Support NeoGAF

[jim-jam bongs]

So basically, NXGamer are aight and TLW is a disingenuous fanbee scrambling desperately to defend the queen.

 

[Dictator93]

NX is good with video too. I wish I had a nice accent and a good speaking voice.

If you want to hear me curse like a sailor and become enraged, though, you can always watch this thing I did while trying to play Skynet for the first time last year. 90 minutes of Skynet, baby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mf3q7PNPKmg

I also like his accent. But that has nothing to do with his content (in that terminator vid, does that game use the same doom and Quake library for player sounds?)
regarding the PS4 version resolving distance detail in a sharper manner (what ever that means):

I hope so. I don't remember him saying this.

He says it at about 17:29 in the vid.

 

[Javin98]

What is wrong with "whining" about a source that is inaccurate? If anything, challenging postulations is a positive thing. In this case, NXGamer is so often hyperbolic with his inaccurate claims that it clouds any discussion regarding console ports or console games. It is practically counterfactual at times for reasons that I have trouble understanding.

Two discourses develop:
1. where DF is apparently some PC/xb1 centric review site that knowingly ignores facts and presents PS4 version in bad light...
2. where NXGamer shows how the PS4 is somehow comparable to the highest end PC presets (or better according to taste) whilst fattening up his claims with technical wording.

The fact that we cannot agree on the factual empirical base is the most problematic point. The fact that one of these sources readily just uses inaccurate wording to describe the same content makes discussion so impossible at times.

The bolded statement is so wrong. If anything, he put the PS4 version of The Witcher 3 even lower than DF did. But you wouldn't know that, would you? You're making accusations without actually watching the video itself. Name me one example where NXGamer tried to put the PS4 on par with a high end PC.

He says it at about 17:29 in the vid.

Can you provide the exact line of this?

 

[Dictator93]

The bolded statement is so wrong. If anything, he put the PS4 version of The Witcher 3 even lower than DF did. But you wouldn't know that, would you? You're making accusations without actually watching the video itself. Name me one example where NXGamer tried to put the PS4 on par with a high end PC.

I have unfortunately watched the video nearly twice now.
I would consider his statements about the sharpness in the distance for the ps4 version, his end verdict ("beyond 60fps the differences are minor"), and his insistence about hair works or HBAO+ (which in my opinion, offer incredibly understandable performance give outs).

DF on the other hand accentuates these differences, and he relativizes them. For example, he assumes the ps4 and xb1 versions were neglected (he uses dying light as another example, even though that is a game which shows how the console CPUs actually perform in comparison to PC mid tier stuff) and hence why they compare in poorer light to the PC version, rather than the fact that their hardware dictates some of these major differences (which he sums up are in fact minor differences).

To put it into bullet points:
1. He sums that the differences, beyond FPS are minor and almost not worth their performance cost
2. He says the console versions were not given enough love so they would compare better
3. That weird thing about the distance on the PS4 version being better.

Can you provide the exact line of this?

"Thee PS4 seems clearer than the PC version here... The xb1 in comparison comes off slightly worse here"

 

[Javin98]

I have unfortunately watched the video nearly twice now.
I would consider his statements about the sharpness in the distance for the ps4 version, his end verdict ("beyond 60fps the differences are minor"), and his insistence about hair works or HBAO+ (which in my opinion, offer incredibly understandable performance give outs).

DF on the other hand accentuates these differences, and he relativizes them. For example, he assumes the ps4 and xb1 versions were neglected (he uses dying light as another example, even though that is a game which shows how the console CPUs actually perform in comparison to PC mid tier stuff) and hence why they compare in poorer light to the PC version, rather than the fact that their hardware dictates some of these major differences (which he sums up are in fact minor differences).

To put it into bullet points:
1. He sums that the differences, beyond FPS are minor and almost not worth their performance cost
2. He says the console versions were not given enough love so they would compare better
3. That weird thing about the distance on the PS4 version being better.


"Thee PS4 seems clearer than the PC version here... The xb1 in comparison comes off slightly worse here"

Ok, that line seems very weird. The AA solution shouldn't be different on PC. So, I've no idea about that. Aside from that, it seems like to him the differences are minor. Of course, we can all have a different standard for "minor". Can't really fault him. It's very subjective but to me it does have significant differences. As for the console versions not having enough love, I actually have to agree. After reading countless posts about terrible frame rate in the bogs and rains, it seems the PS4 version at least could have used a bit more time and effort. Of course it could be that the hardware is not powerful enough for a solid 30FPS, but what if CDP eventually manages to improve the performance notably via patches? And Dying Light got various improvements on PS4, so clearly it needed more time.

