Obvious Downgrade

[caruga]

Downgrade or not, the game still looks great visually,

Agreed. It shouldn't be misread that anyone is saying the graphics are bad. They're more than up to par. It still doesn't quell my disappointment that some of the footage looked half a generation ahead of what we're shown now.

I do grow weary of the people attempting a cheap diversion from what we're really discussing, by pouring derision on anyone who points out the discrepancy or places any value on graphics. "It's not the graphics, it's the gameplay!"

Liken it this way: you decide to watch a movie at the cinema, you buy an expensive bucket of popcorn and a coke to slake your thirst. Then when the movie starts and you take the first sip, the coke is flat. The popcorn is stale. This is BS!

And then someone helpfully points out that you can enjoy the movie anyway, that the condiments aren't what matters, that they aren't required to enjoy the movie. True enough, they aren't.

But now imagine that the food and drink cost $400 (new graphics card) and anyone should be able to see where the disappointment is coming on. It isn't out of proportion, it's perfectly reasonable.

In any case, it's ad hominem or avoiding the issue when people deride others for talking about graphics.

it's not just you

This is the shared model before post-processing and without shaders

View attachment 9790

muh parity

But do we know that there was a better model?

 

[truthinoneword]

Im sick and tired for this excuse. Look games such as skyrim or dragon age:iq demo footage and compare them to vanilla release then you see how exactly same looking they are, that apply to many releases. W3 looks like to be in same situation in 3 months time its confirmed by preview event people devs talking about only fixing in that period minor bug fixes. If you have looked this post theres lots of people comparing marketing images beginning from when cdproject revealed witcher 3 that dont match latest release of 15 minute gameplay from their "the switcher" youtube site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgJUL3nN4iI thats the late development footage the game everyone gets when its released. http://i.imgur.com/Vs3ne6l.jpg just look at this. One goes wonder why have they not uploaded the ultimate PC footage with all settings max. is it because console people would start complaining because their brick cant handle it?

You mean the WIP footage from over 5 months ago? That looks vastly inferior to the most recent footage?

 

[PrinceParadox.372]

Im sick and tired for this excuse. Look games such as skyrim or dragon age:iq demo footage and compare them to vanilla release then you see how exactly same looking they are, that apply to many releases. W3 looks like to be in same situation in 3 months time its confirmed by preview event people devs talking about only fixing in that period minor bug fixes. If you have looked this post theres lots of people comparing marketing images beginning from when cdproject revealed witcher 3 that dont match latest release of 15 minute gameplay from their "the switcher" youtube site: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgJUL3nN4iI thats the late development footage the game everyone gets when its released. http://i.imgur.com/Vs3ne6l.jpg just look at this. One goes wonder why have they not uploaded the ultimate PC footage with all settings max. is it because console people would start complaining because their brick cant handle it?

I'm no expert when it comes to all this graphics/texture stuff, but the image you posted, the difference I see is the time of day (different lighting position) and camera view. ?

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Cd project red "beacon of light" for pc gamers is uterly destroyed now with you joining the dark side ea,ubi,activision... We are left in dark and forgotten.
And to all smart ass people her:
true:
console level graphics = same power requirements for pc
not true:
console level graphics = gtx 980
that is absurd and a fact
ps: Shame on downgrade it could be beautiful game

Reported improvements of the PC version on "high" over the console version (for which CDPR provided a system with a GTX980)

- better anti-aliasing
- sharper textures
- more saturated colors
- more and better shaders and effects
- double the amount of visibility of detailled objects (!!!)
- framerate way above 30 FPS possible

So much to your "facts"...

 

[LAZER555]

- more saturated colors

I would like to have more DEsaturated colors)

 

[C0bR]

But do we know that there was a better model?

No, what I am saying that people complaining about shared models have no idea of what they are talking about.

The models look like this. That's what the platforms share - bare bones without any effects. The rest (post-processing, shaders) is different and that's where the PC will blow out the consoles.

