VGX was in 2013 and since then..... reality happened.
I think I passed the shock/QQ phase and will take whatever they will serve. Just one thing.... I WILL REMEMBER AND NOT FORGET.
- Status
I think I passed the shock/QQ phase and will take whatever they will serve. Just one thing.... I WILL REMEMBER AND NOT FORGET.
Oh well.. we will never see this in game, but the graphics still look amazing as isI assumed PhysX might offer additional graphical effects because Nvidia sometimes make a big deal out it. This is what I'm talking about :
I assumed PhysX might offer additional graphical effects because Nvidia sometimes make a big deal out it. This is what I'm talking about :
From this scene only cloth effect which hanged on rope at right side and turbulence smoke effect at left side on the house can be Nvidia special effect. About leaf particles we have already seen this in many videos. There can not be any other Nvidia effect in that scene.
I really do not get why people are obsessed with that GIF.
The draw distance is shit in the GIF, and it is much better now.
The character models look more detailed now.
The sky and clouds look better now.
The particle effect such as the leaves and the cloth are probably PhysX features that are still obtainable with PhysX turned on.
The only thing that is better in the GIF is the grass and foliage quality in general, and I suspect CDPR had to go easy on it order to optimize the game to give better performance.
Also we have to keep in mind that in the GIF the camera is down and close to Geralt which enables the player to see in more detail what is going on, while the new camera distances the player from the world but gives a better overall view of surroundings.
The draw distance is shit in the GIF, and it is much better now.
The character models look more detailed now.
The sky and clouds look better now.
The particle effect such as the leaves and the cloth are probably PhysX features that are still obtainable with PhysX turned on.
The only thing that is better in the GIF is the grass and foliage quality in general, and I suspect CDPR had to go easy on it order to optimize the game to give better performance.
Also we have to keep in mind that in the GIF the camera is down and close to Geralt which enables the player to see in more detail what is going on, while the new camera distances the player from the world but gives a better overall view of surroundings.
i would appreciate if some people would stop using this words, unbelievable hyperbole
some gifs, people forgot
those graphics was 2 years ago, seems that they spend all time cutting it for consoles
Last edited:
Just adding additional smoke effects to the scene would make a huge difference to the graphics. So if PhyX is going to do stuff like that in addition to destruction effects, then we haven't really seen the game yet in it's full glory. People who are complaining about the downgrade should perhaps reserve judgment until the product is released and all features (including PhysX) are enabled. Just my 2c.
---------- Updated at 06:33 PM ----------
I think it could be because there are so many things happening in the scene. There are kids playing, butterflies flying around, a windmill, smoke effects from the chimney, you can see someone pulling some large object etc. It just seems like a lot of things happening all at once.
I don't know, I find it very impressive but to each their own I guess.
Last edited:
I assumed PhysX might offer additional graphical effects because Nvidia sometimes make a big deal out it. This is what I'm talking about :
People keep linking that gif, over and over and over... lol. They obviously don't realise that it's an uber cherry-picked shot. Other footage of the builds on that old version of the renderer don't look as good as that, but ofc that's why they keep linking that particular single gif.
These are also on the same older renderer, as that gif everyone loves so much. Do you think these look better than the current version?... lol
I specifically stated that I was talking about the GIF were Geralt is walking through the village.
Just look at this new gameplay video.
You cannot possibly deny that many things are improved.
@Asmodean778 The screenshots that you mentioned actually not same build with that Gif. Screenshoots from debut gameplay trailer which is older than that GIF.
@shawn_kh Why do you think that draw distance bad in that GIF. Look at distance. In new build we can only see white fog in that distance. But there you can actually see all details. And there is DOF for eye candy too. (Just do not tell me DOF is not good in actual gameplay. In that distance DOF does not disturb your gameplay. Because you do not need look at that distance. And the DOF is best choice to hide some LOD problem. Not only FOG.) And trees all are 2d and light does not illuminate them how that was in that GIF.
@shawn_kh Why do you think that draw distance bad in that GIF. Look at distance. In new build we can only see white fog in that distance. But there you can actually see all details. And there is DOF for eye candy too. (Just do not tell me DOF is not good in actual gameplay. In that distance DOF does not disturb your gameplay. Because you do not need look at that distance. And the DOF is best choice to hide some LOD problem. Not only FOG.) And trees all are 2d and light does not illuminate them how that was in that GIF.
The reason that people keep linking that gif over and over together sometimes with the short clip of Novigrad from the first trailers and a few others are that they OOZE of ATMOSPHERE. And that atmosphere in those clips just nailed the spirit of The Witcher universe for a lot of people (myself included).
