Support NeoGAF

[Bamihap]

2013:
Boring style.
Monotone graphics. Everything looks the same.
Hard to read.
Drap colours.
No depth.
All kinds of shaders to help give depth to the place.

2015:
Way more readable due to better contrast, colour separation, use of colour.
Real depth due to building design. Shadows.
Way more texture diversity.
Backgrounds are set apart from the foreground.
Main character pop-out from the environment way more.

All in all: very good adjustments.

 

[tuxfool]

Can any of you all actually address him factually?

Belittling, deflectng and dismissing him kinda makes you all look worse then you perceive him as.

I mean is he wrong? Is CDPR not doing that? And haven't we all read at least a competent portion of this thread and know now that it is factually confirmed the early trailers are not achievable in the marketing that has been presented in the release version?

Similar lawsuits (referring to features cut from a game) have gone nowhere.

Personally they strike me as frivolous, especially considering all the media shown after 2013. Media won't be reviewing the 2013 vertical slices/game, Let's players and Youtubers won't be playing the 2013 version of the game.

As someone above said, will people be suing film productions when the final film does not contain scenes from trailers?

 

[MrRoflWaffles]

I'm not saying they should be sued. I'm just saying that what they are doing legally opens them up for class action lawsuits.

How any of you would be okay with them still showing the 2013 trailer on their page right now is kind of beyond me though. As both a gamer and consumer it does make me mad.

What is your opinion on how this problem should have been better handled by CDPR?

What should they have done, or what should they currently be doing, to make you sufficiently happy?

I'm not taking a side here, just curious about what you think the best move would be for CDPR. How do they fix the problems you see with the way they've promoted the game after-the-fact?

 

[Raven77]

I think it's difficult to say a work in progress is advertising. Games are iterative and so naturally they will change from their announcement to their release. Should Blizzard be sued because Diablo 3 was massively changed from what was shown in the announcement?

Again, they are showing the 2013 footage right now on the Witcher 3 home page on a constant loop.

What is your opinion on how this problem should have been better handled by CDPR?

What should they have done, or what should they currently be doing, to make you sufficiently happy?

I'm not taking a side here, just curious about what you think the best move would be for CDPR.

It's pretty easy actually, take down the 2013 trailer and any screenshots from their official page since that is not the game they are selling.

 

[Jedi2016]

Their advertising over the last year or so is pretty indicative of what the game looks like. If they were still openly advertising the 2013 trailer now, on TV and such, they might be open for some repercussions. But they aren't... everyone has a pretty good idea of what the game will really look like. Even if someone were stupid enough to try to take it to court, it would never see the light of day.

 

[Skyzard]

Yep, Raven77, and don't forget not to claim there will be no visual downgrade from the originally shown trailers, only improvements coming.

 

[Raven77]

Their advertising over the last year or so is pretty indicative of what the game looks like. If they were still openly advertising the 2013 trailer now, on TV and such, they might be open for some repercussions. But they aren't... everyone has a pretty good idea of what the game will really look like. Even if someone were stupid enough to try to take it to court, it would never see the light of day.

How many times do people have to post this. They are looping the 2013 better looking trailer on the Witcher 3 home page as I type this. In your words "now".

People who are interested in the game will go there, see that, possibly pre-order / purchase, then get a game that doesn't look like what they just saw today on the games home page.

 

[Bamihap]

So you have to grab 4 titans at the start of development and put out a video called gameplay to build hype?

Do you lot also have to lie about the changes?

We should be okay with that though because games.

It's a vertical slice. You make the best possible demo you can. Yes, you cheat a bit. You normally export all the textures at twice the resolution. For the vertical slice you don't lower those resolutions, because they look soo good.

It's a business. You need to impress consumers. It's a competitive market. You need to set your game apart from the rest. Gamers know this. Gamers encourage this. Gamers should have reasonable expectations. And guess what: gamers do it right! There are tens of thousands of sources for reviews. Read them, watch them. Google screenshots, watch twitch streams. There is no excuse to buy this game without informing yourself.

 

[Jonm1010]

I'm a game designer (other development studio). I know how this happens. And believe me, everyone on the dev team wants the game to look super pretty. But guess what: development happen during development.

