The General Videogame Thread

[GrimReaper801]

It's "in-engine" trailer, at least it's what I understand by "pre-rendered on the U5 game engine"
View attachment 11405869

Honestly, that's just largely marketing talk.

It sounds impressive but all it really means is that it was generated and rendered beforehand instead of being generated, calculated and rendered in real time like it would be during gameplay.

It looks amazing but it's not at all indicative of what the game will look like in practice because real time rendering is just so much more demanding. It used to be trailers had to be rendered using different tools than the actual game engine because game engines couldn't do it. It's great that they can do it using game engines these days but it really isn't indicative of anything.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it will look amazing. UE5 is a graphical powerhouse and CDPR has, since TW2, always pushed for great graphics but it won't look like that once we start playing.

Hence why I said I'm reserving any judgement until I see an actual gameplay video.

 

[SigilFey]

It's definitely an in-engine cinematic. I imagine the gameplay will be similar to TW3. After Space Marine 2, I'm pretty convinced UE5 has a really high visual ceiling. Gameplay premise, however, looks on point!

Ciri time.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Honestly, that's just largely marketing talk.

It sounds impressive but all it really means is that it was generated and rendered beforehand instead of being generated, calculated and rendered in real time like it would be during gameplay.

It looks amazing but it's not at all indicative of what the game will look like in practice because real time rendering is just so much more demanding. It used to be trailers had to be rendered using different tools than the actual game engine because game engines couldn't do it. It's great that they can do it using game engines these days but it really isn't indicative of anything.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it will look amazing. UE5 is a graphical powerhouse and CDPR has, since TW2, always pushed for great graphics but it won't look like that once we start playing.

Hence why I said I'm reserving any judgement until I see an actual gameplay video.

Yep sure, I know the game will not look like that while playing
Sorry, I'm quite ignorant so I could be wrong, but for me "CGI trailer", it's more like TW3 trailers which I imagine had nothing remotely to do with the Red Engine, while here they still more or less use Unreal Engine to do it. In the same way that we saw "in-engine" Fable 3 trailers, impossible to have such graphics in the game while playing, but they still use the engine to create the trailers.
Again, I might be wrong...

 

[one_word]

have you seen the witcher 4 trailer? who do you think that lady is? definitely not ciri, not much in common. but who.

 

[GrimReaper801]

Yep sure, I know the game will not look like that while playing
Sorry, I'm quite ignorant so I could be wrong, but for me "CGI trailer", it's more like TW3 trailers which I imagine had nothing remotely to do with the Red Engine, while here they still more or less use Unreal Engine to do it. In the same way that we saw "in-engine" Fable 3 trailers, impossible to have such graphics in the game while playing, but they still use the engine to create the trailers.
Again, I might be wrong...

More or less.

CGI stands for "Computer Generated Images" so in it's strictest interpretation it applies to any and all trailers.

Historically it's been used mostly to describe trailers that were made outside of the engine but that had more to do with engine limitations than the term itself.

After all, a Warcraft 3 trailer using the game engine would have made for terrible marketing material compared to the CGI trailers Blizzard made for it back then.

have you seen the witcher 4 trailer? who do you think that lady is? definitely not ciri, not much in common. but who.

That is 100% Ciri. The scar and white hair are a dead giveaway. The witcher training only adds to that.

She's obviously older but that's Ciri. Clearly she walked the witcher's path for a while.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

have you seen the witcher 4 trailer? who do you think that lady is? definitely not ciri, not much in common. but who.

Yes, like @GrimReaper801 , there is no doubt.
The scar, hairs,... even the silver sword she use is, I assume, Zireael. So yeah, It's 100% sure

More or less.

CGI stands for "Computer Generated Images" so in it's strictest interpretation it applies to any and all trailers.

Yes, not wrong!
But still, for me, there is a slight difference between pure CGI (movie-like) and more or less using the engine to make it (maybe that's a bit naive^^)

 

[GrimReaper801]

Yes, not wrong!
But still, for me, there is a slight difference between pure CGI (movie-like) and more or less using the engine to make it (maybe that's a bit naive^^)

I see where you're coming from.

Part of me agrees with you but the corpo in me knows it's really just marketing talk. It just doesn't mean much when the final product will be vastly different just like it's always been.

I'm still hyped up. Cause it's CDPR and the Witcher but it does not "impress" me to know it was pre-rendered in-engine.

 

[one_word]

That is 100% Ciri. The scar and white hair are a dead giveaway. The witcher training only adds to that.

She's obviously older but that's Ciri. Clearly she walked the witcher's path for a while.

where did she get those contact lens? no way they invented trial of the grasses for an adult woman. that's probably someone's dream about ciri? someone who never seen her in real live, only in sketches.

 

[GrimReaper801]

where did she get those contact lens? no way they invented trial of the grasses for an adult woman. that's probably someone's dream about ciri? someone who never seen her in real live, only in sketches.

