Hopefully they learned the lesson about not being greedy scum.
- Status
Hopefully they learned the lesson about not being greedy scum.
Exactly. Its good to remember that this is 2 month old footage of a game that releases in 6 months. We should also remember that this was intended to be shown behind closed doors for a reason, they decided to release it to the public because we asked for it. Lets not make them regret it by panicking over things that they have plenty of time to address.
But there is a difference between looking good on ultra and not playable on low settings. You mean that if they made the game look as good looking as it was before, they wouldn't have the time to optimise it for lower end machines?
Keep calm and trust in CDPR, Witcher 2 was and still one of the best looking games, Witcher 3 will be even better for sure, 6 months untill the finished product, how many things they can make on that time ? a lot
Last edited:
Explain to me how this looks better at all
http://assets.vg247.com/current//20...ltiple_opponents_in_a_village_in_Skellige.png
Half the lighting passes are missing THERE IS NO PHYSICALLY BASED RENDERING, the fur is just one large prim, textures are incomplete, heavy dithering on almost everything, Geralt's face is heavily unfinished, it's just a copy of his TW2 face with slight difference.
Flora looks fine in other parts of the same video. It's clearly unfinished. Even in the Downwarren part when geralt runs through that ruins part the flora there looks worked on instead of the normal 1st layer grass. Regardless that wasn't the point I was trying to bring up that screenshot is in no way better than what we've seen in the gameplay. It looks worse than half the game from the past few years.
Last edited:
When the bar is raised on the max settings its raised for ALL of them. Irregardless of how well optimized it is. I am stuck with a 755 mother board architecture forced with the strongest possible CPU I can get for the damn thing being Quad Core Q9950 2.8 GHZ. It was hot shit six years ago, and could still max out games as recent as this year. However with the ridicules demands of graphics being raised constantly developers even the good ones are starting to have to cut the dead weight which is making it dangerously close to where I won't be able to even play these games let alone run them at a satisfactory level.
Last edited:
The games aren't demanding because of the graphics; graphics haven't really improved much in recent years. It's because of poor optimization and ports (e.g. 6gb of ram for Call of Duty to even open; 3gb of vram for shitty Watch Dogs textures; etc.)
Last edited:
Optimization isn't easy, but it can be done; it simply takes skill and competence. Hence why Ubisoft craps out bloated games like Assassin's Creed 4 and Watch Dogs with a gigantic, almost thousand-man team with an $80million budget, while CDProjekt can make a well-optimized game out of tracksuits and vodka.
implying being engine programer doesn't require skill and competence
Textures are absolutely much better and cleaner, you can see shit from a distance and tons of other details. Things from up-close look great and not ugly as we saw in "teaser" demo. Sure some things are not there, like real-time lightining etc, but overall it looks a lot more polished that the crappy demo we saw.
Funny thing how you took that only screen, which was one of the first screens but you didn't mentioned the other ones that I showed. Which are SUPERB to the ridiculiously downgraded E3/Gamescom demo. Somehow pretty much everyone here agrees that the graphics/textures/colors/shadows are downgraded and looks nothing like the beautiful early screens but It seems you are too stubborn to admit the obvious.
VS
Last edited:
Yes, and what I'm saying is that big developers like Ubisoft are incompetent and don't know what they're doing otherwise we'd have games that were well-optimized and not terrible ports that were shat out at the last minute.
Textures are absolutely much better, you can see shit from a distance and tons of other details. Things from up-close look great and not ugly as we saw in "teaser" demo. Sure some things are not there, like real-time lightining etc, but overall it looks a lot more polished that the crappy demo we saw.
Funny thing how you took that only screen, which was one of the first screens but you didn't mentioned the other ones that I showed. Which are SUPERB to the ridiculiously downgraded E3/Gamescom demo. Somehow pretty much everyone here agrees that the graphics/textures/colors/shadows are downgraded and looks nothing like the beautiful early screens but It seems you are too stubborn to admit the obvious.
VS
EVERYTHING about these images is so much better than the gameplay demos. The lighting, the level of detail, the foliage, the textures. It's all beautiful. What we've seen in regards to gameplay looks so watered-down compared to these images.One can only speculate as to whether or not these are genuine bullshots.
Marketing pictures AKA bullshots... something that CDProjekt has never been known to do until now (potentially).
LOL, no they don't. If textures are high res they will be clearn and cristal clear from up-close. Third or first person.
Obviously, that's the point of this thread that - actual game looks nothing like the marketing bull$hit.
- Status