 

[truthinoneword]

I'm no expert when it comes to all this graphics/texture stuff, but the image you posted, the difference I see is the time of day (different lighting position) and camera view. ?

He posted two screen shots from the SOD of trailer in comparison to a 5 month old WIP footage screenshot taken from youtube. Not exactly an honest portrayal of anything.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

I would like to have more DEsaturated colors)

Shouldn't be a big issue on PC. That's what tools like SweetFX are for.

 

[delnac.723]

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 make very good points about CDPR's honesty here and you are perfectly right. But that's not where the problem come from. I can't speak for everyone else but my source of concern is about the game being deliberately held back for console's sake. "Platform parity" is the issue at hand, not the visual evolution of a game as it goes along its development. The fact of the matter is that the VGX trailer demonstrated a few rendering capabilities that have since disappeared. It is either hidden behind the Ultra setting, have been removed for technical reasons or axed for parity reasons. The later is the cause of my worries and we have seen that shit happen too many times to tolerate it with a game that has such a strong PC heritage.

Please understand that It's not about a change in visual look or art direction or axing a costly technique. It's about removing something that was there for the sake of not making consoles look bad because a suit somewhere paid CDPR for it. I know it is highly unlike CDPR to do this kind of things. If you read my posts, I'm the first one to not buy into this kind of theories. But you have to know that every time the words "Platform parity" have been uttered, bullshit has ensued for us PC gamers.

Finally I don't want to join in the collective hysteria about it. I despise it and wish we could talk this out more calmly. If nothing else, CDPR more than deserves the benefit of the doubt based on their stellar track record of doing right by us on PC. I am also well aware that there are groups with an agenda pushing this issue more than it deserves and who would love to see CDPR entrenched in drama. This has been blown out of proportions, but still don't insult our intelligence and pretend that nothing is wrong.

I'll be waiting for more information on the Ultra setting in the meantime .

 

[Mozalbete]

It's all work in progress and in constant iteration.

There are no sudden, magical changes.

you think that by presenting a vertical slice of your game that takes about 2 minutes you know exactly what can be achieved for the final, actual game

I don't know about you, but I know very, very well what I well get from that.

Very likely CDPR HOPED to achieve exactly that kind of visual fidelity but there can be many stones in the way, hardware power at the time of release just one of it

No, they hoped to get away with a huge downgrade and limit to the PC version, and people like you make it possible

That's how game development works. Somebody once said that game development is the second most complex and insecure business that exists - right behind the stuff NASA does.

Let me tell you how game development works: you release eye candy constantly. Then you start to make the real game, and you use the lowest common denominator: consoles. The quality is far, far worse, and consoles hugely limit everything, but thanks to the eye candy and PR tactics, people preorder the game, so you don't care. People will create excuses for literally everything you do. People will use quantum physics if they must in order to hide the truth.
When development is finished (now), instead of HD screenshots you release videos, so that people don't see the obvious differences, distracted by motion. Because if you release screnshots, people can easily see this:

http://i.imgur.com/eKHuZpm.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/4Pis7nk.png
http://i.imgur.com/lbKj07n.png
http://i.imgur.com/wKAwx6c.jpg

And of course, you don't use the maximum settings for the PC version, so that people can believe in their ignorance that there will be significant change beyond a couple of really resource intensive filters.

 

[caruga]

Here's the flaw in your logic: there is NO completed scene of interactive gameplay footage months before release. That just doesn't exist at that stage. It's all work in progress and in constant iteration.

I can't imagine it's so much in flux that they can't at least predict what the final performance will be like at a given fidelity.

You know actually nothing about the framerate of the footage from let's say the SOD trailer. It's prerendered material, not actual gameplay at 60 FPS. It's the maximum you can produce without even thinking about current hardware.

It's a mix, or Emhir's fingers wouldn't have so much aliasing.

