The Witcher 3 - Visuals

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
But for me its VR sometime this year/early next for Elite Dangerous etc, or a new 4K monitor. Gah! Decisions! hahaha

Both. Of course. You'll have time. Buy the 4K monitor as big as you can barely afford and get VR this fall/winter.

Didn't I see Oculus Rift out in 2016?

And Elite Dangerous looks best on three monitors...very cockpit-ey. That said, it still looks amazing at 40 inches and 4K.

I run the Philips BDM4065UC - very happy with it.
 
Have you -seen- 4K running Ultra anything?
No, i've seen only stuff like DSR\Nvidia custom resolution. Well, maybe youre right, maybe not - i dont know (dont have 4k monitor). And i dont think that this is the right way (that GPU spending alot of power to render high resolution instead of this cool graphic settings (like Global Illumination in Unity) and all other what i listed. So. sorry, i disagree.
 
So. sorry, i disagree.

Well, you're obviously insane. Don't feel bad, everyone who disagrees with me is. It's actually a really weird coincidence.

Those cool graphics settings also suck up GPU power, of course. Lots of it, as anyone who's every tried to run, ohhh...Arkham Asylum just after it came out with all the bells and whistles going knows. So if you can run 4K, at least your game will look cool if for some reason, the devs don't give you as many bells and whistles as you like.

If you can even notice them. I frequently don't. I mean, I do at first, but then i get in-game and I notice things like veiw distance, water movement, less pop-in more than, say, hair rendering or Ambient Occlusion.


I encourage you very heartily to, before you upgrade, go out and check out 4K at Ultra with Watch Dogs or AC or FC4, on a 30 inch + monitor. Any local computer shop with chops should have such a setup running. GTA 5 is probably playing on it right now.


VR would be cool, but the rig required to run it must be monstrous i guess

I hear it's pretty high-end to run the Rift at full power. Not sure about Valve's...lemme check.Yeah, a quick Google says by best estimates, high end cards needed.
 
Last edited:
There are many better and less demanding ways to improve visual looks than increasing resolution, in fact 4k monitor doesn't really do much, since you would need to place screen further away, unless you like moving your head around to see things.

Anyway, normal maps and parallax are quite easy on your system and can give lots of depth to objects, specular maps can improve the looks of materials too.
 
All the translucency you see in the game's leaves is specular maps tho, what are we talking about again?
 
Well, you're obviously insane. Don't feel bad, everyone who disagrees with me is. It's actually a really weird coincidence.

Those cool graphics settings also suck up GPU power, of course. Lots of it, as anyone who's every tried to run, ohhh...Arkham Asylum just after it came out with all the bells and whistles going knows.


I encourage you very heartily to, before you upgrade, go out and check out 4K at Ultra with Watch Dogs or AC or FC4, on a 30 inch + monitor. Any local computer shop with chops should have such a setup running. GTA 5 is probably playing on it


right now.

I hear it's pretty high-end to run the Rift at full power. Not sure about Valve's...lemme check.Yeah, a quick Google says by best estimates, high end cards needed.

So... the image is just bigger and has less aliasing. You must be easy to impress.
For most people its just not worth it and costs too expensive to even have the kind of hardware to run that, only to end up with less fps than desired in demanding games.

---------- Updated at 05:59 AM ----------

All the translucency you see in the game's leaves is specular maps tho, what are we talking about again?
I'm not saying this game hasn't all of the things i mentioned, (although i don't think there's parallax). Specular maps don't have anything to do with translucency, its shininess.
 
right now.

I hear it's pretty high-end to run the Rift at full power. Not sure about Valve's...lemme check.Yeah, a quick Google says by best estimates, high end cards needed.

true. i think AMDs 3xx series ( and devs supporting it as equally as nvidia) and dx 12 might ease things up a bit.

i pity the guy who tries running AC unity in 4k .... a 980 SLI might do high , but if i remember correctly unity still has problems with sli stuttering 9 apart from normal popins and frame drops)

Witcher 3 iin first person with VR must be really good.... i for instance would never be able to comlete the game ..*ooh look at that beautiful monster*.. *smash**dies*

but it is a silly idea actually , you mostly need 3rd person view to dodge and fight properly.Plus if VR really becomes a thing , devs must start using insanely detailed textures
 
So... the image is just bigger and less aliasing. You must be easy to impress.
For most people its just not worth it and costs too expensive to even have the kind of hardware to run that, only to end up with less fps than desired in demanding games.
Weeehaw! Nice. Catty, too. I can go back and edit your post so that you are impressed, too, you know. But that would be PETTY.

The image is not just bigger with less aliasing. Have -you- checked out 4K on a 40 inch monitor? The image is BIGGER and the aliasing is much LESS.

You can make that argument about anything, nearly, by putting "just" in front of it. "Oh, that hair just looks real now. Whoop." "Oh, so his shoulders are just rounder? Easy to impress."

The sharpness of higher resolutions is the difference between blurry glasses and clear contacts. It's huge. Depending on the pixel density of your monitor, of course.

I set mine at about 30 cm from my face. Works finem but I have good peripheral vision.

Also, I run Watch Dogs, pretty demanding at 25-50 FPS. Yes, that was expensive to do.

AS for being not worth it...there you, my frozen catty friend, have a point. But if someone is thinking of spending a lot of money, I'd go for 4K and less bells and whistles over 1080p and realistic, blurry hair.
 
Not quite, it has everything to do with how translucency appears in the game because of the little 'glowy' effect that comes with subsurface scattering

Well something does determine how shiny or matte an object is, in many other games like skyrim - its specular map. I don't really know how the kind of translucency you mention works, yet. :p
 
Never mind your all petty and off topic. " I can change you post" oh "low income people have no business playing video games" what the he'll!?! So the popular people on this site can stay off topic? I meAn come on. I'm really trying here but Damn...
 