 

[Kezen]

And Dying Light got various improvements on PS4, so clearly it needed more time.

It got improvements on PC too. ;o)

 

[Javin98]

It got improvements on PC too. ;o)

Not really my point, but just out of curiosity, what improvements? I only remember the level of detail being halved from maximum.

 

[thelastword]

Interesting piece! The only points I might disagree with are...

The game never featured a full GI system (ie - it doesn't model light bouncing). It didn't in 2013 and it doesn't now.

Never said that, just that it had a better. G.I implementation in 2013, even though emulated, it's use in 2013 was a bit more ambitious in many scenes.

I believe the developers have stated that tessellation is reserved exclusively for water simulation (well, and hair works, I suppose). Not 100% on this, though.

They do use tessellation outside of water especially on the ground, rocks, bridges etc...They also had full on tessellation in their engine, but they had to can it due to time and for performance reasons, instead they use it sparingly. Reference this interview where they discuss the engine and it's use of tessellation. In any case, in the video Nx did show many areas where tessellation is used outside of water.

I really really doubt this. With the amount of color used in the game, 16-bit color depth would have produced severe dithering artefacts. I mean, 16-bit color was one of the biggest issues with GameCube games back in the day versus, say, PS2 which often stuck with 24-bit color instead.

It was a statement he made right after addressing low quality AO and shadows in certain scenes on consoles. Just check the video, it's in there. Hopefully I didn't misinterpret his intentions.

That's obviously a matter of opinion but HBAO+ is always worth it, I feel. It makes a tremendous difference. That said, I haven't actually seen how it performs on AMD hardware so it may not be worth using there.

Generally he believes SSAO is fine for long periods of play in most games, that he's hardly seen a game where the difference is that detrimental to the overall look. It maybe more so in the case of the Witcher 3, a huge world with lots to do. He was however very satisfied with how it worked with foliage in W3 and says it shows a fair difference between the two. If you have the hardware however, by all means you should implement it, but it will not make Witcher 3 look like a vastly different game without it.

HBAO+ is damn near mandatory IMO.

Yes, if you have the power or a good enough Nvidia Card. There's no way I'm playing W3 at 900p or 720p just to enable HBAO+ on consoles. Neither will I lower foliage density and the like to enable it either.

I'm watching a bit of it now and he says it at around the 7:52 mark regarding the shot he was looking at.

https://youtu.be/ibxiGr0V5iA?t=7m49s

Thank You....

So much wrong in his analysis in spite of its length. Sigh... Just because you say a word... doesn't make it the fact.


It is actually a rather terrible video in terms of accurate content. Sorry.

I find this analysis had quite a bit of information that the DF analysis did not, it was very detailed and thorough and brought many things to light that other analyses don't even think of touching, very informative. As always, everything was presented with evidence and shown to you. The only thing my eyes could not make the difference on was the 16 bit color depth, but that is one thing my eyes don't have a grasp of. Perhaps screenshots would show what he's talking about there a bit better and maybe some zoom-ins would be more appropriate (DF style) in this instance.

 

[Dictator93]

Ok, that line seems very weird. The AA solution shouldn't be different on PC. So, I've no idea about that. Aside from that, it seems like to him the differences are minor. Of course, we can all have a different standard for "minor". Can't really fault him. It's very subjective but to me it does have significant differences. As for the console versions not having enough love, I actually have to agree. After reading countless posts about terrible frame rate in the bogs and rains, it seems the PS4 version at least could have used a bit more time and effort. Of course it could be that the hardware is not powerful enough for a solid 30FPS, but what if CDP eventually manages to improve the performance notably via patches? And Dying Light got various improvements on PS4, so clearly it needed more time.

Having now seen both versions in person, I can definitely not say the differences are minor. Hairworks on top of every other cvar value being pushed to the max does make for quite a stark difference. Calling them "minor" seems more political than logical.

A number of those Dying Light "technical improvements" are kind of "read in" i.e. not really there (the whole torchlight thing for example, is an asset issue). But AF definitely got better considering it was a glaring oversight.

