My point is simply that, sometimes, when I read those kind of comments, I wonder if this community wouldn't complain about bedding one of the top 10 top model as "she could have bigger boobs, her ass is not round enough ..."
It's a simple one really : nothing is ever perfect, and you have to live with it. The early demos of TW3 were made with an engine a lot closer to TW2. It probably didn't even work as a real open world, or couldn't accomodate all the hardware the game was supposed to run with (consoles).
I'm very happy they are improving B&W assets and graphics. I'm fairly certain modders will use those new assets to improve the base game, and it also means it gives us a chance that they might actually keep a small team to remaster/redux the base game. Now, the fact is TW3 is still one game who blows my mind graphically speaking each time I play it, even 1 year after its release, and there are really a few games who showed they were able to do better, and globally none who showed me anything globally better. Sure I could find some games with nicer textures, with nicer clouds, with this or that, but globally, no.
I agree with you about the excessive fog and color grading choices. They both really diminish the beauty of the base game. Regarding the size, I think that's the reason why they used so much fog. They had to drastically tone down the level of detail over distance because of the consoles, and so they used the fog to hide or cover it.
But with this latest RedEngine 3 version, the engine has been optimized to a greater extent so it performs better on the consoles, and they can increase the LoD...
Unless they decided to use separate tomes for the PC and the consoles for B&W. One of my greatest criticisms for the Witcher 3 is that CDPR used the same tomes from Umbra 3 for the consoles and the PC. This is why the consoles and the PC have the same draw distance and LoD for everything except shadows and vegetation, as the tomes dictate which assets are loaded depending on camera position/direction and it is BAKED..
If I recall, they did this primarily to save time and resources. But with the vastly increased cash flow coming from a successful Witcher 3 (the PC version earning them the most money), they may have given the PC it's own separate settings.. They may have done this, because the footage from B&W looks so good I can't imagine the consoles being able to run it at that quality.
They probably scrapped it for performance reasons if I had to guess. But yeah, it did look a helluva lot better!
I think it's worth it. The Witcher 3 will have a very long shelf life on PC, so it will continue to generate sales for years to come. Witcher 3 looks great, but it has so many compromises that it's long term graphical appeal isn't as high as it could, or should be.
Continually updating the engine and rolling these improvements back into their games would be a great mark of favor for CDPR, as it would reinforce their reputation for strong post launch commitment to supporting their games
yea umbra occlusion is baked PER individual asset i believe, when we asked for a lod slider a dev told us the game does not have a global lod controller ( but it used to have one and some of its code is still in ) so it was pretty much impossible without some work
the PC version definitely deserve better Lod at the very least, it might not be as problematic on consoles since its played on TV far away, but we play close to monitors, its very annoying, if i had to chose one single improvement it would be just that, let the game crash, let it stutter, arnt we used to these things anyways, just give us options
as for the game longevity, i really hope for an EE, but since they cant really do that on consoles ..
honestly, I'd go for improved/elaborated lighting but hell...LOD will do fine as well ..beggars can't choose now can they?
Yeah, and remember that PC gets stronger over time as well. This year we have NVidia's Pascal GPU coming out for instance, which is significantly more powerful than anything out now. If CDPR wants The Witcher 3 to age well, they should really think about releasing an EE version with better graphics..
Hmm, never say never. Remember that Sony will be coming out with the PS4 Neo or whatever it will be called to fill in the gap between the PS4 and the PS5, and then Microsoft will come out with an intermediate console as well, which will be significantly more powerful than the current Xbox One.
So while current consoles may not be able to deal with the enhanced graphics, those intermediate consoles should..
latest GPUs for PC mean 4k at 60fps is affordable. (still £250 but thats better than £1500)
I can see this latest console gen being short lived.
Still saving my first play through of this masterpiece for when the definitive edition is finalised.
B&W sounds like a lovely send off for Geralt.
I can see this latest console gen being short lived.
Still saving my first play through of this masterpiece for when the definitive edition is finalised.
B&W sounds like a lovely send off for Geralt.
Wondering how's the load times when traveling between Toussaint and the old places (if that's possible). With new assets and everything in place at Toussaint it might take awhile to load when fast traveling to Novigrad for example.
Uncharted 4:s assets and lightning looks amazing. I hope we could see something more like that on Cyberpunk before the year 2077.
Can't wait to get my sweaty hands on b&w though.
Uncharted 4:s assets and lightning looks amazing. I hope we could see something more like that on Cyberpunk before the year 2077.
Can't wait to get my sweaty hands on b&w though.
The least they should do is provide a HD Texture pack because there are some VERY LOW RES textures in the game that look pretty awful. And this CAN be done. Modders can do it, so how come CDPR haven't yet done it?
Time and resources. They have plans and a budget. Besides, I'm hard pressed to call any of the graphics in the game "ugly". Would you rather have the money and man hours spent on slightly better grass textures...or the Blood and Wine expansion?
Besides, High Res packs are best suited for people with really powerful rigs, and the consoles likely won't be able to benefit from it. The game's performance struggles as it is for many PC users.
Me, for me that's a poor decision.
Just because some player cannot move the controller of every graphic option to the right, the graphics should be standstill ?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "standstill" graphics. ???
Uncharted is good, but way to polished, when I say that I mean the graphics are good, but done in such away that they look to perfect, to shiney.....almost looking to fake to be real. Has some lighting issues to (like previous uncharted games) ...found myself staring at a complete black screen sometimes not knowing where to jump or grab next.
