Best grafix EVAR???
 

I saw sakichop's thread, he posted the following, and because he only wanted positive response, I made my own thread:
I was just thinking about this last night, but in opposite directions. I was thinking that, having seen quite a lot of beautiful console games, the graphics in The Witcher 2 wouldn't even need to get dialed back that much to be able to run on them. A little more pop-in, some lower-quality textures, and you're almost there. My point is, some console games, like Final Fantasy XIII that I had been playing before, are really up there in the graphics department.

Which got me thinking: am I just being too hard on the game here, am I just not seeing it, or is this really the current high-end state of PC graphics? Then I got a little disappointed, because frankly, while the graphics look good, they don't blow me away.

I don't know what I'm expecting. Maybe a little more than just more detail in the scenery and level-of-detail? Revolutionary new effect never seen before? (TW2's lighting effects are pretty nice, of course.) But I can't help but feel that I've seen better graphics in some console games, mostly because of the competent art direction and cinematic design of the developers.

There are 5 things you need to understand.

1. TW2 has been in development for a long time, it is not built on DX11 at its core. It still has win XP support. Consoles support DX9 level effects, they just can't have as high res textures and so on.

2. It is not an FPS, meaning they need to use resources for a lot of other things than just graphics. If they focused only on graphics the game would probably suck.

3. Most people ( because of the interface for one thing ) thinks it is prepared for a console release.

4. They can't make system specific optimizations which you can for console games, making the difference much less than it could be.

5. If you want to checkout what a PC can do ( well if you have 3 way SLI GTX 580 ) and a top of the line I7 check out this video: http://www.udk.com/showcase-samaritan

I don't know what you're smoking, honestly.

I run the game on full details - and it absolutely trounces every single console game I've seen.

Especially in terms of the textures and density of detail. Look at the forest areas at Flotsam - and there's simply no comparison.

Take a look at the game while checking out a console game at the same time, and all will become clear.

Did you read this part DArt ?

Yep, but those are very broad terms.

He didn't mention textures - which is one area where the game stands FAR above every single console game in existence.

Naturally on high settings, but still.

I'm not sure there's a single area of the game that has never been done before, but that's not the point.

It's the combined level of detail and performance on a good rig that amazes me.

I've read this part.
This is the whole truth and there is nothing more to add to this.

I'm guessing he did. :)

I'd like to know what console games the OP thinks have better graphics than TW2. I have a PS3, and I can tell you that no game I've played comes close to TW2 visually, and that includes FFXIII, which blows the rest of the PS3 library out of the water.

I don't mean to say that I don't think The Witcher looks really good--it does! And I did mention textures, as in a console version would require lower quality textures. I do run the game on Ultra (without Ubersampling) and what I'm saying is that the difference between The Witcher 2 on Ultra to the best-looking games I've seen on consoles (I mentioned FFXIII on PS3) is slightly disappointing.

Okay, granted, I did say that I've seen better graphics on console. I guess that's not really true, but just an illusion caused by excellent design and perhaps personal subjective preference. I'm just a graphics engine whore that hasn't seen such a revolutionary new thing blow his self completely away since maybe Oblivion or maybe Doom 3.

I'm not complaining about TW2. It looks fantastic. But so does FFXIII and I want to see what GG posted (which I had already seen before). :P I want something to really strain my PC, which by now is already 6 months old again by the way!

Well, such things are subjective - and there's no way to "prove" what's best.

I just think it's the best looking PC game out there, and when you couple that with a fantastic gameplay/story - it all comes together.

Last time I was this impressed was Crysis - and that was due to the visuals more than the gameplay.

With TW2, it's how everything comes together.

Also, the textures themselves, if you take the time to look at the ground/trees/rocks - are just incredible.

It's been a long time since I've seen a major title play to the strengths of the platform - and the amount of memory available for textures is a big one.

Beyond that, we have some pretty huge areas with minimal load-times, and a very fast and flexible savesystem. That's another thing that impresses me.

When I compare it to other recent major titles like Dragon Age 2 or Fallout NV - there's just no competition. Considering that it's a european developer with comparably limited means - that is truly an achievement.

That they dare to make the game challenging and demand something of the player, takes it beyond great into "classic/masterpiece" territory.