Usually the game gets build super pretty for a vertical slice. Framerates aren't important because the code isn't optimised yet. There will be tons of improvements so hopefully we'll keep these shiny graphics. Than 1 year before release there is a meeting: "So the game has this audio system now. It allows for actual sounds in the game, it's pretty important but heavy on the system. So we'll have to cut some of the graphics.". Particles are heavy, cut those. Draw distance, texture quality, shaders, they all need to be turned down.

The devs make these changed not because they suck, or they're evil. They make these changed to make the best product possible for everyone. Vertical slices are almost always prettier than the final product. It's a tool to convince you, the consumer, the publisher and to inspire the development team.

Thats cool, but that doesnt excuse a developer that turns around and uses that early footage they know they had to cut back on as marketing fodder for the retail version they know will not feature those early graphical features.

It doesnt excuse them going on record and asserting a downgrade not only didn't happen when it did but assert that the final product will possibly exceed those early trailers in spite of knowing that the features cut will never come back.

That is where the problem comes in. Like I said a few pages back, put out a controlled leak like the interview with the anonymous developer on Witcher 3 a few games back and keep your official mouth shut and this whole thing blows over after a small controversy and subsequent disappointment for a short time.

 

[Yasae]

I'm a game designer (other development studio). I know how this happens. And believe me, everyone on the dev team wants the game to look super pretty. But guess what: development happen during development.

Usually the game gets build super pretty for a vertical slice. Framerates aren't important because the code isn't optimised yet. There will be tons of improvements so hopefully we'll keep these shiny graphics. Than 1 year before release there is a meeting: "So the game has this audio system now. It allows for actual sounds in the game, it's pretty important but heavy on the system. So we'll have to cut some of the graphics.". Particles are heavy, cut those. Draw distance, texture quality, shaders, they all need to be turned down.

The devs make these changed not because they suck, or they're evil. They make these changed to make the best product possible for everyone. Vertical slices are almost always prettier than the final product. It's a tool to convince you, the consumer, the publisher and to inspire the development team.

You're more honest about it than CDPR, though. Boom! That's the problem. You're also probably smart enough to not label super early trailers and whatnot with "in-game", because come on, that's stupid.

 

[Skyzard]

Sorry but misleading customers like that ought to have consequences.

It's a competitive market, actually make something better, don't pretend you have.

^yep @ Yasae

 

[Bamihap]

Thats cool, but that doesnt excuse a developer that turns around and uses that early footage they know they had to cut back on as marketing fodder for the retail version they know will not feature those early graphical features.

It doesnt excuse them going on record and asserting a downgrade not only didn't happen when it did but assert that the final product will possibly exceed those early trailers in spite of knowing that the features cut will never come back.

That is where the problem comes in. Like I said a few pages back, put out a controlled leak like the interview with the anonymous developer on Witcher 3 a few games back and keep your official mouth shut and this whole thing blows over after a small controversy and subsequent disappointment for a short time.

You are completely right. And you SHOULD let them know.

Also: don't pre-order games.

 

[Jonm1010]

Similar lawsuits (referring to features cut from a game) have gone nowhere.

Personally they strike me as frivolous, especially considering all the media shown after 2013. Media won't be reviewing the 2013 vertical slices, Let's players and Youtubers won't be playing the 2013 version of the game.

But is he factually wrong? Whether you think it is frivolous or not or whether you think the courts will find it frivolous or not, what he is saying is not wrong. CDPR are using unattainable footage from 2013 to market a game they knowingly cannot match the graphical quality of but continue to market it as retail game footage.

It is the equivalent of me advertising a supplement with 100% of an ingredient when I know the product is actually 30% filler.

From a purely business ethics standpoint it is deliberately misrepresenting your product. And it is reprehensible for many reasons.

 

[Alienous]

I'm a game designer (other development studio). I know how this happens. And believe me, everyone on the dev team wants the game to look super pretty. But guess what: development happen during development.

