The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt: Official Thread

Not sure where you guys are getting this downgrade talk from

Watching the videos the game looks great.

To me most impressive was the lighting/weather/wind effects.

BTW lots more videos showing up:

PC ultra gameplay:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_eRUq1PQPE

(below videos are not in english)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALGJGDRnHT0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGv6YzoLEJ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlVX4DpbFNc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySdxx0GmpFc


Looking at some of the non Ultra videos and it just blows my mind that the consoles can't get 60 fps on these modern games. They truly are weak devices. And the XBox can't even render at 1080p? In 2015? Wow.

I hope this gen doesn't last as long as the previous gen.
 
Looking at some of the non Ultra videos and it just blows my mind that the consoles can't get 60 fps on these modern games. They truly are weak devices. And the XBox can't even render at 1080p? In 2015? Wow.

I hope this gen doesn't last as long as the previous gen.
They can reach 60, but console gamers don't care about 60.
So developers max out the graphics as much as possible, and instead of allowing the game to run at variable framerates bouncing up to 40 or 50, they lock it at 30.

As evidenced by GTA 5 on the PS4, specifically. It looks almost the same as PC on max settings. It's missing grass density and reflections.
But obviously it runs at 1080p30. PS4 is using some form of watered-down Pitcairn, somewhere between the 7850 and 7870. A perfectly capable 30fps GPU.
 
Jesus the card game, Gwent, looks deep as hell. That could be a damn game by itself.
 
They can reach 60, but console gamers don't care about 60.
So developers max out the graphics as much as possible, and instead of allowing the game to run at variable framerates bouncing up to 40 or 50, they lock it at 30.

As evidenced by GTA 5 on the PS4, specifically. It looks almost the same as PC on max settings. It's missing grass density and reflections.
But obviously it runs at 1080p30. PS4 is using some form of watered-down Pitcairn, somewhere between the 7850 and 7870. A perfectly capable 30fps GPU.

GTAV on PS4 doesn't look "almost" the same as on PC. Max details on PC looks far superior.
 
GTAV on PS4 doesn't look "almost" the same as on PC. Max details on PC looks far superior.

Yeah, not to derail, but I played about 10 hours of the PS4 version in FPS mode just before the PC version came out. And the difference even on High-Very-High is pretty drastic. Let alone 120fps, etc. It certainly didn't help that the PS4 version ran below 30fps quite often.
 
Anyway, the 1080p60 videos look rather compressed. It still looks decent, but I hope the final version looks much better.
 
Youtube has terrible compression on videos, 1080p always look terrible vs what you'd actually see when playing the game.
 
my 2nd preorder this year (i'm definitely not preordering any ubishit or EAss games). GTA V didn't disappoint. and I'm sure witcher won't either for pc.
 
As evidenced by GTA 5 on the PS4, specifically. It looks almost the same as PC on max settings. It's missing grass density and reflections.

What are you smoking man. GTA 5 on PC at max settings looks FAR superior than on a PS4. It's not even close.
 
What are you smoking man. GTA 5 on PC at max settings looks FAR superior than on a PS4. It's not even close.
It really doesn't.
Most of the comparison pics we saw a few weeks ago were taken during the 2 weeks following the Heists update that broke the graphics, which have since been fixed.

All forms of hair actually look worse in the PC version: Facial hair, head hair, eyebrows, etc.
https://i.imgur.com/GhSbCPD.jpg

Without going farther off-topic, surmise to say: The PS4 version actually does look almost identical to the PC version @ 1080p30. It's missing some of the advanced long-distance settings for objects/shadows, and obvious things like AA. The PC circlejerk like to falsify comparison images to exaggerate the difference between platforms and then those images spread to legit places (like this website, actually). It's simply not true.

CDPR has gone out of their way to emphasize the homogenization of the platforms in Witcher 3. I doubt you'll even be able to tell the difference between the two, aside from resolution and frame rate which are the only 2 concrete benefits to PC gaming anymore.
 
Anyway, the 1080p60 videos look rather compressed. It still looks decent, but I hope the final version looks much better.

Yeah, just look at the text, and the compression is obvious. I think it looks great (from an artistic, aesthetic point of view), and should look fantastic when not compressed, as the textures and everything will undoubtedly be much sharper.
 
