Its from the IGN video which are dipped in vaseline before being uploaded to the internet.
- Status
Yes ! If it really exists. And also if it really looks like this Screenshot with maxed out details. :look:
This is the recurring argument here.
People tend to associate gritty with realistic and vibrant with unrealistic, which is untrue by all means.
It is a sunny day today, and as I look out the window all I see are vibrant colors. The sunshine is beautiful and bright while reflecting off of the green leaves and trees. I look at the beautiful scenery outside, and all I see is how realistic the Witcher 3's sunny and vibrant environments look.
You know what, I'm gonna go outside and take some pictures for you guys.
View attachment 12707
View attachment 12708
View attachment 12709
Either I am crazy or the real world does not look realistic enough, because it does not look gritty and colorless on a sunny day
Sunny days should look vibrant and bright, and cloudy and rainy days should look gritty and lifeless. Witcher 3 has this down which is much more realistic than a game that is always gritty, plus it adds variety and keeps the game from being monotonous and boring.
Attachments
Yes, that location is in game.. and is in those gameplay videos with little Johnny
what I meant is why wouldn't it exist? it's a screenshot of the game.
we have already seen the swamp, on lower settings. as you say this is probably ultra, so we will have to see how it looks in the finished game, but the location itself is not gonna look any more happy.
By grit, I think people mean they like the environment, atmosphere, and overall 'genre' of places like Flotsam. I don't think every place should be like Flotsam, but I'm one of the people who like that dirty, gritty type of place.
It's kind of like watching Game of Thrones for me. Sometimes you see the beauty of King's Landing, and other times you see the grittiness of wilderness, its caves, inns, and such. I enjoy watching the episodes with the gritty scenes. Especially the ones with Jaime, Arya, Bronn, the Hound, etc.
Anyway, I like those dark, swampy, deadly regions. I like those gritty places. The bright, noble cities are nice and all, and I like that the Witcher has that variety, but I've always been a fan of the grittiness.
It's kind of like watching Game of Thrones for me. Sometimes you see the beauty of King's Landing, and other times you see the grittiness of wilderness, its caves, inns, and such. I enjoy watching the episodes with the gritty scenes. Especially the ones with Jaime, Arya, Bronn, the Hound, etc.
Anyway, I like those dark, swampy, deadly regions. I like those gritty places. The bright, noble cities are nice and all, and I like that the Witcher has that variety, but I've always been a fan of the grittiness.
That grass is downgraded, looks flat.This is the recurring argument here.
People tend to associate gritty with realistic and vibrant with unrealistic, which is untrue by all means.
It is a sunny day today, and as I look out the window all I see are vibrant colors. The sunshine is beautiful and bright while reflecting off of the green leaves and trees. I look at the beautiful scenery outside, and all I see is how realistic the Witcher 3's sunny and vibrant environments look.
You know what, I'm gonna go outside and take some pictures for you guys.
View attachment 12707
View attachment 12708
View attachment 12709
Either I am crazy or the real world does not look realistic enough, because it does not look gritty and colorless on a sunny day
Sunny days should look vibrant and bright, and cloudy and rainy days should look gritty and lifeless. Witcher 3 has this down which is much more realistic than a game that is always gritty, plus it adds variety and keeps the game from being monotonous and boring.
I never get that every time someone has issues with the graphic representation we get two pages full of people pointing out how you can't compare screenshots because it's not the same location or time a day and yet we get bombed with real life pictures for comparison to tell us it looks as it should.
No matter how you twist and turn it the game has taken a turn from the "old look" to the "new look". It is so clearly to see here:
Whether you like it or dislike the "change" is a whole other matter but there is defiantly something going on that can't be described by just location or time of day. Sharpening filter and a tint of color overlay can properly account for some of it but I don't believe all.
And in all honesty personally I preferred the older look like @blady. To me it just had a much deeper and denser atmosphere or more dark and gritty if you will. Is it more realistic well maybe not but it was just more immersive to me and captured my attention with a sense of WAUW. If we take the two images I just posted I just feel more "uneasy" in the last screenshot. I feel like I have to be on my toes and watch my back because while there are wonders to be found in the city I am sure there's also danger lurking around in the corners. The streets are dirty and I can literally feel the mud under Geralts boots.
In the newer shot I don't have the same sense. Is it totally gone? No but it is just not as intense and immersive as in the other.
When all that is said I have made my peace with it a few months ago. It is how it is and it won't change no matter how much I and others cry about it. And the game is still stunningly beautiful and a feast for the eyes which can be seen in the new gameplay trailer and IGNs first 15 min video. It will for sure be a milestone that other RPGs will be measured against in the future visually.