And here's the next flaw in your logic: you think that by presenting a vertical slice of your game that takes about 2 minutes you know exactly what can be achieved for the final, actual game. But that's not the case. Very likely CDPR HOPED to achieve exactly that kind of visual fidelity but there can be many stones in the way, hardware power at the time of release just one of it. Another example would be additional features which were probably not present in the footage of an early trailer, like advanced AI systems, weather systems, advanced shaders, anti aliasing and so on. And then you often just change certain things like the color palette, the art design, certain elements during game development to make the game an overall consistent and stable experience. That's how game development works. Somebody once said that game development is the second most complex and insecure business that exists - right behind the stuff NASA does.

I still maintain that they can forecast and predict certain things. It's reassuring to know that it doesn't have to be deliberate deception, but equally I think what you have to be delicate in what you present to potential customers and give it much deliberation. I still don't rule out the possibility of it being deception, but I can give them the benefit of the doubt.

Well, the answer is quite simple again. In a business like game development you just don't really know how your final product will look like months before release. Game development is a constant process of repetition. So you have three options how to market your game at that stage. First: you don't market it at all. Second, you show footage of your current version but downgraded on purpose to not hype your game too much. Third, you show the best footage you could get with your current version to interest as many people as possible for it. If you were in CDPR's position (or any other game developer) what would you do? Be honest...

I think we've seen how the latter choice can backfire. Although granted, it is probably a storm in a teacup to them and the majority of people are still pleased with the graphics they won't be having...

I choose the middle option if it's presented the way it was--the latter, if there is full disclosure as to the context of what we're seeing--a watermark on the video specifying what is pre-rendered or not, and details in the video description on how it was captured, the system it's running on, etc.

 

[EliHarel]

@Delnac I was specifically responding to arguments about false advertisement and deceit, and tried to show how they don't stand even if there is a downgrade in whatever form. I decided to stay away from the actual discussion about the downgrade itself because I had my fill after 263 toxic and bitter pages.

 

[delnac.723]

@Delnac I was specifically responding to arguments about false advertisement and deceit, and tried to show how they don't stand even if there is a downgrade in whatever form. I decided to stay away from the actual discussion about the downgrade itself because I had my fill after 263 toxic and bitter pages.

I understand. Thanks for replying and I agree. His was an inane argument, game development is too fluid for any visual to be final. Stay sane .

 

[caruga]

It is either hidden behind the Ultra setting, have been removed for technical reasons or axed for parity reasons. The later is the cause of my worries and we have seen that shit happen too many times to tolerate it with a game that has such a strong PC heritage.

Bang - on.

 

[C0bR]

Mozalbete, comparing screenshots and trailers to gameplay....... a very smart man you are

Youtube grabs no less. Even those look the same apart from color filters. The only thing that looks like shit is that frozen texture on Eredin.

 

[Mozalbete]

Those trailers weren't presented as and weren't supposed to be CGI, but what we would get. It was already there, done, there was no reason to think otherwise. But then, consoles.
You really, REALLY naive if you don't see what has happened here.

If you can't see the difference in vegetation, ground quality, geometry, AND THAT DAMN MOUNTAIN, you are beyond blind. Stop using the compression excuse. Compression creates artifacts and low resolution, and for some reason, you twist reality to pretend I'm talking about that.

Increase the resolution, use an uncompressed video, remove the frozen effect, and it will look 100 times worse.

 

[truthinoneword]

There are no sudden, magical changes.



I don't know about you, but I know very, very well what I well get from that.



No, they hoped to get away with a huge downgrade and limit to the PC version, and people like you make it possible



Let me tell you how game development works: you release eye candy constantly. Then you start to make the real game, and you use the lowest common denominator: consoles. The quality is far, far worse, and consoles hugely limit everything, but thanks to the eye candy and PR tactics, people preorder the game, so you don't care. People will create excuses for literally everything you do. People will use quantum physics if they must in order to hide the truth.
When development is finished (now), instead of HD screenshots you release videos, so that people don't see the obvious differences, distracted by motion. Because if you release screnshots, people can easily see this:

http://i.imgur.com/eKHuZpm.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/4Pis7nk.png
http://i.imgur.com/lbKj07n.png
http://i.imgur.com/wKAwx6c.jpg

And of course, you don't use the maximum settings for the PC version, so that people can believe in their ignorance that there will be significant change beyond a couple of really resource intensive filters.

