Lethal01
Member
People online can say anything, I heard the same claims about Aloys face being "improved" in the final game
The proof is right there in the video, nothing has changed, the shape is exactly the same that's a fact, the "gameplay" has harsher shadows making it more easy to see the deph of her fatials features but its visible in bothn.
People will take a character, rotate camera 5 degrees and move a food away and be like "OMG SHES SO MUCH MORE FEMININE AND PETITE"
Last edited:
Steve Holt
Member
Looking like that at 60fps on a base PS5, what a beast!
its not lies ,they have stated that they had 2 difrent shaders lighting that they had to replace with wbecause their trailer vgx wouldnt run on consoles. i dont know what you find funny when this is what cdred saidIf u watch that vid i posted about downgrade of witcher 3, u have the dev explaining/lieing about this stuff so many times that his lies contradict his other lies, in the very same interview, multiple times
they delayed witcher for 1 year to downgrade it to rn on console
Never give them the benefit of the doubt.
PeteBull
Member
Game got downgraded far more than just lighting engine, and if it was real, that version from reveal trailer and vgx "ingame footage" trailer, then to run it even in 1080p 30 they would need to have something thats way above 980ti(which didnt even hold 1080p60).
Problem is- vgx trailer is from dec 2013, and reveal trailer(called debut gameplay trailer) is from june 2013 so even earlier, back then best gpu avaiable, no matter the cost, was first gtx titan, which was 25% weaker even from 980ti(same 6gigs of vram tho).
So my question is- if we even assume that build from first 2 gameplay trailers was real, back in 2013, how come it was running so smoothly back then on supposedly newly launched gtx titan(feb 2013 launch) while being far superior quality wise from launch build pc max settings that couldnt even keep stable 60 on much stronger 980ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Specs
NVIDIA GK110, 876 MHz, 2688 Cores, 224 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 6144 MB GDDR5, 1502 MHz, 384 bit
Again, thats how first trailer looked like, one from june 2013, gameplay debut trailer
Simple answer to that is- it was pure fricken bullshot, aka didnt run real time at all, it was just a vision how cdpr hoped game gonna look 2 years later on pc(and they didnt deliver on that obviously).
We got trailers like those in the industry, many examples, like famous ubisoft the division and first watchdogs trailers, or infamous sony killzone 2/motorstorm ps3 2005 e3 conference trailers
It was simply doctored af, and i dont mind snippets of cgi trailer "killing monsters" in it, i mean the rest that pretended to be gameplay/real time.
It's not the first time they overpromising eh. Let's see how much 60 fps will be at launch and with what compromises on base console. The next generation probably will be there just in time for the release and something tell me won't be a coincidence.Looking like that at 60fps on a base PS5, what a beast!
Last edited:
Game got downgraded far more than just lighting engine, and if it was real, that version from reveal trailer and vgx "ingame footage" trailer, then to run it even in 1080p 30 they would need to have something thats way above 980ti(which didnt even hold 1080p60).
Problem is- vgx trailer is from dec 2013, and reveal trailer(called debut gameplay trailer) is from june 2013 so even earlier, back then best gpu avaiable, no matter the cost, was first gtx titan, which was 25% weaker even from 980ti(same 6gigs of vram tho).
So my question is- if we even assume that build from first 2 gameplay trailers was real, back in 2013, how come it was running so smoothly back then on supposedly newly launched gtx titan(feb 2013 launch) while being far superior quality wise from launch build pc max settings that couldnt even keep stable 60 on much stronger 980ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Specs
NVIDIA GK110, 876 MHz, 2688 Cores, 224 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 6144 MB GDDR5, 1502 MHz, 384 bitwww.techpowerup.com
Again, thats how first trailer looked like, one from june 2013, gameplay debut trailer
Simple answer to that is- it was pure fricken bullshot, aka didnt run real time at all, it was just a vision how cdpr hoped game gonna look 2 years later on pc(and they didnt deliver on that obviously).