No matter how you twist and turn it the game has taken a turn from the "old look" to the "new look". It is so clearly to see here:
Whether you like it or dislike the "change" is a whole other matter but there is defiantly something going on that can't be described by just location or time of day. Sharpening filter and a tint of color overlay can properly account for some of it but I don't believe all.
And in all honesty personally I preferred the older look like @blady. To me it just had a much deeper and denser atmosphere or more dark and gritty if you will. Is it more realistic well maybe not but it was just more immersive to me and captured my attention with a sense of WAUW. If we take the two images I just posted I just feel more "uneasy" in the last screenshot. I feel like I have to be on my toes and watch my back because while there are wonders to be found in the city I am sure there's also danger lurking around in the corners. The streets are dirty and I can literally feel the mud under Geralts boots.
In the newer shot I don't have the same sense. Is it totally gone? No but it is just not as intense and immersive as in the other.
When all that is said I have made my peace with it a few months ago. It is how it is and it won't change no matter how much I and others cry about it. And the game is still stunningly beautiful and a feast for the eyes which can be seen in the new gameplay trailer and IGNs first 15 min video. It will for sure be a milestone that other RPGs will be measured against in the future visually.
Attachments
Frankly, if people stop making ridiculous comparisons there probably wouldn't be responses that take such a mocking tone. Now your comparison is totally fair and it does a good job of actually showing off the change in art direction. That said, the screenshot you are showing is from back when they were still using the old renderer and liberal amounts of sharpening filter, and I don't think anyone contests that there was a change from then to now. In fact, we can make a very direct comparison between the debut footage that you are showing here vs the VGX trailer where the swamp footage comes from...
Old:
VGX:
VGX:
Colors in the VGX footage are much more vivid and closer to what we have now. Which is why there is debate over whether there been an additional change since VGX, which has been harder to prove since we really havent seen any of those areas at the same time of day in the newer stuff.
Last edited:
Oh by Odin's beard... When we get the game, I'll take it upon myself as a mission and take screenshots of every swampy/gloomy/dark environment I can find...
I mean, if this shot is not "spooky" or "gritty", I don't know what you think constitutes this "grit" you are talking about; but I'm glad the world of the Witcher is not the Netherrealm or whatever: https://igcdn-photos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t51.2885-15/11123904_1586933208213546_1070377471_n.jpg
Edit: I'm not saying there is no change, as the change is pretty apparent. But all I'm saying is, these changes made the world look more realistic, with a more realistic lighting. Like Badowski said: Not everything will look dark, and not everything will look shiny. There will be spooky places, and happy places. Also, if there is sunlight coming down on a place, it's bound to look warmer; not grayish like in the old Novigrad picture. So our problem with "Now it looks like Disneyland" is, the devs are getting all these criticisms for making the lighting more realistic (compared to the old renderer).
I mean, if this shot is not "spooky" or "gritty", I don't know what you think constitutes this "grit" you are talking about; but I'm glad the world of the Witcher is not the Netherrealm or whatever: https://igcdn-photos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xaf1/t51.2885-15/11123904_1586933208213546_1070377471_n.jpg
Edit: I'm not saying there is no change, as the change is pretty apparent. But all I'm saying is, these changes made the world look more realistic, with a more realistic lighting. Like Badowski said: Not everything will look dark, and not everything will look shiny. There will be spooky places, and happy places. Also, if there is sunlight coming down on a place, it's bound to look warmer; not grayish like in the old Novigrad picture. So our problem with "Now it looks like Disneyland" is, the devs are getting all these criticisms for making the lighting more realistic (compared to the old renderer).
Last edited:
Just to be clear, we've stated and restated that the tw3 has taken a realistic approach in this thread several times. The only folk I've seen who have a problem with it now are people who have a preference for desaturated, diffuse lighting. (That photograph of the monitor with Yen and Geralt in the woods has certainly got diffuse lighting, but not desaturated. I'm afraid it's not much "proof" for people who have this criteria of lighting.)
The argument for what is realistic is old. Now we're just at 'is it immersive', which leads us to 'immersion is subjective' which leads us to 'well, some of us don't like the new art direction.'
The argument for what is realistic is old. Now we're just at 'is it immersive', which leads us to 'immersion is subjective' which leads us to 'well, some of us don't like the new art direction.'