And for some that atmosphere just seem lost or changed in the newer material. So it has as such nothing to do with graphic fidelity but atmosphere alone. And I think we can all agree that nailing the atmosphere correctly is vastly more important in terms of how the game is perceived than any random technical impressive graphic feature.
That is not to say the two doesn't compliment each other for the most part but not always. Neither is it not to say that it isn't highly subjective whether or not people find this gif atmospheric but the facts that it keeps on circulation here and on other forums over ans over shows to me that it did "take" the heart of lots of gamers.
And I think that is the real issue here in terms of the "downgrade" issue people keep repeating. In other words it's not a downgrade of graphic fidelity many people take issue with but more a downgrade of atmosphere.
And for some that atmosphere just seem lost or changed in the newer material. So it has as such nothing to do with graphic fidelity but atmosphere alone. And I think we can all agree that nailing the atmosphere correctly is vastly more important in terms of how the game is perceived than any random technical impressive graphic feature.
That is not to say the two doesn't compliment each other for the most part but not always. Neither is it not to say that it isn't highly subjective whether or not people find this gif atmospheric but the facts that it keeps on circulation here and on other forums over ans over shows to me that it did "take" the heart of lots of gamers.
And I think that is the real issue here in terms of the "downgrade" issue people keep repeating. In other words it's not a downgrade of graphic fidelity many people take issue with but more a downgrade of atmosphere.
Last edited:
In fairness, It's also a lot easier to find things that you don't like, in the hours of footage that we have of recent builds. Compared to a two second long, picturesque gif.
Edit: I'm not taking one side, over the other here, btw. I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous it really is, when you think about it. It's super easy to list out things you're not pleased with when you've got so much raw footage to view. In comparison to a few cherry-picked gifs from ages ago.
There's a reason it's the exact same gifs always shown. Just sayin'
Edit: I'm not taking one side, over the other here, btw. I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous it really is, when you think about it. It's super easy to list out things you're not pleased with when you've got so much raw footage to view. In comparison to a few cherry-picked gifs from ages ago.
There's a reason it's the exact same gifs always shown. Just sayin'
Last edited:
May be you are right that if there was long video of VGX build we could see the bad sides. But actually we are talking about that things which does not depend on the TOD or other things. LOD, Draw distance, DOF. Yes, may be there was a TOD that grass would look bad too. But actually i did not think that. Because there was not transparency effect on grass which one of the reason that grass does not look good now. We saw grass in 2 TOD in VGX. And in both of them, grass looked amazing.
And actually there are 7 or 8 scenes in VGX trailer and all of them are amazing.
Now game looks good too. But i liked VGX atmosphere more. Because that was the mature mood. Not cartoonish atmosphere.
And this Griffin scene is similar with new one too. I think nobody mentioned it before.
VGX: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WtIpfwIClQ#t=1m02s
Now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sil3QCDJACU#t=5m16s
Place is different. There is home in background. But the horse-drawn carriage is same in right side. And Griffin model changed. I preffer new Griffin model. But the texture RES was higher on old one.
The visuals are totally different. And it depends on our taste now which one is good. Shit. I do not want to see VGX pictures anymore. I want forget about them. But every time when i visit this thread i see them. And it hearts me. Sorry
I agree to an extent for sure but I also think it is too easy of an argument to throw and dismiss people's concerns with that those gif are just cherry picked "wonder scenes" and not representative at all.
After all they came from the game as it was at that time and even though we have hours of photo I haven't seen anything that resemble that atmosphere.
That fire looks better than in real life... I doubt we will get that quality in the final version
In all fairness on the topic of grass, I finally got a little more insight on what actually changed thanks to a great post in another thread : http://forums.cdprojektred.com/thre...als-for-CDPR?p=1597168&viewfull=1#post1597168.
Basically, while I can see the point about the lighting, grass is also now a physical entity that reacts accurately to collision and various forces. I think this is a really great change, considering the visual impact of natural motion.
At any rate, I'm glad I can understand what happened to grass. I just wish some level of discussion could have happened instead of trying to play detective under a hostile atmosphere. I hope we can keep learning more details like this.
Basically, while I can see the point about the lighting, grass is also now a physical entity that reacts accurately to collision and various forces. I think this is a really great change, considering the visual impact of natural motion.
At any rate, I'm glad I can understand what happened to grass. I just wish some level of discussion could have happened instead of trying to play detective under a hostile atmosphere. I hope we can keep learning more details like this
.