We got trailers like those in the industry, many examples, like famous ubisoft the division and first watchdogs trailers, or infamous sony killzone 2/motorstorm ps3 2005 e3 conference trailers
It was simply doctored af, and i dont mind snippets of cgi trailer "killing monsters" in it, i mean the rest that pretended to be gameplay/real time.
thats speculation. i mean of course for trailers they might raise the graphics of their builds to max but those trailers, they were in engine for that build of the game, clearly they wont put a trailer tht is lagging or has a reasonable gpu for the time. are they bullshots i dont think so because i do believe cdred when they say that there was a diffrent build of the game that couldnt run on consoles, also if you look back at xbox gameplay reveal tht was a difrent shader lighting builld to. the game needed a whole 1 year of downgrades to run on those consoles . if the game came out purely on pc it would ben out year earlier and with those graphics just like witcher 2 did
wafflecioccy
Member
Uuuuuuuh I highly doubt that.
why did they delay the game by a year then, if its not to downgrade to run on consoles, that means it was aplayable build and it needed time to downgrade ,iptomize.
Last edited:
PeteBull
Member
Bro, u calling me out about speculation, and yet claiming some horrendous shit urself.
At least my guestimates are based on reality(aka dates of first 2 amazing looking trailers that show gameplay vs launch date of strongest gpu avaiable at that time and how weak it was vs gpu that launched 2weeks after game launched that still couldnt hold stable 60 in 1080p maxed.
What i said is simply- they lied, it wasnt "in-game" footage, or "debut gameplay trailer" if footage in both of those trailers doesnt run at least at stable 30 so like its showed to us, who knows, maybe it ran only at 15fps and they did same trick sony ico dev team did with last guardian where they 2x speed up the footage while recording everything at 15fps - yes, thats actually happened, we got confirmed official info much later, lemme quote my own post here:
But if only it was that, then actual launch footage would be improvement over mid 2013 trailers, ps4 last guardian final build looked much more superior from that early 2009 project trico ps3 trailer.
Yet in witcher's case, and i means here specifically maxed out pc version on 980ti which was at least 3x faster from base ps4, that wasnt the case, that version looked visibly worse from 2year old early trailers, somehow
Again, we all can see both of those 2013 w3 gameplay trailers, they werent described as "pre-alpha footage/subject to change/mix of cgi and gameplay" or something similar, nope, they were made and titled in specific way to makes us believe final game gonna look at least that good, maxed out on pc
And excuse that game got downgraded coz of consoles is pure bs too, cdpr knew right away its making game for consoles, they put xbox one/ps4/pc dvd at the end even of first gameplay trailer, june 2013
Once again- i love whole series, played solid 200h of the game, maxed out, its crazy good game and with next gen/rt upgrade it doesnt look bad even today, over 10years after launch, but we dont wanna cdpr to lie/downgrade/realease bullshot/doctored trailers again, be it witcher4, cp2077 2(or who knows whats next cp title gonna be? cp2088? ).
We want them to be genuine, that is path to greatness.
wafflecioccy
Member
It was delayed less than a year.
It was delayed because it was a massive open world game. Duh.
Had nothing to do necessarily with downgrading the graphics
Bojji
Member
Of course it does.
Bro, u calling me out about speculation, and yet claiming some horrendous shit urself.
At least my guestimates are based on reality(aka dates of first 2 amazing looking trailers that show gameplay vs launch date of strongest gpu avaiable at that time and how weak it was vs gpu that launched 2weeks after game launched that still couldnt hold stable 60 in 1080p maxed.
What i said is simply- they lied, it wasnt "in-game" footage, or "debut gameplay trailer" if footage in both of those trailers doesnt run at least at stable 30 so like its showed to us, who knows, maybe it ran only at 15fps and they did same trick sony ico dev team did with last guardian where they 2x speed up the footage while recording everything at 15fps - yes, thats actually happened, we got confirmed official info much later, lemme quote my own post here:
But if only it was that, then actual launch footage would be improvement over mid 2013 trailers, ps4 last guardian final build looked much more superior from that early 2009 project trico ps3 trailer.
Yet in witcher's case, and i means here specifically maxed out pc version on 980ti which was at least 3x faster from base ps4, that wasnt the case, that version looked visibly worse from 2year old early trailers, somehow
Again, we all can see both of those 2013 w3 gameplay trailers, they werent described as "pre-alpha footage/subject to change/mix of cgi and gameplay" or something similar, nope, they were made and titled in specific way to makes us believe final game gonna look at least that good, maxed out on pc
And excuse that game got downgraded coz of consoles is pure bs too, cdpr knew right away its making game for consoles, they put xbox one/ps4/pc dvd at the end even of first gameplay trailer, june 2013
Once again- i love whole series, played solid 200h of the game, maxed out, its crazy good game and with next gen/rt upgrade it doesnt look bad even today, over 10years after launch, but we dont wanna cdpr to lie/downgrade/realease bullshot/doctored trailers again, be it witcher4, cp2077 2(or who knows whats next cp title gonna be? cp2088? ).
