Chobel
Member
Why are you questioning him? Obviously he doesn't have 70'' TV.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Digital Foundry Face-Off: The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (PC/PS4/XB1)
- Thread starter ScepticMatt
- Start date
Why are you questioning him? Obviously he doesn't have 70'' TV.
He's obviously sat at a normal viewing distance from his screen and just enjoying the experience. How dare he!
I demand you stand about half a foot from the screen and look at every pixel
Chobel
Member
He's obviously sat at a normal viewing distance from his screen and just enjoying the experience. How dare he!
I demand you stand about half a foot from the screen and look at every pixel
Nice try. If you don't own +70'' TV, you won't notice the difference period. No matter what you try.
Beerman462
Member
I don't know what we are even arguing about. OG XB beasted on PS2 specs wise, but fell flat on mass market adoption.
PS3 struggled vs Xbox 360 in game performance for a bit, but eventually met and exceeded it in some cases. It eventually gained mass market adoption equal to or better than 360 especially outside the US.
The current gen has an easier to program for/ more powerful console(PS4) vs a more complicated/weaker console XB1. XB1 has no chance of competing with PS4 performance wise and will probably never match it sales wise. XB1 will do well and I hope they are more aggressive with specs next gen, but they will be behind Sony this gen.
Gormenghast
Member
What setting is making the console versions look like there's no shadow? Shadows? AO? Foliage distance?
Foliage distance also affects shadow ranges.
That's your ultra setting on foliage range that MURDERS your hardware. So don't think about it if you don't have a 980 or above.
Did you feel the same way about PS2 when the likes of Unreal Tournament and Max Payne were running at an average sub-20fps?
TW3 is clearly a PC game first and foremost, and designed and optimised for that platform over consoles. Games like Far Cry 4 show how stunning and smooth open world games can look on PS4/XBO when consoles are considered further in the design choices. TW3 feels really clunky and un-optimised on PS4 though, and I couldn't get on with it.
I can turn the setting on and get mostly 60fps with occasional dips(usually in towns/villages) with a GTX970. If you're ok with 30fps, there's no reason you couldn't turn this on comfortably(along with Hairworks!).
I don't think that is true, the game runs as well as the hardware allows it. To me it seems hardware limitations are to blame and not CDPR's skills.
Far Cry 4 isn't anywhere near as massive in scope as The Witcher 3.
If what CDPR said about the original reveal bring what they were developing is true makes you wonder why they didn't just tone back the assets for console release and let the PC version shine as truly superior (if you have the hardware). I mean why the hell not?
I wonder if the marketing deal with Xbox could have stipulated some sort of features parity across all versions such that no asset, lighting, draw distance etc would be improved on PS4 and no substantial features or asset changes would be present in PC. At the very least they might have insisted that the XB1 be lead development platform thereby limiting substantially CDPR with 32mb ESRAM + slower main system memory. It would make sense that they had to cut back in asset quality if their hands were tied by such a small pool of ram for frame buffers.
Either way we will probably never know. Luckily the game still looks excellent just not as good as they imply it could have.
I wonder if the marketing deal with Xbox could have stipulated some sort of features parity across all versions such that no asset, lighting, draw distance etc would be improved on PS4 and no substantial features or asset changes would be present in PC. At the very least they might have insisted that the XB1 be lead development platform thereby limiting substantially CDPR with 32mb ESRAM + slower main system memory. It would make sense that they had to cut back in asset quality if their hands were tied by such a small pool of ram for frame buffers.
Either way we will probably never know. Luckily the game still looks excellent just not as good as they imply it could have.
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
This. To clarify, those blossoms have plenty of shadowing and shade when you actually walk right up to them. It's only when you look at them from a far distance that the shadows disappear.
dragonelite
Member
Im pretty sure they even mentioned the engine is build to scale given the hardware its
running on.
Because the PC version would have had to have been a totally different build and would be enormously impractical, particularly for a game of this size. Development of this game was already apparently very straining on the team even with the time and resources given to it. Doing a PC build that had entirely different assets and lighting systems and everything would be absolutely insane, not to mention necessitating a very high minimum spec requirement.