I've yet to finish it - but there's nothing so far to dissuade me from considering it one of the best games I've ever played.

Disclaimer: I don't pay much attention to graphics. Having said that, I'm not blown away by TW2's graphics either. In fact, the pixelization caused by the fubar shadows takes it down a peg.

As a mostly open-world game, it's pretty good, but it can't compare to more linear games where the engine only has to render a corridor at a time.

But again, I don't really care about the graphics - give me back my fighting stances instead of more polygons ;P

The shadows looked great to me (on my system). Sounds like an issue with your system/video drivers. Let me guess… ATI?

Some of the best shadows I've seen as well. I think this "glitch" is how some people perceive the technology they're using. I don't see the "glitchy" part about it, but to each his own.

It's a known issue with both ATI and Nvidia. Mostly noticeable at medium range, on light backgrounds (such as skin textures). I eventually got used to it, but am still waiting on the first patch for the second playthrough to see if anything is resolved.

Can you show me a screenshot of what you're talking about?

graphics vs art

Technically, TW2 is a DX9 marvel. It incorporates many effects others only seem to match using DX10 or 11 techniques. The downside to that is very very high CPU calculations to power these.

They're not just techniques for the sake of it either - TW2s SSAO implementation is the best I have seen - it actually adds greatly to the atmosphere and style.

Artistically it is also fantastic - best forests I've seen ever I think.

But overall I rate TW1 better artistically, and some other games are more stylish.

EDIT: I see the shadow 'gitch' in high preset.. it's actually just a dithering instead of true transparency - looks to be possibly intended as a consequence of shadowing speedtree foliage (and I saw the same effect in Crysis), as it's much better than hard shadows, but proper transparency would be nicer

I second that.
Heh-heh, the "best garfix evar"-thing always amuses me.
I think there are two things that need to be separated very clearly:

1. Technical graphics
Yes, today's PC FPS games are the undisputed king here (Crysis/Battlefield et al). Full of enigmatic acronyms (SSAO anyone?), the engine manages to render fairly convincing visual realism.

2. Artistic graphics
If the art director is truly blessed, he/she can envision fantastic graphics style, factoring in the underlying tech. Think of Final Fantasy XII with all of its beautiful landscapes… primitive as a tech, but oh so moody…

The bottom line: does Crysis (2007/PC) look better than Final Fantasy XII (2006/PS2)? You decide…

In my opinion Witcher 2 is the most beautiful game ever released. It is the case of when technological superiority meets with excellent art style..the result is just spectacular. There is a thread on neogaf of high res screenshots - it is being flooded with screens from TW2 these days, and anyone can see how extremely beautiful this game looks.

CDP weren't kidding when they said they look better than DA2. They make DA2 look like game from 10 years ago.

I'm personally not talking about technical quality or art direction. I'm talking about the combined visual experience - which will always be a subjective thing.

I "measure" this by my reaction to the game, considering my state of mind and pre-disposition.

Whether that's about technical quality or a strong art direction, is really irrelevant to how I react. It's not important, so to say.

Trying to argue about whether this game or that game was better in this way or that way, is just silly. It gets you nowhere.

I just know TW2 blows me away, and that's enough for me. This is with everything from technical wizardy, atmosphere, monster design, character design, sense of place, unique setting, animations, and a shit-ton of other things included.

Well, a screenshot was embedded in my original post, but here's a link to the relevant topic over at GoG Click.

Overal, graphics quality is what I would expect from a PC release, nothing blown-out-of-the-water spectacular. Perhaps we've all grown so accustomed to console titles that we do a doubletake when there's actually lush foliage and richly textured characters to gaze at…

Yeah, I saw the original screenshot. As they're telling you in the GoG.com thread - this is an intentional effect. It has to do with how they're handling shadows in a way that doesn't break performance.

I think the end-result is fantastic, and it's definitely not a glitch.

What it might be, though, is a compromise between the best looking shadow technology and the best performing technology.

As one person is saying in the thread… hehe… Even if it is their optimization method, it should be tweakable via config file (but isn't). It's incredibly annoying when you notice it all across characters' faces in cut scenes. Basically, it makes you just not pay attention; ie., not give a damn about the graphics and focus elsewhere. So, I hardly think such a facet of a game would earn it the title of "Best Graphics."

