Ah really 2 GTX 970's, other people keep saying it was a GTX 980.
- Status
I'm not sure, PC Gamer were throwing around the two 970s specs. I wish they would just give us the official specs used, or the damn gaming sites get their stories straight for once. Still, it is concerning that they still haven't shown the game maxed out on ultra settings, apparently. At least that's what people are saying, what we saw yesterday is supposed to have been 'high' settings, whatever that means.
I'll give you these balloons if you let me use your cherry-picker...Since we're doing comparisons, how about we compare similar scenes from this "mindblowingly better" VGX trailer and the current in-game shots.
I've taken the liberty to add an image of the new footage with a simple blue filter over it (as you can see by the colour of the YT video bar), so that only graphical fidelity can be compared, rather than subjective aesthetic differences.
Comparison 1
Comparison 2
The only real difference, aside from the colour filter (a purely aesthetic choice) is less bloom and motion blur, i.e. very cheap effects that have been tweaked a little.
Oh, I'm not the one cherry-picking here, friend. These images are the closest we can get to a 1:1 comparison. And there's no "downgrade" to be seen.
Um... posting that in a Cherry Pickers: The Containment Thread? Really?
The point was that if you advertise one thing and produce something else you deserve all the flak you get. Like I said, I hope they won't do this but based on the shoddy gameplay videos it all points to that. I haven't preordered anything, nor have I talked about preorders. I have no idea how you got that from my post. Polish up on that reading comprehension first.
the game was dumbed down in an interview they said this
Unification of platforms there - we have one build, which is distributed to each of them, the game is exactly the same ranges of drawing grasses are everywhere the same. The differences arise from the fact that, for example. GPU is parameterized differently on each console, which may cause such differences. In color temperature.
And all the models and textures are the same?
Yes, there is only one version, without it we would not be able to create the game on time. We'd have to undress her, build and test separately on three platforms, which is impossible. So we do it on a single database, and then distribute it to all devices.
On platforms where there is less memory otherwise manage it. Load less complex models, it all depends on what is happening on the screen at any given time.
"In summary, there is little difference between the PC"
, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, rather than solve some errors reconfigure.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.gry-online.pl/S018.asp?ID=1132&STR=3&h=JAQEwihe1
so a 600$ has the same power of a 150$ gpu
Unification of platforms there - we have one build, which is distributed to each of them, the game is exactly the same ranges of drawing grasses are everywhere the same. The differences arise from the fact that, for example. GPU is parameterized differently on each console, which may cause such differences. In color temperature.
And all the models and textures are the same?
Yes, there is only one version, without it we would not be able to create the game on time. We'd have to undress her, build and test separately on three platforms, which is impossible. So we do it on a single database, and then distribute it to all devices.
On platforms where there is less memory otherwise manage it. Load less complex models, it all depends on what is happening on the screen at any given time.
"In summary, there is little difference between the PC"
, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, rather than solve some errors reconfigure.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.gry-online.pl/S018.asp?ID=1132&STR=3&h=JAQEwihe1
so a 600$ has the same power of a 150$ gpu
People are so obsessed over textures.
TEXTURES ARE A MEMORY ISSUE PEOPLE and the PS4 and Xbox One both have solid amounts of memory.
TEXTURES ARE A MEMORY ISSUE PEOPLE and the PS4 and Xbox One both have solid amounts of memory.
The polygon count is dependent upon the resolution of the texture on the model.
Oh, I don't deny that there's cherry-picking on both sides of the argument. The difference lies in proving a positive versus proving a negative. Once you demonstrate a drop in quality between different footages, making other comparisons that show an alignment of quality isn't relevant.
Can someone of moderators contact Chris Priestly aka "Evil Chris" or Marcin Iwiński so we can finally have information and truth about DOWNGRADE , SYSTEM REQUIREMTS, SYSTEM USED TO SHOW NEW "15" MINUTES GAMEPLAY AND FPS.So we and this thread can finally be in peace. PLEASE
This only confirm the downgrade and the reason why they do it
I don't see how the question of whether the game looks 5 or 10% better or worse than in an early trainer could really influence someone's decision to preorder the game...I guess that's just beyond my understanding, sorry.
Honesty? You don't know nothing about game development if you think a trailer published MONTHS or even YEARS before the release of a game was representative for the final quality of the game. Sorry, but that's not how game development works. And that's just common sense, it's not something CDPR does on purpose or something they had to explain to fans in great detail. I suggest you make an internship at a big game developer to fully grasp the common processes while developing a game of that size and vision...
If you want to accuse somebody of "lying" or false marketing wait for release. If CDPR releases gameplay material of the gold master that looks better than the actual game you can buy in stores you have something at hand. Everything else ist just - sorry - pointless whining.
Last edited:
The vast majority of advertised material is of the allegedly downgraded quality. You have nearly an hour of gameplay footage, while the footage used to argue the existence of a downgrade amounts to less than two minutes. By the time the game will come out, there'll probably be more of the said downgraded material. Let's say... an hour and a half? But I'll stick with an hour, the minimal and unlikely scenario.
Come May 19, a buyer who will want to see some material to base his decision upon will have 2 minutes of supposedly upgraded footage, and 60 minutes, give or take, of supposedly downgraded material, of actual gameplay. You mean to tell me with a straight face that this is false advertisement, and that someone is entitled to a refund due to the least updated and oldest material a company has released?
I try to stay away from this thread, but curiosity keeps pulling me in, and then these overly dramatic comments convince me to respond.
If anything, they're being very honest with you. Here you have nearly an hour of the actual gameplay. Before the release of the game. The only case in which they're deceiving you and making you a fool (have that in any more dramatic?) is if they release the game and it looks nothing like the 37 minute gameplay, the 6 minute griffin hunt and the 12 minutes of new material.
You guys are forcefully trying to raise a scandal, and you're butchering the circumstances. Even if the material is downgraded, in no situation is this false advertisement, because you are exposed to the updated game, before you are required to make an informed purchase (meaning, no pre-order, but on May 19 and beyond). Let's go with the very unlikely case of someone being exposed only to the VGX trailer, and buying the game based on that alone (I hope you guys agree with me that this is extremely stretching it), then if we're bringing in law talk into the discussion - caveat emptor.
There is no false advertisement. If a person purchases a game based solely on material that is nearly 2 years old by the time of the game's release, without doing a minimal additional google search and study of the product, then he only has himself to blame.
Last edited:
- Status