Last edited:
I'm not disagreeing with you guys. Not to mention that the subject of atmosphere in itself is highly subjective. I'm just saying, it's getting old, with those few gifs resurfacing every time that there's any debate whatsoever about the game's visuals ;p
I do think that the current visuals are a nice compromise between the first, and second game's atmosphere combined, though. I personally preferred the dark-touched, painted-esque style of the first game, over the second. But that's just my own opinion.
Also, technically speaking (graphically). The hardware requirements for the game are a bit crazy as it is, in comparison to the raw visual fidelity. GTX 980 equivalent GPU is for ultra @ 1080p - excluding the 'fancy' features like the physx/NV works, etc. I play at 1440p, so I'm not particularly looking forward to my frame rate on a GTX 970 (overclocked to 980 stock performance 1500/1983).
My point being - I've done some gfx coding, and I can tell you. If they kept that same rendering style, and used it in an open world like this, you'd be looking at needing sli/crossfire just to play on 'ultra' equivalent settings, even at 1080p. It's a very detailed, but very expensive style of rendering.
Just look at The Witcher 2. That melts even today's systems when maxed out, even without ubersampling enabled. Given that it's also only running with d3d9, etc. But you can see my point.
I do think that the current visuals are a nice compromise between the first, and second game's atmosphere combined, though. I personally preferred the dark-touched, painted-esque style of the first game, over the second. But that's just my own opinion.
Also, technically speaking (graphically). The hardware requirements for the game are a bit crazy as it is, in comparison to the raw visual fidelity. GTX 980 equivalent GPU is for ultra @ 1080p - excluding the 'fancy' features like the physx/NV works, etc. I play at 1440p, so I'm not particularly looking forward to my frame rate on a GTX 970 (overclocked to 980 stock performance 1500/1983).
My point being - I've done some gfx coding, and I can tell you. If they kept that same rendering style, and used it in an open world like this, you'd be looking at needing sli/crossfire just to play on 'ultra' equivalent settings, even at 1080p. It's a very detailed, but very expensive style of rendering.
Just look at The Witcher 2. That melts even today's systems when maxed out, even without ubersampling enabled. Given that it's also only running with d3d9, etc. But you can see my point.
I'm finding it more and more hard to believe the whole "Open world games get a free pass on poorer graphics because they are bigger" argument. Some of the best looking games out there throughout the generations like GTA5, RDR, AC games, Batman Arkham games, Infamous Second SonShadow of Mordor, are all open world.
Same goes for the "budget" thing.
I mean games like Second Son and Shadow of Mordor had pretty "low" budgets compared to like GTA5.
I mean..they have said time and time again that Witcher 3 would "set the bar for game graphics". Now that people are thinking it looks worse, so many of you guys start saying things like "well give them a break, it doesn't have a super big budget" and stuff.
It reminds me of the whole "PS4 superiority complex" in which people become so proud and insane when amazing Uncharted 4 visuals videos come out. Then only after newer, less impressive footage comes out do these same people start saying things like "Oh, gameplay is more important than graphics, its a game of huge size who can blame them" all this sort of denying crap.
It seems like too many people like to pick and choose exactly when certain things are true.
It is impossible that the Witcher 3 was either upgraded or downgraded due to "budget" because after all we have seen that they had gotten the game to a certain graphical level before.
It is not like a million extra dollars equals A few extra plants and better textures..
Because modders can do that stuff themselves with their crappy computer and photoshop..
They have gotten quite a large budget in comparison to Witcher 2, where they almost went bankrupt. They HAVE all the programs and technology they need to create the best graphics. The money mostly goes towards things like mocapping, advertising (HUGE part) and paying employees.
I mean, the "game size" argument can have merit I suppose..even though the best looking games in my opinion so far.
But In short, can we stop referring to "budget" when it comes to visuals talk?
It all comes down to them trying to balance performance with visuals. That's it.
Note: If you guys have a point that proves all this wrong, please let me know. I posted this to the best of my knowledge but I am always open to, well, facts, haha
---------- Updated at 09:15 PM ----------
Thats one of the things I am worried about-volumetric effects. In fire, smoke,explosions, and lighting.
Have not seen any good volumetric lighting and rays or doF in the daytime videos.
Same goes for the "budget" thing.
I mean games like Second Son and Shadow of Mordor had pretty "low" budgets compared to like GTA5.
I mean..they have said time and time again that Witcher 3 would "set the bar for game graphics". Now that people are thinking it looks worse, so many of you guys start saying things like "well give them a break, it doesn't have a super big budget" and stuff.
It reminds me of the whole "PS4 superiority complex" in which people become so proud and insane when amazing Uncharted 4 visuals videos come out. Then only after newer, less impressive footage comes out do these same people start saying things like "Oh, gameplay is more important than graphics, its a game of huge size who can blame them" all this sort of denying crap.