But I don't really care about graphics. Now, if I can only convince myself to contue playing Betrayal at Krondor… oh glorious polygons for mountains!

I don't know what is going on, but when I played it on my PC it was almost unnoticeable. In the dialogues especially, I don't remember ever being disrupted by shadows.

Several people are saying it, as far as I can see.

But it's a well known technology - though I'm not too familiar with the actual term. I've seen it in several games.

It's even more evident if you look at how shadows interact with the ground textures. As they get these "lined" edges around them. Personally, I think it's MUCH better than other compromises I've seen.

Rendering realistically transparent and detailed shadows is supposedly VERY expensive.

If you think it looks bad, then obviously you'll notice it a lot. I really have no issue with it myself.

I care :)

But not to the exclusion of gameplay/story :)

That particular glitch is hardware related though, not part of the game. I don't see why someone would factor that into their judgment of the game's visuals.

They use a sort of blurring on semi-low-quality shadows, I think. But that's a DirectX9 thing, I suspect, since it's been the same in every game on world shadows.

Anyway, it is a technological achievement, alright. And all load times on my SSD install are below a second, too. :D

Best graphix EVAR??? YES.
(And you outta see it in 3D!)
Can I run them on my PC??? NO.

Yes, there is no faster way to kill a thread than to ask people to be positve. Even got ridiculed for it. Oh well lesson learned.

First off it's just my opinion but i'm assuming by your title your mocking it.

When I judge graphics I don't care about the technology used. Dx 11 or 9, ssao, bloom, hdr or whatever. I simple crank the settings to max and start playing.

I'm playing at max settings with uber sampling and large textures. Only 2 games i've ever played have really made me say wow tw2 and crysis. The feeling I got when walking out of the tent with the sun beating down and over looking the camp is the same one I got when coming out of the water dripping wet and approaching the beach in crysis which was wow. No the game doesn't push my system and it's not bleeding edge tech but in game graphics will always run a couple yrs. behind whats capable so people can play it. A lesson devs learned with the release of crysis no doubt.

I dislike cartoony or anime graphics so I appreciate the realistic graphics of tw2. The attention to detail and lighting affects are top notch. To me it just looks and feels right. I haven't played every game ever made but of the ones I have tw2 best them all.

You mention in another post that you want a game to push your system but then are very supportive of consoles. The very reason you won't see any games that push your system.If you stay current and overclock your system you will never see any game stress your system. I'm running a 4ghz cpu they don't even make them retail, others are running 4.5 or even 5ghz, then throw in dual, tri or even quad sli. Devs just can't make games to stress these types of systems or even half as powerful systems and still expect them to port to console, Which is the main goal these days unfortunately.

So after all that the witcher 2 is not the best graphics that can be produced but is the best graphics i've seen.

Am i the only one who hates "bloom"?

Seriously, that's the first thing I turn off in a game.

Oh, not at all. I just didn't want to ruin your intention for the thread. I don't always pay attention to that sort of thing, but since you asked nicely. ;) But if you'll read my post, there is no mocking tone in it. It's simply that I like the graphics, but do not get this "best grafix EVAR!!!" feeling from it. (I spell it like this, because of the zealot, mindless, not thinking straight nature of someone who is totally bowled over by teh awesomes!)

Well, that may be it. I like all those technical thingies, or better said, I used to, but I haven't been bother much buy it in recent years. Last nice tech to come out is maybe texellation, which is DX11 and has yet to take off. But I used to love my specular lighting, per-pixel shading, shadow stencilling, and all those neat little tricks Carmack used to do in his old magick. I remember upgrading our 486 with some co-processor awesomeness (I think) and reliving Doom ][ all over again. :)

I kinda of miss all that. There have been a couple more of those moments over the years, a few of which I mentioned. I guess your "blown-awayness" struck a nerve of nostalgia, or something.

Maybe my expectations are too high. But I want that feeling of looking around and seeing this amazing reflection on that really cool railing, or staring into the distance feeling like it goes on forever back. Oh forget it…

I can like both, can I? I bought an Xbox 360 when my PC was aging badly and I kind of impressed with what the system could do. I still am, actually, especially when developers that are really good at what they do come out with some of their best work.