Tiny patches of course can make a game better (and they do, as both PC and PS4 versions have already shown), but at what cost or "optimization" can you bring a mid 20's average framerate to a flat 30? Or what does optimization sometimes even mean? I imagine the bog area is just using expensive assets and effects (all the water with the SSR, tons of alpha). Optimization could mean... cutting them or reducing the distance they render at.

In such an instance, would people complain? Or would they come to terms with the hardware given to them? On PC, I would tell that person to lower their settings or maybe consider an upgrade. Yet discourse found in DF threads often is that "CDPR are lazy" "they neglected the PS4 version".

 

[Kezen]

Not really my point, but just out of curiosity, what improvements? I only remember the level of detail being halved from maximum.

Performance improvements, improved texture streaming among other minor things.
I'd argue the difference (as it stands) between the PC, which has been made less demanding, and the console versions are still significant. Especially when you can now more easily run it at 60fps.

 

[Javin98]

Having now seen both versions in person, I can definitely not say the differences are minor. Hairworks on top of every other cvar value being pushed to the max does make for quite a stark difference. Calling them "minor" seems more political than logical.

A number of those Dying Light "technical improvements" are kind of "read in" i.e. not really there (the whole torchlight thing for example, is an asset issue). But AF definitely got better considering it was a glaring oversight.

Tiny patches of course can make a game better (and they do, as both PC and PS4 versions have already shown), but at what cost or "optimization" can you bring a mid 20's average framerate to a flat 30? Or what does optimization sometimes even mean? I imagine the bog area is just using expensive assets and effects (all the water with the SSR, tons of alpha). Optimization could mean... cutting them or reducing the distance they render at.

In such an instance, would people complain? Or would they come to terms with the hardware given to them? On PC, I would tell that person to lower their settings or maybe consider an upgrade. Yet discourse found in DF threads often is that "CDPR are lazy" "they neglected the PS4 version".

Like I said many times, GTA 5 and Borderlands got frame rate improvements without visual downgrades. I don't know why some people refuse to acknowledge this. Borderlands got a 15-20FPS boost from a patch alone. How are you gonna deny that? As for the differences, that's your opinion. Like I said, I find Hairworks and the increased foliage quite significant. That doesn't mean everyone does.

Performance improvements, improved texture streaming among other minor things.
I'd argue the difference (as it stands) between the PC, which has been made less demanding, and the console versions are still significant. Especially when you can now more easily run it at 60fps.

Sure, but that wasn't my point. My point was a game can still be optimized further without a performance hit on ALL platforms.

 

[Kezen]

Like I said many times, GTA 5 and Borderlands got frame rate improvements without visual downgrades. I don't know why some people refuse to acknowledge this. Borderlands got a 15-20FPS boost from a patch alone. How are you gonna deny that? As for the differences, that's your opinion. Like I said, I find Hairworks and the increased foliage quite significant. That doesn't mean everyone does.

Have the tasty Physx effects been patched in either console versions of Borderlands ?

 

[Javin98]

Have the tasty Physx effects been patched in either console versions of Borderlands ?

No, I thought those PhysX effects were exclusive to Nvidia GPU's?

 

[thelastword]

Foliage Distance on Ultra makes a pretty noticeable difference. It's a heavy hit on performance but it's absolutely great to have if you've got the room for it. Makes a big impact in more open areas and especially when you're at an elevation looking over an area.

The range in Ultra foliage is better, but the actual difference whilst playing is minor considering the hit. If you have the hardware though, by all means.

Also, HBAO+ is good not just for foliage, but for nearly everything. Indoor scenes, for instance, make great use of it, too. It's a big improvement.

He said normally it's not a big deal of difference to him in most games, but it's very impressive working in tandem with the grass in W3, well, what do we know, there's a lot of grass in W3, so I see how that makes sense, walking or horseback riding, it will be constantly in your face.

As to some of the posts here; It is clear that many have not even watched the video. It makes sense to watch the video before accusations and random posts are made. At least watch the video.....

 

[Dictator93]

Like I said many times, GTA 5 and Borderlands got frame rate improvements without visual downgrades. I don't know why some people refuse to acknowledge this. Borderlands got a 15-20FPS boost from a patch alone. How are you gonna deny that? As for the differences, that's your opinion. Like I said, I find Hairworks and the increased foliage quite significant. That doesn't mean everyone does.

