Witcher 3 - Unplayable - General

Is it wrong that I actually kinda like some of the "downgraded" graphics shown in this video better for not being a DoF and Bloom mess?

CD Projekt Red also did an Enhanced Edition for both 1 and 2 - for free. Maybe we'll be getting some of the stuff in that version. This is bad business practice, but this isn't nearly the same as when Ubisoft does it - they charge you out the ass to get specific features, they have a history of incredibly buggy games at launch and in general lack of polish (heh, something CDPR isn't lacking in). What CD projekt has accomplished with The Witcher 3 is actually pretty amazing, Novigrad is quite large, and it's actually [I]alive[/I] - in stark contrast to games like Skyrim.

[QUOTE='KING]THT[WRATH;47780845']The combat makes it unplayable.[/QUOTE] How? As much as i've seen gameplay on YT, it seems that the combat is WAY better but HARDER at the same time from the one in the witcher 2 which was just only roll roll fight roll roll kick roll roll quen. [editline]23rd May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47785355] What CD projekt has accomplished with The Witcher 3 is actually pretty amazing, Novigrad is quite large, and it's actually [I]alive[/I] - in stark contrast to games like Skyrim.[/QUOTE] Witcher 2 was also really alive; the first city or village was really flourishing with life.

From the whining I've heard about the combat so far it's people expecting there to be iframes when nothing has iframes in the entire game.

[QUOTE=Crimor;47785400]From the whining I've heard about the combat so far it's people expecting there to be iframes when nothing has iframes in the entire game.[/QUOTE] I'm still in the Dark Souls mindset of rolling giving iframes, it took a bit of adjustment to remember that I have to actually physically get out of the way of an attack to avoid it That and the short-ranged dash is better than roll in about 90% of circumstances

[QUOTE=Samiam22;47785406]I'm still in the Dark Souls mindset of rolling giving iframes, it took a bit of adjustment to remember that I have to actually physically get out of the way of an attack to avoid it That and the short-ranged dash is better than roll in about 90% of circumstances[/QUOTE] Which is a good thing because the roll is ridiculous. I still have nightmares about going fast (ehh, slightly faster) in the second one.

Honestly, here's my biggest problem. It doesn't bug me that the game doesn't look as good as we were shown, I don't blame them for having to downgrade because the reasons suck but aren't their fault, none of that bugs me. What bothers me most is that we're finding this out [I]now.[/I] I don't know when it was decided that it should be downgraded, maybe it was after they made those statements that there would be no downgrade, maybe it was before and they straight up lied to us, but what I do know is that there is no excuse to not tell us about it before we get the game. I highly doubt these changes were made on release day, and if this changed so much as a week ago, so much as a day ago, then they have an obligation to everyone buying it to inform them that the product they think they're getting is not the one they will be getting. It's their responsibility, and as much as they might have every excuse in the world to do this downgrade, as much as they might make amends and patch it to be better, as long as they don't tell us about it before it's in our hands, it's false advertising.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;47785508]Honestly, here's my biggest problem. It doesn't bug me that the game doesn't look as good as we were shown, I don't blame them for having to downgrade because the reasons suck but aren't their fault, none of that bugs me. What bothers me most is that we're finding this out [I]now.[/I] I don't know when it was decided that it should be downgraded, maybe it was after they made those statements that there would be no downgrade, maybe it was before and they straight up lied to us, but what I do know is that there is no excuse to not tell us about it before we get the game. I highly doubt these changes were made on release day, and if this changed so much as a week ago, so much as a day ago, then they have an obligation to everyone buying it to inform them that the product they think they're getting is not the one they will be getting. It's their responsibility, and as much as they might have every excuse in the world to do this downgrade, as much as they might make amends and patch it to be better, as long as they don't tell us about it before it's in our hands, it's false advertising.[/QUOTE] What the fuck, they posted tons of videos for over two years showing the game, don't expect a concept or promotional material to end up the same in the end, so therefore fuck people who pre-ordered then had a shit fit whining how they were lied to, there was no lie, it was people who blew the entire thing out of proportions because they felt like they don't get happy meals as they are shown on ads.

[QUOTE=Grindigo;47785552]What the fuck, they posted tons of videos for over two years showing the game, don't expect a concept or promotional material to end up the same in the end, so therefore fuck people who pre-ordered then had a shit fit whining how they were lied to, there was no lie, it was people who blew the entire thing out of proportions because they felt like they don't get happy meals as they are shown on ads.[/QUOTE] Unless the difference was obvious even then, I don't see how that excuses anything. To show a product as being better than it actually is and claim it [I]will[/I] be that way (remember, every time they were asked CD Projekt Red affirmed that there would be no visual downgrade, or 'youtube compression issues') is false advertising, it's plain and simple. If they fully expect the game to look different at release, then they should god damn tell you, they shouldn't sit there going "Oh no no no, no downgrades whatsoever, it will look [I]just[/I] like that.", which is exactly what they fucking did. I didn't follow the Witcher 3's development but I haven't heard anything to that effect. This of course just continues to hammer in actual gameplay trailers on to the list of shit you can't trust at E3 type events, along with, well, everything else.