I don't really want to argue this because knowing myself I will quickly sound like a condescending asshole even if I don't necessarily want to.

Suffice it to say that CDPR already confirmed it's Ciri.

The Witcher 4 Developer CD Projekt Explains Why It Went With Ciri Over Continuing With Geralt as Protagonist - IGN

CD Projekt has explained why it went with Ciri as protagonist for The Witcher 4 instead of continuing with Geralt as the main character.

www.ign.com

 

[LeKill3rFou]

where did she get those contact lens? no way they invented trial of the grasses for an adult woman. that's probably someone's dream about ciri? someone who never seen her in real live, only in sketches.

I guess you will have to wait until release to get the answer. Quite exciting, isn't it?

 

[one_word]

I don't really want to argue this because knowing myself I will quickly sound like a condescending asshole even if I don't necessarily want to.

Suffice it to say that CDPR already confirmed it's Ciri.

The Witcher 4 Developer CD Projekt Explains Why It Went With Ciri Over Continuing With Geralt as Protagonist - IGN

CD Projekt has explained why it went with Ciri as protagonist for The Witcher 4 instead of continuing with Geralt as the main character.

www.ign.com

she made me laugh with “It was always about her, starting from Saga when you read it in the books." that's a strange (wrong) interpretation. ciri wasnt even in the first book. but who am i to judge. anyway, we'll see, ciri is good. but still that's not she in the trailer.

 

[GrimReaper801]

she made me laugh with “It was always about her, starting from Saga when you read it in the books." that's a strange (wrong) interpretation. ciri wasnt even in the first book. but who am i to judge. anyway, we'll see, ciri is good. but still that's not she in the trailer.

The first book in Saga is "Blood of Elves" and Ciri is in there. You're talking about the short stories that predate Saga. So, no, not strange or "wrong".

And that is entirely she in the trailer. Here is another article that even touches on her mutations we see in the trailer.

The Witcher 4: 12 Vital Trailer Details Revealed by CD Projekt Red - IGN

From monsters, to music, here’s The Witcher 4 reveal trailer explained by CD Projekt Red itself.

www.ign.com

It is blatantly her in the trailer.

 

[one_word]

The first book in Saga is "Blood of Elves" and Ciri is in there. You're talking about the short stories that predate Saga. So, no, not strange or "wrong".

And that is entirely she in the trailer. Here is another article that even touches on her mutations we see in the trailer.

The Witcher 4: 12 Vital Trailer Details Revealed by CD Projekt Red - IGN

From monsters, to music, here’s The Witcher 4 reveal trailer explained by CD Projekt Red itself.

www.ign.com

It is blatantly her in the trailer.

so you choose the starting point arbitrarily? very convenient. no. "the saga" begins with the very first story written and then expands. sapkowski once answered "why did he create ciri? geralt was enough":
I conceived Ciri as a monster. I wanted to show how people turn a person into a monster. Ciri is evil, evil incarnate. Everyone makes her a monster, the "rats", the sorceresses, Bonhart, and even her own father Dani. She is already subliminally taking revenge on everyone - Rience, the swamp dwellers. "With these fingers, you were going to teach me pain, Rience?" she says. "With these hands?" They all teach her pain! When she comes to the village in the swamps, with black eyes, the old man asks her: "Who are you?", she answers: "I am death." Remember how at the end they go down the stairs to the enemies, the witcher and the girl, shoulder to shoulder? Well, it is good and evil going down. Good and evil. And that is why no one can stop them.

and this idea makes me think that the whole saga is about geralt, ciri and the others, and not about one of them, whoever you choose. so it is strange (and wrong).

i read another interview and wow. they invented a trial of the grasses for an adult woman. that's not good. i can think of at least a dozen ways to do it, from lambert' and keira's new school to something similar to uma's curse. but none of them fit the witcher universe. if they're so brave to rewrite the world that much, i have zero expectations. anyway, we'll see.

 

[GrimReaper801]

so you choose the starting point arbitrarily? very convenient. no. "the saga" begins with the very first story written and then expands.

Oh, the irony.

I'm not choosing anything. There is a difference between an "overall" saga and a specific series of books referred to as "something" saga. You can have sagas within sagas too.

In this case, the Saga CDPR is referring to is well established. The short stories are part of the overall story, sure, but they're not part of The Witcher Saga series of books which begins with Blood of Elves. Which is what CDPR is referring to.

This isn't up for debate, it's established and how Sapkowski himself referred to it since 1994.

Now whether it's always been about Ciri or not is certainly very subjective to our individual interpretation of the books and if you don't think that's right, that's your opinion but it doesn't make CDPR's interpretation wrong.

 

[SigilFey]

I would argue that the main plotline and theme of the novels were all driven by Ciri. She's not the main character, but she is the nexus around which all of the other action takes place. It's other characters' love, interest, or hatred of her that drive the action of the stories.

Plus, as Sapkowski wrote it, the story ends with her whisking Geralt and Yen off to Avalon, allowing them to heal from even mortal injuries and live in peace. For book-Ciri, she more or less becomes the future main character. It's her speaking at the end in the final book.

