- Status
sure i can. this is on the same engine on new gen systems. t should NOT look worse.
farcry is a sandbox. da:i is open-world. (yes. it is the same thing. tw3 streams- it doesnt load thewhole thing at once)
fact is, tw3 looks like a 2002 game. it looks like rubbish.
I wouuld suspect that tw2 and tw3 have the same amount of world data loaded at any given time.
Ok. Large open world and dynamic weather. cool. Still looks worse.
Added effects, or map size do not change that fact.
Surgery time.
This is going to be locked for around 10 minutes while I remove part of it, because the way the thread started doesn't really lead to civilised discussion. It may also get a title change.
Some posts will be deleted simply because they're in response to deleted posts. If any of those concerned wish to re-state what was in them, you are welcome to do so. However, if there are further signs of flamebaiting, expect further moderator action. So keep it polite.
Thread re-opened.
Some posts will be deleted simply because they're in response to deleted posts. If any of those concerned wish to re-state what was in them, you are welcome to do so. However, if there are further signs of flamebaiting, expect further moderator action. So keep it polite.
Thread re-opened.
I suggest you avoid such comments. If you want this discussion to continue, respect the opinions of others.
Last edited:
its a shame, I can live with the visuals, of coarse we can all live with it, but its a shame, and it hurts allot as a fan. All that can be hoped or shown to be wanting is that CDPR at some point free up the game and put back those things that a game like this, as the pinnacle of quality with its superb gameplay, story etc, deserves to reach its greatest potential.
It hurts because there was 0 doubt in my mind, from E3, this would be the best looking game the world had ever seen. unfortunately, it is not even the best looking game the 2000s had seen.
Far more importantly consoles and high end PCs have vastly different capabilities.
It makes zero sense to create a game that can only be played on the top 5% of PCs because only they can achieve the graphic quality and an acceptable frame rate.
Last edited:
It was that good looking, and that has allot to do with how CDPR kind of turned into this idyllic game company, at least imo. I wont deny I get that idea sometimes though that is a large exaggeration. I'm reminded of one game in specific weirdly enough though that may have something to do not only with visuals. Ever played Saboteur?
Last edited:
Thats what the Ultra settings were meant for. But...
"Your chins will drop when you see Witcher 3 on ultra the first time". Remember that Quote? Well my chin did drop, but more in disbelieve than anything else.
You have probably forgotten how 2002 open world RPGs looked like, let me refresh your memory with this screen: http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120612140146/elderscrolls/images/f/f9/Morrowind_HighElf.jpg
And now for the love of god stop with the hyperboles...
I agree, people just take a screenshot from both W2 and W3 and go THERE look at the difference, firstly, it doesn't show the game in motion, secondly, W2 is not an open-world game, it is actually quite linear and without Dynamic Weather and Time of Day effects. All these threads started before TES Morrowind, Oblivion and Skyrim were released, certain people think that just because the game has been introduced to consoles that it is going to suffer from some graphical reduction, and they go looking for proof even if it is unwarranted!
---------- Updated at 09:34 AM ----------
What are you talking about? It does make a difference, W3 is OPEN-WORLD, it is much larger than even Skyrim, you cannot seriously think that it should look like or better than W2 which is not? If so you don't know much about programming or game development. If they had the graphics of W2 in W3 then all you PC gamers would be complaining that you cannot run the game in 4k without turning every effect off, or how you need a Cray Supercomputer to run it. No-one has mentioned how seamlessly the game world runs either, very few loading screens even going in and out of buildings, this keeps you suspended in the world. Been there done that, pre-release of other games it is all the same comments, Morrowind, Oblivion and even Skyrim suffered from the same criticism and everyone made the same posts over and over again swearing they were right and everyone else is wrong. Meanwhile the people who love the game are off playing it and ignoring threads like these because they appear ridiculous compared to reality in most peoples eyes.