We want them to be genuine, that is path to greatness.
you think cdred just spent extra milions of dollars just to lie to fans and waste their time waiting for a year jsut for kicks. btw last guradian started on ps3 looked beter because it went to ps4. withcer 3 started on pc downgraded to go to consoles.
sure if thats what u wana believe their good PR story .they said optimization which means downgrade . no company ever gona flat out say hey we gona delay to dpwngrade they wil say optimize
wafflecioccy
Member
Inventing new meanings for words that are the complete opposite of what they actually mean, I see.
wafflecioccy
Member
Yes, because you have no idea what optimization means
Bitstream
Member
Game got downgraded far more than just lighting engine, and if it was real, that version from reveal trailer and vgx "ingame footage" trailer, then to run it even in 1080p 30 they would need to have something thats way above 980ti(which didnt even hold 1080p60).
Problem is- vgx trailer is from dec 2013, and reveal trailer(called debut gameplay trailer) is from june 2013 so even earlier, back then best gpu avaiable, no matter the cost, was first gtx titan, which was 25% weaker even from 980ti(same 6gigs of vram tho).
So my question is- if we even assume that build from first 2 gameplay trailers was real, back in 2013, how come it was running so smoothly back then on supposedly newly launched gtx titan(feb 2013 launch) while being far superior quality wise from launch build pc max settings that couldnt even keep stable 60 on much stronger 980ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN Specs
NVIDIA GK110, 876 MHz, 2688 Cores, 224 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 6144 MB GDDR5, 1502 MHz, 384 bit
Again, thats how first trailer looked like, one from june 2013, gameplay debut trailer
Simple answer to that is- it was pure fricken bullshot, aka didnt run real time at all, it was just a vision how cdpr hoped game gonna look 2 years later on pc(and they didnt deliver on that obviously).
We got trailers like those in the industry, many examples, like famous ubisoft the division and first watchdogs trailers, or infamous sony killzone 2/motorstorm ps3 2005 e3 conference trailers
It was simply doctored af, and i dont mind snippets of cgi trailer "killing monsters" in it, i mean the rest that pretended to be gameplay/real time.
You're absolutely right, if even after severe cutbacks and downgrades it ran like shit on top of the line hardware at launch, there's no way they didn't fake the earlier trailers and pre-render them.
Last edited:
iQuasarLV
Member
Last edited:
vgx 2013 trailer looked like cgi , and it actually looks alot like the witcher 4 footage, so it only took 10 years for witcher to look like witcher 3 trailer
On topic - witcher3 even back before all the downgrades never looked as good as witcher4. The lighting on display here has a CGI quality to it.
Hate on CDPR all you want for not delivering on their early trailers, or the buggy launch state of their games, but saying w4 looks like w3 says more about your eyesight than it does the game.
Edit2 -
Alright, looking at this picture, I can see what Danny is talking about. It's definitely a step up from w3, but maybe not 2 console gens better than the w3 ps4 image
viveks86
Member
I was actually blown away until I finally watched it on my 4k TV. I would argue that the resolution is so low that if I were holding a controller, I would be irritated by how blurry everything is. It's like ff7 rebirth on performance mode (in terms of IQ). So much vaseline. So hard to focus on any detail in the world unless they zoom in for a closeup.
Really hope the Pro can fare much better with AI upscaling and higher base resolution, assuming the game even comes out this gen.
Really hope the Pro can fare much better with AI upscaling and higher base resolution, assuming the game even comes out this gen.
DavidGzz
Gold Member
I went back to play some AC Ghost and the graphics for this don't seem so far fetched. Character models are not so great but the environment is amazing. I was walking through a forest while it was raining... If Ubi can do give us those graphics, I have faith CD Project can deliver with this game, especially if UE 5 has gotten some upgrades.
Last edited:
KungFucius
King Snowflake
I'm skeptical it drops that soon. They are planning to do like 3 games in a 6 year release window so it is possible the first one needs longer to bake, also this would move into next gen so the timing is weird to have a trilogy span this gen plus next.
