Support NeoGAF

[tcrunch]

edit:

English version of the interview:

http://www.gamepressure.com/e.asp?ID=51

Posted on behalf of junior FLAguy:

http://www.gry-online.pl/S018.asp?ID=1132 the original interview
http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/2trb9b/adam_badowski_cd_projekt_red_managing_director_in/ the reddit topic

According to the google translate they also ask some other downgrade-related stuff that the redditor did not translate (e: see edits below) but says he will if there is enough interest.

I couldn't really find the translation on the western sites so here it is, news from the first hand. Here is the link to the interview in polish language http://www.gry-online.pl/S018.asp?ID=1132 and below I'll try to include short summary:

Currently there are 230 people working on The Witcher 3

Prologue and tutorial aimed for casual players will be skippable

Having recommended specs will allow for playing in 30 frames per second.

PC specs aren't exaggerated, although the team is still working on the optimization

PC players will be able to import saved state from previous game OR decide themself about their character's past. Consoles will stick with just the second option

PC, PS4 and Xbox One use the same build, textures and models. Game will look almost identical on all platforms, although Xbox's version will be showed in 900p, scaled up to 1080p.

The probably most controversial part about FPS straight from the interview:

Na polecanych wymaganiach dla PC osiągniemy 30 czy 60 klatek?
Myślę, że będziemy wyświetlać 30 klatek. Do samego końca zamierzamy pracować nad wydajnością, to niezwykle istotne, maszyny są bardzo zróżnicowane. Programiści niezwykle zabiegali o to, abyśmy nie uprawiali demagogii i nikogo nie oszukiwali, podciągali ogłoszone wymagania pod niższe specyfikacje. Jest jak napisaliśmy, może być tylko lepiej.

Translation:

PC recommended specs will be able to run the game on 30 or 60 frames per second?
I think, we'll stick with 30 FPS. We're not going to stop working on performance until the very end, it's crucial matter to us, there are different PCs with different specs. Programmers insisted on avoiding tricking the players by lowering predicted specs. As I mentioned before, It can only get better.

Pardon me for any mistakes, fellow poles, feel free to bash me and suggest some fixes.

And don't kill the courier please D:

edit: doesn't specify @ what settings anywhere
edit2: recommended specs are below

Intel CPU Core i7 3770 3.4 GHz/AMD CPU AMD FX-8350 4 GHz
Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 770/AMD GPU Radeon R9 290
RAM 8GB
OS 64-bit Windows 7 or 64-bit Windows 8 (8.1)
DirectX 11
HDD Space 40 GB

edit3: translation of the downgrade part

Interesting interview. I like reading what they say to Polish press, for some reason it sounds more honest, less PR.

About the downgrade:
Nie boisz się, że po premierze powtórzy się casus Watch_Dogs, kiedy to był porównywany pierwszy zwiastun z aktualną wersją gry?

Jeżeli ktoś będzie ten trailer oglądał, zobaczy, że modele postaci w grze wyglądają lepiej, nawet Geralt, on jest doskonalszy – ma na przykład lepsze shadery. Dorobiliśmy masę szczegółów, znacznie poprawiliśmy mimikę i synchronizację ruchów ust z wypowiadanymi kwestiami. Mamy dubbing w siedmiu językach, więc nie jesteśmy w stanie nagrać zmian na twarzy aktora technologią performance capture, jak np. w Call of Duty. Nie zmieściłoby się to na trzech Blu-rayach. Zastosowaliśmy więc system dynamiczny bazujący na głoskach, podobnie jak w części pierwszej i drugiej, gdzie wypadł słabo. W Wiedźmine 3 jest to nieporównywalnie lepiej wykonane, podnieśliśmy poprzeczkę dla całego przemysłu w porównaniu z grami, które muszą korzystać z tego systemu (m.in. gry BioWare – przyp. red.) i tego też nie było widać w tym trailerze.

