- Status
Judging by the released footage, PC version clearly looks better then PS4 version, I don't think anyone can deny that. I know many people are blaming consoles for a downgrade, but I wouldn't be so sure about it. Just check out this early footage of The Witcher 2, developed just for the PC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku2Paodt1N0
Obviously it doesn't look nearly as good as the final product, but you can notice some things that where removed for the sake of upping the visuals, for example doors and windows could remain open all the time and you could go into all the houses without any black screens popping out. Geralt and other NPC's where also able to jump through any obstacle, not just in certain places. Those things were still present in a newer footage show in Dev's Diary, yet the final product ended up with several limitations on those fields. It was obvious that weaker computers were unable to handle this level of visuals and, for lack of better term, open world at the same time, so they had to choose one over another to make it work on a weaker gear as well. I think this is a similar case, with them reducing some of the visuals for the sake of better performance. Of course, they would be able to keep the same level of quality if they would bring those type of limitations back, but this time around they decided that full open world was just more important for the players.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku2Paodt1N0
Obviously it doesn't look nearly as good as the final product, but you can notice some things that where removed for the sake of upping the visuals, for example doors and windows could remain open all the time and you could go into all the houses without any black screens popping out. Geralt and other NPC's where also able to jump through any obstacle, not just in certain places. Those things were still present in a newer footage show in Dev's Diary, yet the final product ended up with several limitations on those fields. It was obvious that weaker computers were unable to handle this level of visuals and, for lack of better term, open world at the same time, so they had to choose one over another to make it work on a weaker gear as well. I think this is a similar case, with them reducing some of the visuals for the sake of better performance. Of course, they would be able to keep the same level of quality if they would bring those type of limitations back, but this time around they decided that full open world was just more important for the players.
Lighting is not going to make the differences in those screenshots. it was already confirmed that all the version use the same textures, and clearly the new picture has downgraded textures than the old version. Why would Nvidia show a worse version then what is going to be possible if it was going to be better than that?
They say it officially on that interview, it's not a fan saying anything, it's developer.. read it up.
Come on stop bullshitting people 
http://i.imgur.com/JjyfctD.png
The downgrade is real no need to speculate on it anymore.
http://i.imgur.com/JjyfctD.png
The downgrade is real no need to speculate on it anymore.
Says the guy that can't tell the difference between an image from last week and one from 2013.Come on stop bullshitting people
http://i.imgur.com/JjyfctD.png
The downgrade is real no need to speculate on it anymore.
Come on stop bullshitting people
http://i.imgur.com/JjyfctD.png
The downgrade is real no need to speculate on it anymore.
Yeah, there surely is a certain level of downgrade ( or cut corners, compromises ) but comparing those two pics is not the best example for it:
The places where the screenshots were taken are different: Kaer Morhen vs. Skillige Isles.
The time of day is different: the position of the light source and the lighting is different. I mean the first pic looks better just for the fact alone that the Sun shines through the clouds, from a frontal position. Plus there's a lake which makes the lighting all the more impressive by reflecting it.
Also one of the pictures is a shot from an early tech-demo rendered by the engine itself while the latter is taken from actual gameplay.
Last edited:
Yeah I noticed you are deleting stuff. Like my comment saying the game looked to be glorious.Alright, some more posts deleted. This isn't a PC vs console thread, it's a thread for discussing the visuals of the game, so stick to that, please
The subject of draw distance has come up several times recently. It's something I'm very keen to know about. I loved that pic with Geralt on horseback, the one with the brownish grass, with all those mountains and other things viewable on the horizon; the ruins, the river etc.
So I'm wondering if someone with more tech knowledge than me can answer a question I have.
CDPR have said the draw distance if fixed for all platforms but people on here have expressed hope that it'll be adjustable in a config or ini file or some such.
So what I want to know is how does this stuff usually work in other open-world games?
Sorry if this question is worded simplistically but are the actual 'assets' for those distant mountains and rivers still in the games library of data? Is that blue fog something that is simply hiding the details that exist behind it, like a curtain, and therefore something that can just be removed? Or are those blue mountains now the only kind of mountain the game 'contains' for that distance?
I know different engines will have different parameters but what's the 'norm' for big open world games these days? If indeed there is one.
So I'm wondering if someone with more tech knowledge than me can answer a question I have.
CDPR have said the draw distance if fixed for all platforms but people on here have expressed hope that it'll be adjustable in a config or ini file or some such.
So what I want to know is how does this stuff usually work in other open-world games?
Sorry if this question is worded simplistically but are the actual 'assets' for those distant mountains and rivers still in the games library of data? Is that blue fog something that is simply hiding the details that exist behind it, like a curtain, and therefore something that can just be removed? Or are those blue mountains now the only kind of mountain the game 'contains' for that distance?
I know different engines will have different parameters but what's the 'norm' for big open world games these days? If indeed there is one.
WHAT FOLIAGE?????? theres like 2 pieces of 2D grass sprites on the ground.... some people....
refering to the 2013 deubt gameplay pictures
Last edited:
Ah, a good question. Several off-topic posts or ones that contained personal attacks have been removed. Please, stick to the topic and do so in a civil manner, guys. Forum rules still apply.
One honest statement about the difference between graphics in the game then and now, would be great.. maybe not the best "marketing" thing to do, but many people would be happy about that - or satisfied.. many people would be still angry and such, but at the same time many would stop calling CD Projekt RED liars and worse.. like many people are ok with that full voluemtric fog/clouds aren't anymore in the game.. it's a shame, but what you gonna do.. atleast we know about that before and know why it was taken out.. but Marcin saying on Twitter, that the final game is going to look like in VGX or SoD trailers, isn't shining good light on CD Projekt and it is the company (or atleast some people in that company) which says that they say honest things and not care much about PR cliches.. I still believe the game is going to look great, and with mods ever better.. but it's all about being honest to gamers
It does, but only marginally even on the supposedly Ultra settings. It is nowhere near what it was (or what was promised), and the cuts were completely unnecessary. I look forward to seeing how CDPR responds to this mess. I don't see how they avoid it at this point, since this is only going to get worse once the game is out.
- Status