You may be right that consoles are keeping us back, but many engines for PC have been able to scale well, out of necessity. The revolution is still far off, then. It won't be coming out of the real-time raytracing corner any time soon, I'm sure.

You're definitely not alone, but I quite like it. And it doesn't look very unrealistic if you ask me, although HDR is infinitely better.

Okay, I'm fairly impressed now that I've played some more. I started doubting that some of the cut-scenes are real-time. Are there any pre-rendered scenes in the game? It's kind of hard to tell in third-person view where it's difficult to get good close-ups and see the detail. But certain scenes certainly looked… amazingly detailed, and a huge difference from any console or PC title I've seen yet.

Unless there's pre-rendered scenes mixed in. ;)

I am running TW2 on a laptop and running it all on no problems with any of the graphices…it blows me away at times how great they are…matter of fact no problems at all with crashes glithes etc…
System Color Alienware M17x Soft-Touch Stealth Black
[225-0827]
Processor Intel® Core™ i7 2630QM 2.0GHz (2.8GHz Turbo Mode, 6MB Cache)
[317-6602]
Memory 6GB DDR3 at 1333MHz (2DIMMS)
[317-6117]
A/C Adapter Alienware M17x 240W A/C Adapter
[331-1347]
Display Panel 17.3-inch WideHD+ 1600 x 900 60Hz WLED
[320-1935]
Video Card 1GB GDDR5 AMD Radeon™ HD 6870M

Yes, there are. It's easier to tell once you start juggling around different armors and Geralt's remains the same in the scene.

I apologize then I misconstrued your intentions by the title.



I think I get what your saying. Like when I fired up my 3dfx voodoo card for the first time. Now that was a jump in technology.

You absolutely can like both. I just believe that consoles are the main reason games have become graphically stagnant. If you look at a game like crysis it's 4 yrs. old or so and still one of the best looking games out there. Pc hardware has continued to advance but it doesn't matter because games are made for consoles then ported over. If reports about no new consoles are coming untill 2014 are true then you should be prepared for 3 more years of very little graphical improvement in games.

While I do believe that tw2 has the best graphics iv'e seen in a game you are right it's not groundbreaking or light years ahead of everything else but I do believe it's better.

I feel that way about motion blur. It does nothing to enhance the game for me whatsoever, and I even find it a bit hard on my eyes for some reason.


I'm trying to understand what you mean exactly. Are you saying you switched armors in the middle of a dialogue scene but it wouldn't show it? I don't think that's the same as being pre-rendered.

I used the Kayran armor for quite a while, and I'm sure it showed up in the cutscenes - that particular armor is very, very easy to notice.

Anyway, the up-close-and-personal graphics of TW2 is exceptional for an RPG, but it has mediocre long range graphics (landscapes etc). Quite natural, as it would require an immense computer to even run it otherwise.

I can second that. It does show your armour in cutscenes.

Yeah, I don't know why it matters so much to me to know whether something is pre-rendered or real-time. It's that same "Wow, that's actually in-game!" rush that I talked about in this thread. That it's become hard to distinguish the two is indicative of how good video game graphics have become.

If those cut-scenes (like in the Prologue when the witcher is interrogated) are real-time, I'm pretty sure that they use higher-polygon models for it. I think that's standard procedure in modern games, switch models when you get close up. I'll give it a good look when I'm playing again; I really want to know now!

(Incidentally, in FFXIII and FF in general, really, it's pretty easy to spot pre-rendered scenes, as there is much more going on in them, objects and effects wise. And still, the detail on them is similar, only slightly behind in real-time. Enough to make you think about it.)

So far, there's nothing pre-rendered in any of the cutscenes - at least not up to Chapter 2.

The only thing "pre-rendered" is the darkblue sky with white text at the very moment the game begins - and the cartoon animations every once in a while.

Everything else is rendered realtime with the engine.

Just search through TW2 folder for .bik files… that will probably solve the mystery… unless they are hidden in TW2.

Of course, there is no guarantee that they would be using BIK.

It's hard to tell real-time and pre-rendered apart when one is third-person and the other cinematic. You can make stuff look so much more realistic when you have a cinematic perspective and less gameplay stuff to worry about. But in that case, if it's all real-time, I'm *very* impressed by the scene that comes after you…