Natomiast sprawą subiektywną pozostaje jakość oświetlenia i doświetlenie tego zwiastuna. Popełniliśmy błąd polegający na tym, że część ujęć była wyrenderowana w barwach ciemnych i szaroburych. Po prostu taka opcja została wylosowana przez silnik. Myślę, że znajdą się miejsca, które będą wyglądać oszałamiająco dobrze i nikt nam nie zarzuci, że różnią się one od tych z pierwszego trailera. Niestety będą też fragmenty, gdzie gra będzie wyglądała gorzej. Tak też jest w GTA – jak przyjdzie szkwał i jest szaro, szczególnie w lesie, grafika wyda się z pewnością gorsza od tej z żyjącego miasta rozświetlonego neonami.

ROUGH translation:

Aren't you afraid that the situation of Watch_Dogs will repeat itself, when the first trailer was compared to the final built of the game?

If one watched the trailer they would see that the character models in the game look better, even Geralt, he's been perfected - he's got better shaders, for instance. We made lots of new details, considerably improved the facial expressions and lip synchronization with spoken lines. We're dubbing it to 7 languages so we're not able to record motion capture of changes of the actor's face, like in Call of Duty. It wouldn't fit on three blu-rays. So we implemented the dynamic system based on sounds/phones, like in The Witcher 1 and 2, where it was weak. In The Witcher 3 it's incomparably better done, we've raised the bar for whole industry in comparison to other games that have to use the same system [like, among others, BioWare's games - editor note] and you couldn't see this in the trailer.

However the issue of lighting quality in that trailer remains subjective. We've made a mistake of rendering some shots in dark and gray colors. It was just an option picked randomly by the engine. I think that there will be places in the game that it will look stunningly good and no-one will accuse us of changes from the first trailer. Unfortunately, there will also be places where the game will look worse. It also happens in GTA - when the storm comes and it's gray, especially in the woods, graphics will for sure seem worse than in the living city illuminated with neons.

edit4: translation of Polish journalist reaction to live play of the preview/high settings build
http://pclab.pl/art61452-3.html - original 1
http://www.purepc.pl/rozrywka/komputer_do_wiedzmin_3_dziki_gon_jaki_powinien_byc - original 2

For non=Polish readers, I can confirm that both articles state that the preview build of the game was played on i7-4790 + GTX 980 and had framedrops when played on High preset (and generally ~30 fps).

[original 1]
We were asked not to change the gfx settings - we could look at them but not change anything. Understandable - such an early build might not be 100% stable. I regret we couldn't have seen Nvidia HariWorks in action - it was disabled. The hair on the characters looked okay, but was the worst element of them. We played in 1920x1080 on High (only setting above was Ultra), IIRC with SSAO disabled and some medium AA and AF. There was no fps counter visible and for most of the gameplay game was fluid - meaning ~30 fps or slightly more. Not exceeding 35 fps though, even in inside locations. There was a large fluctuations of framerate - not something in line of 10-15 fps, but it was possible to have a fps drop from 40 to 20 in a drop of a hat - usually caused by location, not by the things happening on screen. Lot of work to do on the game optimalization. Only thing I'm sure - a lot of gamers will not be happy with their HW performance
(quick and dirty translation)

Second article had similar feelings, although he states SSAO was on.

[original 2] had this: There was no fps counter, but the slowdown was very noticable, especially in the forest areas. I'm an avid gamer, I do a lot of hardware testing, so can discern framerate fluctuations"

edit5:

Wait for the benches.



Wait for the benches.



Wait for the benches.



Wait for the benches.



Wait for the benches.

edit6:

Of course people will freak out again. This is what happens every. single. time.

And of course when the game is actually out and sites do actual measurements, it will turn out that an i7 and a 290 run the game either at much higher than console level at 30 FPS, or at more than 30 FPS at console level settings.

I guarantee it.

How are recommended specs a "lie" because you can't "max out" the settings? That never was the idea of recommended specs in the first place.

Besides that, there's the whole issue of "maxing out" as a metric being incredibly stupid and problematic.

 

[Mifec]

Just gonna echo my post from the other thread

Targeting 30fps on PC in 2015 the year of our Lord Hideo Kojima, pls no.

 

[texhnolyze]

Oh boy..
Kill the courier!

 

[GavinUK86]

guess im going to be playing it at 10fps then in that case

 

[Corgi]

I felt like recommended specs have always been around 30fps at 1080p with things on ultra.

 

[AzureSkies]

If you can set a 30fps lock in the game, I'll be happy with playing it on my PC.

If I can't do so, I worry about being able to play the game before I upgrade my 7870.

 

[MUnited83]

I felt like recommended specs have always been around 30fps at 1080p with things on ultra.

Exactly!

 

[Deleted member 98878]

30FPS on which setting?

 

[Metalic Sand]

I felt like recommended specs have always been around 30fps at 1080p with things on ultra.

With maxed AA and PhysX stuff definitely.

 

[AJLma]

What are the specs?

 

[Krusenstern]

You know what would be the icing on the cake after that statement? If the game won't have a 30 fps lock in the options. I don't really like it when framerate is fluctuating heavily between 30 and 60.
Of course I could lock to 30 fps by using Rivatuner Statistics Server. But if they set 30fps as recommendation then an ingame lock would be logical.

 

[The Dear Leader]

How in the year of our lord, 2 thousand and 15, does a game with those recommended specs target only 30fps, with the same settings as the consoles? I find this incredibly hard to believe, I hope they do indeed optimize it but god damn.

 

[GHG]

I felt like recommended specs have always been around 30fps at 1080p with things on ultra.

This.

In most cases recommended specs tell you what you need to max the game out at playable framerates.

I'm more than ok with this.

 

[Qassim]

Recommended is generally what the developers consider a good experience graphically and performance wise. CDPR are running this game on 30fps on consoles so they clearly believe it's a good experience at 30fps, that would unlikely to be much different on PC.

But that doesn't mean you have to play it at 30fps

This.

In most cases recommended specs tell you what you need to max the game out at playable framerates.

I'm more than ok with this.

Not even necessarily max, but an overall recommended experience, e.g. developers that include ultra enthusiast settings won't list specs required to use those enthusiast settings under their "recommended specs".

 

[potam]

I felt like recommended specs have always been around 30fps at 1080p with things on ultra.

Yeah, I feel like recommended specs aim for a medium/high custom setting. I've always had a top-end card (at time of purchase), and while I am usually able to max settings, there is always the odd game which I can't absolutely max out and maintain 60.

So yeah, I think this is just adding to the whole 30 vs 60 fps circlejerk.

 

[OdysseusVA]

PC, PS4 and Xbox One use the same build, textures and models.

I'm going with AA being behind the "less sharp" reports on PS4, if true.

 

[tcrunch]

What are the specs?

Added to op

Intel CPU Core i7 3770 3.4 GHz/AMD CPU AMD FX-8350 4 GHz
Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 770/AMD GPU Radeon R9 290
RAM 8GB
OS 64-bit Windows 7 or 64-bit Windows 8 (8.1)
DirectX 11
HDD Space 40 GB

 

[Corgi]

do remember witcher 2 has some insane soft shadow like stuff. If you knock stuff down at high, you should be able to do high 40's without a problem... hopefully

 

[erawsd]

Is that controversial? I thought "Recommended" was pretty much considered High@1080/30.

 

[dmr87]

Recommended is never 'maxed' out.

I'm not convinced you'll get 60 fps with a GTX980 at 1080p/ultra/maxed out, wel'll see. Witcher 2 rekt PCs.

 

[Cross-Section]

As long as it stays at 30fps, I don't particularly have any problems with this.

 

[AJLma]

Ouch... if that's @ 1080p, 30FPS for an i7 and an R9 290 is rough...

EDIT: They're probably talking about the 770, and that seems about right for that card.

 

[diaspora]

Ouch... if that's @ 1080p, 30FPS for an i7 and an R9 290 is rough...

It depends on what combination of settings is recommended.

 

[taimoorh]

If the GTX 770 gets 30fps, then my GTX 780 is ready for 35fps galore!

Realistically, though, as long as I get don't get dips below 30fps I'm fine. Usually an average of 30fps means constant dips down to 25fps or lower.

 

[StoppedInTracks]

PC, PS4 and Xbox One use the same build, textures and models. Game will look almost identical on all platforms, although Xbox's version will be showed in 900p, scaled up to 1080p.

No thanks, CDP. Will wait for a GOG sale then. And I am polish.

 

[erawsd]

Ouch... if that's @ 1080p, 30FPS for an i7 and an R9 290 is rough...

EDIT: They're probably talking about the 770, and that seems about right for that card.

Its also probably not exactly 30FPS, probably more a case of at least getting 30.

 

[Bobby_Sullivan]

The Witcher 2 was/is a monster on PCs.

That fact along with the screenshots being posted all over the internet led me to this conclusion long ago.

I hope my babby 660ti can run it at low settings

 

[Wag]

What? No. I have 3 Titans. I should be able to do better than 30fps.

What's a PC for if not to have better performance than a console?

 

[Qassim]

What? No. I have 3 Titans. I should be able to do better than 30fps.

What's a PC for if not to have better performance than a console?

3 Titans aren't the recommended specs.

 

[KillaKalz347]

What? No. I have 3 Titans. I should be able to do better than 30fps.

What's a PC for if not to have better performance than a console?

You better hope they have an SLI profile at launch.

 

[Hristi]

I don't even think my 770 can run smooth 30 fps.

 

[POPEGTR]

30fps for rec specs PC's.

There is no way they wont let you unlock 60+ frames if you own 2x 980 or titans.

 

[AJLma]

Its also probably not exactly 30FPS, probably more a case of at least getting 30.

This is true.

 

[Schryver]

My 290 is ready I guess?

 

[GHG]

What? No. I have 3 Titans. I should be able to do better than 30fps.

What's a PC for if not to have better performance than a console?

Think you might be better off going with the PS4 version then.

 

[Tacitus_]

30fps for rec specs PC's.

There is no way they wont let you unlock 60+ frames if you own 2x 980 or titans.

Unlock? You turn down your settings or get better hardware if you want to have better FPS. There's no unlocking involved (unless they've completely ballsed up their engine development).

 

[diaspora]

Think you might be better off going with the PS4 version then.

To get worse visuals?

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

will this run on my 486?

 

[Projectjustice]

Why is the nvidia counterpart a 770 when a 290 is much better?

 

[Kydd BlaZe]

Played the Witcher 2 fully maxed out at 40 fps on my 780. Hoping to get decent performance from Witcher 3.

 

[Hrothgar]

And water is wet. Recommended settings for PC games have never been an indication for max/high settings at 1080p/60.

 

[epmode]

Man, I love games that push PC hardware. Not jokes, I really enjoy going back to them years later for even better visuals. It's the Origin way.

 

[Storm360]

Since the requirements came out, I had a feeling this is going to be poorly optimised, I'm not feeling good about this one

 

[LouisaFerre]

If that's at maxed settings, I'm pretty satisfied with that. Hoping I'll be able to reach 60 on my 970 without lowering too much.

 

[Foxyone]

Likely for quite higher than console settings, considering the 1080p 30 FPS console version will likely be competing with a modest 750 ti build.

 

[HowZatOZ]

Whelp that's my setup in recommended, better go get a 980 and some extra RAM me thinks. My 770 has served me well.

 

[Robottiimu2000]

Why is the nvidia counterpart a 770 when a 290 is much better?