Usually the game gets build super pretty for a vertical slice. Framerates aren't important because the code isn't optimised yet. There will be tons of improvements so hopefully we'll keep these shiny graphics. Than 1 year before release there is a meeting: "So the game has this audio system now. It allows for actual sounds in the game, it's pretty important but heavy on the system. So we'll have to cut some of the graphics.". Particles are heavy, cut those. Draw distance, texture quality, shaders, they all need to be turned down.

The devs make these changed not because they suck, or they're evil. They make these changed to make the best product possible for everyone. Vertical slices are almost always prettier than the final product. It's a tool to convince you, the consumer, the publisher and to inspire the development team.

Enough developers get it right that this is reasonably a problem, and one that is becoming more and more pervasive in an industry that cares less and less about being truthful.

 

[H4r4kiri]

2013:
Boring style.
Monotone graphics. Everything looks the same.
Hard to read.
Drap colours.
No depth.
All kinds of shaders to help give depth to the place.

2015:
Way more readable due to better contrast, colour separation, use of colour.
Real depth due to building design. Shadows.
Way more texture diversity.
Backgrounds are set apart from the foreground.
Main character pop-out from the environment way more.

All in all: very good adjustments.

Then please do a 35min Gameplay footage comparison og 2014 to the version we got now

 

[BigTnaples]

I see this thread is now about lawsuits and advertising.

Fuck this I'm out.


PM me when we return to interesting discussion about possible downgrades and technical details.

 

[Jedi2016]

How many times do people have to post this. They are looping the 2013 better looking trailer on the Witcher 3 home page as I type this.

People who are interested in the game will go there, see that, possibly pre-order / purchase, then get a game that doesn't look like what they just saw today on the games home page.

You go right ahead, then. Go find a lawyer, we'll wait. It's a fucking pipe dream to try false advertising on this game. It will never see the light of day. It doesn't matter what they're showing where. You'll never find a person that doesn't already know what the game actually looks like.

Seriously, there have been far worse contenders than this... I don't remember any lawsuits about Watch_Dogs, and TW3 is a hell of a lot closer to its original concept than even Watch_Dogs 3 will be.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

Again, they are showing the 2013 footage right now on the Witcher 3 home page on a constant loop.

Still nothing faulty with that in itself because it could be touched up in-game cuts. It's the same territory as Blizzard using only Diablo 3 cinematics in commercials or the woman who sued the distributors of the movie Drive for having a "misleading" trailer that made the movie seem like an action flick than what it was.

 

[antonz]

While there have been large changes almost all 2013 footage is using the sharpening filter which changes the image a ton. You are free to use the sharpening filter yourself with the game to achieve closer imagery but there is a reason why it was removed default.

It is terrible on the eyes with prolonged use and no one wanted it to remain.

 

[tuxfool]

But is he factually wrong? Whether you think it is frivolous or not or whether you think the courts will find it frivolous or not, what he is saying is not wrong. CDPR are using unattainable footage from 2013 to market a game they knowingly cannot match the graphical quality off.

It is the equivalent of me advertising a supplement with 100% of an ingredient when I know the product is actually 30% filler.

From a purely business ethics standpoint it is deliberately misrepresenting your product. And it is reprehensible for many reasons.

The age of the trailers and media is apparent on their home page, they're even organized by release date.

Sigh, I know I engaged in this particular conversation, but I'm done.

 

[Bamihap]

Then please do a 35min Gameplay footage comparison og 2014 to the version we got now

I'm sure there are real downgrades. But the image highlighted doesn't strike me as a downgrade. The 2015 version looks considerably 'better' to me. Sure there are less hard to pronounce shaders doing magical things. But the environment is probable much better to actually play in.

 

[Lulubop]

Which is essentially illegal. It is called a bait and switch. You show one thing claiming thats what a potential customer gets, then you deliver something else.

I wouldn't be shocked if their was a lawsuit, and it also wouldn't upset me either. Having big plans for your game but having to dial it back is one thing, showing people a game that no longer exists on your MAIN SITE in order to help sell copies is a completely different thing.

🌝

 

[UrbanRats]

2013:
Boring style.
Monotone graphics. Everything looks the same.
Hard to read.
Drap colours.
No depth.
All kinds of shaders to help give depth to the place.

