy the game then that's your fault.So was Watch Dogs when people noticed the downgrade.
Was it addressed? NOPE.
So why should PC gamers get worse graphics because of that? I have a high end PC. I should have those effects.What you saw is fucking PC footage. It was a PC first game that they now have to downscale and make playable on consoles and it's gonna be tough to do that.
It's not going to, that's my fucking point.The game was running on a titan. This is the best the game could look like on a high end PC when they were making the E3 build, that was probably May. So it's going to look better, but they're gonna have to do a lot of shortcuts for it to run 30fps on consoles. The special effects artist explained it, they're not removing anything from the PC version.So why should PC gamers get worse graphics because of that? I have a high end PC. I should have those effects.
Gamers with a high end rig are maybe 1% of the players. They have to make the game playable even for low end rigs. Thats how it works. They want sales and so they have to reach as many gamers as possible and you only can scale a games graphics ( low-ultra ) to a certain amount.So why should PC gamers get worse graphics because of that? I have a high end PC. I should have those effects.
SFX guy said in the interview that the game will be scaleable to really high end rigs.This guys is probably not going to be happy though...Gamers with a high end rig are maybe 1% of the players. They have to make the game playable even for low end rigs. Thats how it works. They want sales and so they have to reach as many gamers as possible and you only can scale a games graphics ( low-ultra ) to a certain amount.
I dont know how good the mod support for the TW series is, but if it is good, there will be mods to enhance the graphics for sure.
It's obviously not based on the sword of destiny trailer. Now CDPR has stated that the final game will look much better, and I am inclined to believe that but I see no reason to trust them blindly.It's not going to, that's my fucking point.The game was running on a titan. This is the best the game could look like on a high end PC when they were making the E3 build,
It's a wrong assumption to make that games can't have scalability in them. Witcher 2 did and it still is one of the best looking games out there, Crysis series this and Crysis 3 is the best looking game ever made, Battlefield 3 and 4 did.They have to make the game playable even for low end rigs. Thats how it works. They want sales and so they have to reach as many gamers as possible and you only can scale a games graphics ( low-ultra ) to a certain amount.
I don't know why people assume that because a game is open world you can't have graphics on the level of Crysis 3. There are no technical limitations on being able to achieve that. Crysis 3 had some pretty big zones in it with a huge draw distance and was the best looking game ever made. For an open world game nothing changes since the way rendering works is that you render the game world in cells. The cell your character is in and the cells nearby, as you move from cell to cell other cells will stop being rendered and new ones will be rendered instead.I don't know what made people assume "next-gen" meant suddenly we'll have Crysis 3 level of visuals in an open world because that is most definitely not happening any time soon.
There are multiple limitations. It's real-time rendering not CGI. The first is obviously having hardware powerful enough to do so but let's skip that for now, let's move onto technical limitations.I don't know why people assume that because a game is open world you can't have graphics on the level of Crysis 3. There are no technical limitations on being able to achieve that.
I don't think personally that the game is being downgraded, not because of trust but more becaue of how game development works and some things I've been noticing with this engine, which might not be finished at all yet.http://i.imgur.com/Vs3ne6l.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/JJ2q3Iq.jpg
The downgraded pictures were ripped straight from the uncompressed video released today.
If it's not downgraded, then this is obviously Xbox One footage due what appears to be low resolution, lack of AA, and muddy textures. If so, why the hell won't CDProjekt just show PC footage at max settings to REALLY show off the game? I'm at a loss, folks. Does anyone want to contribute? The gameplay footage is undeniably a lot worse than what we were originally shown. I hope CD says something, because the difference is night and day.
PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.
None of the limitations you mention are related to the open world nature of the game since as I mentioned the amount of stuff that is rendered in game at the same time is not higher then a more closed off game like Crisis 3 given that the game will render the world in cells, and not all at once.There are multiple limitations
That's mostly a memory thing when talking about texture quality. Funny thing about that Witcher 2 was a 32 bit game that was limited by it memory wise, and yet it managed to achieve a level of texture quality that is almost second to none to this day.2. Budget - Every game has a 'budget' they can allocate to things in the game - polygons/triangles for models, texture budget. The very first thing that happens is models and textures are created at very high quality and then "downgraded" to fit in the game with decent enough quality. You can't put a 2 million poly character into the game, that right there is the entire budget of the game gone, further a character model visible at all times is also polycount which doesn't apply to Crysis. For Reference Geralt in Witcher 2 was ~30k polygons. The guy in Ryse is 85k polygons.
Most areas in Crysis 3 feature a great deal of plant life and the grass in Crysis 3 is simulated unlike the one in Witcher 2 and from what I've seen Witcher 3. Crysis 3 also has it's own in-engine cloth simulation physx.3. Physics enabled elements - Crysis 3 has few like that bendable grass, there was a rope(which ate 30 fps when moved) which I remember but those are also strictly location based. TW3 has a lot now with bendable grass, bending trees, dangling objects, hair/fur(HairWorks is only gonna make it more demanding) most of which are there for a huge part of the game.
Of course they add up, but I think you exaggerate on that impact.4. NPCs - AI elements and things you can interact with in the environment matter too. Crysis 3 isn't an NPC heavy game therefore it's not a worry for them. But here we have locations that are full of NPCs that will be doing whatever they're programmed to do, their daily schedule. Combined with a dynamic weather system and day & night cycle which affects their schedules. Just imagine the workload of having say 50 NPCs on screen going about their business and then an event(rain) affects all their behaviours. These little things add up.
I don't think that applies to DX11 Sid. DX9 is limited to serial rendering, but DX11 is not. DX11 can do parallel rendering with deferred contexts or manual threading, and so the draw call limit is much, much higher than it is for DX9.. Also the level of API overhead is substantially less with DX11..Here is an old picture I have from quite some time ago, this was for DX9 but applies just as much to DX11:
![]()
The rope issue in Crysis 3 was a bug, and it was eventually patched out. Witcher 3 will use PhysX 3.x which is much better than the physics engine in the CryEngine at any rate..3. Physics enabled elements - Crysis 3 has few like that bendable grass, there was a rope(which ate 30 fps when moved) which I remember but those are also strictly location based. TW3 has a lot now with bendable grass, bending trees, dangling objects, hair/fur(HairWorks is only gonna make it more demanding) most of which are there for a huge part of the game.
While I definetelly agree with everything that u said about the technical side of the game, I have to disagree with one thing. AC Unity stomps Witcher 3 when it comes to graphics. Even early WIP demos of Unity look way better than what we got in latest W3 demos. And im not talking just about visual quality - things like fluid animations and framerate, cloath physics, realistic colours, climbing/navigation, high level texturing - all are beyond Witcher 3.Assassin's Creed Unity is one such game, and while it's not as good looking as Witcher 3 it still looks pretty good and runs quite well.
FYI Crysis 3 was a 32 bit game. It was perhaps the most splendidly optimized PC game to ever be developed though considering it's very high visual fidelity..Ryse, Crysis 3 were 64 bit games that were not limited by such things. Witcher 3 won't be limited by 32 bit either.
I agree AC Unity is extremely impressive, and is in many ways, even more impressive than the Witcher 3.. Whether it runs well remains to be seen though, as Watch Dogs ran absolutely HORRIBLE..While Crysis 3 may not have a huge amount of NPCs at same time there are other games that have hundreds with dynamic scripts. Assassin's Creed Unity is one such game, and while it's not as good looking as Witcher 3 it still looks pretty good and runs quite well.