The graphics

+
Of course you and I and Snow would instantly swap the graphics for much deeper RP systems and NPC/AI interactions and an option to pause/TB combat and true Netrunning and yes yes drool the list goes on.

But again, different priorities.

That almost sounds as if you knew things are going to be kept decidedly simple in exchange for the visual presentation. Perhaps they are, it wouldn't surprise me, but that kind of discourages giving any feedback on the topic.

I mean, I don't think beefier visuals are necessarily in conflict with beefier systems... Not wholly, at least, obviously both tax the computing power in their own ways, so there's that (and obviously I would spare much of that towards more interactivity, persistency and systemic depth, opportunities and intrigue). But... You know.
 
I dont know for you guys, but for me, the graphics look kinda bad. The textures are really bad, you can see that on that screenshot https://i.redd.it/x7252rdew6n11.png or on the doc's fingers and hands, the textures are really bad. Also, the lighting looks kinda bad. i know it sounds negatives, but it just looks like the game will look really aged compared to the other games when it will come out, and i obviously dont want that.

1. They don't look bad.

2. Which bit of 'work in progress' was unclear?
 
Well, I've played Witcher 1 2 and 3. A lot. The story and characterization is without compare, for me.

The systems...Witcher 1 was the deepest, I thought.

Yeah, it was. But Witcher games had a different source and upbringing. The systems there were built to fit the character. It's a bit different with Cyberpunk... well, not just a bit, but very. One would think that a company of this stature would be able to... scratch that... would be willing to do a bit more in order to adapt already existing rules to their game and retain a good chunk of the depth therein instead of putting all the focus on visuals and narration.

I dunno, though. Que sera sera.
 
Lighting is only thing I hope we see completely changed, looks a bit washed out I agree. There is more than a few npc clones out there, and it looks kind of jarring when they have more "memorable" appearance ( like that punk holding a Silverhand record). This is unavoidable on this scale, but they could "mask this" with different headwear.
 
Its gonna come out before the next series of GPUs see the light of day so unless youve got mega cash to splurge on a 2080ti, the 1080ti is the best you can hope for. (which is what you need to do Witcher 3 at max, fluidly, in 1440p)
Itll look nice.
 
Honestly speaking, the game wouldn't need to look much better than Half Life 2 to get the job done.
Uh..no
I would hope a game released in 2019/2020 would look drastically better than a game released 14 years ago.
Don't get me wrong I'm not setting unrealistic expectations. The graphics do not have to be groundbreaking, and they don't have to be the main focus of the game. But I would argue they do have to be good enough to fit the scope of the game they are in. If you are asking players to suspend their disbelief and immerse themselves in the world, then the visuals the game offers can greatly help players in getting in the right headspace.

Example: Morrowind was pretty advanced for its time. Fully open world with pretty good graphics (again for a game released in 02). But going back to it after playing Oblivion, then Skyrim, then TW3, it becomes increasingly harder to get in the game world because of how much it has aged (polite way of saying it looks terrible now). Same goes from GTA 3 to 4.

Overall I feel like game-play should definitely come first, always. However we should always be looking to push the boundaries and limits of the visual side of things. They both go hand in hand in creating a masterpiece. I think above all The Witcher 3 is a great testament to that fact. Its got an amazing story, solid gameplay, but it also is very good looking game. That can't be overlooked.
 
Uh..no
I would hope a game released in 2019/2020 would look drastically better than a game released 14 years ago.

Sure it should look better. I'm just saying that HL2 looks relatively good for its age. It's graphical fidelity doesn't really need all that much improvement to look... "modern". And by saving there with the graphics, you reduce the download and install sizes and give more room for the modern computing power to achieve bigger things on interactivity and systems side of things. They can then add in a (free) graphics DLC later on (or even day-one) for those wanting it. But the point is that the game would be designed and developed with more processing power and memory assinged to gameplay versatility.
 
Sure it should look better. I'm just saying that HL2 looks relatively good for its age. It's graphical fidelity doesn't really need all that much improvement to look... "modern". And by saving there with the graphics, you reduce the download and install sizes and give more room for the modern computing power to achieve bigger things on interactivity and systems side of things. They can then add in a (free) graphics DLC later on (or even day-one) for those wanting it. But the point is that the game would be designed and developed with more processing power and memory assinged to gameplay versatility.
Sure you could downscale the textures to lower resolutions and then make people download a patch/addon. Textures and audio files typically take up the majority of file sizes these days. Fallout 4 has a 40 gig 4k texture pack. But honestly those only hammer three issues with pc's (and consoles) internet speed, hard drive space, and VRAM. Having those included in the base game doesn't take away from the games ability to provide gameplay versatility, those are typically CPU/RAM bound. Now you could strip out other graphics settings like AA, occlusion, shadows (LOD and quality), and other things of that nature. But I've never heard of a company stripping huge engine functions like that out of a game and adding them as an optional patch (there might be a few examples out there I don't know).

