Man, use your eyes and your brain, YT cannot ruin texture quality in the video.
Geralt also looks like potato head
Last edited:
- Status
Man, use your eyes and your brain, YT cannot ruin texture quality in the video.
Geralt also looks like potato head
And other two reasons? I am not the one who is blind..
Why would not just wait and than judge? Only primitives can't control their emotions and imediatelly start to scream how bad it is. Just wait for new video, I am also sure there will come another one - brand new before game will be launched so what's big deal??
The visual downgrade arguments have existed for some time. We noticed at E3 how the gameplay footage, even when we got High Quality video footage, looked considerably worse then the Sword of Destiny trailer. Then there was the Neogaf post, now this.
If CDPR wants to continue lying they can do so, but they've lowered themselves to Ubisoft standards by doing this ( NOTE: BIoware games actually look as they do in trailers ). If they can't make the game look as good as they did in THEIR OWN FUCKING TRAILERS, then they can admit that openly and maybe apologize for lying to their consumer base.
But they've continued to lie, ever since E3. Arguing it's old builds and crap like that.
If CDPR wants to continue lying they can do so, but they've lowered themselves to Ubisoft standards by doing this ( NOTE: BIoware games actually look as they do in trailers ). If they can't make the game look as good as they did in THEIR OWN FUCKING TRAILERS, then they can admit that openly and maybe apologize for lying to their consumer base.
But they've continued to lie, ever since E3. Arguing it's old builds and crap like that.
Last edited:
They all have the same issues actually, that's why people are downloading the uncompressed ones if they are serious about it. It's just that not many third-person games release close-ups from point-blank distance (I still find it odd why they did that actually...). Of course this does not cater for the lack of texture quality on the King's armor, even though no one will ever look at that texture in that distance.
Hey folks, how about we stay calm huh? I mean they "lowered themselves to EA standards"? Seriously? How much more can you overreact
There is a problem, and that is apparent, but let's be civil about it. We are all mature here right? Let's maybe wait for the new trailer or something?If the trailer is just less compressed (Youtube still compresses) there is going to be an even bigger shit storm than there is now.
I still think people are overreacting; making assumptions without any real evidence.
Calling them out for being obvious liars like EA/Ubisoft is exactly what they deserve. Or are you going to claim EA/Ubisoft don't regularly lie to their consumers?
Evidence? Take a good bloody long look at the E3 Sword of Destiny and compare to the E3 Gameplay footage and tell me that the quality is the same. Compare this trailer to Sword of Destiny and the VGX one.
Exactly. Because then the lack of quality in the textures will be more apparent. That's the exact reason why I am thinking that they will tweak and maybe release the PC footage somehow. I don't think they are mindless enough to just decompress it and show us the "detailed" bad textures
I think they only time they said about build date was at E3 they said the build was 4 months old and it's stable. It would be like 10 months old now
The past few trailers have been of varying quality though, it is strange when a game appears to look worse the closer it gets to release.
"It looks bad! CDPR what do you have to say about this huh?"
"The video is messed up, we will be releasing a new version shortly, there is no downgrade!"
"Duh, liars!"
That's the impression i get from reading the last few pages of this thread, I am sorry but really? We ask for an official answer about this trailer that looks rather "bad" compared to the other one, CDPR answer, saying that there is no downgrade, that the game look as gorgeous as ever and that they will release a new version of the video and all I seem to read is even more attacks and disappointment, can we at least wait for said new version before claiming that the game has been downgraded or that CDPR are liars? (That's a big statement to call a company "liars" based on a trailer, especially considering that they said literally that the trailer wasn't representative of the actual look of the game...)
Come on guys, have some patience...
"The video is messed up, we will be releasing a new version shortly, there is no downgrade!"
"Duh, liars!"