2015:
Way more readable due to better contrast, colour separation, use of colour.
Real depth due to building design. Shadows.
Way more texture diversity.
Backgrounds are set apart from the foreground.
Main character pop-out from the environment way more.

All in all: very good adjustments.

Worst LOD = More depth?

 

[Raven77]

Still nothing faulty with that in itself because it could be touched up in-game cuts. It's the same territory as Blizzard using only Diablo 3 cinematics in commercials or the woman who sued the distributors of the movie Drive for having a "misleading" trailer that made the movie seem like an action flick than what it was.

I agree with you in that it can be a grey area. But most CGI used to sell games is pretty obviously not gameplay. The video that they are looping on the home page right now is technically (old) gameplay that looks better than what they are selling. That is where I find ethical fault with what they are doing.

 

[Freiya]

And the amount of cost and manpower it took combined with subpar sales probably one of the reason that caused crytek to do this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crytek_USA#Shutdown

EDIT: Also crysis is a miniscule game compared to the size and scope of witcher 3. Can you imagine creating separate textures for 2 different platforms? are you crazy? The amount of manpower and work hours it would take while you have a deadline is insane.

I'm confused, since when is it expensive to start with high res stuff and scale down the other versions? I've been seeing a handful of people saying the same weird stuff you've been saying and it doesn't make any sense to me. I was under the impression that devs normally started with high res things and scaled down from there for lower settings. Why would that require making two different copies of the game?

It really seems like a fail argument to me and I personally don't buy it.



I also don't understand the comments made earlier by people who claim CDPR deserve our money just because they worked on the game. I for one am getting tired of being disrespected over and over by companies who are full of it. CDPR has insulted the whole communities intelligence and they aren't the only ones obviously. This stuff has got to stop and people need to stop putting up with it.

Basically lying to the communities face means they honestly don't deserve a penny imo.

 

[Jonm1010]

The age of the trailers and media is apparent on their home page, they're even organized by release date.

Sigh, I know I engaged in this particular conversation, but I'm done.

Good, because you have yet to make a single point of value.

Age is irrelevant. It is being marketed as representative of the product you will buy. Yet they know it is not. Ethically they are misrepresenting and intentionally deceiving their customers. Whether it is merely by ommission as you imply, it is still lying.

 

[Red Hood]

I know I'm in the minority for this, but I prefer the 2015 graphics. Technical stuff aside, I think the more colorful atmosphere is just a lot more pleasant for my eyes. Can see why people would have a problem with it, but personally I'm happy we are getting that.

Please.. now.. Just... no...


And in general, maybe I'm dreaming this, but didn't CDPR said that the "final build will look better than the 2013 E3 build"? I'd really like to read that quote again.

 

[cripterion]

Not that I'm aware of. We are all getting slapped in the face at the same time.

lol well I felt like getting slapped so hard time and time again reading this thread, it pretty much doesn't hurt anymore, I'm all over the downgrade and the shitshow surrounding it.
Just want the game now...and thinking of getting a Gsync monitor too.

 

[Vitor711]

hmm vegetation and shadow resolution are for sure better now.

This is probably good news:

the guy who made the Screenshots in



says that the review version of the Game is looking a lot better then everything that is out there now in videos and Screenshots of the game, especially vegetation, water and LOD. But also demands more GPU-Power.

He also says that the Gamestar video was made with an older preview version of the Game and hes about to make a comparison of his own.

And yes he has access to the PC game already, because hes working at PCGH.

Links: (all german)

http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10628734&postcount=1975
http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10628743&postcount=1978
http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10628752&postcount=1979

And its already up i see:

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/commoncfm/comparison/indexb2.cfm?id=125693

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-PC-237266/Specials/The-Witcher-3-Screenshots-1159185/

Review Verions looks a lot better

Edit: beaten

And people keep posting the same GIFs we've seen a hundred times and ignore this.

Yes, it's not back up to those amazing visuals of the early review, but can we give CPR some credit? Seems like they weren't lying when they said that the preview builds weren't representative of final quality - the PC footage got pulled for no shady reasons.

 

[Bamihap]

Worst LOD = More depth?