I wont deny it. I just do not think that possibility applies to all situations. Especially games where similar PC GPU hardware also struggles in the same area.

Regarding the differences being termed as "minor". You and I can reasonably agree that they aren't, should we not then question the motives behind the person who considers them minor?

I know I do, especially in light of other video content from said author.

 

[Seanspeed]

The range in Ultra foliage is better, but the actual difference whilst playing is minor considering the hit. If you have the hardware though, by all means.

No, the difference while playing is not minor. That was my point. Playing on High, the grass/shrubs distance is cut very noticeably. Even on Ultra, I can still often see where it's cut off, but tweaking it to go further out(done through ini file) takes the performance hit to crazy levels.

He said normally it's not a big deal of difference to him in most games, but it's very impressive working in tandem with the grass in W3, well, what do we know, there's a lot of grass in W3, so I see how that makes sense, walking or horseback riding, it will be constantly in your face.

If he says that HBAO+ isn't a big difference to him in most games well........yea. Thankfully we still have Digital Foundry.

That said, I am willing to compromise on it if I'm very performance strained and I've exhausted other lesser options to improve it. SSAO is acceptable for me. Just not nearly as good.

 

[Saty]

Is DF going to do a video showing performance in the swamp areas?

 

[Javin98]

I wont deny it. I just do not think that possibility applies to all situations. Especially games where similar PC GPU hardware also struggles in the same area.

Regarding the differences being termed as "minor". You and I can reasonably agree that they aren't, should we not then question the motives behind the person who considers them minor?

I know I do, especially in light of other video content from said author.

Still, my point is optimization is not always about downgrades like many keep trying to say it is. I believe CDP will improve the frame rate in the bogs for ALL platforms in the future. Regarding the differences, why do you want to question someone's opinions? Should we question DF's motive when they say 900p and 1080p make a very small difference when I clearly see it instantly in screenshots? Admittedly, these differences are usually much smaller than PS4 and maxed out PC version though.

 

[Dictator93]

Still, my point is optimization is not always about downgrades like many keep trying to say it is. I believe CDP will improve the frame rate in the bogs for ALL platforms in the future. Regarding the differences, why do you want to question someone's opinions? Should we question DF's motive when they say 900p makes a very small difference when I clearly see it instantly in screenshots? Admittedly, these differences are usually much smaller than PS4 and maxed out PC version though.

I agree with you about that (I have experienced it first hand many times). But at times it is!

I question his motives for his opinion because he is a demagogue of sorts. And his evidence (whatever that may be in terms of validity), is used to emphasize differences between PS4 versions and xb1 versions, but somehow relativize the differences between a PC version and the PS4 version. I have noticed this pattern, and I think everyone has. I think it is obvious at this point.

 

[Javin98]

I agree with you about that (I have experienced it first hand many times). But at times it is!

I question his motives for his opinion because he is a demagogue of sorts. And his evidence (whatever that may be in terms of validity), is used to emphasize differences between PS4 versions and xb1 versions, but somehow relativize the differences between a PC version and the PS4 version. I have noticed this pattern, and I think everyone has. I think it is obvious at this point.

Huh? Are you talking about this video or what? I don't remember him saying the difference between the PS4 and XB1 versions being significant. As for optimization, of course there are times when there are visual downgrades, but saying it's purely that is just wrong. Not referring to you, but other posters here.

 

[thelastword]

Having now seen both versions in person, I can definitely not say the differences are minor. Hairworks on top of every other cvar value being pushed to the max does make for quite a stark difference. Calling them "minor" seems more political than logical.

He mentioned that Geralts beard looks better with hairworks, but his hair does not. Of course everything falls back to performance, why would you want to sacrifice 20fps just for something that looks worse in parts, 20fps is a massive penalty for such so-so visual returns.

In any case, I'm sure hairworks will improve as we go on and will become more efficient to use, just like tressfx, but for now it's truly un-refined. Nxgamer is not the only one who prefers Geralt's hair without hairworks. It was the first thing I noticed when DF posted their video and I'm sure others prefer how it looks without hairworks too.

At what point is it better to throw power at something (just because you can), yet, it's not visually pleasing. I don't know how that can be justified frankly.