Must not continue to feed...
Even the Nvidia Guide says the max settings in GTA 5 do virtually nothing, and you should always use the 2nd highest setting since it gives you a massive performance boost with no visual loss, thus freeing up GPU power for things like anti-aliasing. The PS4 version is equivalent to PC on max settings, minus 1 notch for some variables (Advanced Options off).

And that's considered a good port. Witcher 3 stands to benefit even less, depending on how robust the graphics options are.
Most gaming rigs are only capable of 1080p60 using PS4-equivalent settings. A single 970 is roughly twice as fast as the PS4's APU: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_970_STRIX_OC/25.html. The only difference between a PS4 and a GTX 970 (@ Stock) is 30fps --> 60fps.
 
Last edited:
Consoles are OK and have their place. At least consoles have switched to normal processors/OS's, helps reduce the shitty ports I would think.There are some games with pretty obvious differences, you really need fluid video to assess differences IMO. As others have mentioned it's hard to do... youtube destroys quality. Images don't do anything justice either.

Anyways, on topic. For the Witcher 3 I think this video sold me the most & wasn't even a trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZvOiyztEiA

They really need to do a better job advertising... the trailers are awful. I don't mind them, but they feel more like technical presentations than marketing.

I also hope they keep the fur true GPU Physx. Give my Titan X SLI / 750ti something to chew on. You won't see this shit on consoles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMGPKlpaIxI Actually you'll see the wolf between 0:00 and 0:06 on PS4/Xbone :D
 
Last edited:
Even the Nvidia Guide says the max settings in GTA 5 do virtually nothing, and you should always use the 2nd highest setting since it gives you a massive performance boost with no visual loss, thus freeing up GPU power for things like anti-aliasing. The PS4 version is equivalent to PC on max settings, minus 1 notch for some variables (Advanced Options off).

And that's considered a good port. Witcher 3 stands to benefit even less, depending on how robust the graphics options are.
Most gaming rigs are only capable of 1080p60 using PS4-equivalent settings. A single 970 is roughly twice as fast as the PS4's APU: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_970_STRIX_OC/25.html. The only difference between a PS4 and a GTX 970 (@ Stock) is 30fps --> 60fps.

No.
 
http://gamingbolt.com/witcher-3-map...-4-new-screens-show-different-visual-settings

"That means The Witcher 3 is at least 3.7 times bigger than GTA: San Andreas (36 km2), 1.5 times bigger than GTA 5 (81 km2), 3.3 times bigger than Red Dead Redemption (41), 3 times bigger than Far Cry 4 (46 km2) and 3.5 times bigger than Skyrim (39 km2). In short, the final map will be absolutely massive in scale".
Read more at http://gamingbolt.com/witcher-3-map...different-visual-settings#gSobEqufrKJjfBHY.99


Mgub.gif
 
Hopefully the combat is good. The combat in #1 and #2 sucked and was too easy/arcadey.

There were too many fetch quests as well.

They can have a world 5X bigger than the latest GTA but it means nothing if the gameplay and quests suck.
 
Combat has definitely been the weak point for the series. #1 was just a matter of clicking when your cursor changed, swapping weapons, and kiting around here and there. All of those dodges and whatnot were pointless.
#2 was better, but it just felt a tad sloppy. Like they wanted the difficulty and "weight" from the Souls games, but without the finesse.
 
So based on Skyrim's size and horses, it would take like... 9 hours to ride from one side of Witcher 3 to the other?
 
So based on Skyrim's size and horses, it would take like... 9 hours to ride from one side of Witcher 3 to the other?

Pretty sure Witcher 3's horses will be significantly faster than Skyrim's. In Skyrim they were abnormally slow.
 
From the videos I've seen it doesn't seem to be much different... Maybe slower, if I had to guess.
They sprint on their horse at the start of the video here.
 
I really don't know about this game I think they packed so many textures and details in the game which might make it look realistic but on the other hand is just distracting as a whole.
Unless I just need to upgrade to 4k.....
The interface on the Witcher 2 just left a bad taste in my mouth.
 
I really don't know about this game I think they packed so many textures and pixels in the game which might make it look realistic but on the other hand is just distracting as a whole.

How is that distracting? I'm seriously wondering, as I have never been bothered by high quality textures.
 