I'm sure they could have done a lot more with the PS4 version if they cut the resolution to XB1 levels, but otherwise, the resolution gap will take up most all of the difference in power between consoles. No conspiracy necessary.
Lots of unrealistic expectations going around it seems.
The consoles are designed to be mass market devices with a price point that only allows for so much power.
Increasing resolution on TVs alone is eating up a lot of that power gen to gen - consider the specs required to render a decent imagine in 720p/30fps vs the jump in specs required merely to go to 1080p/30fps with same assets.
People seem to expect them to match visuals a high end PC can deliver which is madness. Consoles have been struggling to support bigger PC centric titles since PS2/Xbox generation. Heck last gen 60fps for a lot of PC style games like CoD4 required sub 720p and the better looking 720p games were 30fps.
The Witcher 3 looks fine on consoles relative to their power. If you want more for that kind of open world and detail you wahnt a PC.
I'll admit XB1 looks little tougher due to 900p if viewed upscaled on decent 1080p TV but it's the weakest of the three options so it's harfly s surprise.
I think expectations for graphical increase combined with 1080p resolution are unrealistic in some cases. People need to be realistic about what's possible and what isn't.
The game will likely get further polish but it's unlikely to look much better vs having frame rate and stability improved IMO.
The consoles are designed to be mass market devices with a price point that only allows for so much power.
Increasing resolution on TVs alone is eating up a lot of that power gen to gen - consider the specs required to render a decent imagine in 720p/30fps vs the jump in specs required merely to go to 1080p/30fps with same assets.
People seem to expect them to match visuals a high end PC can deliver which is madness. Consoles have been struggling to support bigger PC centric titles since PS2/Xbox generation. Heck last gen 60fps for a lot of PC style games like CoD4 required sub 720p and the better looking 720p games were 30fps.
The Witcher 3 looks fine on consoles relative to their power. If you want more for that kind of open world and detail you wahnt a PC.
I'll admit XB1 looks little tougher due to 900p if viewed upscaled on decent 1080p TV but it's the weakest of the three options so it's harfly s surprise.
I think expectations for graphical increase combined with 1080p resolution are unrealistic in some cases. People need to be realistic about what's possible and what isn't.
The game will likely get further polish but it's unlikely to look much better vs having frame rate and stability improved IMO.
Like pretty much every multiplatform engine.
Kazuma Kiryu
Member
For the love of god, this has been the most annoying thing the past year and a half. The collective amnesia of how games actually ran on consoles is amazing.
What agenda is that exactly?
Those shots don't look great, but they don't look terrible either. the AF is very bad, so textures on the path turn to crap a few feet away, and the aliasing on those alpha textures is noticeable.
The only thing this shows is that the differencebetween PC and console IS noticeable. That's all.
Yeah, it's pretty good. Not quite UE4 level (which I currently consider the gold standard in temporal single-sample-per-frame postprocessing AA), but far better than what some developers try to sell as temporal AA.
Holy hypocrite mother of god!
This is a keeper.
And it's funny because that's all you ever do in Wii U games threads.
Yes, a phenomenon of this:
I remember the last time PC said FUCK IT and shoved that old lady out of the way. We got games like Doom 3 (amazing lighting and normal maps) and Crysis (made everyone's rig cry like a bitch)
Doom 3 ran on Xbox and has always been designed with this console in mind.
Consoles as common denonimator does not prevent devs to push high-end PCs to their limit.
Palette Swap
Member
This really nails how I feel this generation is playing out. I feel the early DDR5 talk and the prevalence of remasters lulled people into a certain credulity when it comes to performance.
I'm writing this as a PS4 and PC user. I love my PS4 but it's still an eighteen month old console.
ninjablade
Banned
Holy hypocrite mother of god!
This is a keeper.
And it's funny because that's all you ever do in Wii U games threads.
Ummm no. I don't want to get this off topic, but I always try to find the best looking pics of wiiu games when I discuss graphics. The games are mainly x and bayo 2, which have a very difficult time looking good in direct feed pics.
