Witcher 3

Anyone seen any XO footage yet? I'm concerned if the PS4 has had a downgrade as to what the XO will look like.
 
Heisenberg said:
How can you say the downgrade in graphics is acceptable? If it was any other dev they would be getting slated from all angles. Remember Watch Dogs which was still a great looking game tbh. The game looks nice from the videos i've seen but the downgrade from what was originally shown a year ago is shocking in my opinion.
Click to expand...

People should have learned from Watchdogs that early footage is BS, just like screenshots. It's just made to build hype for games. As development goes on, they realise the average PC and consoles cannot actually handle those graphics once they've added everything else like AI and larger areas. I only care about gameplay anyway, and will be playing this on PS4 since I sold my PC, so I have no high expectations for the graphics.
 
Heisenberg said:
How can you say the downgrade in graphics is acceptable? If it was any other dev they would be getting slated from all angles. Remember Watch Dogs which was still a great looking game tbh. The game looks nice from the videos i've seen but the downgrade from what was originally shown a year ago is shocking in my opinion.
Click to expand...
He didn't say acceptable, he said understandable. I agree with that. While it would be lovely if the game looked as great as it did a year or so ago, for it to look that good might mean the performance is horrible, or beset with constant loading screens. I would rather take a downgrade in visual fidelity to make sure the game runs smoothly and with as little interruption as possible. It's not ideal, but it's certainly understandable.

I think the problem people have is that they believe devs are pulling a bait and switch on us, luring us in with a game they know will never look that good. I genuinely believe that is never the case. If anything, I think it's mainly a case of the devs having aims which can't be realistically met with current hardware. It sucks, but it happens. It'll happen again, so I think it's best we all get used to the idea that some games won't look as good as we hope they will. The Division is one I expect will suffer the same fate. As long as it plays as well as it should though, I'll be happy enough.
 
Davey_Pitch said:
He didn't say acceptable, he said understandable. I agree with that. While it would be lovely if the game looked as great as it did a year or so ago, for it to look that good might mean the performance is horrible, or beset with constant loading screens. I would rather take a downgrade in visual fidelity to make sure the game runs smoothly and with as little interruption as possible. It's not ideal, but it's certainly understandable.

I think the problem people have is that they believe devs are pulling a bait and switch on us, luring us in with a game they know will never look that good. I genuinely believe that is never the case. If anything, I think it's mainly a case of the devs having aims which can't be realistically met with current hardware. It sucks, but it happens. It'll happen again, so I think it's best we all get used to the idea that some games won't look as good as we hope they will. The Division is one I expect will suffer the same fate. As long as it plays as well as it should though, I'll be happy enough.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I mean, and I even meant to mention The Division too as a game that was almost certainly not look as good as what we've been shown. Like you say, I think the devs aim high and then as the game develops and they do proper testing they realise they need to tone things down to get a playable game.
 
McBain said:
Would imagine the PC equivalent of this thread has blown up :p
Click to expand...

You are correct, which is why i'm posting here.

In other news, collectors edition (with banana for scale)

F0paCqe.png
 
MOOGLEYS said:
I think it's more the PC version has been cut back to match the consoles from what I was reading ?
Click to expand...
Has that been confirmed or is it just a rumour from people trying to explain why the PC version doesn't look as good as they hope? "Oh it looks worse, must be because of the consoles".
 
I still think it looks amazing, even on consoles. Screenshots never do a game justice anyway, it's all about seeing it in motion in my opinion. I'm very excited by this, can't wait until the 19th :)
 
Davey_Pitch said:
Has that been confirmed or is it just a rumour from people trying to explain why the PC version doesn't look as good as they hope? "Oh it looks worse, must be because of the consoles".
Click to expand...

It's mainly people jumping on a hate bandwagon, i don't care about the graphics at all - as long as the gameplay is there.
 
Davey_Pitch said:
He didn't say acceptable, he said understandable. I agree with that. While it would be lovely if the game looked as great as it did a year or so ago, for it to look that good might mean the performance is horrible, or beset with constant loading screens. I would rather take a downgrade in visual fidelity to make sure the game runs smoothly and with as little interruption as possible. It's not ideal, but it's certainly understandable.

I think the problem people have is that they believe devs are pulling a bait and switch on us, luring us in with a game they know will never look that good. I genuinely believe that is never the case. If anything, I think it's mainly a case of the devs having aims which can't be realistically met with current hardware. It sucks, but it happens. It'll happen again, so I think it's best we all get used to the idea that some games won't look as good as we hope they will. The Division is one I expect will suffer the same fate. As long as it plays as well as it should though, I'll be happy enough.
Click to expand...

You do realise when they are building the game, they know the hardware available. Therefore how can you say they are not doing a bait and switch? The devs would have known full well the graphics shown in earlier builds was unachievable so it was clearly to get pre order numbers up and build excitement for the game. It's poor practice. Everyone sticking up for CDPR would have stuck the boot into Ubisoft/EA. I'll happily eat my words if the game looks decent on release but from what we've seen, it looks about the same as Witcher 2.
 
Heisenberg said:
You do realise when they are building the game, they know the hardware available. Therefore how can you say they are not doing a bait and switch?
Click to expand...

And you do realise that showcasing a tiny part of a game is vastly different to having the entire game running don't you? Making a gameplay demo for a conference like E3 requires a tiny part of the game world to run. When you then expand that to include the entire game world, that's when they will likely hit problems. The processing power needed to run every process at once at the original graphical level would probably reduce the FPS to a crawl. I'd imagine they then had a choice - reduce the complexity of the game world, and what it can do, or reduce the graphical demands. Considering most gamers value gameplay over graphics (and rightly so), they reduce the graphical level. Like I said, I'd put it down to over-ambition on the part of the developers (perhaps over estimating their own abilities as much as what the hardware can achieve) rather than an intentional bait and switch. I don't like it, and I'm not saying I want to see it happen, but I do understand why it happens.

Everyone sticking up for CDPR would have stuck the boot into Ubisoft/EA.
Click to expand...

Not everyone. I for one never stuck the boot into Ubisoft for Watch Dogs, which was probably the worst culprit for this. I enjoyed Watch Dogs a lot, even if it did look different to the original E3 build.
 
Remember mind, when first announced the xb1 or ps4 hadnt been shown. Think the trailers ended with coming to pc and something else like high end consoles or something cany remember. So maybe when they actually got to grips with the consoles they found they were over ambitious originally or something?

Its crappy but may be part if it
 
Heisenberg said:
Whatever way it's dressed up, it is wrong in my opinion. Basically advertising a different product than what we will get to play.
Click to expand...
That's your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. I would agree with you if I felt they were doing it deliberately, but as I said, I honestly don't think that's the case. I guess we'll never really know either way tbh, the devs would never admit it, even if you were right.
 
"We’ve crossed the 1 million pre-order milestone and it’s all thanks to you guys! We would like to thank all the gamers for their trust and support. This is the last stretch and we’re pushing hard – over the last two weeks, we’ve increased performance on all platforms and started working full speed on the expansions, Hearts of Stone & Blood and Wine."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom