He's just making a completely unprovoked dig at PC gamers. As usual.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Witcher 3 PC recommended specs run game at 30fps - reddit
- Thread starter tcrunch
- Start date
After how many optimization patches exactly? Five years from now?
Recommended specs at 30fps does not paint a good picture for this game being optimized. And then if you ever played TW2 you're already shitting your pants.
What the hell are you talking about?
Dictator93
Member
This is a good thing if the game punches at the level it should graphically.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
That's fine given the recommended specs. A 970 should be able to do 60fps.
This makes no sense at all. Uber is supersampling, how can you consider running at a higher resoloution than 1080p necessary to say you're maxing out a game at 1080p?
You're basically saying that if you're not running at 4K, you're not maxing at 1080p. It makes absolutely no sense.
I don't know who's trolling, but some responses really annoy me. We need games like these that push graphics even if it means that most people will run the game at 30 fps at this point in time. Having high spec's doesn't necessarily mean the game is unoptimized, it might just mean that the is pushing more graphics.
You can always change the settings to get 60fps. I reckon the game will look great even with some settings turned off.
You can always change the settings to get 60fps. I reckon the game will look great even with some settings turned off.
We cannot comment on optimization until the game is in our hands. I can't believe the game won't run well on a 290 or 4gb 770. If the consoles run at high settings then you can only conclude a 290 will run it much, much better at the same settings.
DA:I is far more reasonable technically, and made with PS360 in mind. It carefully sections areas, cuts corners aggressively with clips and popins, has less detailed (more stylized) character models and just keeps density lower in general. Some may have wondered why Orlais feels so empty in the day or why Redcliffe is so small.
Gamers will one day in 2017 grab this for $8.99 in Steam, and run this puppy in glorious 1440p/ultra/60 with their Nvidia Volta.
Do you really think a PS4 can run this game better than a 670?
Blackthorn
"hello?" "this is vagina"
Ever since I've had to option, I've always played more demanding games at 30fps (or whatever other framerate I can comfortably lock to). This is only news to people who have had their perceptions warped by the 60fps-or-bust crowd who pollute current PC gaming.
Hopefully CD Projekt will include a 30fps cap with no latency issues.
Hopefully CD Projekt will include a 30fps cap with no latency issues.
Well yea but I have a 760 so according to them I'm already under 30fps. No reason to go PC instead of PS4 for me really.
This is definitely a 'wait for Digital Foundry article' type of buy
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
It seems like a 970 will do 60 with drops. If a 980 is having drops then it must be pretty demanding.
Dictator93
Member
People like posting stuff like this all the time, aka just irrational unthinkable stuff. I at that point doubt that they would even care.
The Ps4 wont be running the game at settings which cause a 770 or a 290 to run @ 30hz. Come on man, use the brain
martino
Member
I reckon a 760 will run the game as well as the PS4 but only if it's the 4gb version. I don't see 2gb cards faring well at all in this game. I think (but it's only speculation) that a mid-range GPU like a 7950/760 will run the game at high settings and 30fps.
The recommended specs most certainly aim for a mix of high/ultra if 30fps is the target.
I still don't see any reason to panic.
Insanity
Welp, I'm now targeting "not buying".
Witcher 2 ran and looked amazing at 60FPS on my old 660TI. On my 970 with downsampling it's still very very great. I don't see a significant improvement in TW3 over TW2 that it should run so much worse, besides being unoptimized. They probably just had too much work with optimizing for consoles as well.
Witcher 2 ran and looked amazing at 60FPS on my old 660TI. On my 970 with downsampling it's still very very great. I don't see a significant improvement in TW3 over TW2 that it should run so much worse, besides being unoptimized. They probably just had too much work with optimizing for consoles as well.
This isn't Witcher 2, you don't have the recommended specs and we don't know how it would run on your card at "witcher 2 equivalent settings" (which isn't even possible, given the difference in scale)
Chill.
Because GAF is filled with idiots and trolls.
As long as i can choose to lower settings and get 60fps, where is the issue? I'd rather they push potential options to the max, and let me decide, since i can do that on PC, than just give me Dark Souls 2 graphics and go "oh wow, i can put everything on MAX at 4K, and still get 60 fps, what a marvel! Nevermind how the game actually looks".
I think we can say that PC gaming is officially part of the console war bullshit, despite not being a console. I partially blame the master race meme for the war developing to this point.
And it will be glorious.
This is ideal, but some games, especially open-world games, still struggle with hitting a consistent 'x' framerate even when lowering settings. It all depends on where the bottlenecks are and how taxing certain settings are to what parts of the system, ya know?
BenTheLazyGamer
Member
This game must be incredibly demanding. I can only assume this means you'll get 30fps if you have the recommended system at 1080p/ultra.