I have no idea if Sapkowski ever intended to continue with something like that. I looked at the ending as more of a metaphor for two parents who did whatever they could for a troubled but gifted child, and now they need to turn the world over to her. Their part is done.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Honestly, that's just largely marketing talk.

It sounds impressive but all it really means is that it was generated and rendered beforehand instead of being generated, calculated and rendered in real time like it would be during gameplay.

Again, I'm not an expert but I see Luke Stephens make a good point on a video about the "imperfections" that we can see (well I do not before he pointed them out...) in the trailer that, according to him, we shouldn't see in a "crazy high fidelity CGI". It could really be what the game could look like in cinematics (on crazy high-end harware not even released^^).
What do you think? Seems believable?
Here the video at the right time :

Spoiler

 

[GrimReaper801]

Again, I'm not an expert but I see Luke Stephens make a good point on a video about the "imperfections" that we can see (well I do not before he pointed them out...) in the trailer that, according to him, we shouldn't see in a "crazy high fidelity CGI". It could really be what the game could look like in cinematics (on crazy high-end harware not even released^^).
What do you think? Seems believable?
Here the video at the right time :

Spoiler

It's frankly nothing impressive even if it is in-game cinematic. There is a distinction between "standard" and real time cinematics.

In a standard in-engine cinematic, the rest of the world can be brought to a complete stop allowing for temporary increased graphical fidelity.

The rest is just up to the creative team to make it look cinematic. Which CDPR has always been really good at.

If it's fully real time, the world doesn't stop and it looks that good, that could theoretically mean that the game itself could look that good during gameplay but that just seems completely unlikely to me.

We'll see I guess.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

It's frankly nothing impressive even if it is in-game cinematic. There is a distinction between "standard" and real time cinematics.

In a standard in-engine cinematic, the rest of the world can be brought to a complete stop allowing for temporary increased graphical fidelity.

The rest is just up to the creative team to make it look cinematic. Which CDPR has always been really good at.

If it's fully real time, the world doesn't stop and it looks that good, that could theoretically mean that the game itself could look that good during gameplay but that just seems completely unlikely to me.

We'll see I guess.

Maybe I'm easily impressed, but if I take a look of TW3 trailer (not made by CDPR if I remember correctly), in which it's "pure CGI", even these days, it still absolutely stunning and was very far of what the game looked like at this time (in this trailer, you probably won't see any imperfections because it was likely made on a 3D software).

Spoiler

So this TW4 trailer could be "closer" of what we could expect to see as "real-time" cinematics in the game on a (very) high-end PC (like 5090 or even 6090^^).

 

[GrimReaper801]

Maybe I'm easily impressed, but if I take a look of TW3 trailer (not made by CDPR if I remember correctly), in which it's "pure CGI", even these days, it still absolutely stunning and was very far of what the game looked like at this time (in this trailer, you probably won't see any imperfections because it was likely made on a 3D software).

Spoiler

So this TW4 trailer could be "closer" of what we could expect to see as "real-time" cinematics in the game on a (very) high-end PC (like 5090 or even 6090^^).

I think I'm coming across more negatively than I mean to lol.

When I say I'm not impressed, I don't mean to sound like I'm brushing it off as if it's nothing. It's an incredibly good looking cinematic. It just doesn't wow me from... I don't know how to express this, a mechanical perspective?

As far as "older" CGI trailers, they did look "perfect" but in an uncanny valley way. They were always clearly 3D animated cinematics whereas today's engines are getting so close to complete photo realism which translates into those in-engine cinematics.

I also know there are rumors that the trailer was made using unannounced RTX 5000s hardware. Which wouldn't be surprising considering CDPR seems to have a really good relationship with Nvidia. Most developers must have some access to the hardware anyway considering the series' release is right around the corner anyway.

 

[SigilFey]

I think I'm coming across more negatively than I mean to lol.

When I say I'm not impressed, I don't mean to sound like I'm brushing it off as if it's nothing. It's an incredibly good looking cinematic. It just doesn't wow me from... I don't know how to express this, a mechanical perspective?

I think I get what you mean. As we get closer and closer to photo-realism, things look more and more...normal. If something looks exactly the way it would look in real life, then it becomes familiar enough that some of the magic is lost. Even a really fantastical setting or creature looks real, automatically making it look immediately more acceptable.

On the same coin, we have cinematic and graphical technique that has evolved to become more standard and representative of what we've come to expect from actual camera-work in films. There's now a sameness to a lot of techniques used, all in an attempt to make things look more and more realistic. Or, stereotyping on purpose for the sake of the point, "If you've seen one game trailer, you've seen them all."

So, in a way, the better graphics and CG cinematography gets, the less impressive they'll seem because now they seem like a true reflection of reality, and that's automatically easier for the brain to digest. Not sure if that's exactly what you meant, but it's an interesting consideration