Support NeoGAF

[BlackNinja]

Who said anything about high end PC graphics or 4K textures? You're exaggerating my point. There will be performance improvements like last generation. That's it. Games out now for PS3 and 360 look significantly better than games from 2005/6..

Are you speaking of performance improvements or looks? Of course there will be performance improvements..especially if the devs had to make a deadline and had to get it out the door unoptimized.

Looks is a different story though. For example, a dev could choose 1080p/30 for a realistic target but no amount of coding tricks is going to push the same game to 4k/30fps without severe cuts. An over exaggerated example, true.. but I feel people are being very hyperbolic about the "look significantly better" later on in a gen too.

 

[BlackNinja]

?
Do I need to find another open world game with dynamic lighting on the PS4 in order to say I don't think Witcher 3 looks that good visually?
I don't care if it's the biggest open world game known to man. I'm not going to look at the ground and go, actually this ground looks amazing, because the game is open world. No, it doesn't look that great. I might excuse poor visuals of course, depending on the nature of the game, but I am not going to think something looks great when it doesn't just because it's open world.
The interior areas look poor. Insides of some houses look like they could be in Skyrim. The ground all around looks poor. Some building structures look pretty simple in geometry. I like that there is a lot of foliage, and that the character models look alright, but that's it.
Poor performance on top of that, just doesn't seem very impressive.

I completely understand your sentiments.

However, you can find quite a few "plain vanilla assets" in every game. I have a PS4 as well and while I agree with you that some parts of W3 look like the devs didn't spend much time on, I can point similar areas when I load up ISS, DriveClub, Order, Dying Light, TR, KZ:SF and other games as well. It doesn't make those games look "plain" though. Not every game is going to have polish on every single asset.

 

[Sakura]

I completely understand your sentiments.

However, you can find quite a few "plain vanilla assets" in every game. I have a PS4 as well and while I agree with you that some parts of W3 look like the devs didn't spend much time on, I can point similar areas when I load up ISS, DriveClub, Order, Dying Light, TR, KZ:SF and other games as well. It doesn't make those games look "plain" though. Not every game is going to have polish on every single asset.

The problem with Witcher 3 though is it isn't all that rare to find these low quality areas though. I feel like a lot of the outside areas are covered by foliage so people don't notice as much, but interiors are particularly poor.
For example I just loaded up my game and took a screenshot of where I was.

Look at that wall. It is just a flat piece of geometry, with a low res texture on it. You can say I am cherry picking a random area but I'm not. Pretty much all the stone wall there looks like that. Simple geometry, low res texture.

Again, overall, I don't think the game is bad looking. It looks OK. They do a good job making it look atmospheric at times. I just don't see where the "It looks amazing! It looks great!" posts are coming from.
The only reason I'm disappointed is because the performance is rather poor on top of this.

 

[Beerman462]

?
Do I need to find another open world game with dynamic lighting on the PS4 in order to say I don't think Witcher 3 looks that good visually?
I don't care if it's the biggest open world game known to man. I'm not going to look at the ground and go, actually this ground looks amazing, because the game is open world. No, it doesn't look that great. I might excuse poor visuals of course, depending on the nature of the game, but I am not going to think something looks great when it doesn't just because it's open world.
The interior areas look poor. Insides of some houses look like they could be in Skyrim. The ground all around looks poor. Some building structures look pretty simple in geometry. I like that there is a lot of foliage, and that the character models look alright, but that's it.
Poor performance on top of that, just doesn't seem very impressive.


Yes I'm 40 hours into the game.
Yes the lighting looks nice some times. Yes it is cool when trees sway. But there are also lots of times when it looks really really plain.



I'm playing on PS4.

A point of refrence of what looks good would help give some perspective. You're kind of picking and choosing things you don't like about the game which is fine, but to say that the game is overall unimpressive visually is something else. I caught a lot of shit because I think the vehicles in TLOU look terrible. The back of the busses are a flat polygon with a terrible low res texture pasted on. All the vehicles were low poly, terribly textured, and lack transparency on windows and head lights. It was one aspect of an otherwise great looking game that stuck out to me. Mainly because everything else looked so good. I wouldn't call the game visually unimpressive because if it though.

