Witcher 3 will run at 30 fps with specs of an I-7 (Nvidia 770, AMD 290) - Polidicks

snip

While this is a bit of a pisser I have a hard time getting worked up over it considering how absolutely gorgeous the game looks in the latest gameplay videos.

Just turn off ubersampling and you'll be at 60ish, Witcher 2 had ubersampling too and what it does, it basically renders the scene a few times to improve image quality and make AA a lot smoother, that's about it.

[QUOTE=Grindigo;47020913]Just turn off ubersampling and you'll be at 60ish, Witcher 2 had ubersampling too and what it does, it basically renders the scene a few times to improve image quality and make AA a lot smoother, that's about it.[/QUOTE] It says [quote]Witcher 3 runs at 30 fps High (pic related) on 770/290 with high-end i7 processor performance is even worse with ubersampling and Nvidia hair tech[/quote] Which I presume means 30fps with ubersampling OFF.

Tbh if gameplay is good and content plentiful I just gonna play it at Low graphics at 60FPS and be happy with it.

[QUOTE=FalconKrunch;47019790]Knowing CD Projekt Red it'll look amazing on medium anyway so I'm not really worried. EDIT: It also seems that people constantly complain about consoles holding graphics back, and when a company finally does something that pushes the limits of current hardware technology, it isn't appreciated at all.[/QUOTE] I think it's mostly because people are so used to associating high system requirements with shoddy ports and bad optimization. I'd kill for another Crysis - all jokes aside, but it was one for the best looking games on the market up until 2012 or so. Fuck pushing boundaries - demolish them!

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47020502]I'd very much doubt that. He's just saying that the recommended specs are a guideline for running the game at 30FPS (at some arbitrary quality settings).[/QUOTE] It could be translation issues but what I get out of it is that they specifically designed this game to run on consoles as well as PCs, and that it's not practical to expect the game then to run differently(ie better) on PCs. I guess they'd have to rewrite too much code to do that. So some PC gamers will have options like the ubersampling and hair to muck around with, but otherwise it's the same game on all platforms. So the PC recommended specs should get you what you'd get off the consoles in terms of looks and performance. I also think game developers tend to use i7 instead of i5 CPUs in their examples since doing it the other way might imply more performance is possible. If I tell someone to expect X frames per second on the top end CPU, they can scale it down from there. If I tell someone the fps to expect from the second line of CPUs, some of them will wonder "What if I have a top end CPU?".

[QUOTE=Grindigo;47020913]Just turn off ubersampling and you'll be at 60ish, Witcher 2 had ubersampling too and what it does, it basically renders the scene a few times to improve image quality and make AA a lot smoother, that's about it.[/QUOTE] Ubersampling does not render a scene multiple times, it renders the scene at a much higher resolution. IIRC they split up the screen in 4, render that in 1080p, stitch it together, and downscale it to your screen resolution.

[QUOTE=uzikus;47020599]This game is overhyped imho.[/QUOTE] Compared to most releases in 2014, Witcher is anything but overhyped.

I don't really believe minimum spec lists anymore. After getting my new pc, I've realised I can run pretty much anything and I've got an i5 and a 970.

RIP my i5 2500k and my two HD 6870 (in crossfire) *insert sad music*

Witcher 2 ran at a low fps with ubersampling and other nonsense on Turning those off improved my performance many fold, and I'm at a decent setup. From what I see in the OP, it's the exact same thing. Use the same settings as last time.

[QUOTE=DeepInferno;47019789]And it seems like no one can take a joke, so whatever I'll stop with it now.[/QUOTE] No don't worry, we're all laughing. [I]At[/I] you, not with you.

I don't find it acceptable to play a game under 60 fps, no matter how good it looks. But they're still working on optimisation and I don't mind lower settings so I have my hopes up for this game.

Oh christ, I was about to shit a lung out... Thought they were declaring it was to be [I]locked[/I] @ 30 FPS. This don't mean nothing~

Misunderstanded it as witcher 3 was locked to 30 fps for a second and got really worried.

[QUOTE=uzikus;47020599]This game is overhyped imho.[/QUOTE] After the disappointment that was DA3 I feel like this game could be half as good as Witcher 2 and I'd still love it to pieces. W2 was a direct improvement on W1 so I have high hopes for this one.

I hope they release a real Linux port this time The one for W2 was in some awful proprietary wrapper that was slow as hell

The graphics look really good but they made all the characters look like supermodels

This doesn't seem very clear to me. Is it minimum 30 fps or capped 30 fps?

[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;47035993]This doesn't seem very clear to me. Is it minimum 30 fps or capped 30 fps?[/QUOTE] It's just saying it's going to be a bitch to run with all the pretties turned on.

[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;47035993]This doesn't seem very clear to me. Is it minimum 30 fps or capped 30 fps?[/QUOTE] as in it will run at 30fps on these specs, why would project red ever cap their game fps