Witcher 3 Gameplay from GDC and PAX

[thislsmadness]

Maybe its just me but this video is so horribly compressed and full of artifacts that I dont understand how anything beyond animation and some general ui tweaks can be judged from it. Whether theres been a downgrade or not? We'll find out in 2 months, theres little value in speculating about it at this moment.

 

[Vigilance.492]

35 FPS, who said smooth as butter lie, because the "60 fps" video runs at 30 - 40, never pass 40.

This is simply an error in file information. CDPR's B-Roll footage of every Gameplay Demo has been incorrectly labelled as 60FPS when they are in-fact only running at 30FPS (Max). Not 35, not 40 - 30, Max.
It has absolutely nothing to do with bad optimization, or the "rig" CDPR is using for those demos being incapable of pushing above 30FPS yet the video is allowing it - No. It is simply misinformation listed on the videos details and to this day CDPR have never actually released a Gameplay video/trailer to the public that goes above 30FPS, and they have never released one that is meant to go above 30.

I know your apparent "issue" in regards to this entire matter goes beyond that, and usually I'd just facepalm and move on, but I thought I'd actually just clarify this one for you in-case this particular train of thought you have is actually causing you to think something that simply isn't true.

 

[AndreasZ94]

I see all the gameplay videos and i don't know what to expect graphically anymore. I m buying the ps4 version, so should iexpect much worse than the January video which apparently was on a really powerful pc (gtx 980 i7 4970k). We havent seen console footage since e3 2014 at the microsoft conference. I really like that Cd Project red is one of the few developers who really care about pc gaming but as someone who has only a console i want to know what im geting in 2 months. Can we please see some console footage soon so we can compare. It is really annoying seeing amazing gameplay footage,trailers and keep wondering "ok,it looks amazing on pc,how much worse it is going to look on my ps4".

 

[thislsmadness]

I see all the gameplay videos and i don't know what to expect graphically anymore. I m buying the ps4 version, so should iexpect much worse than the January video which apparently was on a really powerful pc (gtx 980 i7 4970k). We havent seen console footage since e3 2014 at the microsoft conference. I really like that Cd Project red is one of the few developers who really care about pc gaming but as someone who has only a console i want to know what im geting in 2 months. Can we please see some console footage soon so we can compare. It is really annoying seeing amazing gameplay footage,trailers and keep wondering "ok,it looks amazing on pc,how much worse it is going to look on my ps4".

Unless they embargo the game past the release date (highly unlikely) then you'll know what youre getting before then.

 

[prince_of_nothing]

35 FPS, who said smooth as butter lie, because the "60 fps" video runs at 30 - 40, never pass 40.

Vigilance already addressed this. Apparently, all the videos are running at 30 FPS, which of course is no indication of the actual frame rate of the game itself.

The 35 minute video they released last year, has visibly lower performance than the one they released in January though..

the 5 metters is an aye assumption, i'll give you your 10, bad LOD anyway, characters shadows are invisible and appeared in front of the player in the video. I can take a shot of that. Grass doesn't cast any shadow.

Actually I watched the footage again, and you're right. The reason I think for this is another performance enhancing mechanic. Dynamic shadows, which are used for characters, monsters and animals are one of the most taxing features for any GPU to run.

So limiting the draw distance would help to preserve performance for not only the consoles, but mid range PCs which will likely be running the game on high settings. Now whether this sticks for ultra remains to be seen. I don't think a high end gaming PC would have difficulty extending the draw distance out further for dynamic shadows..

---------- Updated at 01:24 AM ----------

so you are saying that for running this game on the same graphical quality than console,you need a gtx 780?
to run it on "medium"??
there is less than 20% power difference between a 780 and a 980,if you can't max this game with a 780,you will not be able to fully maximize it with a 980 either.
I don't know what kind of spell can be used to make a ps4 gpu render with the speed of a 780 gtx.

GTX 980 is more than 20% faster than a 780. More like 30%, but in games that make use of a lot of compute shaders, the difference can grow all the way up to 50% faster..

 

[SageFox.326]

This is simply an error in file information. CDPR's B-Roll footage of every Gameplay Demo has been incorrectly labelled as 60FPS when they are in-fact only running at 30FPS (Max). Not 35, not 40 - 30, Max.
It has absolutely nothing to do with bad optimization, or the "rig" CDPR is using for those demos being incapable of pushing above 30FPS yet the video is allowing it - No. It is simply misinformation listed on the videos details and to this day CDPR have never actually released a Gameplay video/trailer to the public that goes above 30FPS, and they have never released one that is meant to go above 30.

