Witcher 3 downgrade arguments in here and nowhere else

Status
Not open for further replies.
MaLDo said:
a.gif


b.gif


c.gif


d.gif


e.gif


f.gif
Click to expand...
Yup, that's nice. Still don't care.
 
 
apav said:
Here's something I just don't understand.

Assuming the downgrade is due to parity (which seems kind of tin foil hat at surface level to think CDPR would do this until I read a dev supposedly flat out confirmed this was the reason, not to mention a few other games most notably Watch Dogs did this for the same reason), I just fail to understand why there must be parity. Unless Microsoft or Sony is paying them boatloads of cash, I see no reason for them to maim the PC version so it doesn't look better by leaps and bounds. I get the reasoning behind parity, so console gamers don't feel like they purchased an inferior product. But why must console gamers not feel like they purchased an inferior product? If you want the graphically better version, get or a build a powerful gaming PC and get it on PC. If you can't afford that, well sorry but that's life. As a general rule better products are usually more expensive. That's like saying Ferrari should use the same engine the Nissan Versa is using, so Nissan Versa owners don't feel like they bought a slower and all around inferior car. Where's the logic in that? (may not be a perfectly translatable analogy but you get the idea).

Of course there could be other reasons, like over-ambition and then facing the reality that they overextended themselves, or not having time to make a PC version then port a downgraded version to consoles. But parity seems so obvious because for whatever reasons dev's like to do this, I'm just not sure why unless money is involved, and I don't take CDPR as the greedy type. Whatever the case, it's just really disheartening to see CDPR turn out like this, and consoles certainly had some part in that.


Wait, what's this I'm reading about them shipping out an earlier build now? That seems like a colossal mistake too hard to miss before they went gold. I'll be dumbfounded if this patch greatly improves graphics and/or makes it look like the 2013 trailer. But I feel they are greatly over-exaggerating the so called improvements this patch will bring.
Click to expand...
I think the downgrade is simply because they couldn't produce a game with the texture quality etc as shown in those first few trailers in a reasonable amount of time with a reasonable budged. they would basically be throwing months of delays and some millions more in budget at stuff that in the next few years after release only a small portion of PC gamers would even be able to take advantage off, it's just a waste of time and money to go too far above and beyond console quality for most devs

which is perfectly fine and understandable from a business (and getting the game actually done) point of view, the problem is that for months they have been saying there is no downgrade and that people just need to wait for ultra screenshots, which is a bit of a dick move from a company that was usually seen as very pro consumer
 
Jedi2016 said:
Yup, that's nice. Still don't care.
Click to expand...

Why do you feel compelled to announce that?

As to the gifs, the first few really show the difference. The last one is actually a bit misleading, as detail has been added into the scene further up the road if memory serves.
 
Enosh said:
I think the downgrade is simply because they couldn't produce a game with the texture quality etc as shown in those first few trailers in a reasonable amount of time with a reasonable budged. they would basically be throwing months of delays and some millions more in budget at stuff that in the next few years after release only a small portion of PC gamers would even be able to take advantage off, it's just a waste of time and money to go too far above and beyond console quality for most devs

which is perfectly fine and understandable from a business (and getting the game actually done) point of view, the problem is that for months they have been saying there is no downgrade and that people just need to wait for ultra screenshots, which is a bit of a dick move from a company that was usually seen as very pro consumer
Click to expand...

VJ0TRao.gif
 
Sword Of Doom said:
How about everyone just wait until the game officially launches?
Click to expand...

We know that the 2013 trailer was a bullshot Ubi-style PR hype machine.

The game looks like what we saw for the last days. It looks good, really good.

Why we need to the game to actually launch? Is what it is, and no day one patch is going to magically add a version that probably never went far into production.

As someone that hoped Dark Souls 2 could end looking like the infamous gameplay video, abandon all hope.
 
Hoho for breakfast said:
Yep I'm just going to wait. I don't see how their won't be massive downgrades, but these too many of these comparisons being made are fucking ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous how? They may not be 100% accurate as people only have what CDPR has let out to compare them to. But they seem more than reasonable, especially MaLDo's comparisons.
 
DOWN said:
But can we not say ToD as a dismissal when we know the lighting engine was indeed downgraded for the newer images?
Click to expand...

We can when the scene in question is literally night and day. If you want to compare technical aspects that are uniform across both images, like texture resolution, go nuts. Or aesthetics in composition. But when the look of the original shot is heavily dependant on the gorgeous bright daytime lighting it's ludicrous to throw up a night shot and go "heyo, downgrade". These kinds of comparisons do not assist discussion on technical aspects of the game and what may or may not have been downgraded.
 