If he says that HBAO+ isn't a big difference to him in most games well........yea. Thankfully we still have Digital Foundry.

I'd guess, he's been waiting for the game where your jaw just drops due to the HBAO+. Maybe he has not seen that level of difference yet.

 

[Dictator93]

He mentioned that Geralts beard looks better with hairworks, but his hair does not. Of course everything falls back to performance, why would you want to sacrifice 20fps just for something that looks worse in parts, 20fps is a massive penalty for such so-so visual returns.

What looks worse about this?
http://a.pomf.se/ikpeuo.webm
http://a.pomf.se/zzvjiy.webm
?

 

[chromatic9]

Is there any evidence of tessellated ground in Witcher 3 release? You see it in the 2014 shot and NVidia claim its disabled (looks disabled to me) but NX gamer claims its on.

Another thing while watching is the amount of times he says this will get patched as he thinks the consoles can do better.

Best thing NX gamer can do is show us frame rate of Novigrad and other demanding scenes rather than the small play area.

 

[flipswitch]

Is there any evidence of tessellated ground in Witcher 3 release? You see it in the 2014 shot and NVidia claim its disabled (looks disabled to me) but NX gamer claims its on.

Another thing while watching is the amount of times he says this will get patched as he thinks the consoles can do better.

Best thing NX gamer can do is show us frame rate of Novigrad and other demanding scenes rather than the small play area.

Just curious, how many hours would it take for him to reach that location?

 

[Durante]

nxgamer is a therapist for those who need to hear certain things to feel good about themselves. He has been pretty consistent since the start in that regard..

That is an exceedingly apt description.

He doesn't do analysis, he does counseling.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

To me it looks like nxgamer made his comparison mainly based on early parts of the game.

Things like foliage draw distance and shadow draw distace only become really notable when you are on skellige. Because there is more verticality and more open fields.



Btw is there a post patche framerate analysis for xb1 version?

 

[nelsonroyale]

What looks worse about this?
http://a.pomf.se/ikpeuo.webm
http://a.pomf.se/zzvjiy.webm
?

Maybe it is just Geralt's hair, but it seems more blurred out. The tech is better, rendering individuals hairs, but it doesn't LOOK anymore realistic at all. There it looks too shiny, too smooth, and too blurred.

 

[Stare-Bear]

I've been playing the ps4 version (way too much, to be honest) and my observations are that the fps is generally 30 fps with some camera stutter, dropping quite significantly in the swamp areas especially when raining. The most severe drops occur when using witcher sense in the swampy areas, can hover around what seems to be about 20 fps, maybe even high teens.

I was expecting novigrad to be a performance hit but it's been almost a consistent 30fps there for me. Even at night with a lot of fires and torches around.

I think the issues in the swamp area can definitely be patched, as they are not 100% repeatable - there are times when the framerate stays solid even in these areas. Hopefully we will continue to see performance optimizations in coming patches.

 

[chromatic9]

Just curious, how many hours would it take for him to reach that location?

Don't know. Doesn't seem that much if you stick to main quest since many are already there and complaining while some with the same PS4 are saying its butter smooth.

Some hairworks.

 

[flipswitch]

This was posted by PlayStation Europe Twitter yesterday.

7 reasons why you should play on ps4, here's the 1st.

 

[Seanspeed]

I think Hairworks doesn't screenshot well in many situations(especially with an extreme closeup like that). But it looks very good in motion.

 

[Kinthalis]

Maybe it is just Geralt's hair, but it seems more blurred out. The tech is better, rendering individuals hairs, but it doesn't LOOK anymore realistic at all. There it looks too shiny, too smooth, and too blurred.

It looks WAY more realistic. The beard actually responds to the environment with hairworks on.

Just wish my 780ti could run it withotu suhc a hit. BAsiclaly I would have to lock at 30 to run it, but I'd rather lock it at 55 instead like I'm doing now.

 

[chromatic9]

I think Hairworks doesn't screenshot well in many situations(especially with an extreme closeup like that). But it looks very good in motion.

Looks great with the lighting and natural to the rest of the character.

I'll take the shot down if you guys want, I just happened to have it.

 

[Kezen]

No, I thought those PhysX effects were exclusive to Nvidia GPU's?

You can run them on the CPU if you don't have a CUDA gpu.