Again, overall, I don't think the game is bad looking. It looks OK. They do a good job making it look atmospheric at times. I just don't see where the "It looks amazing! It looks great!" posts are coming from.
The only reason I'm disappointed is because the performance is rather poor on top of this.

Most people tend to block out or ignore problem areas, and fovus on the wow moments. It's kind of natural if you're not activly evaluating something.

 

[DOWN]

What looks better, but isn't a corridor with baked lighting?

See, that doesn't mean the Witcher 3 has good graphics. Saying they made it huge so it doesn't have to look graphically good isn't the same as it having good graphics. You are just trying to deflect from the game's own shortcoming.

 

[BlackNinja]

Look at that wall. It is just a flat piece of geometry, with a low res texture on it. You can say I am cherry picking a random area but I'm not. Pretty much all the stone wall there looks like that. Simple geometry, low res texture.

Almost all textures in console games are relatively low res. You can walk up to any wall and get the same simple geometry with low res texture. Very few games have parallax mapping (which makes the wall look perturbed) because of the cost. I do agree that the interiors don't look nearly as good as the outside.

Again, overall, I don't think the game is bad looking. It looks OK. They do a good job making it look atmospheric at times. I just don't see where the "It looks amazing! It looks great!" posts are coming from.
The only reason I'm disappointed is because the performance is rather poor on top of this.

The "looks amazing" comments, I would imagine, come from all the detail you see when you are outside and the dynamic TOD and weather (which pretty much matches DriveClub except it's open world). That is rather amazing compared to any game released this gen IMO.

 

[Beerman462]

See, that doesn't mean the Witcher 3 has good graphics. Saying they made it huge so it doesn't have to look graphically good isn't the same as it having good graphics. You are just trying to deflect from the game's own shortcoming.

Context matters to me to me. When I'm playing the Witcher and I have a random encounter that sparks a quest my mind goes to. Wow this looks really good considering this isn't a mainline NPC and it's one of 100s of side quests in the game. I don't try to compare the animation and framing to a game like TLOU were every interaction is meticulously crafted because there are only 50 in the game.

 

[Zil33184]

Are you speaking of performance improvements or looks? Of course there will be performance improvements..especially if the devs had to make a deadline and had to get it out the door unoptimized.

Looks is a different story though. For example, a dev could choose 1080p/30 for a realistic target but no amount of coding tricks is going to push the same game to 4k/30fps without severe cuts. An over exaggerated example, true.. but I feel people are being very hyperbolic about the "look significantly better" later on in a gen too.

I don't think people's expectations are out of line with previous generations where games did end up looking dramatically better over time. I don't know why this gen should be any different.

 

[StevieP]

I don't think people's expectations are out of line with previous generations where games did end up looking dramatically better over time. I don't know why this gen should be any different.

I think those expecting "dramatically" better are going to end up disappointed, unless they're waiting for more stuff that's very restricted in scope (your linear order-like games). In previous generations, the hardware and tools weren't so common. There will of course be improvements but those improvements, within the context of games in a similar scope, will come either in the form of bigger budget for assets or they will be improvements that benefit everyone (including the PC platform). Much to the benefit of developers, there is no mega mystery here with the HDer twins. Learning better techniques on the existing hardware still exists, obviously, but I don't think the same kind of jump you witnessed in gen 6 or even 7 is possible this time around

 

[Beerman462]

I think those expecting "dramatically" better are going to end up disappointed, unless they're waiting for more stuff that's very restricted in scope (your linear order-like games). In previous generations, the hardware and tools weren't so common. There will of course be improvements but those improvements, within the context of games in a similar scope, will come either in the form of bigger budget for assets or they will be improvements that benefit everyone (including the PC platform). Much to the benefit of developers, there is no mega mystery here with the HDer twins. Learning better techniques on the existing hardware still exists, obviously, but I don't think the same kind of jump you witnessed in gen 6 or even 7 is possible this time around

I think we will see similar improvements compared to last gen and every gen before. Our most recent point of reference is the OG Xbox. Look at Halo vs Halo 2. That was almost a generational leap in itself and it happened on an x86 CPU and a GPU which was the norm for 3 generations of PC hardware. Techniques constantly improve and can be applied to current hardware.