I know your apparent "issue" in regards to this entire matter goes beyond that, and usually I'd just facepalm and move on, but I thought I'd actually just clarify this one for you in-case this particular train of thought you have is actually causing you to think something that simply isn't true.

The video on youtube is uploaded to the 60 FPS server for 60 FPS , not only labeled in name as 60 FPS. Bu the point is that the video isn't 60 FPS, but 30 neither, it is 35 FPS AVERAGE, it's not an error from any one, it's not a label, it's not an opinion, it's the video running at that speed, fluctuations shows the ingame FPS. And you are totally wrong, there is 60 FPS videos from previous gameplays like the 35 mins video.

 

[prince_of_nothing]

Sorry, Kellhus, but while this - at least to a certain degree - might be a matter of perception, calling the PC version on high settings "significantly better looking" than its PS4 counterpart seems to exaggerate what editor Michael Graf (the guy who previewed Witcher 3 for Gamestar) reported. Yes, the game on PC with high settings enabled will undoubtedly look superior to what is achievable on PS4, no surprise there, but the gist of his analysis seemed to be that the differences, overall, are NOT that signifacant.

Haha, someone finally gets the "Prince of Nothing" reference! Anyway, perhaps it's exaggerated. But the point is that high settings on PC does not equal what the PS4 is running at, unlike what was previously thought. CDPR themselves at one point said the PS4 would be running at high settings at 1080p 30 FPS, but we now know this isn't the case.

In fact, he reiterated what he wrote in the article in a video stream that was posted shortly afterwards on the site, saying that "while the PC version looks the best out of the three, admittedly, on PS4 the game looks nevertheless really great and the visual downgrading is almost imperceptible when sitting in a normal viewing distance from your TV screen (not counting pop-ins, I guess).

I agree that the Witcher 3 is going to be an exceptionally looking game, on all platforms..

Again, not doubting the PC version's advantages in both the graphics and performance department when played on an appropriately powerful system, just that "significantly better looking" is somewhat at odds with what the guy actually reported.

We won't really know the final answer until the game ships, because ultra settings have not been specified yet. But we do know that ultra settings will likely contain various Gameworks technologies like hairworks, better tessellation, better physics, more post processing, better ambient occlusion and higher quality textures at the very least..

Also draw distance and shadow quality should be much better on ultra settings, assuming your PC can handle it.

---------- Updated at 01:34 AM ----------

And you are totally wrong, there is 60 FPS videos from previous gameplays like the 35 mins video.

Do you know where I can download it? I only have the 30 FPS version..

 

[SageFox.326]

Haha, someone finally gets the "Prince of Nothing" reference! Anyway, perhaps it's exaggerated. But the point is that high settings on PC does not equal what the PS4 is running at, unlike what was previously thought. CDPR themselves at one point said the PS4 would be running at high settings at 1080p 30 FPS, but we now know this isn't the case.


I agree that the Witcher 3 is going to be an exceptionally looking game, on all platforms..



We won't really know the final answer until the game ships, because ultra settings have not been specified yet. But we do know that ultra settings will likely contain various Gameworks technologies like hairworks, better tessellation, better physics, more post processing, better ambient occlusion and higher quality textures at the very least..

Also draw distance and shadow quality should be much better on ultra settings, assuming your PC can handle it.

---------- Updated at 01:34 AM ----------



Do you know where I can download it? I only have the 30 FPS version..

The link is somewhere in this forum, don't remember the thread or where the link was, i think it was MEGA.

Found this: http://www.gamersyde.com/download_the_witcher_3_wild_hunt_35_minutes_gameplay-32805_en.html

 

[Tokei-ihto]

I see all the gameplay videos and i don't know what to expect graphically anymore. I m buying the ps4 version, so should iexpect much worse than the January video which apparently was on a really powerful pc (gtx 980 i7 4970k). We havent seen console footage since e3 2014 at the microsoft conference. I really like that Cd Project red is one of the few developers who really care about pc gaming but as someone who has only a console i want to know what im geting in 2 months. Can we please see some console footage soon so we can compare. It is really annoying seeing amazing gameplay footage,trailers and keep wondering "ok,it looks amazing on pc,how much worse it is going to look on my ps4".

Unless you are really into the minutia of graphics and put excessive value on shading, AA, extremely detailed textures, long draw distances etc. you should be fine. As I mentioned in my previous post on the last page, the PS4 version appears to be shaping up nicely. No, Witcher 3 on consoles won't be quite as impressive visually as on a powerful PC, but that shouldn't dissuate you from enjoying the game (which, hopefully, will be so much more than just a graphical showcase).

Put it this way: Even if the PS4 version doesn't quite match the PC one on high settings, it in all likelihood will still be the best looking game for the system released so far. Also, do you really think the majority of people who buy this on PC have a powerful enough rig to actually max out (high, let alone ultra) the graphics? It's important to keep in mind that forums like this are not really representative of the actual gaming community. The people boasting about their Skynet-level computers here that will be able to run the game in all its shining glory probably constitute not even one percent of the people that will eventually play the Witcher 3. Most of them on console (whether XBoxOne or PS4). More than a few on a PC that just about manages minimum requirements. A lot of people that will have to settle with a mixture of low and mid settings. And so on ...

 

[SageFox.326]

I think that is possible that the last gameplays have better graphics than some previous one, that would be interesting. I find some differences in sun light, looks better to me than the 35 gameplay video. Is possible that this and maybe other things make a difference in FPS. I also remember some gameplay shown labeled as "xbox one" gameplay, so is also possible that the game is even better. My concern is about performance, high settings with a gtx 980 is just too much at 35 FPS, it needs to be something more, not asking for 60 constant FPS for such a game with this graphics.

 

[Tokei-ihto]

@prince_of_nothing

True. But then I was referrring mainly to the Gamestar preview of Graf and his assessment of the three versions that were available during the gameplay demonstration back in January.

PS: It seems that R. Scott Bakker is still somewhat of a insider's tip.

 

[SageFox.326]

Unless you are really into the minutia of graphics and put excessive value on shading, AA, extremely detailed textures, long draw distances etc. you should be fine. As I mentioned in my previous post on the last page, the PS4 version appears to be shaping up nicely. No, Witcher 3 on consoles won't be quite as impressive visually as on a powerful PC, but that shouldn't dissuate you from enjoying the game (which, hopefully, will be so much more than just a graphical showcase).

Put it this way: Even if the PS4 version doesn't quite match the PC one on high settings, it in all likelihood will still be the best looking game for the system released so far. Also, do you really think the majority of people who buy this on PC have a powerful enough rig to actually max out (high, let alone ultra) the graphics? It's important to keep in mind that forums like this are not really representative of the actual gaming community. The people boasting about their Skynet-level computers here that will be able to run the game in all its shining glory probably constitute not even one percent of the people that will eventually play the Witcher 3. Most of them on console (whether XBoxOne or PS4). More than a few on a PC that just about manages minimum requirements. A lot of people that will have to settle with a mixture of low and mid settings. And so on ...

CDPR stated that the game looks almost the same in all three platforms. The difference to play it nicer on PC would require a very powerful system says CDPR. I read every article about the witcher and this is what the guys say about the graphics and platforms.

The game will be amazing and wont be compromised on PS4, PC is about time to know if the AMD setups are improved a little.

Yes The Witcher 3 will be the best PS4 game as the best Xbox One game and best PC game, almost no doubt about it.

 

[thislsmadness]

The link is somewhere in this forum, don't remember the thread or where the link was, i think it was MEGA.

Found this: http://www.gamersyde.com/download_the_witcher_3_wild_hunt_35_minutes_gameplay-32805_en.html

Like Vigilance said, that is incorrectly labeled. Just at a glance you can tell that that is not even close to 60FPS. Its similar to a few pages back in this thread where someone posted a "60FPS" version of the Nvidia video, when its really just the same thing the OP posted.

edit: In fact, gamersyde explains why they put "60FPS" in the info

CD Project Red release this gigantic video showing nothing less than 35 minutes of The Witcher 3 gameplay. It's worth mentioning that while the video is encoded at 60 fps, the game itself runs at around 30 here.
Considering the file size, only torrent is available for download, also be patient for the stream encoding!

http://www.gamersyde.com/news_35_minutes_of_the_witcher_3-15756_en.html

 

[SageFox.326]

Like Vigilance said, that is incorrectly labeled. Just at a glance you can tell that that is not even close to 60FPS. Its similar to a few pages back in this thread where someone posted a "60FPS" version of the Nvidia video, when its really just the same thing the OP posted.

edit: In fact, gamersyde explains why they put "60FPS" in the info



http://www.gamersyde.com/news_35_minutes_of_the_witcher_3-15756_en.html

The 60 FPS encoded video is reasonable and logic since the game is running worst now. But the game running at 35 FPS or 30 with a GTX 980 is a problem.

"At the recommended requirements for PC will reach 30 or 60 frames? I think we'll display 30 frames. Until the end we are going to work on performance, it is crucial that the machines are very diverse. Developers extremely sought is that we should not practice demagogy and nobody cheated, substring announced requirements with lower specifications. It is as we wrote, can only get better." (interview with CDPR head)

Well 30 is not better than 35. The lag is noticeable even 30 FPS caped in some parts.