Ivan
Member
Preview build or not, if that's true on such a monster , 1080p and ~high settings on PS4 is quite an achievement. Or pc with so much force in itself is underachieving, take your pick.
It can all change, of course. We should wait for benchmarks.
I really think most of the time these requirements are just guesstimates from developers, rather than them methodically benchmarking different systems with very specific targets in mind.
This seems especially true in this case since the game is still several months away and they likely have a fair amount of optimizing to do still.
Hey look, conflicting information!
How about waiting for the in-depth comparison of the final version for each platform instead of going crazy now?
How about waiting for the in-depth comparison of the final version for each platform instead of going crazy now?
Yeah, i guess that was my experience with both Watch Dogs and Unity (though Unity almost got stable 60 for more than a minute or so, at certain moments) WD mostly was stuttering, since FRAPS was telling me it was rock solid 60fps.
My CPU is under the recommended, so i have no illusions, Shadow of Mordor was a 60fps game for me, though, so i still have hope.
I don't know about you guys but I put much more stock into this kind of report. That seems like a realistic outcome.
Oh, one more thing from those Polish articles linked earlier - the build they played had both HairWorks and SSAO disabled.
And still struggled to reach 30 fps on GTX 980.
Dictator93
Member
Let's wait till we have benchmarks, because that sounds wholly unrealistic.
I've seen reports of much higher framerates.
lordfuzzybutt
Member
If Hairworks off still produces that kind of hair I don't need it.
ldcommando
Banned
cinematic as fuck
Snkfanatic
Banned
I have the same card, it's why I am considering getting the PS4 version for now...
Every single other report I've read claimed that the PC version was running much more smoothly than the console versions.
So either
(a) the PC version "struggles to reach 30 FPS" and the console versions run below 20, or
(b) the PC version didn't actually "struggle to reach 30 FPS"
I strongly believe that the latter is the case, but hey, we'll all see what's what when actual benchmarks are out.
Do you believe that someone on another thread use the line : "We spent the majority of our time on the Xbox One version.." to demonstrate that CD Projekt RED team put most effort into the XboxOne version ? When I read that, I was like "Are people really that stupid?"
Why bother being rational when you can simply let yourself fall into the trap of confirmation bias ?
I'm just saying what those two guys wrote, obviously I wasn't there so can't vouch if it's authentic - maybe CDPR just served vodka as refreshers.
1st article:
Poproszono nas, żebyśmy nie zmieniali opcji graficznych. Mogliśmy podejrzeć, co ustawiono, ale bez ruszania czegokolwiek. Rozumiem to: tak wczesny build może nie być w stu procentach stabilny. Trochę żałuję, że nie mogłem zobaczyć w akcji Nvidia HairWorks – ta opcja była wyłączona. Mimo że do włosów postaci nie mam zastrzeżeń, nie wybijają się one ponad średnią. Mówiąc prościej, to najbardziej niepasujący do całej reszty element, najmocniej odstający od świetnie wymodelowanych postaci. Zagrałem w rozdzielczości 1920 × 1080 w ustawieniach wysokich (po nich są już tylko „ultra”
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.
Yeah, no way my 680 will be able to handle it anyway.
Starting to consider a 970 or 980 instead of waiting for the new cards, since we probably won't get a new series this year, and only one or two new cards (if rumors are to be trusted).
AMD will have at least 3 skus for April-June 2015. No idea about Nvidia.
lordfuzzybutt
Member
I was that person and I already said I made a mistake of reading too fast. English is not my native language.
But I still think that is what the situation is like at CDPR, more time spent optimizing x1 version will lead to less time on PS4 and PC.
Also what is stupid about expressing concern? We already see CDPR had deals with MS and will thus probably have to spend more time on X1 because it is a weaker system. My quoted post on the other thread is still visible where I said I still have faith in them regardless? Are you really that stupid to not see i am only expressing my concern and not because of some irrational bias or whatever you imply?
Neither is it mine.
I don't think so but some will grasp at any straw to reach that conclusion.
Until proven otherwise CDPR have made sure that each skus is properly taken advantage of. PC has more bells and whistles, the PS4 is 1080p, the Xbox One is 900p (presumably at same settings as PS4).
I see nothing to get upset at.
Ok, but why do you think they are going to spent more time on optimizing the X1 version?
Dictator93
Member
Because it fits within a conspiracy theory level narrative about game dev.
lordfuzzybutt
Member
I already said I read too fast and got mistaken. Don't tell me you have never made mistakes. And I am not upset, at all, just concerned.
Read my edited post above.
Ahh, ok.. conspiracy theories is something that the NeoGAF folks really like
Your concerns have been duly noted, but I can't relate to you.
I'm not worried in the slightest. The Xbox One is indeed the weaker machine compared to the PS4 and the recommended PC specs but that does not mean they have to spend a colossal amount of time trying to get the best of it, most likely they just tone down effects and that's it.
Similar threads
- Locked