 

[StevieP]

I think we will see similar improvements compared to last gen and every gen before. Our most recent point of reference is the OG Xbox. Look at Halo vs Halo 2. That was almost a generational leap in itself and it happened on an x86 CPU and a GPU which was the norm for 3 generations of PC hardware. Techniques constantly improve and can be applied to current hardware.

I would also like to point out that the tools are also a lot more standardized now, coded to APIs that resemble those that most PC devs would be familiar with already

 

[HTupolev]

I think we will see similar improvements compared to last gen and every gen before. Our most recent point of reference is the OG Xbox. Look at Halo vs Halo 2. That was almost a generational leap in itself and it happened on an x86 CPU and a GPU which was the norm for 3 generations of PC hardware. Techniques constantly improve and can be applied to current hardware.

Halo vs Halo 2 epitomizes the flip side: that techniques get refined as a generation progresses, and developers compromise to produce more immediately-striking results, but there's not always that much pure efficiency gain.

Halo 2's asset authoring is more modern and refined than Halo 1's, and its graphical toolkit is somewhat larger, with things like bloom and water refraction, and a more complex material model for dynamic objects.

Halo 2 also lacks specularity from almost all dynamic light sources, has drastically reduced shadow draw distance, massively cuts back on the amount of particles, and cuts back on the number and size of decals. Halo 2 also has substantial issues with texture popping, and doesn't manage to allocate high-quality textures (especially normal maps) to a lot of surfaces that could use them.

It's a more modern-looking game than Halo 1 by far, but it gives a less clean image and it looks comparatively sterile in motion.

We're going to see advancement in graphics tech as the generation progresses, as always. It's probably not going to be that huge of a strict climb upward, though.

 

[Beerman462]

I would also like to point out that the tools are also a lot more standardized now, coded to APIs that resemble those that most PC devs would be familiar with already

There are always new tricks to learn. The PS360 gen brought programmable shaders and tessalation. This gen will be asynchronous compute and GP/GPU optimization.

 

[ninjablade]

I think those expecting "dramatically" better are going to end up disappointed, unless they're waiting for more stuff that's very restricted in scope (your linear order-like games). In previous generations, the hardware and tools weren't so common. There will of course be improvements but those improvements, within the context of games in a similar scope, will come either in the form of bigger budget for assets or they will be improvements that benefit everyone (including the PC platform). Much to the benefit of developers, there is no mega mystery here with the HDer twins. Learning better techniques on the existing hardware still exists, obviously, but I don't think the same kind of jump you witnessed in gen 6 or even 7 is possible this time around

wasn't it the same lastgen? most people will tell you the best looking 360/ps3 games were the linear ones, it took like 5-7 years into the generation before non linear games were considered by some to be the best looking games on those consoles.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

Anyone thinking we'll see leaps anywhere near what we saw with PS3 from the start of the gen to the end is crazy! :lol

Early PS3 games looked(and ran) like shit so I agree, but PS4 isn't starting from the bottom.

 

[GodParticle]

I think this game looks fantastic outside of the frame rate on my ps4. Many times I've just stopped to soak in all of the amazing atmosphere. Fortunately, I'm not one to notice most graphical issues people complain about

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

I'm actually amazed that game creators can't take more advantage of the ps4s card versus the bones. Seems like minor resolution bump is all the extra ROPS and texture fill rate is good for. I guess that's multi plat for you.