LOL those are compressed clips from youtube.


Edit.

Sorry DATED compressed clips from youtube.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

There are no sudden, magical changes.

I never talked about sudden magical changes...

I don't know about you, but I know very, very well what I well get from that.

And what is that?

No, they hoped to get away with a huge downgrade and limit to the PC version, and people like you make it possible

First, the "huge" definition is highly debatable. And second, I don't really care. Graphics don't define a game after all. Good graphics are nice to have but barely the core of a good game, especially when we talk about 5 or 10% better or worse graphical fidelity. That's nitpicking at its finest imo. You might call me ignorant for that (althought that's not very nice) but that's how I see it and I don't think I have to apologize for that.

Let me tell you how game development works: you release eye candy constantly. Then you start to make the real game, and you use the lowest common denominator:

That's actually not true since almost every big game is already a few months or even years in development before the first trailers drop.

consoles. The quality is far, far worse, and consoles hugely limit everything, but thanks to the eye candy and PR tactics, people preorder the game, so you don't care.

Of course the choice of platforms have influence on the graphical fidelity. That's common sense again. Consoles were announced from the very beginning. And if people preorder just because an early trailer months before release was graphically impressive, these people are either out of their mind or just don't care at all about their money. I don't know why you defend such stupid behaviour...

People will create excuses for literally everything you do. People will use quantum physics if they must in order to hide the truth.

Nobody hides anyhing here. You just make up stories and defend people who either make stupid preorder decisions or people who think that only graphics define a game and whether it's worth buying or playing. So who is really creating excuses here?

And of course, you don't use the maximum settings for the PC version, so that people can believe in their ignorance that there will be significant change beyond a couple of really resource intensive filters.

Who believes that? People who own expansive PC hardware usually know pretty well how game development works and how graphical performance works. It's common sense in the (sane) PC gaming community that above a certain level you need a lot of additional hardware for "minor" effects (shadows, lightning, shaders, AA,...) that depend on one's personal preference. PC hardware doesn't scale linearily beyond a certain extend. That's the simple truth.

CDPR probably used high settings because high settings enabled a fluid experience without any frame drops. And guess what: it looks gorgeous, not matter how a trailer looked a few months back. Who really cares? If you don't like the new looks, just cancel your preorder and make something else with your money. You're free to do so and nobody will complain. But I guess most serious gamers play this game not only because it has awesome (or even more awesome) graphics but because of its gameplay, its atmosphere, its story and so on. I'm fed up with people like you who think that a slight change of graphical fidelity would be the worst thing ever that defines whether a game is worth playing and buying or not. I don't agree. We can all talk in all seriousness and calmly about graphical stuff and stuff that could be improved until release but I can't understand and I don't like that aggressive and all-pessimistic behaviour of claiming that CDPR deceived somebody on purpose because they are just greedy a**holes. They use marketing, of course, like pretty much every other company on this planet to present their product in the best possible light. Shame on them I guess...

---------- Updated at 08:10 PM ----------

I can't imagine it's so much in flux that they can't at least predict what the final performance will be like at a given fidelity.

Of course they can predict something. And guess what: the actual fidelity is pretty much similar to this early trailer with only some minor "downgrades" that they still work on. They game doesn't look 30 or 50% less good than before. It's still among the best looking games ever, imo only slightly beaten by AC Unity in some aspects. How - for fu**s sake - is that something CDPR should apologize for?

 

[B_l_a_d_y]

LOL those are compressed clips from youtube.


Edit.

Sorry DATED compressed clips from youtube.

uncompressed one

 

[Attar]

I have the following PC specs:
GTX 780 Ti Super clocked edition ACX 3 GB
i7 4770 k 3.5 GHz
8 GB RAM
1920 x 1080p monitor
Do you think I can run it?