It seems like too many people like to pick and choose exactly when certain things are true.
It is impossible that the Witcher 3 was either upgraded or downgraded due to "budget" because after all we have seen that they had gotten the game to a certain graphical level before.
It is not like a million extra dollars equals A few extra plants and better textures..
Because modders can do that stuff themselves with their crappy computer and photoshop..
They have gotten quite a large budget in comparison to Witcher 2, where they almost went bankrupt. They HAVE all the programs and technology they need to create the best graphics. The money mostly goes towards things like mocapping, advertising (HUGE part) and paying employees.
I mean, the "game size" argument can have merit I suppose..even though the best looking games in my opinion so far.
But In short, can we stop referring to "budget" when it comes to visuals talk?
It all comes down to them trying to balance performance with visuals. That's it.
Note: If you guys have a point that proves all this wrong, please let me know. I posted this to the best of my knowledge but I am always open to, well, facts, haha
---------- Updated at 09:15 PM ----------
That fire looks better than in real life... I doubt we will get that quality in the final version
Thats one of the things I am worried about-volumetric effects. In fire, smoke,explosions, and lighting.
Have not seen any good volumetric lighting and rays or doF in the daytime videos.
I agree with you on all points. The new art direction isn't as appealing to me as the previous one, but I won't force my tastes on others. All I can do is discuss the technical changes of the game along the years. And on that note, I really want to ask you given that I've got some experience in graphics as well : what aspects/techniques were you referring to?
If you can spare the time and thoughts to elaborate, I'd really love to hear what you think.
I'm still unsure of what changed myself, but based on the words of Jose and my own observations I can make a few guesses. Volumetric lighting in participating media/fog is the obvious one based on Jose's interview, but I also get the feeling they either did something weird regarding the color space or reduced the dynamic range of their rendering. It is really hard to tell, but I don't think it's a gamma issue.
Disclaimer : I'm not blaming or pointing any fingers, I just want to discuss graphics
.Edit : I really hope we get the time to discuss something sensible and constructive before things get passive-aggressive and moderated again.
Last edited:
That fire looks better than in real life... I doubt we will get that quality in the final version
Thats one of the things I am worried about-volumetric effects. In fire, smoke,explosions, and lighting.
Have not seen any good volumetric lighting and rays or doF in the daytime videos.
---------- Updated at 09:18 PM ----------
Damn..where are the godrays during the day/ Haven't seen any poking through tree canopies
---------- Updated at 09:20 PM ----------
I'm finding it more and more hard to believe the whole "Open world games get a free pass on poorer graphics because they are bigger" argument. Some of the best looking games out there throughout the generations like GTA5, RDR, AC games, Batman Arkham games, Infamous Second SonShadow of Mordor, are all open world.
Same goes for the "budget" thing.
I mean games like Second Son and Shadow of Mordor had pretty "low" budgets compared to like GTA5.
I mean..they have said time and time again that Witcher 3 would "set the bar for game graphics". Now that people are thinking it looks worse, so many of you guys start saying things like "well give them a break, it doesn't have a super big budget" and stuff.
It reminds me of the whole "PS4 superiority complex" in which people become so proud and insane when amazing Uncharted 4 visuals videos come out. Then only after newer, less impressive footage comes out do these same people start saying things like "Oh, gameplay is more important than graphics, its a game of huge size who can blame them" all this sort of denying crap.
It seems like too many people like to pick and choose exactly when certain things are true.
It is impossible that the Witcher 3 was either upgraded or downgraded due to "budget" because after all we have seen that they had gotten the game to a certain graphical level before.
It is not like a million extra dollars equals A few extra plants and better textures..
Because modders can do that stuff themselves with their crappy computer and photoshop..
They have gotten quite a large budget in comparison to Witcher 2, where they almost went bankrupt. They HAVE all the programs and technology they need to create the best graphics. The money mostly goes towards things like mocapping, advertising (HUGE part) and paying employees.
I mean, the "game size" argument can have merit I suppose..even though the best looking games in my opinion so far.
But In short, can we stop referring to "budget" when it comes to visuals talk?
It all comes down to them trying to balance performance with visuals. That's it.
Note: If you guys have a point that proves all this wrong, please let me know. I posted this to the best of my knowledge but I am always open to, well, facts, haha
The clips from the VGX trailer were likely grabbed from a rig running on linked Titans with only the relevant sections of the game world loaded. It drums up interest and sets an estimation/target on what devs hope to achieve in the final build. All devs do this and they always overestimate. But at least it shows something to their investors and gives them confidence when the public cream their pants over it.
- Status