That's the impression i get from reading the last few pages of this thread, I am sorry but really? We ask for an official answer about this trailer that looks rather "bad" compared to the other one, CDPR answer, saying that there is no downgrade, that the game look as gorgeous as ever and that they will release a new version of the video and all I seem to read is even more attacks and disappointment, can we at least wait for said new version before claiming that the game has been downgraded or that CDPR are liars? (That's a big statement to call a company "liars" based on a trailer, especially considering that they said literally that the trailer wasn't representative of the actual look of the game...)
Come on guys, have some patience...
I am claiming that taking a - up to this point - respectable company and reducing them to EA/Ubisoft standards when it comes to interactions with customers is kind of a huge overreaction. I am suggesting that we should give them the benefit of the doubt, and wait for that new video, in part of the respect they "earned" throughout the years. I hope my point is clear.
Overreacting without real evidence? They just released the real evidence yesterday, which was a follow on from previous downgraded footage. Don't blame people for forming a justified opinion on what CDPR, themselves, released.
They actually argued it would look far better when the game came out.
I call them liars based on several things they themselves have claimed: They argued at E3 that the game would look better and that the E3 build was old.
Well months later. Two months before release, we get this.
Do people realize just how close to the game being sent for certification the game actually is?
Dude, have you seen the Famitsu screenshots? It's a great improvement over the E3 or 30 min. demo in terms of hair, lighting and colors.
If the Famitsu is the latest build, then the E3 is an older build and they're not lying.
Bit harsh but quite true. That there is so much controversy is their own fault. Giving very weak YT compression explanations is not the way to go. This was not the answer I was hoping for.
At least we've heard something from CDPR now. Let's wait for the uncompressed version and see what that shows.
Oh, and to give my two cents, I think the main problem people have with what we've seen from the game so far, is the inconsistency. I don't know about others, but I know visual downgrading is something you can very rarely avoid in AAA video game development. Most, if not all developers and publishers out there will want to showcase something that wows people and builds up hype, irregardless of how the final product turns out. It's because hype sells. I don't blame them for playing the game, though I must admit there is a distinction between lying about a product you don't have, and being forced to make changes to make it all work. It all depends on how forthright they are. If there indeed is a downgrade in graphical fidelity, no matter to what degree, I would much prefer CDPR (or any developer out there) coming out and saying 'look, we've had to make a few sacrifices to make the game run the way we want it to'. Then again, this can damage the hype and thus affect sales, which is why we rarely, if ever, hear anything of the sort. It's a great shame, because I would totally be ok with sacrificing some 'prettiness' for better a performance and a smoother gaming experience (I may be in the minority though).
In a perfect world the consumers would be immune to hype and we'd all wait for thorough and technical reviews and consensus before making the purchase, and we wouldn't have messes like Watch Dogs, AC:Unity, Halo:MCC, and etc. on our hands. However, this simply isn't how most of us operate.
Oh, and to give my two cents, I think the main problem people have with what we've seen from the game so far, is the inconsistency. I don't know about others, but I know visual downgrading is something you can very rarely avoid in AAA video game development. Most, if not all developers and publishers out there will want to showcase something that wows people and builds up hype, irregardless of how the final product turns out. It's because hype sells. I don't blame them for playing the game, though I must admit there is a distinction between lying about a product you don't have, and being forced to make changes to make it all work. It all depends on how forthright they are. If there indeed is a downgrade in graphical fidelity, no matter to what degree, I would much prefer CDPR (or any developer out there) coming out and saying 'look, we've had to make a few sacrifices to make the game run the way we want it to'. Then again, this can damage the hype and thus affect sales, which is why we rarely, if ever, hear anything of the sort. It's a great shame, because I would totally be ok with sacrificing some 'prettiness' for better a performance and a smoother gaming experience (I may be in the minority though).
In a perfect world the consumers would be immune to hype and we'd all wait for thorough and technical reviews and consensus before making the purchase, and we wouldn't have messes like Watch Dogs, AC:Unity, Halo:MCC, and etc. on our hands. However, this simply isn't how most of us operate.
- Status