Look at the archway in the back. In the 2015 version you can actually differentiate the distance between it and what is behind it.

 

[Eddie_Khaled]

I am enjoying this thread

 

[H4r4kiri]

I'm sure there are real downgrades. But the image highlighted doesn't strike me as a downgrade. The 2015 version looks considerably 'better' to me. Sure there are less hard to pronounce shaders doing magical things. But the environment is probable much better to actually play in.

I can totally agree to this. But people who are here in this Thread from the beginning and discussing in a peaceful and good way ( viveks, Bignapples) are done with the 2013 build.
We are discussing the 2014 footage that was running real time and showed as actual gameplay on the PC. In this Footage the adjustments you pointed out were already made and looked better what we got now. This is not acceptable for us.

 

[Meffer]

You go right ahead, then. Go find a lawyer, we'll wait. It's a fucking pipe dream to try false advertising on this game. It will never see the light of day. It doesn't matter what they're showing where. You'll never find a person that doesn't already know what the game actually looks like.

Seriously, there have been far worse contenders than this... I don't remember any lawsuits about Watch_Dogs, and TW3 is a hell of a lot closer to its original concept than even Watch_Dogs 3 will be.

You're absolutely right Watch Dogs had a huge downgrade both visually and gameplay-wise, compared to TW3.

 

[CryptiK]

2013:
Boring style.
Monotone graphics. Everything looks the same.
Hard to read.
Drap colours.
No depth.
All kinds of shaders to help give depth to the place.

2015:
Way more readable due to better contrast, colour separation, use of colour.
Real depth due to building design. Shadows.
Way more texture diversity.
Backgrounds are set apart from the foreground.
Main character pop-out from the environment way more.

All in all: very good adjustments.

Joke post right? Because if not then fuckin' lol

 

[Skyzard]

I agree with you in that it can be a grey area. But most CGI used to sell games is pretty obviously not gameplay. The video that they are looping on the home page right now is technically (old) gameplay that looks better than what they are selling. That is where I find ethical fault with what they are doing.

You know what they said about that?

Previously, there used to be such a huge difference between trailers CGI and final gameplay so people would be rightly disappointed with the final game (referring to the people who thought gameplay graphics were full on cgi trailers, when differences were huge).

The bullshit graphics in their game that were shown are closer to the actual game compared to previously, people shouldn't be upset. It's not even a downgrade!

And the gameplay trailer? Like what an above poster said, they claimed it looked worse.
Because they had a sharp filter on. And because they didn't have PBR yet.
Imagine what it would be like now. Performance? The original performance wasn't attainable for most either.

Slimey as fuck. They didn't lie about everything though. Certainly felt the slap in the face they were planning to give me with the PC graphics, maybe even some spit landed.

 

[Bytes]

CDPR: "PC gamers, plough 'em all!"

 

[Jonm1010]

You know what they said about that?

Previously, there used to be such a huge difference between trailers and CGI so some people would be disappointed with the final game (referring to the people who thought gameplay graphics were full on cgi trailers, when differences were huge).

The bullshit graphics in their game that were shown are closer to the actual game, people shouldn't be upset.

And the gameplay trailers? Like what an above poster said, they claimed it looked worse.

Because they had a sharp filter on. And because they didn't have PBR yet.
Imagine what it would be like now. Performance? The original performance wasn't attainable for most either.

Slimey as fuck.

I agree with you in that it can be a grey area. But most CGI used to sell games is pretty obviously not gameplay. The video that they are looping on the home page right now is technically (old) gameplay that looks better than what they are selling. That is where I find ethical fault with what they are doing.

Remember though, CGI that was used to sell games like FF7 was actually in the game. It wasn't being called "in game footage" or "gameplay footage" either. Then used as material to sell the game in advertisements and even on the installation screen as you load up the game.

It is a much less egregious violation then what has become the norm in the industry right now and what CDPR has pushed further then most with their actions through all this.

 

[Red Hood]

2013:
Boring style.
Monotone graphics. Everything looks the same.
Hard to read.
Drap colours.
No depth.
All kinds of shaders to help give depth to the place.