But that was probably way too much to handle for console cpus. :/

 

[Dictator93]

Maybe it is just Geralt's hair, but it seems more blurred out. The tech is better, rendering individuals hairs, but it doesn't LOOK anymore realistic at all. There it looks too shiny, too smooth, and too blurred.

Depth of field.

 

[kitch9]

No, the difference while playing is not minor. That was my point. Playing on High, the grass/shrubs distance is cut very noticeably. Even on Ultra, I can still often see where it's cut off, but tweaking it to go further out(done through ini file) takes the performance hit to crazy levels.


If he says that HBAO+ isn't a big difference to him in most games well........yea. Thankfully we still have Digital Foundry.

That said, I am willing to compromise on it if I'm very performance strained and I've exhausted other lesser options to improve it. SSAO is acceptable for me. Just not nearly as good.

I struggle to see the fuss around Hbao as well, just seems to put a dark Halo around everything.

 

[Javin98]

You can run them on the CPU if you don't have a CUDA gpu.

But that was probably way too much to handle for console cpus. :/

Ah, ok. Good to know. And yeah, when it's CPU intensive operations, you can count those consoles out.

 

[Dictator93]

I struggle to see the fuss around Hbao as well, just seems to put a dark Halo around everything.

It actually does the opposite of that. That is what SSAO does.

 

[Kinthalis]

You can run them on the CPU if you don't have a CUDA gpu.

But that was probably way too much to handle for console cpus. :/

The borderlands physx stuff? Nope. That's GPU accelerated, at least at the highest level, even a beefy GPU can easily dip below 60 running all those particle effects.

Looks amazing though! It's a different experience with them on max when big battles happen.

 

[SparkTR]

Nice comparisons. Reactions (at least from some places, not necessarily here) remind of me a similar comparison made early last generation that compared Oblivion's 360 version and the PC version. It's the pity the page is broken due to Gamespot's ugly redesign, but man I got worked up about that being a massive 360 fan at the time. Looking back now I should have just got the PC version so I wouldn't have been forced to rebuy it on Steam later on when the 360 started slowing down, but lot of mental gymnastics and rationalizations on my part commenting on that article, getting nostalgia from reading this stuff haha.

 

[kitch9]

It actually does the opposite of that. That is what SSAO does.

I know what the theory is, just not particularly exciting in action.

 

[Seanspeed]

I struggle to see the fuss around Hbao as well, just seems to put a dark Halo around everything.

You're getting it confused with SSAO.

 

[Stallion Free]

nxgamer is a therapist for those who need to hear certain things to feel good about themselves. He has been pretty consistent since the start in that regard..

It always makes me laugh because his bias is so crystal clear.

 

[Larogue]

Analysis


Features:

Originally Dx9 based but has adopted many Dx11 features
Tessellation is in (ground, rocks, bridges)
SSR on water
Weather effects
Global illumination emulation
Dof effects on camera due to weather
Game uses image based lighting
Also uses dynamic point lights which reflects on the environment's objects including geralts armor etc..


PC (970GTX) vs Consoles

Consoles run foliage on high
Ultra foliage on PC draws a greater distance but very minor from high in difference
Lighting and PP effects are at the highest setting on both consoles and PC (bloom, shafts of light, long shadows from objects etc..)
Weather system is equal across console and PC
AO and AF dialed back on consoles (some say due to a patch) in cutscenes
HBAO+ works well with foliage in W3 on PC, not worth it if you don't have an Nvidia card, generally costs more than it impresses.
Grass density medium quality on consoles
Terrain quality is on high with detail level being equal to PC
Particle effects are equal to the Pc's best.
Shadows never seem to change from any notable degree from medium to ultra.

Discrepancies (console side)

Consoles have lower shadow quality and AO than the lowest pc settings at times, but they're predominantly at medium shadow quality and makes use of ssao most of the time.

Textures are predominantly high on consoles with some mix of medium textures, ground textures are usually the culprit for medium quality.