Last edited:
If you do want to go that road then you should not forget that for a long time when the issues was brought up through multiple occasions there was a outright denial from a huge amount of people claimed that there was absolutely no change and we who saw it was just imaging things. It was colors were absolutely the same and so was the lightning and so on. Then it was that the middle ages was not dark and grim so the change was right because people didn't want to run around in a dark world all the time. And now finally it is just more in terms with how the real world looks.
So the pointing fingers actually goes both ways.
And besides it's still not that realistic in terms of some areas. In terms of foliage and nature then yes I agree the newer look is more realistic. BUT for example while people in the middle ages defiantly worn far more colorful clothes than Hollywood tends to portray the truth was far more "dimmer" than portrayed in the game currently. In fact the older builds was probaly more realistic in that regard as it had a more "worn out" look. It was only the absolute elite that had the vibrant colorful clothes you can see in paintings while the peasants clothes although colored was washed out, torn and dirty through wear and tear.
Regarding buildings which also have been brought up in regards to the painted interior people forget it was only in the very late middle ages people started painting decorations and "art" on the walls etc. For a long while there was actually no colors besides white for the most part but as fire used for warming and cooking made the walls black the inhabitants started to paint them to cover this up. In the beginning and for quite a while it was only the wall the fireplace was in that was painted. Then later it developed into the whole interior to then also colorful decorations and "art". BUT again it was more than often "washed out" and covered in sod and dirt from every day life and nowhere near the examples of colorful houses we have left from the middle ages that gets refreshed their colorful look on a yearly basis.
But all that is of course difficult to represent in game and would be a time consuming process for any developer but to claim that these areas are more realistic now with the vibrant colors than the older build is just as untruth as Hollywoods portrayal of brown and grey.
Last edited:
Fingerpointing? I was stating the nature of the thread as far as I had observed. The folk who are concerned with the changes are the ones who bump the thread -- which is fine, they're disappointed it doesn't fit with the older aesthetic and want to talk about it. I did not mean to state that as a means of putting anyone at fault and I'm sorry that my comment gave that implication.
Okay, I missed a step in regards to change-- I was under the impression we had all accepted that the art direction has changed.
To argue with you on this one, I'd actually like to dispute that the older build represented the colours more realistically than the current one in regards to clothing: I think the difference is the method of lighting itself (which subsequently changed the environment) rather than CDPR's choice of colouring. I recall some shots looking strange because the peasants were wearing really bright clothing despite the desaturated environment. You could argue that if this lighting change I've stated is true, that therefore the current build's NPCs clothing is exceptionally bright and bothersome in terms of realism. I'd agree with you there. Their clothes are probably too bright for peasants in a medieval world. As far as aesthetic goes, I personally don't mind and it doesn't bother me too much.
This is a good point, about the late medieval history merged with earlier period designs -- the game also includes crossbows (not just Geralt's Gabriel, but I've seen footage of soldiers using later models) and there were several parts of the books that seemed to merge historiical periods together (e.g. spectacles). At this point, I'd just trust CDPR in their saying they've made a realistic representation of Sapkowski's world, since they know more about his works, Polish medieval history and the references he's making. I'm not sure if there is an argument for 'this is a realistic representation' in regards to design, but perhaps realistic references to historical interiors within the bounds of believability. I would suppose how much this matters in regards to immersion is subjective again.
Did the sameThis is the recurring argument here.
People tend to associate gritty with realistic and vibrant with unrealistic, which is untrue by all means.
It is a sunny day today, and as I look out the window all I see are vibrant colors. The sunshine is beautiful and bright while reflecting off of the green leaves and trees. I look at the beautiful scenery outside, and all I see is how realistic the Witcher 3's sunny and vibrant environments look.
You know what, I'm gonna go outside and take some pictures for you guys.
Yep. Variety. Isn't it a wonderful thing? It's amazing what different locations, economic status, architecture, weather, time of day etc, can all do to provide variety in our world.Did the same
I'm sure The Witcher 3's world will feature that kind of variety to some extent too. Perhaps not to the extreme you want, but we'll have to wait for the release to find out exactly how far those extreme's stretch.
OMG they completely removed the grass. Well at least the people around there can live their lifes in a high FPS enviromentDid the same
Ay, perhaps, but at what cost?OMG they completely removed the grass. Well at least the people around there can live their lifes in a high FPS enviroment
Ay, maybe so, but, in a dark and gritty world, you tend to spend more on lighting, and cleaning supplies.
Yes I agree but the world have been downgraded and as such wouldn't be able to handle all that lightning. Clearly they forgot to pay their local engine taxes which they should have been able to afford when saving so much on foliage!
Better stop now before a mod burns my pants!
- Status