2015:
Way more readable due to better contrast, colour separation, use of colour.
Real depth due to building design. Shadows.
Way more texture diversity.
Backgrounds are set apart from the foreground.
Main character pop-out from the environment way more.

All in all: very good adjustments.

Hear hear, I nominate thee for Post of the Decade. As a reward you get one of those

Spoiler

lekkere bamihapjes

.

 

[Deleted member 10571]

All I'm hoping is that bulllshit like this finally gets more people to stop preordering/season-passing everything on sight as soon as its announced.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

I agree with you in that it can be a grey area. But most CGI used to sell games is pretty obviously not gameplay. The video that they are looping on the home page right now is technically (old) gameplay that looks better than what they are selling. That is where I find ethical fault with what they are doing.

You assume the general population knows as much as you.

You find an ethical issue with it, OK, how should they rectify this? How honest should they be about their product? Should bugs be released as public information? Should multi-player developers be required to acknowledge how many people cheat in their games? Should MMO developers be required to let new players know the economics of each server and how the population is affecting its end game progression? There's a certain point where the consumer has to put in effort to find more about a product because it's unreasonable to have the creator display any faults consumers may have an issue with.

 

[Shredderi]

2013:
Boring style.
Monotone graphics. Everything looks the same.
Hard to read.
Drap colours.
No depth.
All kinds of shaders to help give depth to the place.

2015:
Way more readable due to better contrast, colour separation, use of colour.
Real depth due to building design. Shadows.
Way more texture diversity.
Backgrounds are set apart from the foreground.
Main character pop-out from the environment way more.

All in all: very good adjustments.

Yet the 2013 version looks better...

 

[Alienous]

CDPR knew what they were doing when they withheld showing their Uber/Ultra settings, with "we want to keep some surprise for the fans" as an excuse.

They wanted to leave people with the hope that the graphics could reach parity with what they had shown earlier in development until the very last moment, and the game cannot.

 

[Jonm1010]

You assume the general population knows as much as you.

You find an ethical issue with it, OK, how should they rectify this? How honest should they be about their product? Should bugs be released as public information? Should multi-player developers be required to acknowledge how many people cheat in their games? Should MMO developers be required to let new players know the economics of each server and how the population is affecting its end game progression? There's a certain point where the consumer has to put in effort to find more about a product because it's unreasonable to have the creator hide any faults that consumers may take issue with.

No, it is actually pretty simple, just don't knowingly and actively misrepresent your product.

 

[Red Hood]

Who wore the Great Mantel of Knight Downgrade better?

 

[MrRoflWaffles]

CDPR knew what they were doing when they withheld showing their Uber/Ultra settings, with "we want to keep some surprise for the fans" as an excuse).

They wanted to leave people with the hope that the graphics could reach parity with what they had shown earlier in development until the very last moment, and the game cannot.

Well, did they want to leave people hoping for parity.. or did they want to leave themselves room to try and get as close to actually achieving parity themselves as they could do? It's easy enough to assume either way.

If they said the games was going to look good but not great, and then the final product ended up blowing that initial build out of the water, I'm sure there's still be people complaining that it was different to what they originally showed, even if it was visually much better.

I don't really know where I stand on this fully but I think there's room for both sides of the coin to be explored.

 

[Nabbis]

Consumers arguing for the benefit of a company that is using, possibly, illegal advertising methods... My head hurts.

Pretty sure some things that CDPR are doing fall under the clauses seen here. http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_rights/unfair-trade/false-advertising/index_en.htm

 

[pixel monkey]

Consumers arguing for the benefit of a company that is using, possibly, illegal advertising methods... My head hurts.

Wait, so bullshots are "illegal" now? Uh oh... E3 has been cancelled.

 

[Alienous]

These always make me laugh.

 

[Nabbis]

Wait, so bullshots are "illegal" now? Uh oh... E3 has been cancelled.

Read the thread Monkey. There have been a couple of pages already that describe the situation in a more nuanced way than "lol bullshots".

 

[pixel monkey]

Read the thread Monkey. There have been a couple of pages already that describe the situation in a more nuanced way than "lol bullshots".

Thanks, I've read it. My point is simply that none of this is anything remotely new.