Liking the aesthetics on my 970 so far, some random distant pop in is fairly distracting however. The first "gorgeous view" moment was riddled with it =( otherwise sexy as hell!

 

[dampflokfreund]

The graphics in this game are simply mindblowing and truly next gen, in addition to the lighting effects and colors it creates a incredible good atmosphere.

Hell, there are dynamic shadows everywhere. There is a nice use of PBS, the textures are (for the most part) extremly high resolution. The draw distance is amazing.

I can't understand anyone who complains about the graphics. This is a dream come true!

 

[Putty]

The graphics in this game are simply mindblowing and truly next gen, in addition to the lighting effects and colors it creates a incredible good atmosphere.

Hell, there are dynamic shadows everywhere. There is a nice use of PBS, the textures are (for the most part) extremly high resolution. The draw distance is amazing.

I can't understand anyone who complains about the graphics. This is a dream come true!

You'll always get folks wanting and expecting more. After 20hrs or so with it, i am experiencing what i expected beforehand. Which is a very pretty open world game, with good performance.

 

[alexandros]

I can't understand anyone who complains about the graphics. This is a dream come true!

It depends on your tolerance level and eye for detail. People who complain about the Witcher 3 not being as graphically impressive as initially promised aren't chronic whiners, they just pay more attention to details and imprefections that might escape the more casual eye. LOD issues in particular are a big turn-off for a lot of people, especially if you're seeing the action up close. If you're playing the game on a relatively small TV and at a distance then I can see how these sort of details can go unnoticed.

 

[flipswitch]

What I'm really impressed about on the console versions is the soft shadows.

 

[tuxfool]

It depends on your tolerance level and eye for detail. People who complain about the Witcher 3 not being as graphically impressive as initially promised aren't chronic whiners, they just pay more attention to details and imprefections that might escape the more casual eye. LOD issues in particular are a big turn-off for a lot of people, especially if you're seeing the action up close. If you're playing the game on a relatively small TV and at a distance then I can see how these sort of details can go unnoticed.

I notice all those things.

I really care about the technical aspects of graphics in games. I also notice these imperfections all over the place. However I retain some perspective and feel that despite some things not looking great, overall the game looks fantastic.

 

[Hendrick's]

I think this game could look better on console hardware than it does, and certainly perform better. SoM is an excellent example to look to imo. It looks better in many ways, has more npc's on screen, and performs a lot better. I know that W3 has larger maps and better lighting, but just seems CDPR could have done more with the hardware.

 

[tuxfool]

I think this game could look better on console hardware than it does, and certainly perform better. SoM is an excellent example to look to imo. It looks better in many ways, has more npc's on screen, and performs a lot better. I know that W3 has larger maps and better lighting, but just seems CDPR could have done more with the hardware.

Does SoM have the same amount of foliage and environmental density? I don't have the game, but from the screenshots I see a lot of barren landscapes (it does fit the setting), flat surfaces, plateaus and mixtures of buildings and grasslands.

 

[Pooya]

Shadow of Mordor has like the most bland and repetitive looking map there is, foliage density is in a whole another level here and a lot happens on the map on top. Witcher 3 map is a huge accomplishment, when you play it for like 20+ hours you would understand. Comparing it with SoM is being rude to CDPR.

 

[Loakum]

Looks like an awful job for how the game looks on consoles. I miss the original style of the art. Not impressive for me.

People keep trying to tell me these are some of the best graphics, but this is my PS4:

Pine needles all but disappear into blurred textures at just a couple dozen feet away on the left bush.

My PS4 version looks nothing like that! What settings do you have for your PS4? My PS4 video output settings is 1080p, RGB Range to Full, and Deep Color Output to Automatic.

 

[Dictator93]

Also the character models are so much more low poly in SoM (quite obviously).

 

[Javin98]

We're comparing this game to Shadow of Mordor now? Dafuq? Like others have pointed out, The Witcher 3 has much denser foliage, much better lighting and character models. Pretty much better everything else. Then again, I was always thought the PS4 version of Shadow Of Mordor was average looking. Not sure about the maxed out PC version.

