Is TW3 getting downgraded for the sake of consoles?

[archaven]

Well, the OP is only asking about the graphical fidelity:



So that's what the topic is about: visual downgrade. My view on it is that the PC version already looks markedly better and, based on CDPR's previous works, I see no reason to believe that the game's visuals on PC will be somehow compromised prior to release. In fact, I expect that they will be improved further.

Things changed. TW2 interface was consolized. No organizations will be swayed by the power of $. Let's ask why the reason of Watch Dog downgrade? Surely because there's huge amount of $ from the console crowd that warrant that downgrade. To me TW2 was consolised. Why is the world so small in TW2? And now WHY TW3 can go open world?. Don't you think TW2 can be much bigger? Indeed it can on PC but it was downgraded for the console crowd and it's coming to PS3 & XBox360. Only thing that COVER TW2 not being consolised is CDPR making the graphical settings available to PC gamers. To me having graphical options doesn't mean the game wasn't dumb down or consolised. Of course this is my own opinion.

 

[ReptilePZ]

It doesn't matter to the OP what downgraded means to you. His question was only related to the visal fidelity of the game.

As for your other questions, the answer is more likely to be: "that's how they designed the game, within their (very limited) budget" rather than: "it was consolized," whatever that's supposed to mean.

 

[spacehamsterZH]

Things changed. TW2 interface was consolized. No organizations will be swayed by the power of $. Let's ask why the reason of Watch Dog downgrade? Surely because there's huge amount of $ from the console crowd that warrant that downgrade. To me TW2 was consolised. Why is the world so small in TW2? And now WHY TW3 can go open world?. Don't you think TW2 can be much bigger? Indeed it can on PC but it was downgraded for the console crowd and it's coming to PS3 & XBox360. Only thing that COVER TW2 not being consolised is CDPR making the graphical settings available to PC gamers. To me having graphical options doesn't mean the game wasn't dumb down or consolised. Of course this is my own opinion.

Right, because TW2 was developed simultaneously for PC and 360, and CDPR had the same resources at the time that they do now. If only it wasn't for the bad, bad, evil CONSOLIZATIONIFICATIONMENT of everything, TW2 could've easily been the size of TW3, but alas.

Or maybe, out here in the real world, the 360 port came after. Maybe the 360 port was still a visual marvel for that console's standards, but it had been noticeably downgraded from the PC version, not just in overall visual fidelity, but also with added doors to break down Flotsam, the removal of music tracks and the audible compression of voice files. Maybe the controls and interface of the 360 version are actually different from the PC version. Maybe CDPR made a ton of money, partially because of the 360 version of TW2, and that's why they now have the resources to make this enormous game that we've been promised, the game that, it seems, they've always wanted to make. Maybe that's what really happened, so maybe all of this is pretty much irrelevant to the question whether the PC version of TW3 will suffer because of the console versions.

Why is it irrelevant? Because the situation is completely different now. The three different versions are coming out simultaneously, and none of us here really knows what that means for their development. Of course it's not unheard of for PC versions of cross-platform games to be castrated for the sake of easier ports to last-gen consoles, but maybe porting is easier to do now because the PS4/X1 are basically mid-range PCs, so I could feasibly see the game just running at medium settings on consoles. What we do know is that the footage that was shown at E3 was running on PC, and that would seem to indicate to me that PC's the lead platform for development.

And besides, it's not like every cross-platform game had lo-fi visuals on the PC to accommodate the console versions. Crysis 2 and 3 still looked vastly superior on PC, and EA didn't seem to be worried that this would hurt sales of the console versions. Console-only gamers generally don't pay attention to what's happening on PC one way or the other, so it really doesn't matter.

I think at the end of the day, we can fuss about this until next spring, we won't know anyway, and as much as I trust what the CDPR guys say, we're not likely to get an honest answer about this. If the console versions don't look as good as the PC version, they're not going to come out and say, yeah, sorry console gamers, but you're buying an inferior product. That would be stupid.