Dictator93
Member
Well the doom 3 port was more of an after thought in a lot of ways (JC's comments about thinking it would be a good box for a port), it has entirely different level layout in some sections and is cut into smaller sections so that it can even load at all. It is more akin to how doom was ported to the SNES rather than how Rage was handled.
Weird because I remember a Carmack interview to Xbox magazine when he said the Xbox and PC were the target platforms for Doom 3.
Admittedly I never played it on Xbox, I'm kind of surprised it was so pared back.
| Praxis |
Banned
That's what I have done on a 970, it looks great, even at 30fps.
Right.
)Ok, if you feel no shame, keep going, I wasn't expecting that from a warrior anyhow.
I'm pretty impressed with how the consoles handle PC ports this gem. I think Witcher 3 looks pretty amazing and drops frames at a really acceptable level. I feel like there's some level of forgetfulness when it comes to last gen. It's certainly true that the gap between PCs and consoles was temporarily smaller, but the end product wasn't that different. Gears of War is a modern classic, I loved it, and it was mindblowing, but it also dropped a ton of frames and TORE like nobody's business. I don't think it was so much more amazing than something like Ryse or the Order. I still feel like we took a very big leap.
I'm pretty satisfied with these machines. I still feel like there's a good amount of room to grow and if games stopped advancing at how The Witcher 3 looks for massive open world, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
I think this new obsession over technical performance is a good thing. It empowers gamers to make good decisions. But I feel like we're not very introspective here. We never had full HD games that ran at full framerate at all the time across all titles always. This one runs pretty damn good.
Edit: This is not apologia. I fully acknowledge the PC versions are the best and the PC is the best place to play games.
I'm pretty satisfied with these machines. I still feel like there's a good amount of room to grow and if games stopped advancing at how The Witcher 3 looks for massive open world, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
I think this new obsession over technical performance is a good thing. It empowers gamers to make good decisions. But I feel like we're not very introspective here. We never had full HD games that ran at full framerate at all the time across all titles always. This one runs pretty damn good.
Edit: This is not apologia. I fully acknowledge the PC versions are the best and the PC is the best place to play games.
Wouldn't go that far, or use those words.
Runs acceptably well given the hardware is more like it.
Running "pretty damn good" is more reserved for games locked at 30 or 60 with no jank or jutter in frame delivery.
Dictator93
Member
Much like how there was talk about Doom 3 being designed with a Geforce 3 in mind... there was lot of misinformation about the game in the time before it came out. Also, marketing.
It has native coop though, wish the PC version had that.
I think that will be somewhat ofset by general improvements in console SDK's and developer knowledge of the systems. Same as every other generation before. First gen titles vs last gen titles have shown considerable improvements.
ninjablade
Banned
Right.
Ok, if you feel no shame, keep going, I wasn't expecting that from a warrior anyhow.
No warriors here. I would like you to quote me on one those pics of wiiu games that make the game look bad since you are calling me out like that. It's just hard to post pics that make those game look good cause one is 720p with no aa, the other is 720p with fxaa, both a very static lighting that doesn't react to anything, including player models, so dynamic shadows are not present, which is pretty rare even for most newer 360/PS3 games
JumPeRJumPzZ
Banned
I dont think that we will see such drastic improvements with this consoles... Problems will probably start in 2017 with them.
PS4 games wont be 1080p anymore for the most part etc...
They completely changed rendering engine after that trailer. Maybe the old assets weren't working well with the new engine.
What setting is making the console versions look like there's no shadow? Shadows? AO? Foliage distance?
It's just shadow/detail LOD fade-in, pop-in. Consoles are not going to render shadows for far-way shrubbery. I think the setting on the PC ini is shadow cascade.
Honestly, people harping on that particular picture are ridiculous, and I play the PC version of TW3.