Since rest of the amd line suck

 

[Qassim]

Since the requirements came out, I had a feeling this is going to be poorly optimised, I'm not feeling good about this one

What makes you think it'll be poorly optimised?

1) You don't know what settings that they're calling 'recommended'
2) You don't know what those settings actually entail

 

[blueteainfusion]

Interesting interview. I like reading what they say to Polish press, for some reason it sounds more honest, less PR.

About the downgrade:

Nie boisz się, że po premierze powtórzy się casus Watch_Dogs, kiedy to był porównywany pierwszy zwiastun z aktualną wersją gry?

Jeżeli ktoś będzie ten trailer oglądał, zobaczy, że modele postaci w grze wyglądają lepiej, nawet Geralt, on jest doskonalszy – ma na przykład lepsze shadery. Dorobiliśmy masę szczegółów, znacznie poprawiliśmy mimikę i synchronizację ruchów ust z wypowiadanymi kwestiami. Mamy dubbing w siedmiu językach, więc nie jesteśmy w stanie nagrać zmian na twarzy aktora technologią performance capture, jak np. w Call of Duty. Nie zmieściłoby się to na trzech Blu-rayach. Zastosowaliśmy więc system dynamiczny bazujący na głoskach, podobnie jak w części pierwszej i drugiej, gdzie wypadł słabo. W Wiedźmine 3 jest to nieporównywalnie lepiej wykonane, podnieśliśmy poprzeczkę dla całego przemysłu w porównaniu z grami, które muszą korzystać z tego systemu (m.in. gry BioWare – przyp. red.) i tego też nie było widać w tym trailerze.

Natomiast sprawą subiektywną pozostaje jakość oświetlenia i doświetlenie tego zwiastuna. Popełniliśmy błąd polegający na tym, że część ujęć była wyrenderowana w barwach ciemnych i szaroburych. Po prostu taka opcja została wylosowana przez silnik. Myślę, że znajdą się miejsca, które będą wyglądać oszałamiająco dobrze i nikt nam nie zarzuci, że różnią się one od tych z pierwszego trailera. Niestety będą też fragmenty, gdzie gra będzie wyglądała gorzej. Tak też jest w GTA – jak przyjdzie szkwał i jest szaro, szczególnie w lesie, grafika wyda się z pewnością gorsza od tej z żyjącego miasta rozświetlonego neonami.

ROUGH translation:

Aren't you afraid that the situation of Watch_Dogs will repeat itself, when the first trailer was compared to the final built of the game?

If one watched the trailer they would see that the character models in the game look better, even Geralt, he's been perfected - he's got better shaders, for instance. We made lots of new details, considerably improved the facial expressions and lip synchronization with spoken lines. We're dubbing it to 7 languages so we're not able to record motion capture of changes of the actor's face, like in Call of Duty. It wouldn't fit on three blu-rays. So we implemented the dynamic system based on sounds/phones, like in The Witcher 1 and 2, where it was weak. In The Witcher 3 it's incomparably better done, we've raised the bar for whole industry in comparison to other games that have to use the same system [like, among others, BioWare's games - editor note] and you couldn't see this in the trailer.

However the issue of lighting quality in that trailer remains subjective. We've made a mistake of rendering some shots in dark and gray colors. It was just an option picked randomly by the engine. I think that there will be places in the game that it will look stunningly good and no-one will accuse us of changes from the first trailer. Unfortunately, there will also be places where the game will look worse. It also happens in GTA - when the storm comes and it's gray, especially in the woods, graphics will for sure seem worse than in the living city illuminated with neons.

 

[Piggus]

Fine with me as long as it runs at a fairly consistent 30 fps on my 7970 and Core i5 4.8 ghz. Though I hope there's an in-game option to lock the framerate. Riva Tuner and Afterburner have been hit or miss for me when it comes to locking framerate in modern games.

Edit: The "downgrade," as usual, seems to have more to do with people having higher expectations now than they did when the game was first shown, even if the game actually looks better. Which it does.