The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt: Official Thread

Ok, that was pretty damned funny. Though now I'm feeling kind of dumb because I know I played TW1 and TW2 multiple times, and I don't remember anyoned named Siri. Was that the medic elf chick from the first game? Hmm... or maybe a new character in TW3; I can't tell what in that video was a spoiler and what was just something I should already know/remember.
 
madFive said:
Ok, that was pretty damned funny. Though now I'm feeling kind of dumb because I know I played TW1 and TW2 multiple times, and I don't remember anyoned named Siri. Was that the medic elf chick from the first game? Hmm...
Click to expand...

No, that was Shani. Ciri is from the books, this is the first time she will be making a game appearance.
 
Frraksurred said:
No, Sir is from the books. This is the first time she will be making a game appearance.
Click to expand...

Ah ok. I'm also quite surprised how fast he seems to have found Yenifer in this game after spending all of the first 2 games questing to find her. It seems like a real spoiler to me to know she's in this one, but apperently it happens right at the beginning of TW3, so no one cares about spoiling it. I'm still looking forward to seeing how that happens. Think I better quit watching these vids before anything else gets spoilt.
 
madFive said:
Ah ok. I'm also quite surprised how fast he seems to have found Yenifer in this game after spending all of the first 2 games questing to find her. It seems like a real spoiler to me to know she's in this one, but apperently it happens right at the beginning of TW3, so no one cares about spoiling it. I'm still looking forward to seeing how that happens. Think I better quit watching these vids before anything else gets spoilt.
Click to expand...

I had the same thought when I first saw the original trailer. It sounds like some of it could be flashbacks, but the character models look the same so Im not so sure. Oh well, we'll find out soon enough. I'm excited. I had 2 weeks of vacation to use before I lost it, and my birthday is the same week as the release, so I burned a week just to get a head start on the game, lol. I'll spend the weekend mowing, cleaning house and doing all my responsible stuff... and then I'm going to full on veg in front of my PC. :p
 
Streams are now starting to pop up, seems the game is in the wind now, watch them at your own risk.
 
madFive said:
Ah ok. I'm also quite surprised how fast he seems to have found Yenifer in this game after spending all of the first 2 games questing to find her. It seems like a real spoiler to me to know she's in this one, but apperently it happens right at the beginning of TW3, so no one cares about spoiling it. I'm still looking forward to seeing how that happens. Think I better quit watching these vids before anything else gets spoilt.
Click to expand...

Ciri was mentioned in the first game by the innkeeper in Murky Waters. Only Geralt had no idea whom the guy was talking about, due to his amnesia.

At the end of the second game, Letho tells Geralt that Yennefer is in Nilfgaard. He mentions that he doesn't know exactly where she is in Nilfgaard, but suspects she's still being held by Emperor Emhyr. He also suspects that's how the Emperor knew of the Lodge of Sorceresses.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Witcher 3 looks worse than Witcher 2, and some new #downgradegate images.
Some are duplicates from past albums, sorry.

http://imgur.com/a/K3uFC

New videos comparing blood/water effects:
Original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4ony2r0QFs&feature=youtu.be&t=8m44s
Downgrade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrXxdy9Qgpk&feature=youtu.be&t=3m25s
Click to expand...

Would you just quit with this crap already? On your two videos, one of them is from the Xbox channel, and it lacks the disclaimer at the begining saying it was captured on a PC. As such, its very possible that it's console footage (or PC footage with appropriate settings to match console capabilities).

As for the screenshots, again, you've got no clue what the specific scenario is in-game in which each image was taken. Until the game is out and we know exactly what platform we're seeing, what the in-game settings are, and are seeing things in their proper resolution instead of muddy youtube shit... all you're doing is spouting nonsense that you cannot possibly know to be true or not.

Quite frankly, it's really annoying that the only reason you come into the thread is to leave shit like this.
 
 
We get you don't like the game and/or developer.
Load and clear.
If there is nothing new to add, why don't you go away then?
As it only looks like you are in this thread to derail.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Believe me, I'm on your side. But it's these people you need to worry about.

http://wccftech.com/the-witcher-3-graphical-downgrade-final-version-pc/
http://n4g.com/news/1720854/new-the-witcher-3-screenshots-comparison-shows-possible-downgrade
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/the-w...ull-effect-after-latest-trailer-devs-comment/
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/cd-pr...de-ation-game-delay-finishers-location-marks/

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/35dfcj/witcher_3_what_happened/
http://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/30yarq/why_are_we_not_angry_at_the_graphics_downgrade_in/
http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/34qnvg/the_witcher_3_got_a_massive_downgrade/
http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/34ag8c/downgrade_much/
Click to expand...