Enosh said:
I think the downgrade is simply because they couldn't produce a game with the texture quality etc as shown in those first few trailers in a reasonable amount of time with a reasonable budged. they would basically be throwing months of delays and some millions more in budget at stuff that in the next few years after release only a small portion of PC gamers would even be able to take advantage off, it's just a waste of time and money to go too far above and beyond console quality for most devs

which is perfectly fine and understandable from a business (and getting the game actually done) point of view, the problem is that for months they have been saying there is no downgrade and that people just need to wait for ultra screenshots, which is a bit of a dick move from a company that was usually seen as very pro consumer
Click to expand...

I agree with you, that is a pretty dick move and not something I'd expect from such a pro consumer, anti DRM and honest developer. But if what you're saying is true, how did they get the game to look so good back in 2013? I'm guessing it was in engine footage (not actual gameplay) of what the engine is capable of? Or maybe it was a snippet of the actual game they had completed but they realized it would take forever for them to finish the game at this level of graphical fidelity, so they downgraded the work they had done so far (or even started over), lowered their goals on graphics and continued on?
 
Enosh said:
I think the downgrade is simply because they couldn't produce a game with the texture quality etc as shown in those first few trailers in a reasonable amount of time with a reasonable budged. they would basically be throwing months of delays and some millions more in budget at stuff that in the next few years after release only a small portion of PC gamers would even be able to take advantage off, it's just a waste of time and money to go too far above and beyond console quality for most devs

which is perfectly fine and understandable from a business (and getting the game actually done) point of view, the problem is that for months they have been saying there is no downgrade and that people just need to wait for ultra screenshots, which is a bit of a dick move from a company that was usually seen as very pro consumer
Click to expand...

Nice post.

I would like to play a little Devil's Advocate here though just a bit. I think the parity thing could backfire on them in the long term. Sure, if they want to see themselves as a top tier AAA developer, they may be happy with the front loaded sales of the game (we'll see come May NPD in the US). But by not "future proofing" their game for the PC crowd, they could be hurting themselves in the long term and for future projects. Basically, future proofing ensures that your game will endure the test of time and will continue to drive sales for itself as PC gamers and hardware advance. Crysis was a good example of this as people continued to go back to the game to see how their new and improved hardware could run the game. Could you improve some settings? More framerate? Etc. Some people may scoff at this, but this is a very real thing for a big segment of the community.

PC games aren't about front loaded sale. It's the marathon. Not the sprint. Why would you force parity with consoles and risk sabotaging your game with a rather large segment of your community. Because I will tell you this. No matter the reviews on this game, the console sales won't be as impressive as one may think.
 
apav said:
I agree with you, that is a pretty dick move and not something I'd expect from such a pro consumer, anti DRM and honest developer. But if what you're saying is true, how did they get the game to look so good back in 2013? I'm guessing it was in engine footage (not actual gameplay) of what the engine is capable of? Or maybe it was a snippet of the actual game they had completed but they realized it would take forever for them to finish the game at this level of graphical fidelity, so they downgraded the work they had done so far, lowered their goals on graphics and continued on?
Click to expand...

Apparently, SLI works really well with this game.
 
MaLDo said:
They are from the-game-that-not-existed to the-game-that-is-not-downgraded.
Click to expand...

I usually don't play devil's advocate, but since the geometry is mostly the same (while some objects in the bottom gif are completely missing), to me those comparisons look like about what you would expect sliding from low to high (or ultra).

Kintaro said:
I would like to play a little Devil's Advocate here though just a bit.
Click to expand...

LMAO.
 
GiantBomb video is up. Two hours of Xbox One footage, I think.

Skipped around the video, footage looks fine in motion.
 
Sanctuary said:
I usually don't play devil's advocate, but since the geometry is mostly the same (while some objects in the bottom gif are completely missing), to me those comparisons look like about what you would expect sliding from low to high (or ultra).
Click to expand...

Exactly. So bring on the real ultra and we'll see if it holds up. If it does (or doesn't), case closed and we can all move on (at least some of us can).
 
f.gif



This right here seems to show HBAO+ on and off. Or at least something similar. The grass definitely looks way more flat without it.
 
Sanctuary said:
I usually don't play devil's advocate, but since the geometry is mostly the same (while some objects in the bottom gif are completely missing), to me those comparisons look like about what you would expect sliding from low to high (or ultra).
Click to expand...

If you think the geometry is the same you need a new paír of glasses.


e.gif
 
Does anyone actually believe all this crap? There are many arguments I can make as to why the shots are bull but I can't be bothered if people don't just realize for themselves.

For example time of day differences, missing settings, console shots etc
 
Kintaro said:
Nice post.

I would like to play a little Devil's Advocate here though just a bit. I think the parity thing could backfire on them in the long term. Sure, if they want to see themselves as a top tier AAA developer, they may be happy with the front loaded sales of the game (we'll see come May NPD in the US). But by not "future proofing" their game for the PC crowd, they could be hurting themselves in the long term and for future projects. Basically, future proofing ensures that your game will endure the test of time and will continue to drive sales for itself as PC gamers and hardware advance. Crysis was a good example of this as people continued to go back to the game to see how their new and improved hardware could run the game. Could you improve some settings? More framerate? Etc. Some people may scoff at this, but this is a very real thing for a big segment of the community.