 

[thislsmadness]

The 60 FPS encoded video is reasonable and logic since the game is running worst now. But the game running at 35 FPS or 30 with a GTX 980 is a problem.

"At the recommended requirements for PC will reach 30 or 60 frames? I think we'll display 30 frames. Until the end we are going to work on performance, it is crucial that the machines are very diverse. Developers extremely sought is that we should not practice demagogy and nobody cheated, substring announced requirements with lower specifications. It is as we wrote, can only get better." (interview with CDPR head)

Well 30 is not better than 35. The lag is noticeable even 30 FPS caped in some parts.

The fact that the game is running at 30FPS on 980 is exactly one of the reasons its not out already, they still had plenty of optimization when that was said. Just look at the gains AC:Unity made in a month. People who got the game before the day one patch could barely manage 60FPS with SLI 980s.

 

[alexanderros]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't CD Projekt RED said the demo machine with gtx 980 will run on Ultra? Not sure where I heard it, but I think somewhere here on the forums

 

[prince_of_nothing]

The 60 FPS encoded video is reasonable and logic since the game is running worst now. But the game running at 35 FPS or 30 with a GTX 980 is a problem.

"At the recommended requirements for PC will reach 30 or 60 frames? I think we'll display 30 frames. Until the end we are going to work on performance, it is crucial that the machines are very diverse. Developers extremely sought is that we should not practice demagogy and nobody cheated, substring announced requirements with lower specifications. It is as we wrote, can only get better." (interview with CDPR head)

Well 30 is not better than 35. The lag is noticeable even 30 FPS caped in some parts.

But he was referring to recommended specs, and not a GTX 980. Recommended specs for the Witcher 3 are a GTX 770 or an R9 290. A GTX 980 is anywhere from 50% to 80% faster than a GTX 770 depending on the game..

30 FPS will be targeted for recommended specs, but in the end after optimization and driver tweaking, I'm sure frame rates over 30 FPS will be achieved..

---------- Updated at 04:03 AM ----------

PS: It seems that R. Scott Bakker is still somewhat of a insider's tip.

Yep, and thats a damn shame. I rate him above George R. R. Martin easily..

---------- Updated at 04:05 AM ----------

The fact that the game is running at 30FPS on 980 is exactly one of the reasons its not out already, they still had plenty of optimization when that was said. Just look at the gains AC:Unity made in a month. People who got the game before the day one patch could barely manage 60FPS with SLI 980s.

Yeah, and driver optimizations can make a big impact as well. I remember when NVidia released the 347.xx drivers for Maxwell, and I got a 10 FPS increase in AC Unity just from that alone..

---------- Updated at 04:06 AM ----------

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't CD Projekt RED said the demo machine with gtx 980 will run on Ultra? Not sure where I heard it, but I think somewhere here on the forums

Yeah, it was in the Gamestar.de's preview that Guy N'way translated..

 

[amfibiya89]

Yes totally. It seems obvious to me. The hair in GDC are the same that in the 35 minutes trailer where it was on (just compare griffin head fur and hair in this one with the hands on video). It is far more realistic in the GDC video. In hands on video the base of poney tail is rigid. Here it was a lot more flexible. Well I might be wrong but I m sure Hairwork is on on GDC video.

Yes. I remember now. In 35 min demo hair was same with GDC. And there hairwork was enabled. So, is the wolf''s fur was hairwork enabled too? i cant understand anything at this quality of video

---------- Updated at 08:35 AM ----------

Not sure why its deactivated there, in the january video rocks like that cast shadows in the ground, it might be because of the day time, when the sun is not "high up" enough yet, it wouldnt reach those rocks and hit them directly with light in order to have projected shadows. Geralt's shadow is very long, which indicates that kind of position from the sun.

Grass projected shadows arent in the january video though, and the lack of HBAO makes it even more apparent, but it will improve by release I bet. They dont appear neither in SOD or VGX however.

Where did you see the rocks cast shadow in January footage? little roks are not casting shadow in this game at all. And did not cast in January footage too.

 

[shtempik]

The question is if GTX 970 can handle Ultra 1080p 30 FPS with say 2xAA or 4xAA?
Seems like it's the most popular card at the moment, having good value and performance for it's cost.

 

[thislsmadness]

The question is if GTX 970 can handle Ultra 1080p 30 FPS with say 2xAA or 4xAA?
Seems like it's the most popular card at the moment, having good value and performance for it's cost.

The recommended specs are a gtx 770 for high. They said that a 980 should handle ultra. So my guess would be that a 970 could be a mix of high and ultra settings.