Last edited:
Mhm...
http://abload.de/img/292030_2015-05-19_00089oxv.png
http://abload.de/img/292030_2015-05-19_0007jq50.png
http://abload.de/img/292030_2015-05-19_000r3ov3.png
Good luck RedEngine2.
(Edit: Seriously, I had to kill a Harpy 10+ levels higher than me and run away with shit in my britches from a ?? Fiend, Basilisk, Earth Elemental & Wyvern to reach that spot.)
http://abload.de/img/292030_2015-05-19_00089oxv.png
http://abload.de/img/292030_2015-05-19_0007jq50.png
http://abload.de/img/292030_2015-05-19_000r3ov3.png
Good luck RedEngine2.
(Edit: Seriously, I had to kill a Harpy 10+ levels higher than me and run away with shit in my britches from a ?? Fiend, Basilisk, Earth Elemental & Wyvern to reach that spot.)
Last edited:
My modded Skyrim is killing Witcher3 in case of textures and foliage in its current state. Cant believe i said that.. 0_o, but its true
Proof? Even modded Skyrim cant compete with W3 on High-Ultra settings. Skyrim isn't as large and has loading screens all over the place btw, W3 does not.My modded Skyrim is killing Witcher3 in case of textures and foliage in its current state. Cant believe i said that.. 0_o, but its true
I was braced for a graphical downgrade but how much of a downgrade i didn't even phantom before i had it smacked in my face. This was worse than feared tbh.
The trees ,grass etc is just terrible and geralt looks like a plasgtic figure in the intro scene in the tub, remember that wet tech back in early 2000. What is even more annoying is that my rig is not even close to be running this smoothly??? got a 780gtx card with 4770k cpu 8gb ram. normaly this rig should be blasting away with 120fps with this kind of graphics. I must settle for medium grahpics to play at 15-30 frames as it is i just can't spoil the story and play it atm, just hoping for some serious optimalization and some facelift in the future. What happended during this production?
And to some of my fellow poster yes TW2 has much better graphics.
The trees ,grass etc is just terrible and geralt looks like a plasgtic figure in the intro scene in the tub, remember that wet tech back in early 2000. What is even more annoying is that my rig is not even close to be running this smoothly??? got a 780gtx card with 4770k cpu 8gb ram. normaly this rig should be blasting away with 120fps with this kind of graphics. I must settle for medium grahpics to play at 15-30 frames
as it is i just can't spoil the story and play it atm, just hoping for some serious optimalization and some facelift in the future. What happended during this production?And to some of my fellow poster yes TW2 has much better graphics.
dont be ridiculous dude, skyrim modded looks better than everything else that the market has to offer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5MOykfGoiA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRizOpuMGJM
i am not saying the witcher 3 isnt a beautiful game, in fact it is a really beautiful game. the reason why games with mods often look better is that modders dont care about optimisation, while developers do. take the unmodded version of skyrim for instance, it looks like utter garbage and it requires ton of mods to make it look good, which comes with a defty price of performance. Also i am thinking that there will be a lof visual mods for the witcher3 as well.
Last edited:
Weird as this guy has got a machine nearly identical to yours and he runs on ultra including hairworks and it's around 30 - 35 fps. Of course he's only in the tutorial area in this video but from other videos I have seen there isn't hardly any dip in FPS when going to the prologue area. Maybe it's the overclock?I was braced for a graphical downgrade but how much of a downgrade i didn't even phantom before i had it smacked in my face. This was worse than feared tbh.
The trees ,grass etc is just terrible and geralt looks like a plasgtic figure in the intro scene in the tub, remember that wet tech back in early 2000. What is even more annoying is that my rig is not even close to be running this smoothly??? got a 780gtx card with 4770k cpu 8gb ram. normaly this rig should be blasting away with 120fps with this kind of graphics. I must settle for medium grahpics to play at 15-30 frames
And to some of my fellow poster yes TW2 has much better graphics.
But you are sure you don't have a driver issue or something of the like?
Just trying to help
Last edited:
The Witcher 3 looks very good for a console game, but it is underwhelming when it is maxed out on PC as a game that is running on DX11 in 2015. The low res 2D foliage and some textures such as the one on brick walls are just not good enough.