 

[chiefje]

Right, because TW2 was developed simultaneously for PC and 360, and CDPR had the same resources at the time that they do now. If only it wasn't for the bad, bad, evil CONSOLIZATIONIFICATIONMENT of everything, TW2 could've easily been the size of TW3, but alas.

Or maybe, out here in the real world, the 360 port came after. Maybe the 360 port was still a visual marvel for that console's standards, but it had been noticeably downgraded from the PC version, not just in overall visual fidelity, but also with added doors to break down Flotsam, the removal of music tracks and the audible compression of voice files. Maybe the controls and interface of the 360 version are actually different from the PC version. Maybe CDPR made a ton of money, partially because of the 360 version of TW2, and that's why they now have the resources to make this enormous game that we've been promised, the game that, it seems, they've always wanted to make. Maybe that's what really happened, so maybe all of this is pretty much irrelevant to the question whether the PC version of TW3 will suffer because of the console versions.

Why is it irrelevant? Because the situation is completely different now. The three different versions are coming out simultaneously, and none of us here really knows what that means for their development. Of course it's not unheard of for PC versions of cross-platform games to be castrated for the sake of easier ports to last-gen consoles, but maybe porting is easier to do now because the PS4/X1 are basically mid-range PCs, so I could feasibly see the game just running at medium settings on consoles. What we do know is that the footage that was shown at E3 was running on PC, and that would seem to indicate to me that PC's the lead platform for development.

And besides, it's not like every cross-platform game had lo-fi visuals on the PC to accommodate the console versions. Crysis 2 and 3 still looked vastly superior on PC, and EA didn't seem to be worried that this would hurt sales of the console versions. Console-only gamers generally don't pay attention to what's happening on PC one way or the other, so it really doesn't matter.

I think at the end of the day, we can fuss about this until next spring, we won't know anyway, and as much as I trust what the CDPR guys say, we're not likely to get an honest answer about this. If the console versions don't look as good as the PC version, they're not going to come out and say, yeah, sorry console gamers, but you're buying an inferior product. That would be stupid.

I can sort of understand the way archav3n thinks about this, because I share his sentiment. It has been said numerous times that TW2 was developed with console in mind. They probably didn't have the resources at the time to develop them side by side, but the way the menus and controls work indicates that it was at the least developed with a controller in mind.

And lets be honest, all those games that supposedly had PC as lead platform (Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Watch Dogs, Crysis 2,3 and so on) have all been a bit of a dissapointment to me, even though I thoroughly enjoyed BF3.

A good example is the Crysis franchise, Crysis 1 was a visual marvel with a lot of open terrain, and multiple ways to play the game. You could sneak through it, go in guns blazing, snipe the enemies from a distance and so on. Look at how the suit worked in the first game, now compare that to what the second game did with it. It was simplified, because the consoles simply have less buttons. Crysis 2 also turned into a corridor shooter. Yes they made the PC port look great with all the visual effects, you could still sense that the game was not utilising the power the PC had at the time, because the consoles could not handle it. Small areas to make sure that the consoles could render it.

Now I truly believe that CDPR will deliver a great game, but I also believe that there is no way for CDPR to ignore the limitations of consoles. The PC version will be similar to the console versions, because they want to give people the same experience on all three platforms. The limiting factor in this case is the power of the consoles, and I don't really see how they can get around this. They will of course make the PC version look a lot better because the PC can handle the heavy graphical effects. How the world and environments load will probably be the limiting factors for the consoles, so thats where I guess we might (or not) notice the console influence.

 

[Vincentdante]

Things changed. TW2 interface was consolized. No organizations will be swayed by the power of $. Let's ask why the reason of Watch Dog downgrade? Surely because there's huge amount of $ from the console crowd that warrant that downgrade. To me TW2 was consolised. Why is the world so small in TW2? And now WHY TW3 can go open world?. Don't you think TW2 can be much bigger? Indeed it can on PC but it was downgraded for the console crowd and it's coming to PS3 & XBox360. Only thing that COVER TW2 not being consolised is CDPR making the graphical settings available to PC gamers. To me having graphical options doesn't mean the game wasn't dumb down or consolised. Of course this is my own opinion.