Just a bunch of pixels In your face basically nothing immersive I fett the same way about Skyrim but I'm as old school as you can get.
Kinda realistic but at the same times doesn't do anything because it's borderline realistic.
 
Just a bunch of pixels In your face basically nothing immersive I fett the same way about Skyrim but I'm as old school as you can get.
Kinda realistic but at the same times doesn't do anything because it's borderline realistic.

You're crazy man! The more detail the better imo

I spent a lot of time modding skyrim to make the textures and lighting look as realistic as possible.
 
Just a bunch of pixels In your face basically nothing immersive I fett the same way about Skyrim but I'm as old school as you can get.
Kinda realistic but at the same times doesn't do anything because it's borderline realistic.

Weird... I am the complete opposite. It's really a problem for me with TES games because I can never accept blurry textures or anything that doesn't look absolutely best as possible because I know there's probably a mod for it. Anything that stands out for me in those games ruins immersion for me, but I don't have that problem with any other game. I still want them to look as best as possible, but it's especially distracting knowing that there's a mod for it.
 
From the videos I've seen it doesn't seem to be much different... Maybe slower, if I had to guess.
They sprint on their horse at the start of the video here.

They aren't galloping in the start, they are using Canter (you can see on the far right it says hold A to canter, and tap twice to gallop).


Here's a video I found where you can see them go from a canter to gallop:
https://youtu.be/gjtbTQ6Y-hY?t=35s

Also keep in mind, there are different horses in the game and it's likely they might have different stats to the different breeds (similar to Red Dead Redemption) so one horse may be faster (but easier to scare in combat) whereas another may be slower but better in combat and not as easily frightened.
 
FFS, this downgrade nonsense is getting old. Remind me, how many of you have played the game so far?

In the picture above, what I most clearly see is that the bottom screenshot is blurrier, which I hope were all smart enough to realize is YouTube, not the game. Beyond that, I don't see better or worse, just different. The bottom shot is notably more vibrant, more colorful. A switch that the devs made part way though the development, and perfectly within their right to do. I certainly wouldn't call it a downgrade though. I actually think the vegetation looks better, there is certainly more of it. The only other case I see being made is view distance, and you don't have a clue if that's fog to hide render distance or fog because the game has weather and its fucking foggy.

I actually went back and watched the reveal trailer the other day. I think the gameplay videos we're seeing now look better. Some things most certainly look different, but different does not equal worse. The game was announced two years ago. Anyone who thinks it's unacceptable for a game to change over the course of two years because of a 15-second snippet the devs showed off early on is delusional.
 
That's a joke, right?
View distance is heavily reduced. Foliage is heavily reduced. Smoke from the village is completely gone. Even the skybox is lower quality.
 
That's a joke, right?
View distance is heavily reduced. Foliage is heavily reduced. Smoke from the village is completely gone. Even the skybox is lower quality.

Anything related to sky, clouds, view distance, etc. can be ignored for now. Like I said, this game has a changing weather system. You have no idea if those things look the way they do because they were changed, or because the weather system in the game is doing something different. I'd much prefer varying weather in which some days are nice and sunny and others are gloomy and overcast.

Maybe they did cut back on view distance. My point is, you don't have the game, you don't know all the circumstances going on within the game, so you really have no idea. If nothing else, it's a notion to be shelved until the game is released.

In regards to foliage, there is certainly less wheat/straw/grass, but there are also more trees and bushes, and the foliage appears to be more varied. Regardless, the greener foliage is more appealing to me. But I'm not calling one graphically better or worse than the other. Just different.
 
I don't know what you are smoking but, changing weather system or no, the first screenshot is a LOT nicer.
 
i dont think it really matters, not saying it is the weather system, or not.

is there seasons? anyone know? the first picture looks more like a fall setting with camera filters

while the bottom one looks more spring like with green plants and maybe haze from fog.

i have not really been keeping up too much with witcher 3's features but either one i would be happy with in an open world.
 
i dont think it really matters, not saying it is the weather system, or not.

is there seasons? anyone know? the first picture looks more like a fall setting with camera filters

while the bottom one looks more spring like with green plants and maybe haze from fog.

i have not really been keeping up too much with witcher 3's features but either one i would be happy with in an open world.

i don't know about season but Witcher 3 does feature dynamic weather system and day/night cycle

and day/night cycle does explain why smoke is missing from the village
 
Back
Top