 

[Durante]

I think people are underestimating just how expensive it is to render foliage at the level of TW3 (you know what's nice about Mordor? No lush forests). I mean, I have to lock my framerate to 30 to get a rock solid experience at Ultra on my 970 (admittedly at 2560x1440), but I still think the game is really well written (as in code, not writing. Though that's pretty decent too!).

Witcher 3 basically does everything which makes it hard for a game to perform well:

• It's open world
• It has no pre-baked lighting, everything is dynamic
• It has tons of varied and dense foliage
• It has no loading screens anywhere
• It's an RPG with a lot of NPCs/enemies in some areas
• It features a dynamic weather simulation with lots of alpha blended effects

Given all that. I think all versions of the game are really well-made. And the more I play it the more impressed I am by what they achieved. Some of the comparisons/claims in this thread are simply ridiculous.

 

[system11]

You'll always get folks wanting and expecting more. After 20hrs or so with it, i am experiencing what i expected beforehand. Which is a very pretty open world game, with good performance.

I actually want less. That motion blue and the chromatic aberration has to go for me to consider it purchaseable.

 

[Noobcraft]

My PS4 version looks nothing like that! What settings do you have for your PS4? My PS4 video output settings is 1080p, RGB Range to Full, and Deep Color Output to Automatic.

Your pictures are super compressed. The text is barely legible.

 

[Durante]

I actually want less. That motion blue and the chromatic aberration has to go for me to consider it purchaseable.

This game is nice in that it has an individual setting for pretty much every single post-processing effect.

 

[Denton]

I think people are underestimating just how expensive it is to render foliage at the level of TW3 (you know what's nice about Mordor? No lush forests). I mean, I have to lock my framerate to 30 to get a rock solid experience at Ultra on my 970 (admittedly at 2560x1440), but I still think the game is really well written (as in code, not writing. Though that's pretty decent too!).

Witcher 3 basically does everything which makes it hard for a game to perform well:

• It's open world
• It has no pre-baked lighting, everything is dynamic
• It has tons of varied and dense foliage
• It has no loading screens anywhere
• It's an RPG with a lot of NPCs/enemies in some areas
• It features a dynamic weather simulation with lots of alpha blended effects

Given all that. I think all versions of the game are really well-made. And the more I play it the more impressed I am by what they achieved. Some of the comparisons/claims in this thread are simply ridiculous.

Great post, but the bolded...

facetious I hope.
Otherwise that would be quite an impressive understatement

 

[Corleth the Fey]

I think people are underestimating just how expensive it is to render foliage at the level of TW3 (you know what's nice about Mordor? No lush forests). I mean, I have to lock my framerate to 30 to get a rock solid experience at Ultra on my 970 (admittedly at 2560x1440), but I still think the game is really well written (as in code, not writing. Though that's pretty decent too!).

Witcher 3 basically does everything which makes it hard for a game to perform well:

• It's open world
• It has no pre-baked lighting, everything is dynamic
• It has tons of varied and dense foliage
• It has no loading screens anywhere
• It's an RPG with a lot of NPCs/enemies in some areas
• It features a dynamic weather simulation with lots of alpha blended effects

Given all that. I think all versions of the game are really well-made. And the more I play it the more impressed I am by what they achieved. Some of the comparisons/claims in this thread are simply ridiculous.

Thank you Durante. It is aways welcome to hear your trusted and well informed opinion.

I'm a veteran gamer of over 35 years and will continue to love these games and industry till the day I die.

When I turn on my PS4 and play this game, or watch my girlfriend plaging on her high spec gaming laptop, both versions bowl me over with their beauty and ambition. The awful nickpicking and one-upmanship displayed in this thread clouds my soul and breaks my heart.

I only hope that more people get to read your inspiring post and try and get some perspective on what this game and others achieve. We have come so far.