Someone needs to do some required reading on how CDPR nearly went bankrupt during TW2 development.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-06-seeing-red-the-story-of-cd-projekt

 

[chiefje]

Someone needs to do some required reading on how CDPR nearly went bankrupt during TW2 development.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-06-seeing-red-the-story-of-cd-projekt

Wasn't that mainly because they got in debt for Rise of the white wolf, the console port, and because of the global economic crisis?

 

[Vincentdante]

Wasn't that mainly because they got in debt for Rise of the white wolf, the console port, and because of the global economic crisis?

Mostly Rise of the White Wolf's fault yeah but it still forced TW2 to suffer from it's intended results because of it, as it had to be both rushed out and cut back.

 

[archaven]

I'm glad Chief nailed down what i have in mind. Most gamers thinks that visuals/graphics is the equivalence of dumb down. I've just completed Crysis 3 and it looks indeed beautiful but although i have bigger empty spaces to traverse but i still think the game is a corridor shooter. It's about going from Point A to B. I remember Crysis and Crysis Warhead. Those games were huge maps and there's alot of stuff to do and i don't feel it being a corridor shooter. Anyway Crytek is going bankrupt. It was due to Ryse (the XBox1 exclusive title) and it wasn't doing well: http://www.dsogaming.com/news/crytek-in-deep-trouble-adoption-of-cryengine-not-good-ryse-development-catastrophic/.

 

[ReptilePZ]

I think we all know what you mean, it's just that the topic is specifically about a possible visual downgrade, not content being dumbed down.

 

[spacehamsterZH]

I've just completed Crysis 3 and it looks indeed beautiful but although i have bigger empty spaces to traverse but i still think the game is a corridor shooter. It's about going from Point A to B. I remember Crysis and Crysis Warhead. Those games were huge maps and there's alot of stuff to do and i don't feel it being a corridor shooter.

That's a load of horse-doodoo and I can't even put into words how sick I am of hearing it, but let's not get sidetracked with a discussion about the Crysis series here.

Besides, the types of changes made to Crysis 2 because Crytek couldn't figure out how to work around the consoles' limited memory at the time aren't going to happen with TW3. It's an open world game, they can't just turn it into the RPG equivalent of a corridor shooter. What's possible, theoretically, is that graphical assets will be developed specifically with console memory in mind because it saves time and thus money. I don't think they'll do that, but if anything's going to get downgraded to accommodate development of the console versions, I'd think that would be it. The structure of the game is what it is.

 

[Shelledfade]

I sincerely hope that it doesn't. There's a reason we're pc gamers, not console gamers. You pay 700 dollars alone for a video card. I mean, why on earth does there have to be downgraded pc versions? Are sony and microsoft really that insane to actually influence something like this? After watch dogs, I don't know what to think.

I really hope cd projekt red isn't being manipulated by console publishers though.

 

[thislsmadness]

I can sort of understand the way archav3n thinks about this, because I share his sentiment. It has been said numerous times that TW2 was developed with console in mind. They probably didn't have the resources at the time to develop them side by side, but the way the menus and controls work indicates that it was at the least developed with a controller in mind.

And lets be honest, all those games that supposedly had PC as lead platform (Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Watch Dogs, Crysis 2,3 and so on) have all been a bit of a dissapointment to me, even though I thoroughly enjoyed BF3.

A good example is the Crysis franchise, Crysis 1 was a visual marvel with a lot of open terrain, and multiple ways to play the game. You could sneak through it, go in guns blazing, snipe the enemies from a distance and so on. Look at how the suit worked in the first game, now compare that to what the second game did with it. It was simplified, because the consoles simply have less buttons. Crysis 2 also turned into a corridor shooter. Yes they made the PC port look great with all the visual effects, you could still sense that the game was not utilising the power the PC had at the time, because the consoles could not handle it. Small areas to make sure that the consoles could render it.

Now I truly believe that CDPR will deliver a great game, but I also believe that there is no way for CDPR to ignore the limitations of consoles. The PC version will be similar to the console versions, because they want to give people the same experience on all three platforms. The limiting factor in this case is the power of the consoles, and I don't really see how they can get around this. They will of course make the PC version look a lot better because the PC can handle the heavy graphical effects. How the world and environments load will probably be the limiting factors for the consoles, so thats where I guess we might (or not) notice the console influence.