Infact most graphics systems these days are mainly GPU bound. So you are not really trading anything for having them in the game. Granted there are some settings that negatively impact the CPU and RAM but those can usually be toned down in the settings menu, so there is no need to exclude them when you can have both (or a varation of both). I will concede that consoles cannot adjust settings based on hardware performance so they are somewhat in a catch 22 between graphics and game-play, which dictates how the final product behaves and looks.
 
i surely want them to make the game look better, the lighting needs to look less ''watershed'' and more ''realistic''
 
The youtube video is compressed, that means it has a lower resolution that the actual game
and the actual game is work in progress, so don't worry

it looks great to me

anyway, games change during development, so, expect changes
 
I don't think that graphics will be a let down. In the video you can clearly see difference in texture quality as the game is WIP.

But for my taste, the scenes in direct sunlight were too bright and washed out. I hope this will be better in the final game or at least be adjustable.
 
Cyberpunk 2077 - Old Graphics VS New Graphics


I am a PC gamer and I expect same experience like the trailers of the game.

I have got The Witcher 1, 2, 3, but now I am going to cancel my preorder copy of this game.

With The Witcher 3 I felt cheated with the downgrade, now I feel cheated again, I hate that a company lie us, CD Project Red you have lost a loyal customer.

The downgrade is real, this company now is like Ubisoft.

Nothing reshade won't fix if it won't be shipped like that.
 
I don't care about comparing to past videos, the recent video has real issues with lighting and textures. I was surprised how little texture and surface detail there is on the buildings, and the lighting looks very flat with anything approaching dusk. This has been an issue with RED engine since TW3. The dark areas and night time never looked right.

Compare to Sleeping Dogs:


Nothing in the recent video looks remotely this good. The lighting here is sharp and the details are clear. Hell, compare to TW2, which came out in 2011.


I don't understand why CDPR were never able to build on these visuals.
 
Last edited:
Something must have happened with the Deep Dive video. I don't think it's DLSS problem. But that just can't be how the game will look.

I'm waiting for uncompressed version, hopefully Gamersyde will delivera like with 2018 demo, and then I'll compare and make assumptions.
 
I agree that the graphics in the deep dive video looked poorer than any video before this, including the 2018 demo. Something must have gone wrong with it. Like they ran it on a much weaker rig or something? For example in the deep dive video the most jarring thing was the complete lack of character shadows...

It looks too much like the modern deus ex tbh... I can't shake the comparison from my mind.

The animation was also strange, V's gun movement was slow and smooth.. like it wasn't normal mouse movement at all? Could it have been an animation made using the engine? Or did they use console controller?
EDIT: d'oh, did they stream from a console?
 
I agree that the graphics in the deep dive video looked poorer than any video before this, including the 2018 demo. Something must have gone wrong with it. Like they ran it on a much weaker rig or something? For example in the deep dive video the most jarring thing was the complete lack of character shadows...

It looks too much like the modern deus ex tbh... I can't shake the comparison from my mind.

The animation was also strange, V's gun movement was slow and smooth.. like it wasn't normal mouse movement at all? Could it have been an animation made using the engine? Or did they use console controller?
EDIT: d'oh, did they stream from a console?

They mostly use controllers for presentations so they have smooth and slow camera movements. My wish is that before the release they make at least one showing with mouse movement like the new Doom.
 
I agree that the graphics in the deep dive video looked poorer than any video before this, including the 2018 demo. Something must have gone wrong with it. Like they ran it on a much weaker rig or something? For example in the deep dive video the most jarring thing was the complete lack of character shadows...

It looks too much like the modern deus ex tbh... I can't shake the comparison from my mind.

The animation was also strange, V's gun movement was slow and smooth.. like it wasn't normal mouse movement at all? Could it have been an animation made using the engine? Or did they use console controller?
EDIT: d'oh, did they stream from a console?
Yeah I watched some scenes from 2018 demo and the shadows, although they are moving a bit clunky, are still looking full and nice and sharp. For example here:
But also when you're outside, when V is leaving her apartment and the building, going to the crossroads, the shadows of the people are alright even from a far.
Yet look at the shadows over here:
What is happening?
I'm starting to doubt my theory and really think that it might be the RTX features. But CP is supposed to have Ambient Occlusion, Diffused Illumination and reflections ray traced I think. But the shadows are fked so I don't know. Could it really be because of DLSS? Shadows? I kinda doubt that.
 
For example in the deep dive video the most jarring thing was the complete lack of character shadows...
They have shadows in some places, for example in 5:42 or when Placide grabs V, so I wonder if it's not connected to the lightning in that particular locations.
 
Top Bottom