Witcher 3 graphics are spot on, the lighting through the day night cycle in my opinion is brilliant (even though I'm playing on a ps4). One thing is uncharted has some brilliant cut scenes,the facial animations and body language are possibly the best I have seen in a game (bordering on ..."am I playing a game....or watching a HD live action movie")....but outside the cut seems Nathan looks just a standard any old 3rd person charecter with a limited range of movements.
Its an an ok game, if anyone out there has a ps4/Xbox, rather rent it than buy it. Only takes 14 hours to complete, and virtually no replay value.
Tw3 has set a new bench mark for me......think it will be a while before anything bests it.
Witcher 3 graphics are spot on, the lighting through the day night cycle in my opinion is brilliant (even though I'm playing on a ps4). One thing is uncharted has some brilliant cut scenes,the facial animations and body language are possibly the best I have seen in a game (bordering on ..."am I playing a game....or watching a HD live action movie")....but outside the cut seems Nathan looks just a standard any old 3rd person charecter with a limited range of movements.
Its an an ok game, if anyone out there has a ps4/Xbox, rather rent it than buy it. Only takes 14 hours to complete, and virtually no replay value.
Tw3 has set a new bench mark for me......think it will be a while before anything bests it.
Last edited:
However, regardless, it is a fair decision. If the game's graphics were improved far beyond the range of what an average gaming machine could handle, many people would complain loudly of being excluded. For these players, who (through no fault of their own) can only afford machines which are less than state-of-the-art, they would most probably gaze at the Graphics Options menu in despair, and curse the fact --and CDPR -- that they could not slide the bars all the way to the right.
The Witcher 3 uses less than 2GB worth of VRAM for a 1080p resolution, thanks to a very good resource and garbage collection mechanism. That is, with the highest level of textures in the game. 1080p resolution is the standard, mainstream resolution. You need a GTX 970 (or amd equivalent) to run this game with all details (bar maybe hairworks) at 60 fps. These cards have 4GB VRAM (well, 3.5). As a conclusion, you could still very easily double the amount of VRAM used (so, improve your texture quality) with a very good market penetration.
I do agree with you though, investing a lot of money for 5% of a playerbase would be, odd, but we're talking of something closer to 20% of the playerbase (if I count console, which may even enjoy this change with the hardware update. If I only count PC, this is probably more than 50% of your playerbase). Given the relative low amount of work involved, it would still be fair to do it.
After, we could argue all day about your comment. PC gaming is built around enthusiast options which can only be enjoyed by a few enthusiast on release. But it also makes a game very long lasting. For instance, I replayed recently Crysis 1. Surely, it aged, and it was unplayable for me when I first got it (or at least, it was barely displaying 30 fps in medium details), but it was still graphically enjoyable 9 years after its release. The Witcher 2, I played it last June. Same deal. It was still beautiful thanks to some options like ubersampling, which I could only dream of turning on when it was released. Even the Witcher 1, which I played just before was still quite ok. And I remember how hard it was to run it decently on release.
Again, I get your point, and I can't say you're wrong. I'm just saying PC Gaming is built around giving you the option to have nicer graphics than what you have. The game will no matter what look great on a more modest rig. If you don't like that, console gaming may be the way to go (even though this seems to be shattered by the new "Neo" approach, which is just transposing PC values to console - as is, you can have better hardware and play the game with higher graphics).
Last edited:
And thats the problem . Everyone wants to set everything on max - if he can or not... that's a big problem in my eyes.
Graphic is stagnating ( no massiv improvements like crysis1 did for example)
I cant set everything to max ( hairworks for examble) , and i can live with it . And i still want graphic improvements so i can enjoy them later.
There must be reasons to improve graphic effects and hardware.
Not like, puuh why we should ? only small number could use them now...
( Btw, this conversation between us sounds familiar ?
)Btw 2, i don't want to say now Witcher 3 would look ugly, because that's not the case.
Last edited:
you're over estimating what it take to provide an HD textures pack for the game, and yes if a modder can do it so easily they can do it even more easily, its not a matter of budget but rather internal politics and how they want the game to look across all the platforms, they already have higher res of pretty much every single textures that you see in the game, unless minor exceptions, textures are created at very high rez then down scaled, same for mesh models, its the basic of any digital art creations
the game is very well optimized on PC not sure on what you're trying to make it run, even my cousin gtx 760 can run it pretty much at ultra
---------- Updated at 08:32 PM ----------
well the more crude reality is that CDPR used to push tech forward in their games especially on PC, not anymore
I understand you are quite strongly opinionated on everything and you apparently feel the need to defend CDPR at every opportunity and that's all good and well, but really, I don't think you know what you are talking about in this instance. I have been using HD Reworked Project from the Nexus mod page, made by a single modder in his spare time (even though it is still incomplete)...and this mod has no noticeable performance impact at all.
It would not take CDPR that long to put together a higher resolution texture pack and yes, in fact there are some really nasty low res textures in the game. Just because you don't notice it, does not mean it is not there and that other people don't notice it.
Why do you think CDPR has made an effort to make all textures in B&W high-res? Because they know people have not been happy with some of the low res textures in the base game.
So really, if you want to add something, make sure you have your facts in order.
Also, another thing, both consoles have enough memory to handle better textures, as the current Ultra needs only 2 GB of VRAM. The joint 8GB RAM in the current gen consoles are pretty much enough for higher resolution textures. What they lack is the graphical processing power. The problem they'd face would be that because they can't run the game at higher resolutions, the improved textures will not matter that much in "some" cases (they will HIGHLY matter for rock textures and tree trunks though, for example. Maybe not so much for grass textures, as they are already quite okay, and further improvements will probably need the game to run at a higher resolution to be clearly discernible). However, an HD texture pack will probably be enjoyable for most of their consumer base, if they want to provide it.