Sorry but this entire outrage was started by bunch of manchildren who can't read fucking legal disclaimers, this shouldn't be discussed further, because it's beating a dead horse and if anyone feels upset should email the developer and complain.

[QUOTE=Grindigo;47785843]Sorry but this entire outrage was started by bunch of manchildren who can't read fucking legal disclaimers, this shouldn't be discussed further, because it's beating a dead horse and if anyone feels upset should email the developer and complain.[/QUOTE] I bet if this was an EA game you'd be singing a different tune.

[QUOTE=Skyward;47785887]I bet if this was an EA game you'd be singing a different tune.[/QUOTE] Of course I will be singing a different tune about EA, what did you expect me to do? I haven't bought or played a single EA game since Spore, that game was a fucking train wreck and under delivered on promises and it had a vicious DRM system.

I feel like people bitching about this are spoiled man children. This game is incredible, it has a gigantic world and loads of content and looks fantastic and you still get people finding something to bitch about. These "Graphical Downgrades" aren't a new trend and they've been going on for more than a decade. This game has plenty of footage of the final product weeks before release, no one should feel like they were duped into anything.

[QUOTE=Crimor;47785400]From the whining I've heard about the combat so far it's people expecting there to be iframes when nothing has iframes in the entire game.[/QUOTE] Part of the problem is that some monster attacks (here's looking at you, nekkers and drowners) have some fucking absurd tracking. Like, they will accelerate in mid-air of their leap to smack your ass.

[QUOTE=Saxon;47786092]I feel like people bitching about this are spoiled man children.[/QUOTE] Stop acting as if the developers are doing you a favor. They're selling a product, and the consumers have all the rights in the world to criticize it. Also, this game doesn't really interest me, but I feel the biggest problem are the ridiculously high system requirements, graphically it really isn't anything special

[QUOTE=Rixxz2;47788369]Also, this game doesn't really interest me, but I feel the biggest problem are the ridiculously high system requirements, graphically it really isn't anything special[/QUOTE] I run the game on near to max with a stable 30 fps (locked by the in game frame limiter option), minus hairworks and with grass density and rendering distance set to high instead of ultra on a 750 Ti 2GB, Phenom II x4 820, and 6 GB RAM which is partially or entirely below the recommended minimum specs. I'm not sure what you'll need to get a stable 60, but the fact that I can nearly max it with my computer, even at 30 FPS, is pretty amazing.

[QUOTE=uber.;47780116]Considering Watch Dogs ran about as efficient as a PC-class Hummer I think it should be fairly safe to differentiate.[/QUOTE] If you have AMD, you're running a Prius at this point from all the reports I've seen. AMD users got fucked hard. [editline]23rd May 2015[/editline] And again, AMD users got the short end of the stick with Watch_Dogs.

[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;47788412]I run the game on near to max with a stable 30 fps (locked by the in game frame limiter option), minus hairworks and with grass density and rendering distance set to high instead of ultra on a 750 Ti 2GB, Phenom II x4 820, and 6 GB RAM which is partially or entirely below the recommended minimum specs. I'm not sure what you'll need to get a stable 60, but the fact that I can nearly max it with my computer, even at 30 FPS, is pretty amazing.[/QUOTE] What resolution are you using?

[QUOTE=Rixxz2;47788460]What resolution are you using?[/QUOTE] 1600x900 [editline]banana[/editline] I don't really get how this is funny. The performance difference between 900p and 1080p is negligible. I guarantee you I'd get a stable 30 at 1080p too, if I had the monitor for it.

If you go to /v/, you just see a lot of rabid shitposting because a lot of people seem to want every release to be the next TORtanic or Dragon Age 2, either that or everyone is scared of the SJW boogieman.

[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;47788615]1600x900[/QUOTE] So you have a PC slightly more powerful than the PS4/XB1, while you get graphical quality less pleasing than them. Seems more expected than "amazing", to be honest

what are you even on about

[QUOTE=Rixxz2;47789477]So you have a PC slightly more powerful than the PS4/XB1, while you get graphical quality less pleasing than them. Seems more expected than "amazing", to be honest[/QUOTE] Pretty sure the consoles are running far less than ultra. Also, he has a maxwell card, which helps out tremendously (even without hairworks).

[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;47789485]what are you even on about[/QUOTE] The graphical quality of the PS4 version is essentially the PC version maxed out without any AA rendered in 1080P. Your PC is slightly more powerful than the PS4, and you get the same framerate with mixed settings rendered in 900P. I simply don't see how that's impressive, it's OK if anything.