If the so called "resolution gate" didn't happen, I think developers would have dropped down all the way already but now you can't, it's a huge blow to game if it's not 1080p. but frame rate? no body notices that until after the game is out, it's always 30fps target, no one questions how often and players are used to rough framerate on the near end of PS360 generation games anyway. I'm not sure how long 1080p will stick on PS4 still, games going to have to look impressive two years from now too and something have to be compromised.
StrongBlackVine
Banned
I disagree. I see 1080p/30dps staying the standard for PS4.
Really? Look at the Handsome Jack Colection. It ran like crap on both platforms at release and every one was hopping on the underpowered consoles train. Now it has been optimized and runs MUCH better without any visual sacrifice to do so.
BlackNinja
Banned
I agree with this. It's not looking like there can be any improvements over time unless devs sacrifice something else.
Clarkus Darkus
Member
Not for me personally, Some gems last gen werent even released on PC ( Dragons dogma, RDR, Asura's wrath, Bayonetta etc etc )..Not to mention First party games....I struggle to think of a PC exclusive that makes me want to play it, Star Citizen might change that
But i agree if you have the hardware then playing console ports on PC is the best way.
OT though, W3 looks astounding and most games can be made to look bad in screenshots, But all in all with it being my first Witcher game, I am really impressed, Other than Geralt himself just doesnt do anything for me, I find him a chore to play as but will troop through it as i love the atmosphere in this game.
Gaming sites gaf in particular Are for hardcore gaming enthusiast, also a small minority of consoles owners. I think the average console gamer see's games like The order,Driveclub,infamous would be amazed. Also see the scale of a game like bf4 64 players and be amazed. The average console gamer doesn't look at game Through a pc gamers lens like here on gaf. Imo I don't think the masses are as disappointed as you think.
everyday math
Banned
Besides the text the only thing that's really starting to annoy me is the stuttering when scrolling over the map. (PS4)
1080p/30 will be the standard for PS4 this gen. Even when games get more demanding, I doubt devs will drop the resolution. But frame rate will definitely take a hit. By 2018, we could possibly see these current gen consoles have sub 30FPS in most games. But it's no surprise really. Last gen games that came later (around 2011) had frame rate issues as well. Also, we'll definitely still see substantial leaps in visual fidelity between launch titles and late gen games, though probably not as big as Uncharted 1 to The Last Of Us.
I think this is true. Most of my console friends could not care less about any of what's discussed in DF threads.
eot
Banned
Then you probably haven't looked very hard or only care about a very small subset of games. There are tons of games that only come out on PC.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
I played through it back then and if it was pared back, it didn't give that impression. If some fat were trimmed then it must've been in the right places.
DOWN
Banned
I would love to know about this agenda that the numerous separate posters critiquing W3 graphics are in on. The one where you don't want your new purchase to have stronger graphics. I'm having trouble working out the logic on how that agenda came to be, let alone to prey on W3.
And what is it that was so extraordinarily wrong with my screenshots? It's daytime, close to active central areas and I made sure you could see plants at reasonable distance (not so close to the camera to exploit resolution, not framed out so that way the highest LOD is clearly visible, left my HUD minimal and everything just as it was when I loaded the game, transfer via USB). Heck, you can see I was about to do a quest pictured on the minimap at the first shot I took, so it's not some marginal area I found. Let's not deflect with compression yelps like clarity is the thing being debated with W3 graphics.
And what is it that was so extraordinarily wrong with my screenshots? It's daytime, close to active central areas and I made sure you could see plants at reasonable distance (not so close to the camera to exploit resolution, not framed out so that way the highest LOD is clearly visible, left my HUD minimal and everything just as it was when I loaded the game, transfer via USB). Heck, you can see I was about to do a quest pictured on the minimap at the first shot I took, so it's not some marginal area I found. Let's not deflect with compression yelps like clarity is the thing being debated with W3 graphics.
Yeah optimization it's over. Don't expect anything people, graphic can't improve without a Titan. Jeez again this stupid hyperbole. Yeah probably the gap with the pc will be larger than before but doesn't means graphic will not improve furthermore on console. Past generation games like this were almost impossible for the console. Today memory and bandwith at least are enough.