 

[ninjablade]

I think people are underestimating just how expensive it is to render foliage at the level of TW3 (you know what's nice about Mordor? No lush forests). I mean, I have to lock my framerate to 30 to get a rock solid experience at Ultra on my 970 (admittedly at 2560x1440), but I still think the game is really well written (as in code, not writing. Though that's pretty decent too!).

Witcher 3 basically does everything which makes it hard for a game to perform well:

• It's open world
• It has no pre-baked lighting, everything is dynamic
• It has tons of varied and dense foliage
• It has no loading screens anywhere
• It's an RPG with a lot of NPCs/enemies in some areas
• It features a dynamic weather simulation with lots of alpha blended effects

Given all that. I think all versions of the game are really well-made. And the more I play it the more impressed I am by what they achieved. Some of the comparisons/claims in this thread are simply ridiculous.

durante, Y2Kev, and dark10x know there shit, and are all impressed by how well it looks on consoles, what more needs to be said, the game is impressive, and a really well done port.

 

[system11]

This game is nice in that it has an individual setting for pretty much every single post-processing effect.

On the console versions?

 

[tuxfool]

On the console versions?

Heh. People don't buy consoles to get options. To some people that is even a plus.

 

[Qassim]

On the console versions?

No, but then consoles are there for people who are okay with a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

 

[PulseONE]

I think people are underestimating just how expensive it is to render foliage at the level of TW3 (you know what's nice about Mordor? No lush forests). I mean, I have to lock my framerate to 30 to get a rock solid experience at Ultra on my 970 (admittedly at 2560x1440), but I still think the game is really well written (as in code, not writing. Though that's pretty decent too!).

Witcher 3 basically does everything which makes it hard for a game to perform well:

• It's open world
• It has no pre-baked lighting, everything is dynamic
• It has tons of varied and dense foliage
• It has no loading screens anywhere
• It's an RPG with a lot of NPCs/enemies in some areas
• It features a dynamic weather simulation with lots of alpha blended effects

Given all that. I think all versions of the game are really well-made. And the more I play it the more impressed I am by what they achieved. Some of the comparisons/claims in this thread are simply ridiculous.

Yes, this! Of course the PC version looks better but people in here are acting like the console version looks like Deadly Premonition or something. The game is gorgeous, and has a whole lot of complex things running.

Everytime there's heavy wind in this game, it always mesmerizes me how GOOD all the foliage looks flying around in the breeze, sometimes I just stop and look for a while...

 

[JoduanER2]

Thank you Durante. It is aways welcome to hear your trusted and well informed opinion.

I'm a veteran gamer of over 35 years and will continue to love these games and industry till the day I die.

When I turn on my PS4 and play this game, or watch my girlfriend plaging on her high spec gaming laptop, both versions bowl me over with their beauty and ambition. The awful nickpicking and one-upmanship displayed in this thread clouds my soul and breaks my heart.

I only hope that more people get to read your inspiring post and try and get some perspective on what this game and others achieve. We have come so far.

So so wrong, at least on the PS4 version its always hovering around 20-25fps just walking around in many parts, and it has huge drops while fighting. So now we should settle with games with poor performance? it really hinders the experience, i dont get how some people here say that is something that isnt noticeable.

And the complains are not about the graphics but of the awful performance

 

[system11]

No, but then consoles are there for people who are okay with a "one-size-fits-all" approach.

Not really, in fact less and less the case. Now that disruptive post processing is the norm, it's about time they got options as standard.

 

[BouncyFrag]

My PS4 version looks nothing like that! What settings do you have for your PS4? My PS4 video output settings is 1080p, RGB Range to Full, and Deep Color Output to Automatic.

What does deep color output on automatic do? It is off in my settings.

 

[benzy]

So so wrong, at least on the PS4 version its always hovering around 20-25fps just walking around in many parts, and it has huge drops while fighting. So now we should settle with games with poor performance? it really hinders the experience, i dont get how some people here say that is something that isnt noticeable.