PC games aren't about front loaded sale. It's the marathon. Not the sprint. Why would you force parity with consoles and risk sabotaging your game with a rather large segment of your community. Because I will tell you this. No matter the reviews on this game, the console sales won't be as impressive as one may think.
Click to expand...

They've grown substantially since W2's time and everyone knows how expensive development is from so many different angles, that with GOG and them being an actual publishers changes how most perceive them.

But as you know PC gaming is never really stagnant and it's not as if they couldn't improve(and most assuredly will) substantially by the time they are ready to release the expansions. But even if they didn't change it, I think they plan on releasing the engine kit for modders and the like and I'd wager we'll eventually see it looking how some/most want it. Skyrim on PC properly modded looks like a completely different generation than the console versions.

Sales for it will be better than they've ever had in the past.

Sanctuary said:
I usually don't play devil's advocate, but since the geometry is mostly the same (while some objects in the bottom gif are completely missing), to me those comparisons look like about what you would expect sliding from low to high (or ultra).
Click to expand...

My thought's exactly.
etta said:
GiantBomb video is up. Two hours of Xbox One footage, I think.
Click to expand...
Thanks for letting us know. I was hoping they'd have something up today.
 
MaLDo said:
If you think the geometry is the same you need a new paír of glasses.


e.gif
Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing textures and shaders with geometry. Notice the word "mostly"? Because I'm pretty sure you quoted me saying that. And I don't need glasses, and never have.
 
ColonialRaptor said:
Does anyone actually believe all this crap? There are many arguments I can make as to why the shots are bull but I can't be bothered if people don't just realize for themselves.

For example time of day differences, missing settings, console shots etc
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't really buy much if it, and won't until the finished game is in hand. Some lowered graphics maybe, but some of these shots are just hilariously bad/washed out.
 
One of the ugly things you can see in most videos is how lighting isn't applied to character models or grass.

For example there was this scene with the witcher inside an house. It's all dark, but the hair are still rendered as if FULLBRIGHT, just a bright white.

Then a dialogue is initiated and you can see the hair get properly shaded by the lighting. Then the dialogue is over and you're back at fullbright.

More or less the same as Dark Souls 2. They completely trashed dynamic lighting.
 
Kintaro said:
Nice post.

I would like to play a little Devil's Advocate here though just a bit. I think the parity thing could backfire on them in the long term. Sure, if they want to see themselves as a top tier AAA developer, they may be happy with the front loaded sales of the game (we'll see come May NPD in the US). But by not "future proofing" their game for the PC crowd, they could be hurting themselves in the long term and for future projects. Basically, future proofing ensures that your game will endure the test of time and will continue to drive sales for itself as PC gamers and hardware advance. Crysis was a good example of this as people continued to go back to the game to see how their new and improved hardware could run the game. Could you improve some settings? More framerate? Etc. Some people may scoff at this, but this is a very real thing for a big segment of the community.

PC games aren't about front loaded sale. It's the marathon. Not the sprint. Why would you force parity with consoles and risk sabotaging your game with a rather large segment of your community. Because I will tell you this. No matter the reviews on this game, the console sales won't be as impressive as one may think.
Click to expand...

I agree with this as well. If max settings is only able to run smoothly on a small percentage of machines with the current hardware/operating system, that percentage will definitely increase over time as hardware gets better. What seems like a wasted investment now may actually drive up their sales in the long term, especially with things like mod support (if that catches on with this game, that is).

It isn't a smart business move to allocate substantially more time and budget into making the game look beautiful at settings only an ultra powerful PC can run smoothly. But we also don't know the performance of the 2013 and 2014 gameplay trailers, and if it would be substantially more of a hit in performance than the released game at max settings. If optimized well, the performance hit might not be as big as the difference in fidelity suggests. I'm sure with 2013 graphics, even high would look as good as the ultra version we're seeing now. The option to turn on insane graphics mode is always better than no option. CDPR left that us that option with ubersampling in Witcher 2.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Jason Schreier: Witcher 4 and Intergalactic Will Not Release in 2026
2 3
135
5K
Mibu no ookami replied
CD Projekt shares The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk 2077 sales data (digital/physical split, platform split, regional split)
2 3 4
170
8K
YeulEmeralda replied
[PCGamesN] Crimson Desert is an interweaving of Witcher 3, Dragon’s Dogma, and The Legend of Zelda
News Hype 
36
2K
peish replied
We've got to talk - S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 downgrade
2 3 4
169
13K
AMC124c41 replied
Better late than never! The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
Community 
27
2K
James Sawyer Ford replied
Top Bottom