The point people are making is that none of this is due to consoles and its all about the changing economics of videogames. Crysis 2 became what it did because EA tried to turn that into its CoD and failed. If "dumbing down" was strictly a symptom of consoles, then how do you explain what has happened to genres like MMOs and RTS?

The power of the XBO/PS4 is not going to hold back the PC version when they are targeting a PC spec that is well below what those consoles are capable of. Heck, if the Steam survey is any indication the vast majority of PC users have machines that are comparable or worst. Its not hard to believe either since the biggest PC games are not visually impressive games, its things like Minecraft, LoL, DOTA, and WoW.

 

[eskiMoe]

You pay 700 dollars alone for a video card. I mean, why on earth does there have to be downgraded pc versions?

Very few PC gamer pays that much for their GPUs. IIRC the most popular gaming GPU price range is around 200-250 dollars/euros.

I payed 140€ for my used 660 (with plenty of warranty left) around 1½ year ago.

 

[chiefje]

The point people are making is that none of this is due to consoles and its all about the changing economics of videogames. Crysis 2 became what it did because EA tried to turn that into its CoD and failed. If "dumbing down" was strictly a symptom of consoles, then how do you explain what has happened to genres like MMOs and RTS?

The power of the XBO/PS4 is not going to hold back the PC version when they are targeting a PC spec that is well below what those consoles are capable of. Heck, if the Steam survey is any indication the vast majority of PC users have machines that are comparable or worst. Its not hard to believe either since the biggest PC games are not visually impressive games, its things like Minecraft, LoL, DOTA, and WoW.

Yes you are probably right, the consoles are at the moment very close to the average gaming PC. That changes a lot, since they have 3 platforms that are relatively close to eachother in power. I guess you could say I'm just a little afraid of a screwup. I mean, Watch Dogs was developed for PC, PS3, X360, PS4 and XBONE, and its barely playable at launch for PC users.

 

[thislsmadness]

Yes you are probably right, the consoles are at the moment very close to the average gaming PC. That changes a lot, since they have 3 platforms that are relatively close to eachother in power. I guess you could say I'm just a little afraid of a screwup. I mean, Watch Dogs was developed for PC, PS3, X360, PS4 and XBONE, and its barely playable at launch for PC users.

Yeah, Ubisoft hasn't had a great track record with PC releases for some time though. The Assasins Creed and games have had similar launch issues and Uplay is piece of junk.

 

[Zanderat]

I think we all know what you mean, it's just that the topic is specifically about a possible visual downgrade, not content being dumbed down.

Conversations are allowed to change......

 

[username_3644762]

The Division Developer Insider: “We Already Downgraded A Few Things”

I'm having this bad feeling about 'The Witcher 3' right now. :no

 

[dragonbird]

The Division Developer Insider: “We Already Downgraded A Few Things”

I'm having this bad feeling about 'The Witcher 3' right now. :no

The difference is whether or not they mislead, the article itself is very clear about that. Yes, it's perfectly possible that the graphics in a game may get "downgraded" as they go through the tweaking. If a developer starts with very high standards, they can definitely find that the performance hit from some feature or other is just too much. This is why developers tweak, why they don't reveal the PC specs until late, why they take so long between game being coded and releasing it.

When it goes wrong is if they demo the game, encourage people to buy based on a certain quality, and THEN downgrade it without admitting to it, or if they downgrade some versions more than necessary just to get parity across platforms.

At that level, you just need to decide whether or not you trust CDPR more than other developers.

 

[Garrison72]

The Division Developer Insider: “We Already Downgraded A Few Things”

 

[Vincentdante]

The Division Developer Insider: “We Already Downgraded A Few Things”

I'm having this bad feeling about 'The Witcher 3' right now. :no

I'm not sure what CDPR has done to earn this distrust, and likewise am I not sure what all the examples of downgraded games from Ubisoft have to do with CDPR.