Witcher 3 bad graphics?

dave343

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Messages
1,869
I've been playing the witcher 3 on PS4 for the last day, but what stands out is how outdated the graphics look. I have the PS4 digital copy, if that makes any diffeernece, but the game looks like something 360 could handle.
For a game released in 2015 I didn't expect to see flat grass and shrubs, and not a lot of it either. Sprites everywhere, flat grass, flat trees, low res textures. In the screenshots the game looked awesome but now that I'm playing and roaming around its pretty bad for a new AAA 2015 title. Skyrim had individual blades of grass. Current consoles could handle skyrim maxed and yet the witcher 3 looks poor. Low res textures, and flat foliage... Expected a lot better.
 
With sharpen filter at maximum the game looks a lot more like the preview build on PC. PS4, I would guess is held back by the hardware.
 
PC version looks great to me, this is a major reason why I dont use consoles any more.
Although you need a powerful GPU to push the max settings.
But better to spend the money and be happy all the time imo, speshly if you spend a lot of time on your PC.

I rate Witcher 3 for its image quality.
 
Looks decent on PS4 to me. I have a bigger issue with the clunky feel movement and getting the horse stuck on 4 inch tall ground objects.

And the tiny font, what the hell.
 
In comparison to the graphics in the Witcher 2, I am also disappointed. They aren't really bad, I just expected better.
 
In comparison to the graphics in the Witcher 2, I am also disappointed. They aren't really bad, I just expected better.

A 5870 gfx card wont let it shine though, you wont see it anywhere near at its best.
If you use AA, try turning it off and use VSR.

When I had a 290x @ 1080p, 2560x1440 VSR made GTA V look great.
I'm NVidia now, both GTA V and Witcher 3 benefit from DSR.
 
I've been playing the witcher 3 on PS4 for the last day, but what stands out is how outdated the graphics look. I have the PS4 digital copy, if that makes any diffeernece, but the game looks like something 360 could handle.
For a game released in 2015 I didn't expect to see flat grass and shrubs, and not a lot of it either. Sprites everywhere, flat grass, flat trees, low res textures. In the screenshots the game looked awesome but now that I'm playing and roaming around its pretty bad for a new AAA 2015 title. Skyrim had individual blades of grass. Current consoles could handle skyrim maxed and yet the witcher 3 looks poor. Low res textures, and flat foliage... Expected a lot better.
I don't know. The 10 Mbps stream I watched of the PS4 version made the game look pretty good to me. I dare say it's the best looking game on consoles right now. Skyrim didn't have the object density, physics, or shader effects that TW3 has, either.
 
It's one of the best looking games on any platform right now despite the "downgrade controversy."
 
The game is immersive, which for many people makes up for the technically dated graphics.

Others, like me, can't get over how bad certain things look, and it's probably due to the open-world nature of the game as it really invites you to sit around looking at crap for hours. If the game were faster-paced it might not be an issue. Again, this is just my experience. I also think Skyrim looked bad, but in that case the characters/animation was the worst of it. Witcher 3 is better in that regard, I must say.
 
Nothing bad to report here.

Games looks crispy and beautiful. Probably my best looking game.
 
If you play on PC with everything maxed it's marvelous. I just posted in the other thread a nVidia guide on how to tweak it past Ultra that I'll try today.

Consoles can only do so much. Pretty sure I use more GPU power on Hairworks than the consoles have total. Open world games are inherently intensive. View distance is a bitch.
 
I wouldn't say it has bad graphics. But one thing that slightly annoyed me the first day I played is how bad quality the NPCs are from a slight distance away, once you're up in their face it looks fine though. They should have an option to increase the distance of high quality models. I play at max settings 1440p.

Though now I am over it, the game is too good to let little problems like that bother you ;)
 
I wouldn't say it has bad graphics. But one thing that slightly annoyed me the first day I played is how bad quality the NPCs are from a slight distance away, once you're up in their face it looks fine though. They should have an option to increase the distance of high quality models. I play at max settings 1440p.

Though now I am over it, the game is too good to let little problems like that bother you ;)


I think also there are specific settings for these. It was bugging the crap out of me too. Changed these and it works to my liking for the most part.

TextureStreamingHeadsDistanceLimit=100 (Default 10)
TextureStreamingCharacterDistanceLimit=100 (Default 50)
TextureStreamingDistanceLimit=100000 (Default 40000)
TextureMemoryBudget=3500 (Default 800; use max vram, or 3500 in case of GTX 970...)
ScaleformTextureUnstreamDelay=1.0 (Default 2.5. Not sure exactly what this does, seemed to lower textures pop lag possibly?)
 
I don't know. The 10 Mbps stream I watched of the PS4 version made the game look pretty good to me. I dare say it's the best looking game on consoles right now. Skyrim didn't have the object density, physics, or shader effects that TW3 has, either.

The Order 1886 has ridiculous graphics and blows away almost everything PC or console. Witcher 3 doesn't even beat Crysis 1 on graphics.
 
While running it on the PC and everything maxed out, I am disappointed with the graphics, but overall, the game is fun. (I'd say it's fairly average for a AAA game in 2015, and outside of the hairworks for some monsters, haven't been too impressed).
 
The Order 1886 has ridiculous graphics and blows away almost everything PC or console. Witcher 3 doesn't even beat Crysis 1 on graphics.

I think you confuse art style & direction with graphics. Besides from what I just googled of the order is that it is no where near as open world as witcher 3 (neither was crysis 1 for that matter.). Having a massive open world comes at a cost compared to dungeon crawlers and shooters on limited rails. You have to remember the amount of art assets that have to be designed and rendered could be more than 4 times what a normal game has.
 
Last edited:
You didn't say best open world graphics. You said best graphics on ps4. I'll agree if you meant open world. Crysis 1 wasn't completely open world but it was damn close.
 
Can't comment on pc version because I'm still waiting a little to play it. Although I did see the ps4 version at my friends house and it looks absolutely horrible
 
Now that I have been playing for a while I have come across some locations that do look really good. Since this is open world and I you spend a lot of time in the wooded areas, I really wish that they would have put a bit more focus on the quality of the foliage. Seems to be a pretty large oversight considering how much time you spend in those areas.
 
The PC version seems to get small incremental improvements with each update. In 1.05 the hair (without hair-works) seems to be improved slightly and more detailed, and the textures seem to be more gritty. I don’t think they actually changed the textures at all, just bumped up the sharpening settings, & maybe a little of the reflection settings and added a little more fog.

The general atmosphere of the game seems to be darker in this patch too. CDPR must have heard the complaints on the game being too sunny and bright, because it seems like since 1.05, it has rained on me 85% of the time, and seeing a bright sunny day has gotten pretty rare. Maybe it was supposed to be a natural progression of the game all along, but the visual atmosphere seems to be getting darker and more gritty as I go along. Hard to say since they’ve been releasing patches so regularly, but I think it may be a little of both.
 
Back
Top