People who say what is the point of making a game that only 5% of PC gamers who have top the line specs can max out, are missing the whole point of PC gaming. PC games should push the boundaries to the limit and take advantage of the superior hardware. PC games have settings to enable the People with lower specs to drop the settings in order to play the game. The same players can go back and max the game out and have their jaws drop, when the new hardware come and they upgrade in a year or more. Witcher 2 was such a game that people did go back to and even used as a benchmark. Of course people who have spent thousands of dollars on their PCs can enjoy these games with their full glory at release, and it is fair because they are getting what they have paid for.
I disagree that we should cut developers slack and excuse graphical shortcoming because of the openness and vastness of the world. People used to say the same things about the side quests and fetch quests in RPGs and open worlds in general, but CDPR themselves have broken those boundaries with the Witcher 3. The sheer amount of work and care that was put into the story telling and even minor side quests is unmatched and it makes the Witcher 3 unique and revolutionary, but there is nothing revolutionary about the Witcher 3's graphics as a PC game. There is nothing revolutionary about the Witcher 3's graphics on the PC, because the effort that was put into it was not enough to make it legendary.
You may say that my expectations are too high, and yes my expectations are too high because nothing has changed for the better and boundaries have not been pushed with low or even average expectations.
I'm not saying that CDPR dropped the ball when it came down to PC, but they could have done more.
People who say what is the point of making a game that only 5% of PC gamers who have top the line specs can max out, are missing the whole point of PC gaming. PC games should push the boundaries to the limit and take advantage of the superior hardware. PC games have settings to enable the People with lower specs to drop the settings in order to play the game. The same players can go back and max the game out and have their jaws drop, when the new hardware come and they upgrade in a year or more. Witcher 2 was such a game that people did go back to and even used as a benchmark. Of course people who have spent thousands of dollars on their PCs can enjoy these games with their full glory at release, and it is fair because they are getting what they have paid for.
I disagree that we should cut developers slack and excuse graphical shortcoming because of the openness and vastness of the world. People used to say the same things about the side quests and fetch quests in RPGs and open worlds in general, but CDPR themselves have broken those boundaries with the Witcher 3. The sheer amount of work and care that was put into the story telling and even minor side quests is unmatched and it makes the Witcher 3 unique and revolutionary, but there is nothing revolutionary about the Witcher 3's graphics as a PC game. There is nothing revolutionary about the Witcher 3's graphics on the PC, because the effort that was put into it was not enough to make it legendary.
You may say that my expectations are too high, and yes my expectations are too high because nothing has changed for the better and boundaries have not been pushed with low or even average expectations.
I'm not saying that CDPR dropped the ball when it came down to PC, but they could have done more.
Last edited:
there was no huge downgrade, only the lod distance got reduce a bit and a few textures were lowered , but the overall difference lies within the coler correction and sharpening effect, but those are just a personal preference, that barely cost any fps anywayI was braced for a graphical downgrade but how much of a downgrade i didn't even phantom before i had it smacked in my face. This was worse than feared tbh.
The trees ,grass etc is just terrible and geralt looks like a plasgtic figure in the intro scene in the tub, remember that wet tech back in early 2000. What is even more annoying is that my rig is not even close to be running this smoothly??? got a 780gtx card with 4770k cpu 8gb ram. normaly this rig should be blasting away with 120fps with this kind of graphics. I must settle for medium grahpics to play at 15-30 frames
And to some of my fellow poster yes TW2 has much better graphics.
http://i.imgur.com/TUT2Rud.jpg
by just adding a stronger sharpening effect and changing the color correction a bit, it make the game almost looks like the early 2013 footage
i didnt make this picture, credits go to someone else, forgot his username
Look at the trees and grass from 2013 and now, dont you see a difference. You only got cloned grass knolls and zero detail same with the tress. their faces is less detailed. color palette is very poor makes the game flat.
- Status