And the complains are not about the graphics but for the awful performance

This game doesn't run anywhere near that low most of the time for me. What you're describing is AC:U PS4 level's bad, which I'm not experiencing here. In the DF vid it even runs at mostly 29-30fps on PS4 outside of cutscenes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=97&v=tkB8gpPzMkw&t=1m10s

I do notice stuttering when I pan the camera, I'm not sure if that motion blur is causing dips or if there's a framepacing issue, as that stuttering isn't there when I simply move/turn Geralt and not the camera.

 

[Qassim]

Not really, in fact less and less the case. Now that disruptive post processing is the norm, it's about time they got options as standard.

Is it really changing? I haven't really seen any trend on console games to allow people to choose their own preferences in regards to graphics outside of the standard calibration stuff.

 

[tuxfool]

Not really, in fact less and less the case. Now that disruptive post processing is the norm, it's about time they got options as standard.

Numerous people on this very forum state that they buy consoles for fire and forget. Some have actively railed against there being any graphical options in console games.

Any game that offers these kinds of options will be out of the norm.

 

[texhnolyze]

This game doesn't run anywhere near that low most of the time for me. What you're describing is AC:U PS4 level's bad, which I'm not experiencing here. In the DF vid it even runs at mostly 29-30fps on PS4 outside of cutscenes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=97&v=tkB8gpPzMkw&t=1m10s

I do notice stuttering when I pan the camera, I'm not sure if that motion blur is causing dips or if there's a framepacing issue, as that stuttering isn't there when I simply move/turn Geralt and not the camera.

"I can detect fps better than DF!"

 

[Inuhanyou]

If you want options, there's plenty of other options to choose from in terms of gaming.

All i care about is decent performance and good games on this box that i own.

Witcher 3, although it has some graphical oddities and slight framerate issues(based on my own personal experience with the game), can have those easily patched , as no game comes out of the oven fully baked anymore.

If your looking at the console versions in a vacuum, CDPROJECTRED did a very great job overall in regards to what presets they chose to maintain the base package for launch, and as i said, they will continue to improve on that base.

 

[ninjablade]

If you want options, there's plenty of other options to choose from in terms of gaming.

All i care about is decent performance and good games on this box that i own.

Witcher 3, although it has some graphical oddities and slight framerate issues(based on my own personal experience with the game), can have those easily patched , as no game comes out of the oven fully baked anymore.

If your looking at the console versions in a vacuum, CDPROJECTRED did a very great job overall in regards to what presets they chose to maintain the base package for launch, and as i said, they will continue to improve on that base.

Kinda wish ps4 went with a better cpu,developers seem to struggling with it, since a 750ti been outperforming The ps4 gpu, which is suppose to be a much weaker cpu.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Kinda wish ps4 went with a better cpu,developers seem to struggling with it, since a 750ti been outperforming The ps4 gpu, which is suppose to be a much weaker cpu.

That's a fair assessment in general. But its a story for a year and a half ago really, you can only freak out about common knowledge for so long.

They went with a low tier CPU because that's all AMD had with that power envelope, power draw and with Sony and MS's goals for later cost and manufacturing reductions in mind.

All i care about at this point is that devs take the CPU's we do have into account to make the end product stable and functioning, there's really not much i can do out side of that besides complain, and i've already said i'm not going to bother wasting my time on complaining about HW that's already in the box.

 

[ninjablade]

That's a fair assessment in general. But its a story for a year and a half ago really, you can only freak out about common knowledge for so long.

They went with a low tier CPU because that's all AMD had with that power envelope, power draw and with Sony and MS's goals for later cost and manufacturing reductions in mind.

All i care about at this point is that devs take the CPU's we do have into account to make the end product stable and functioning, there's really not much i can do out side of that besides complain, and i've already said i'm not going to bother wasting my time on complaining about HW that's already in the box.

Yea but didn't think the cpu would effect performance that much, 750ti which is like 1300 gflops is beating a a 1800 flops in a closed box, that's pretty disappointing. hopefully they get better at using the cpu.