[QUOTE=Rixxz2;47789551]The graphical quality of the PS4 version is essentially the PC version maxed out without any AA rendered in 1080P. Your PC is slightly more powerful than the PS4, and you get the same framerate with mixed settings rendered in 900P. I simply don't see how that's impressive, it's OK if anything.[/QUOTE] i can run the game on ultra excluding two settings which are on high, and one that literally only has an effect on hair quality, with hardware that doesn't even meet the [I]minimum requirements[/I] whether or not you think my resolution (I'm sure it'd run just as fine if I had a 1080p monitor) or 30fps is acceptable, you said it had "ridiculously high system requirements" and it really doesn't my computer is literally a prebuilt HP with a budget graphics card slapped in there also I really doubt consoles run the game at ultra, and I also doubt either get a stable 30 fps, I can get more than 30 but it dips when riding the horse and loading terrain, or when near too many npcs so I locked it at 30 for a smoother experience

[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;47789591]with hardware that doesn't even meet the [I]minimum requirements[/I] [/QUOTE] Your system almost reaches the recommended requirements, though? [QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;47789591] you said it had "ridiculously high system requirements" and it really doesn't [/QUOTE] It does, though, you currently need a 500+ dollar graphics card in order to max it in 1080P with a stable 60 FPS, and that's terrible. Had it been some kind of revolution, like Crysis was in 2007, of course I wouldn't have thought the same, I would've thought it was great, but that's not the case, the looks are average at best. Here, have some benchmarks, they're in Swedish, but still. Everything on High, with hairworks off. Green = Average FPS, Red = Lowest FPS [img]http://i.imgur.com/Q5E3Q7w.png[/img] The rest of their system: [img]http://i.imgur.com/ly6k5Pv.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Rixxz2;47789711]Everything on High, with hairworks off. Green = Average FPS, Red = Lowest FPS [img]http://i.imgur.com/Q5E3Q7w.png[/img] The rest of their system: [img]http://i.imgur.com/ly6k5Pv.png[/img][/QUOTE] 770 4GB here. I'm running ultra on everything except foliage render distance which is on high, and I have motion blur turned off (because I hate motion blur). Performance is a bit better than listed on that chart once I rolled back to a previous driver version. IDK where the hell those numbers are coming from, but they seem ludicrously low. If I knock everything to high, performance shoots up into the high 40s and low 50s consistently. [editline]23rd May 2015[/editline] Furthermore, the console versions are definitely not ultra. I don't know where exactly they fit into things, but it sure as shit ain't ultra, and they don't include a lot of the post processing effects (which heavily impact performance)

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;47790004]770 4GB here. I'm running ultra on everything except foliage render distance which is on high, and I have motion blur turned off (because I hate motion blur). Performance is a bit better than listed on that chart once I rolled back to a previous driver version. IDK where the hell those numbers are coming from, but they seem ludicrously low. If I knock everything to high, performance shoots up into the high 40s and low 50s consistently. [editline]23rd May 2015[/editline] Furthermore, the console versions are definitely not ultra. I don't know where exactly they fit into things, but it sure as shit ain't ultra, and they don't include a lot of the post processing effects (which heavily impact performance)[/QUOTE] They're using the Geforce 352.86 WHQL respectively the Catalyst 15.4 drivers I suspect your 770 of being quite heavily overclocked, the numbers fits in with all of my Witcher 3 playing friend's performances (ranging from GTX 680/770 to GTX 980)

Yes, it's overclocked, but not overclocked enough to justify that disparity. The 352.86 drivers destroyed performance on Kepler cards for a lot of people. There's a massive shitstorn on the nvidia forums about it. [editline]23rd May 2015[/editline] I mean I just did some running around with everything on high, and with the post processing turned down a notch and I was breaking into the mid - upper 50s outside in huge landscapes.

[QUOTE=Rixxz2;47788369]Stop acting as if the developers are doing you a favor. They're selling a product, and the consumers have all the rights in the world to criticize it. Also, this game doesn't really interest me, but I feel the biggest problem are the ridiculously high system requirements, graphically it really isn't anything special[/QUOTE] It has one of the most densest, lifelike forest environments I've ever seen. I live right smack in the middle of a forest and visit hiking trails near the Delaware river every year, and I haven't seen anything come even close to resembling an environment like that so closely. Everything from the width of the rivers to the way trees move under duress to how foliage builds near the edges of paths and forests but clears under dense canopy cover. The sheer complexity of the environment is unimaginable given the performance it provides on ultra. You haven't experienced the graphical and atmospheric capabilities of this game until you've played it yourself. What makes a game "special" in the graphics and environment department? Is it sheer technical complexity, art assets? The only games I know that I can consistently gawk at because of their beauty are Arma 3, GTA V, Watch Dogs (anyone who denies it looks good with patches is lying to themselves), and now this.