Alternatively we can wait the less than two bloody weeks until the game is out and find out then or we can all say "who the fuck cares about this bullshit" and go back to looking at what actually matters: How the game plays.
 
Derangel said:
Alternatively we can wait the less than two bloody weeks until the game is out and find out then or we can all say "who the fuck cares about this bullshit" and go back to looking at what actually matters: How the game plays.
Click to expand...
For the most part, sure.
But there will be people who dedicate months of their time creating mods to unlock the original effects. Same thing happened with W_D and they were quite successful at it.
 
sblantipodi said:
Do you prefer to game the witcher with the pad or with mouse + keyboard?
Click to expand...

#1 was KB/M only, but the game actually lended itself to a pad if you use mapping software to apply KB/M functions to your gamepad.

#2 was probably better off with a pad. The UI definitely had controllers in mind, and there are very few (maybe no) instances where you need to worry about looking quickly or aiming.

Use whatever you prefer, but I think if you're a pad player you'll be more than fine.
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
For the most part, sure.
But there will be people who dedicate months of their time creating mods to unlock the original effects. Same thing happened with W_D and they were quite successful at it.
Click to expand...

The game isn't even out and you already make the fallacy of comparing Ubisoft to CD Project Red :rolleyes:

Time to hit that ignore button ^^
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Believe me, I'm on your side. But it's these people you need to worry about.

http://wccftech.com/the-witcher-3-graphical-downgrade-final-version-pc/
http://n4g.com/news/1720854/new-the-witcher-3-screenshots-comparison-shows-possible-downgrade
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/the-w...ull-effect-after-latest-trailer-devs-comment/
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/cd-pr...de-ation-game-delay-finishers-location-marks/

http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/35dfcj/witcher_3_what_happened/
http://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/30yarq/why_are_we_not_angry_at_the_graphics_downgrade_in/
http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/34qnvg/the_witcher_3_got_a_massive_downgrade/
http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/34ag8c/downgrade_much/
Click to expand...

If the game releases and looks notably worse at maximum settings than what was shown off, there is a legitimate complaint to be had. But anything right now is nothing but speculation, and as such claiming the game has been downgraded as fact is wrong. If (like many of us) your excited for the game either way, it's not a huge deal. If it is a big deal for you, don't pre-order, wait until the game releases, and make a decision from there whether or not your satisfied with the games graphics.

The game will be great regardless. Also, it's unfair to assume the game cannot and will not change since the footage we first saw two years ago. And I maintain there is a difference between a game changing (not always for the best) due to constraints in development versus taking a slice of the game and building it up to a quality you don't intend to create for the purpose of marketing. That's what Watch Dogs did. There were lines of code in the game that referenced assets specific to an E3 version of the game. That's a straight up lie, and it's very different than having to change your game because your vision of a game when you start development isn't in line with what you can produce 3-4 years down the road.

TaintedSquirrel said:
Witcher 3's map vs the full world size, pretty neat.
Reminds me of Elder Scrolls.

http://i.imgur.com/2qqwZDj.jpg
Click to expand...

Tells me there is lots of room left for future games. Based on what I can tell from dev commentary, we may be seeing the end of Geralt, but not the end of the witcher universe.
 
Derangel said:
Alternatively we can wait the less than two bloody weeks until the game is out and find out then or we can all say "who the fuck cares about this bullshit" and go back to looking at what actually matters: How the game plays.
Click to expand...

I've read statements similar to this through out the years here on [H]. Simply put graphics matter. Visuals help facilitate our connection to the game world which in turn may provide a better game play experience. I'm not implying that stellar game play mechanics or an engaging story are to be overlooked. These two facets can save an otherwise mediocre looking game and provide a reason to continue playing.

Personally I believe that game play and graphics are the yin and yang of gaming. They need to coexist to create the perfect game play experience. When this happens we have a truly revolutionary game.

I'm sure the Witcher 3 will be an enjoyable experience either way. Even if the graphics suffer CD Projekt RED are known for creating an engaging RPG.
 
Satarel said:
I've read statements similar to this through out the years here on [H]. Simply put graphics matter. Visuals help facilitate our connection to the game world which in turn may provide a better game play experience. I'm not implying that stellar game play mechanics or an engaging story are to be overlooked. These two facets can save an otherwise mediocre looking game and provide a reason to continue playing.

Personally I believe that game play and graphics are the yin and yang of gaming. They need to coexist to create the perfect game play experience. When this happens we have a truly revolutionary game.

I'm sure the Witcher 3 will be an enjoyable experience either way. Even if the graphics suffer CD Projekt RED are known for creating an engaging RPG.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but only to a certain extent. Graphics absolutely help with the immersion into a game, but I think that it comes with diminishing gains. No matter what, the game will look good, and be fantastically fun. I can't imagine a scenario where I'll go "well, fuck, this could have been really fun if only the draw distance were farther"... If the game came out and looked like a 10 year old game, that would seriously detract from the experience. Less dense foliage and less draw distance really doesn't mean much in terms of what I get out of the game. And really, we were all enjoying games just fine when the graphics looked like shit, they were still fun to play. Likewise, I've seen plenty of games that look incredible, but the game play is incredibly bland (crysis, anyone?). Balance is nice, but when the scales have to be tipped in a particular direction, I'll take game play over graphics every time.

I think it's important to accept the fact that we cannot have everything. CDPR is creating an absolutely massive game with a relatively small team. CDPR has fewer employees than companies making similar games in size, and they are funding their own games versus having the financial backing of large parent companies or big name publishers. I'm sure they have to be incredible careful with their budget. It may turn out that the game looked better two years ago than it did today. It may also be true that two years ago the game world was not nearly as big as it is now, and perhaps they decided to put more money into making the game world bigger, or more fleshed out, versus maintaining the graphics to be consistent with early footage. (I hope it goes with out saying that that I'm purely speculating here, but it's certainly a possible, and very valid explanation if the game did go through a graphical shift)
 
Satarel said:
I've read statements similar to this through out the years here on [H]. Simply put graphics matter. Visuals help facilitate our connection to the game world which in turn may provide a better game play experience. I'm not implying that stellar game play mechanics or an engaging story are to be overlooked. These two facets can save an otherwise mediocre looking game and provide a reason to continue playing.

Personally I believe that game play and graphics are the yin and yang of gaming. They need to coexist to create the perfect game play experience. When this happens we have a truly revolutionary game.

I'm sure the Witcher 3 will be an enjoyable experience either way. Even if the graphics suffer CD Projekt RED are known for creating an engaging RPG.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying graphics don't matter at all but the "downgraded" crap is overblown. It's something to toss at companies if they aren't honest about it but people seriously act like a game not looking quite as good as the original reveal somehow makes it worse. It's not like we're talking about the game going from looking beautiful to looking like a PS2 game. Even in the likely console videos it still looks pretty.
 
As long as the tools to mod in better textures etc are available soon after release I'm not terribly concerned.

I do agree the game does look different then it used too, but the better it runs the happier people will be.

As long as I have the ability to install graphic mods I'm good
 
It's funny how everyone comes up with explanations and "who cares, gameplay!" when it's CD Projekt, but for any other developer/publisher they'll lose their shit. Just compare those reddit threads to the ones last year about Watch Dogs.

Not to mention CD Projekt hasn't been what I call the ideal PC developer during The Witcher 2. When it came out they blocked AMD users from playing the game at eyefinity resolutions and only allowed support for Nvidia's surround. When I mentioned this a year or two ago, I got hit with "Oh no, not the triple monitors!"

They make good games, I'm not going to dispute that. Doesn't mean they have PC at interest, and it's so annoying seeing everyone say "Please buy this game to show support for a quality PC dev, blahblahblah"
 
does any of you fucking have your fucking pc copy of game at your hand? NO SHUT THE FUCK UP
 
still talking about graphics downgrades??...what will they talk about after the game is released?...maybe the gameplay itself? :D
 
hajalie24 said:
It's funny how everyone comes up with explanations and "who cares, gameplay!" when it's CD Projekt, but for any other developer/publisher they'll lose their shit. Just compare those reddit threads to the ones last year about Watch Dogs.

Not to mention CD Projekt hasn't been what I call the ideal PC developer during The Witcher 2. When it came out they blocked AMD users from playing the game at eyefinity resolutions and only allowed support for Nvidia's surround. When I mentioned this a year or two ago, I got hit with "Oh no, not the triple monitors!"

They make good games, I'm not going to dispute that. Doesn't mean they have PC at interest, and it's so annoying seeing everyone say "Please buy this game to show support for a quality PC dev, blahblahblah"
Click to expand...

I don't remember everyone that lost their shit over WD but there wasn't a lot of crazyness around here about it until there was solid proof. Don't compare [H] users to the mass of dumbfucks on Reddit, please. CDPR doesn't deserve the blind praise they get all of time but they have at least earned the benefit or the doubt until they prove they're not trustworthy at all. I'd trust CDP more than Valve at this point honestly.
 
Derangel said:
I don't remember everyone that lost their shit over WD but there wasn't a lot of crazyness around here about it until there was solid proof. Don't compare [H] users to the mass of dumbfucks on Reddit, please. CDPR doesn't deserve the blind praise they get all of time but they have at least earned the benefit or the doubt until they prove they're not trustworthy at all. I'd trust CDP more than Valve at this point honestly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm more talking about reddit, but you still get tons of EA/Ubisoft is evil, but CDPR is good over here.

Reddit users still seem to think that Watch Dogs had E3 graphics disabled in the options, when it was just some shitty bloom effects and depth of field.

I already purchased this game, I plan on playing Witcher 1 and 2 again before heading into this though, I am disappointed about the graphics if this true, and I don't think CDPR is some amazing company, but they make fun games, so I'll buy them. Just like I'll buy fun games from EA or Ubisoft.
 
hajalie24 said:
It's funny how everyone comes up with explanations and "who cares, gameplay!" when it's CD Projekt, but for any other developer/publisher they'll lose their shit. Just compare those reddit threads to the ones last year about Watch Dogs.

Not to mention CD Projekt hasn't been what I call the ideal PC developer during The Witcher 2. When it came out they blocked AMD users from playing the game at eyefinity resolutions and only allowed support for Nvidia's surround. When I mentioned this a year or two ago, I got hit with "Oh no, not the triple monitors!"

They make good games, I'm not going to dispute that. Doesn't mean they have PC at interest, and it's so annoying seeing everyone say "Please buy this game to show support for a quality PC dev, blahblahblah"
Click to expand...

I said it above, but I'll put it here too... as of right now it wouldn't be fair to compare this to Watch Dogs. The big issue with WD was that it was discovered post release that the segment shown at E3 was purpose built for that demonstration. There were assets that had "e3" in the name. I don't think Ubisoft ever intended for the retail game to look that good. It was a straight up lie, and that's bullshit. Also, "who cares, gameplay' doesn't really work with WD either. It was an OK game. Not really bad, but not great either. At the end of the day there was really nothing remarkable about the game.

With this, I'm confident the game will be great. Way fucking better than Watch Dogs was anyway. Furthermore, if the game experienced a downgrade due to the scope of the game changing or something, i'm fine with that. Everything costs money, and if the choice was for money to go to visuals or things like more diverse voice acting, better AI, bigger game world, etc. I'd happily go with a visual downgrade to see other areas enhanced. If there game releases and there is evidence that CDPR purposefully mislead people, they would receive an equal amount of shame. What most people right now are saying is... none of us know. There is no sense in shaming CDPR over a bunch of guesswork.

Also, I disagree on the count of CDPR not being a quality PC developer. Admittedly, I know nothing about the AMD situation your talking about. Maybe they did something shitty... maybe they got roped into a deal with Nvidia. I don't know. What I do know is they have done tons of great things for PC development (and game development as a whole).

The Witcher series has been DRM-free if you want it to be (including giving free DRM-free copies through GOG to people who purchased from places like Steam). Likewise, they have shown terrific post-release support. Both games received a heavily updated enhanced edition. And, beyond just patches, they added new content. New game modes, new quests, etc. In TW2 is was a few hours worth of content. Totally free. Name me another dev that does that. It's a bastion of hope in an industry that has put all its focus onto selling as many pre-orders as possible, pushing a season pass on not yet existing DLC, and then moving onto next years recycled version. They also offered a discount on pre-order of TW3 to existing customers of any Witcher game. Again, that's a rarity. You may see it with indie games, but name me another AAA game where you got a discount for buying a previous game in the series.

The bottom line is, they seem to be avoiding many of the practices that are becoming commonplace in this industry. I'm all for it.
 
hajalie24 said:
Reddit users still seem to think that Watch Dogs had E3 graphics disabled in the options, when it was just some shitty bloom effects and depth of field.
.
Click to expand...

Assuming I am understanding you correctly... this is not true. There were assets specifically built for the E3 demo. The biggest example is the theater. In the E3 demo, the canopy had every single light bulb individually modeled in place. The retail version had a flat texture with yellow dots.

http://i.imgur.com/AzuHuZZ.jpg
 
I'm not saying they're a terrible PC developer, they shouldn't be seen as the beacon of light for all PC gaming. Just because you are unaware of what they did in the past doesn't make it less true. Sure, it started out with something that wouldn't affect them (I mean who has 3 monitors to play games, right?)
But now it has led to them adopting nvidia's PhysX (we'll see how PhysX 3.0 actually runs on CPU's, I doubt it will be much of an improvement.) So, all AMD users most likely won't see all those fancy effects Yeah, people are just going to say gameplay > graphics in response to this, you're still fragmenting the PC userbase by doing something like this, and they're encouraging it. While you can argue that it doesn't make them a shitty developer, I'll probably agree, but this isn't a practice anyone should want in PC gaming, so comparing how other developers don't hold up to CDPR's standard when they do stuff like this makes no sense. Would you want every game out there to have features only available on either Nvidia or AMD?

In TW2 is was a few hours worth of content. Totally free. Name me another dev that does that
Click to expand...

I know of Tripwire. For KF1 they put in so much content. No DLC (unless you count skins, which don't affect gameplay and are just there to support the dev)

but name me another AAA game where you got a discount for buying a previous game in the series
Click to expand...

I don't see the big deal with 5% off, it's a nice gesture but you can get it cheaper at a ton of places. Hell, when GMG sold the game for cheaper they basically slandered them.

Assuming I am understanding you correctly... this is not true. There were assets specifically built for the E3 demo. The biggest example is the theater. In the E3 demo, the canopy had every single light bulb individually modeled in place. The retail version had a flat texture with yellow dots.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Enabling some options in the config files didn't magically turn the game into the E3 version, it just added terrible bloom effects and depth of field. The game was still visually downgraded, but they seem to think that it was disabled in some hidden files specifically because of consoles and once you enabled them all the graphical effects were there, when that's not the case.
 
"Performance Note

Running this game on NVIDIA® GeForce® GPUs will enable the best possible playing experience."
-- Witcher 3 manual
 
Witcher 2 ended up performing slightly better on AMD than NVIDIA, despite being sponsored by the latter.

W3 uses an upgraded version of the same engine so I wouldn't be surprised if it performs fine on AMD hardware.
 
hajalie24 said:
It's funny how everyone comes up with explanations and "who cares, gameplay!" when it's CD Projekt, but for any other developer/publisher they'll lose their shit. Just compare those reddit threads to the ones last year about Watch Dogs.
Click to expand...

You lose any and all credibility by using reddit as a reference*, but I am one of "everyone", and I didn't give a shit about the Watch Dogs fiasco.

* Reddit and/or Twitter in no way offer a significant representation of gamers, and people should stop using them to support stupid assertions.
 
Litfod said:
You lose any and all credibility by using reddit as a reference*, but I am one of "everyone", and I didn't give a shit about the Watch Dogs fiasco.

* Reddit and/or Twitter in no way offer a significant representation of gamers, and people should stop using them to support stupid assertions.
Click to expand...
Reddit is about as close as you can get to a full representation of "gamers" even though they're still an incredibly small sample size. Sort of like how 4Chan doesn't represent everyone yet they still have a huge influence on the internet as a whole. When Redditors pull out their pitchforks and torches, then the news will spread everywhere. That's why they matter. It doesn't mean they're right or wrong about things, the hivemind mentality plays a big role in it.

You also have to consider multiple subreddits. If /r/gaming, /r/games, /r/pcgaming, and /r/pcmasterrace are all complaining about the same thing, then you can be sure it's a big deal -- Like what happened with Modgate recently. All four subreddits shared pretty much the same overall opinion and were probably heavily responsible for backlash against Valve which caused them to pull paid mods from the store. They even cited their overflowing email inbox.

By their powers combined...
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
Reddit is about as close as you can get to a full representation of "gamers" even though they're still an incredibly small sample size.
Click to expand...


1474.gif
 
The before and after shots are pretty damning, unlike some of the apologists I don't believe this late in the game that the retail version is going to be any better. I also don't believe that it is acceptable to use bullshots, devs should disclose if early promotional material is no longer representative of the final build rather than obfuscating or giving cryptic responses to queries about the issue. I only hope that it is still otherwise a good game worth my time and money.
 
Blade-Runner said:
The before and after shots are pretty damning, unlike some of the apologists I don't believe this late in the game that the retail version is going to be any better. I also don't believe that it is acceptable to use bullshots, devs should disclose if early promotional material is no longer representative of the final build rather than obfuscating or giving cryptic responses to queries about the issue. I only hope that it is still otherwise a good game worth my time and money.
Click to expand...
It's possible the devs were hoping the game would actually end up looking like the early videos/screenshots we saw, but severely over-estimated the power of the new consoles or upcoming PC hardware.
This kind of thing is prevalent in the industry for many years now, so these clips are most likely vertical slices designed for the sole purpose of being used as PR material.

"Aim high", as they say.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top