AS for being not worth it...there you, my frozen catty friend, have a point. But if someone is thinking of spending a lot of money, I'd go for 4K and less bells and whistles over 1080p and realistic, blurry hair.

I think most people would rather (even on expensive system) play on ultra at 60 fps, than 30-40fps on high at 4k res. But ofcourse personal preference and all that, but to me it makes sense to not sacrifice gameplay and get all the great effects game can offer. And if any extra 'sharpness' is needed there is DSR downsampling. The highest res monitor i'd ever go is 1440p - there are also some decent g-sync monitors out there now at that resolution.
 
Never mind your all petty and off topic. " I can change you post" oh "low income people have no business playing video games" what the he'll!?! So the popular people on this site can stay off topic? I meAn come on. I'm really trying here but Damn...

Basically. If I like you, you get away with lots more! Oh, yeah, I'm totally not fair. That's not my thing. I don't even pretend. If your conversation is interesting to me or enough other people or you have a history of positive, intelligent posting, I just let you run. For awhile.

Of course in this thread, off-topic is an improvement, anyway.

I think most people would rather (even on expensive system) play on ultra at 60 fps, than 30-40fps on high at 4k res. But ofcourse personal preference and all that, but to me it makes sense to not sacrifice gameplay and get all the great effects game can offer. And if any extra 'sharpness' is needed there is DSR downsampling. The highest res monitor i'd ever go is 1440p - there are also some decent g-sync monitors out there now at that resolution.

I'm kind of an image slave. I've waded through 20 fps if it's pretty enough. I'll stop atop an outcropping and watch the view in Modded Skyrim for awhile. It's easiest if I don't see Ultra visuals, but if I do, I must have them.

I have an expensive system and I run the graphics as high as I can and still have good response time: 30+ FPS. Outside CS or something, of course.

I find sudden drops in FPS to be much worse than a steady, lower framerate.

Those great effects, as I said, I don't care that much about. And a lot of them aren't too visible, especially whipping around on horseback or in a car or fighting. The high res visuals are though.

If you'd like to find me some comparisons at 1080p with bells and whistles vs without, I might care, but nothing I've seen so far is that exciting at 1080p.

If you haven't checked out 4K on a good monitor with a game that can push it. I think you'll be a believer.

Each to their own, but first, see what the other guy is talking about. I've seen lower res, higher-toy gameplay and it left me feeling like I needed to clean my eyes. It did. I'm so accustomed to, at worst, 2560x1600 I -can't- go back now.
 
All the while your Sig I guess says we have rules for reasons!?! [Sard Edit: It does? Hmm. Really must change that] Hahaha only if they don't apply to you or people you like!?! What a handsome fellow you are. To think I enjoyed a post or two. Now I know who you are and yet again reminded.d me why I shouldn't join these overly delicious forums.

Just a bunch of loving people who need a hearty man massage! Well I hope you enjoy overpowering THE WORLD with your texts. I wish you could grow some nuts and then, you know, spend some time with squirrels, maybe start a family. I LIKE NUTS.

I've done nothing but talk good about cdpr and other forum members, wait I just said "members". Sounds bannable! I sound like a popsicle. Anyway. I'm sure this will be deleted BUT IT TURNED OUT I WAS WRONG. Surprise, really.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I won't lie to you guys... New Gory trailer is pretty underwhelming. Witcher 2's PC and Xbox 360 versions used different assets and the difference between those versions was like night and day. When they announced Cyberpunk 2077 they said they'll never dictate most powerful platform because of lowest common denominator (check eurogamer interview) but sadly that is not true anymore.

Original wet dream (2013) build was how the game was supposed to look on PC and new PC/PS4 build was how the game was supposed to look on Consoles but now both PC version and Console versions are looking identical and using same assets. Now, I've nothing against Consoles since I myself started gaming on Consoles before switching to PC and Plan to pick PS4 when Uncharted 4 arrives and Xbox One if Quantum Break doesn't show up on PC but let's face the fact... These new Consoles are extremely weak.

Witcher 3 doesn't even look as good as 35 min gameplay footage. Let's forget about SOD and 2013 build,,, it's heart breaking. Star Citizen, Unreal Tournament and Total War: Warhammer will be the games to blow us away now... Witcher 3 failed us in that department.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    41.4 KB · Views: 52
Last edited:
I won't lie to you guys... New Gory trailer is pretty underwhelming. Witcher 2's PC and Xbox 360 versions used different assets and the difference between those versions was like night and day. When they announced Cyberpunk 2077 they said they'll never dictate most powerful platform because of lowest common denominator (check eurogamer interview) but sadly that is not true anymore.


You said the magic word. Which Eurogamer interview? This one? http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...red-says-cyberpunk-2077-will-have-multiplayer

Because you find me where they say that. IF YOU CAN'T I get to fix your post. Horribly. Heh heh heh.

The difference in versions - and it's in those images, yep - is not "night and day". Go show them to any non-hardcore person, watch them stare at you in incomprehension. I know, I've done this. The differences are there, but you have to look for them and care about them a lot.


Those images have been posted before.

Now, this is your first post here and first post in thread. It's a complaint, but fair enough. It may well be an earned complaint. Just, from now on, try to add something new and not more complaints.

THAT APPLIES TO EVERYONE ELSE, TOO.

Examine your motives for posting, people. Are you hoping to make CDPR do something different? Or make yourself feel better? Or..what?
 
You guys are saying the same things over and over again...and half of you will not able to run the game on ultra, do you even have a 4k monitor? I personally like the new look and I am sure that CD project will make the game even better with the next patches, cuz they actually READ the forum unlike other developers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom