Witcher 3 Downgraded visuals?

The Witcher 3
My only problem if the graphics are downgraded they should have downgraded the requirements. Plus for those of us that were going to buy new machines for this game it could have saved some money on what we were going to buy.

They probably thought everyone already bought a rig good enough to run Shadows of Mordor with ultra textures. :D

Edit:
On official game yt channel, for all interested, actual xbone gameplay footage appeared:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGG9yXmRCyQ

Errr... At 3:02... The transcript... Since when games include text for hearing impaired people? This is the first time I see something like this in a game. Thumb up!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
That being said, what we are upset about is the deceptive marketing. I preloaded W3 today, and gives you all the HD marketing videos. The very first one is clearly called "Witcher 3 - The Debut Gameplay". However, that video is mostly pre-rendered scripted promo video, not gameplay. That is the problem. They should just be honest and clearly label when things are actual gameplay or CG-quality scripted stuff for marketing.

I agree, but it's no different from what every other company has been doing for years.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,395
Location
Florida, US
I agree, but it's no different from what every other company has been doing for years.

Hardly every company, and it doesnt make it more excuseable coming from a company like CDP (who has worked hard for years to gain trust from fans).

CDP also promised us that graphics would improve compared to the first shots and videos + claim no downgrade when asked. I think that's worse than what most companies have done, including what Bethesda did with Oblivion (petty in comparison).
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
There is only 8 days left until we see for ourselves so I am going to wait until then before passing judgment on what they have or having done in with the graphics.

It really is hard to condemned for something at this point in time isn't it?
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,381
Even though I don't have a pc which could run witcher 3 on such ultra details at the moment, I do think it is a bit tragic that they had to tone down visuals so drasticly.

And I don't even usually notice these kind of things, but when i'm looking at those screenshots the difference is quite distinct… W3 is still a beautifull game and at the end of day the gameplay is the king, but those "before" and "after" shots kind of expose the untapped potential.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,469
Even though I don't have a pc which could run witcher 3 on such ultra details at the moment, I do think it is a bit tragic that they had to tone down visuals so drasticly.

I am sure for a few it will come down to visuals. More to the point what a lot are saying I do believe is they promised something GRAND with the graphics.

So where is it.

Myself I could careless as long as I enjoy it as much as the first two and I have 180 hours into the second one.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,381
I doubt my pc could run witcher at anywhere near high settings so I can't really claim to be affected by the downgrade (if the screenies are to be believed and absent any explanation by cdpr).

However, if they HAVE been downgraded, it seems to me that CDPR is guilty of no more than the rest of the industry (showing good graphics knowing it won't be the same upon actual play in order to promote the game).

Which is to say that it's disappointing given how they often market themselves as the gamer's friend. As someone here before stated, however, it's likely just a matter of time before they go the way of Bioware.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
586
Well after reading comments on various websites this week I agree with Dual Shockers as they call the recent articles about the Witcher 3 downgrade obnoxious.
The whole “downgrade” hubbub, though, isn’t just inaccurate, it’s also obnoxious and toxic. It creates often unwarranted negativity that affects the perception of a game in a way that most of the times isn’t justified. A lot of the games that received accusations of “downgrades” – and The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is just the latest example of many – look absolutely beautiful, but the perception of that beauty has been altered in the minds of many by the allegation that there has been a downgrade, and that gamers somehow received a sub-par product. This simply couldn’t be further from the truth.

It’s quite common to hear lines like “it looks great, but the E3 201X trailer looked better.” That “but” is the common result of all the recent focus on hunting for downgrades. It reduces people’s appreciation and enjoyment of a game, regardless of its actual quality, because they feel they’ve been somehow “tricked,” despite the fact that the product they purchased (if they bought it at all) looks awesome in its own right.

Even not considering the fact that the focus on graphics is often excessive, and whether a game is fun or not risks to be neglected, a title’s visuals should be judged on what they are, not on what some trailer broadcasted years ago showcased.

Does the game look great or not? Binary response: yes or no. You choose.
If it looks great, who cares if there has been a trailer that arguably looked a little better?

We should focus on here and now, and judge a product on its own quality, and on what is actually running on our screen. I can pretty much guarantee that this kind of attitude will help you enjoy games better, and retrieve that warm sense of wonder that many have lost due to the “downgrade” media and social media bombardment.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,404
Location
Spudlandia
Surprise! Here's some ice cream. Sorry there's no chocolate syrup.
Mmmm, good! Thanks so much!

How about I get you some ice cream with chocolate syrup tomorrow? (A day passes.) Here's your ice cream. Unfortunately, we ran out of syrup.
Yeah, I bet you used all the syrup yourself. Thanks for nothing.

Expectations are huge. They shouldn't be but they are.

I don't think it's just console hardware. The console wars have resulted in frames per second being a HUGE statistic. The console folks (and a pretty large number of PC folks, for that matter) don't seem to understand when lots of frames per second is handy and when it's not that important. The game gets 60 frames per second or it's crap. Period.

The platform parity thing, though, doesn't seem to be as big of a thing lately. Console people are used to the PC getting better graphics.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,258
Location
Kansas City
Hardly every company, and it doesnt make it more excuseable coming from a company like CDP (who has worked hard for years to gain trust from fans).

I'd say the vast majority of AAA companies at least. Feel free to believe otherwise though if you wish.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,395
Location
Florida, US
Like so many other controversies in the gaming world, this one seems like much ado about nothing. It should be a given that things are going to change throughout all phases of a game's development. It appears that CDPR aimed incredibly high with respect to the graphics, and maybe they fell a little short of what they wanted in the end but so what? I'm sure that the PC version will have a wide range of visual settings, including some that most machines will be incapable of pulling off.
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
24
Well they cranked it up to max before they had done any optimization and then closer to release said : Whoops! the frame rate is terrible on any rig except what NASA is running. We might have to tone it down 2 notches...
Either it's naive of them to think they wouldn't have to optimize and reduce graphics quality or it's just calculated marketing. Either way I expected more from CDP. With a big IF this article has any truth to it. I guess we'll know in a week or so.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
1,003
Location
The Great White North
Did you guys look at the very first screenshot from the link in the news post? How can you say you don't see much of a difference? :)
The whole wall with the crack in the original screenshot is textured completely different, the rock formations are different, the grass is different, the lighting is different, everything is different…. it's like night&day.
Now, how much this affects one's enjoyment of the game may be up for debate (personally I agree it still looks "good enough") but to deny that there is a massive change between some scenes seems a little odd to me.

I can see huge differences as well, as can anyone with eyes.

What I can't see, however, is confirmation that the bad shots are taken from the final PC release build on max settings. Even if some of them are Ultra settings - that's not necessarily max settings. Even if they're max settings, there's still a ton of potential tweaks and enhancements through ini files and filters.

Beyond that, as I've mentioned countless times before, things like chimney smoke, weather details, view distance and so on are all potentially subject to in-game conditions.

Marketing shots will ALWAYS be manipulated - but that doesn't mean you can take some poorly compressed shots from random youtube videos or trailers and feel absolutely certain what has changed and what hasn't changed.

The downgrade isn't being disputed, it's the EXTENT of the downgrade that's being disputed.

You can make the worst screenshots look twice as good simply by running them through a few filters, for instance. The marketing shots are obviously using such filters as well, as are almost all marketing shots.

Some like to believe the worst and some want to believe the best.

Personally, I don't like to believe - I like to know things for sure.
 
Myself I could careless as long as I enjoy it as much as the first two and I have 180 hours into the second one.

Yep same here. I'd be satisfied with witcher 2 quality graphics if the game is as fun as witcher 2! :)
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,469
After finding this video, I don't think there is a downgrade at all. The recent videos of the Witcher 3 just show the game without these Nvidia features enabled, it seems. Of course, I could be wrong, but watch this video and see.

 
What a silly non-issue. If the graphics of the most recent screenshots are anything to go by, I don't think we have anything to worry about. Gameplay and genuine choices with consequences on the other hand to rival the previous titles? We'll see about that. :)
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
1,975
Location
Australia
What a silly non-issue. If the graphics of the most recent screenshots are anything to go by, I don't think we have anything to worry about. Gameplay and genuine choices with consequences on the other hand to rival the previous titles? We'll see about that. :)

Nah, for some people here it's a proof of CDPR's evilness. Even if they couldn't run TW3 at the highest resolution on their machines.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Nah, for some people here it's a proof of CDPR's evilness. Even if they couldn't run TW3 at the highest resolution on their machines.

More likely; the upset people are those who have a good system and want cutting edge graphics, and the people who thought they could trust CDP.. Those who defends it (how that's even possible..) - those who would have to use low/medium settings anyways.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
Back
Top Bottom