To answer your question, no, no, it really doesn't. If it's the (fabled) Wii U version, then it'd be acceptable.
- Status
To answer your question, no, no, it really doesn't. If it's the (fabled) Wii U version, then it'd be acceptable.
While both of these ideas would be far more than just great for us, the fans, if they came to reality. However, unfortunately, it would cost them a really big amount of time which they really cannot sacrifice right now. Maybe after the game is finished completely (including optimizing and polishing) and send to certification and all the other suff, that would be a fine time to do it.
And while jackalj's idea would definitely be interesting, I am affraid that that would would create even a bigger shitstorm about graphics as they would't be top notch cos people would just ignore the fact that it was just a stream.
We can't talk about jesus, well then let's continue with the shitstorm against cdpr (?)
Yes, it's a Witcher 3 board with a specific topic. Let's talk about that topic
Yeah, I would enjoy the 35 min demo with updated stuff. It would show no spoilers and we could easily compare it. Of course I would rather it come out when they have free time to do such a thing and not a rush job.
So for those of you saying "But the gameplay will be amazing! The story will be great!"...you are completely, utterly missing the point!
Graphics are not the be-all and end-all of a video game, but they contribute significantly to immersion and one's enjoyment. To advertise subjectively better graphics for over a year before releasing footage that, in comparison, looks subjectively worse is very very concerning. If anything, think about this; If they've had to cut corners in the graphics department for whatever reason, then it's possible that the game's quality has suffered in other areas.
Look, I love The Witcher and I love CDPR, but I will also not tolerate nor accept behavior akin to that of many other AAA developers who are deceitful to the gaming community. Watch Dogs, Assassin's Creed Unity. Performance issues on Dragon Age Inquisition. CDPR *need* to come out and explain exactly why these screenshots and videos suffer visually. Are they older builds? Are they taken on consoles? Why is there a difference between, say the SOD trailer and this recent one? Poor video compression is not an excuse. Different lightning is not an excuse.
The more they hold their tongues, the more it looks as if that NeoGaf insider was right.
Graphics are not the be-all and end-all of a video game, but they contribute significantly to immersion and one's enjoyment. To advertise subjectively better graphics for over a year before releasing footage that, in comparison, looks subjectively worse is very very concerning. If anything, think about this; If they've had to cut corners in the graphics department for whatever reason, then it's possible that the game's quality has suffered in other areas.
Look, I love The Witcher and I love CDPR, but I will also not tolerate nor accept behavior akin to that of many other AAA developers who are deceitful to the gaming community. Watch Dogs, Assassin's Creed Unity. Performance issues on Dragon Age Inquisition. CDPR *need* to come out and explain exactly why these screenshots and videos suffer visually. Are they older builds? Are they taken on consoles? Why is there a difference between, say the SOD trailer and this recent one? Poor video compression is not an excuse. Different lightning is not an excuse.
The more they hold their tongues, the more it looks as if that NeoGaf insider was right.
I'll just say this: The trailer obviously didn't look as good as the previous trailers (namely, the one released a few days before E3 titled 'Sword of Destiny').
That being said, my worries were quickly quelled when I read a post by CD Projekt staff in this thread that the trailer was rushed to meet the VGA deadline. We already saw a live demo on Xbox One during E3 (which looked acceptably decent considering console limitations), and I'd have to believe the PC version on higher settings would look even better.
Furthermore, albeit somewhat unrelated, I'd prefer a small dip in graphics if it meant better performance. I got Assassin's Creed Unity (from a GTX 970 purchase), but haven't actually downloaded it yet due to TotalBiscuit having trouble running it despite SLI 980s. So just to bring this back to a more relevant point, a small decrease in graphical fidelity is worth it if you have a game that runs well / has good performance (stable FPS). In my opinion, obviously.
No offense intended to anybody who disagrees.
That being said, my worries were quickly quelled when I read a post by CD Projekt staff in this thread that the trailer was rushed to meet the VGA deadline. We already saw a live demo on Xbox One during E3 (which looked acceptably decent considering console limitations), and I'd have to believe the PC version on higher settings would look even better.
Furthermore, albeit somewhat unrelated, I'd prefer a small dip in graphics if it meant better performance. I got Assassin's Creed Unity (from a GTX 970 purchase), but haven't actually downloaded it yet due to TotalBiscuit having trouble running it despite SLI 980s. So just to bring this back to a more relevant point, a small decrease in graphical fidelity is worth it if you have a game that runs well / has good performance (stable FPS). In my opinion, obviously.
No offense intended to anybody who disagrees.
Well-said. Although, I find the "old build" excuse to be absurd. If CDPR didn't put together a trailer (remember, this is a trailer, not some stolen footage) that more or less shows what the game currently looks like, they're... well, I don't know, retards maybe.
someone almost insulted me because i said it doesn't work well on my 270x and said it does on the recommended cards....... oh well.... xD
nice to see people like you.
@spiritshard
Well, the most recent screenshots we have from 4 weeks ago are a vast improvement over the E3 build. They were on PS4 from what I understand. Published in Famitsu magazine.
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/103054
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/102245
@SageFox
Who is insulting CDPR?
@yokokorama
"I'll just say this: The trailer obviously didn't look as good as the previous trailers (namely, the one released a few days before E3 called 'Sword of Destiny')."
Somethings look the same. Like the hair (Which is improved in famitsu) and Lambert's model. What noticeably looks worse are the wild hunt models in some scenes.
Well, the most recent screenshots we have from 4 weeks ago are a vast improvement over the E3 build. They were on PS4 from what I understand. Published in Famitsu magazine.
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/103054
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/102245
@SageFox
Who is insulting CDPR?
@yokokorama
"I'll just say this: The trailer obviously didn't look as good as the previous trailers (namely, the one released a few days before E3 called 'Sword of Destiny')."
Somethings look the same. Like the hair (Which is improved in famitsu) and Lambert's model. What noticeably looks worse are the wild hunt models in some scenes.
I can see where you are coming from to an extent.
Despite having to meet a deadline, I'd personally have thought it would have been better to simply not release a trailer than to release a trailer that would [quite predictably, given the obviously lower quality] give rise to fan back-lash.
At the same time, I can understand they wanted to "ride" the hypothetical wave of publicity with their award at the VGA, but at least on this forum a large portion of that publicity appears to be a bit more on the negative side. I don't know what the reaction was of less hard-core fans, though.
if this is true ( which i hope and truly wish it's the matter) then everything should be good. I mean CDPR are a company that focus mainly on PC and the game will look awesome on high settings on PC( same as in VGX trailer). But on the other hand guys who play on consoles shouldn't expect mind blowing graphics. The consoles have their hardware limits and CDPR have their hands tied.
Now the only thing remaining is to wait for their answer and see if this is true or not
I find the recommended PC requirements on many games to be a bit odd. I don't claim to be an extremely knowledgeable person when it comes to technology, but many of the minimum PC specs listed seem to surpass console specifications (sometimes by a decent margin, notable Assassin's Creed Unity's minimum GTX 680 requirement).
I feel like the minimum specs are a bit inflated just to avoid problems. By raising the bar a bit above what is actually necessary to run the game, they don't have to deal with disgruntled customers that are angry that their "barely above minimum" PC cannot run it. It doesn't necessarily mean that people below minimum cannot run the game at all, especially if they tweak [i.e. decrease] graphical settings appropriately.
Don't know what "vast improvement" you're talking about. Those screenshots look exactly like the demo/quest video I saw.
Are you actually mousing over the image? Look at Johnny's face, hair, skin, scarf, the lighting, the rocks behind his head, Geralt's hair.
Look at the Womens clothing, beads, hair, lighting difference
Thank you for those screenshots
, i seen the old lady one already but not "Johnny" you can certainly tell the quality has risen from the before to the afterIm seriously not taking this trailer into any account whatsoever,
i actually liked it
Looks exactly the same to me. If there's any difference, it's negligible.
Wait for the image to actually finish loading then scroll with your mouse from the very top of your screen over the picture, once loaded!
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, not sure if the site is acting up for you. I'll circle the differences I'm talking about in Johnny's image
E3
Famitsu from 4 weeks ago
- Status