Ultra textures are the same quality as high, but then ultra textures never go beyond 1.8GB of VRAM on PC. (which makes the use of medium textures at all very questionable)

Color depth look 16-bit rather than 32-bit on consoles

Texture loading is slower on consoles, even the integrated A10 R7 on chip gpu handles texture loading much better/faster with ultra textures in place.(smh, should not be)

Loading times are much faster on PC, at least 5 times faster. Sometimes consoles take over a minute to load in some instances. (not common)

Water effects are high on console which includes tessellated movement and interaction, but there's some shader work that's absent on consoles that even the lowest setting on PC has (smh at cdpr, clearly they needed more time with consoles)

Water also lacks the interaction with spells (like the force blast), which is apparent on PC at high settings, such effects are not apparent on consoles.

Note: He indicates that the consoles seem to have been behind in development due to some of the results we're seeing here, just like dying light was. He also indicated that CDPR is primarily a PC developer and PC was the lead platform for development.

He expects that consoles will see a nice boost in quality and performance in the coming patches since it was behind PC in dev for the most part. The texture issue may also be linked to a loading time issue which looks to be API related something which more time and experience can fix.


PS4 vs XB1

PS4 and XB1 has the same settings employed for the most part, however;

PS4 is 1080p vs the XB 900p (which is standard fare by now)

PS4 has 8xAF throughout whilst the XB1 uses a dynamic 4x-8xAF depending on the scene.

Water on XB1 seems slightly better, closer to PC but not quite there.

IQ on XB1 is worse due to 900p and the upscaled image issues with the custom fxaa and temporal aa implementation

Framerate is smoother on PS4 over the XB1. Xb1 framerate is unlocked to help support drops better due to the limited buffer space on XB1.

PS4 would normally drop the odd frame whilst loading new areas (loading issue) which exists on all versions, but since PS4 is capped you will see it dropping to 29fps whilst horseback riding here and there. (my opinion, when the xb1 version is capped it will drop more frames in these sessions, because the unlocked framerate would no longer keep it just barely at 30fps or above)

General impressions and Summary

Cutscenes vary wildly in performance

Hairworks is very unrefined at the moment just as tressfx was initially. Hairworks is not that impressive considering the 20fps performance penalty on average. Geralts hair looks better without it.

Tessellation should be set to at least 8x when hairworks is on (PC) to make it look good.

PhysX is on consoles (though emulated on the CPU)

Witcher 3 is NOT CPU limited, it is GPU limited however. It is NOT a CPU killer. All the testing PC's were almost always at 100% buffer usage (gpu wise). On the flipside, cpu usage even on the A10 hardly every taps a single core. All cores operate with lots and lots of room/cycles to spare. No core is ever maxed out, even paired with the entry level 750ti.

A dual core is enough for the game. A quad core is not entirely needed as it hardly uses over 4 cores.


750ti Shenanigans

The 750ti performs close to the consoles with similar settings, helped of course by its unlocked state in the comparison, however it does dip below 30fps more often than the PS4 and it performs just slightly better than the XB1 which is also unlocked.

750ti is also constantly below 30fps in the swamp area, other areas it holds up a bit better and is more comparable to the PS4. It's nasty in the swamp areas though.


Micellaneous

PS4 version is sharper than both the PC and XB1 version (IQ is better there), that's even when the pc version's blur effect is set to off and sharpening is set to on.
PS4 versions suffers more in cutscenes due to the cap/double buffer and graphics API. There's camera and movement stutter in all versions. Geralt's movement feels more binary than analog. It's weird that Geralt leaps into a running animation (almost abruptly) rather than a smoother transition.


W3 2013 vs Release

Renderer completely changed from 2013. There was a denser lighting system, better G.I implementation, much richer particle system, far denser topology model in the 2013 version of W3 .

This post has outdated information after the recent patches. The PC version is now sharper after the latest patch. The X1 version should have more stable FPS than PS4 after the FPS Lock patch.

 

[martino]

It always makes me laugh because his bias is so crystal clear.

Bias or network instruction ?

 

[Denton]

Is there any evidence of tessellated ground in Witcher 3 release? You see it in the 2014 shot and NVidia claim its disabled (looks disabled to me) but NX gamer claims its on.

I posted link with evidence on previous page.

 

[Kezen]

All good points. Only regarding the bolded - if you lower tesselation factor in drivers, the ground will look much flatter. So at least the terrain uses a lot of tesselation. You can see the difference on the second ingame picture here:

http://pctuning.tyden.cz/multimedia...ky-hon-rozbor-hry-a-nastaveni-detailu?start=9

Move your cursor on the pic to see the switch.
Pretty stark.

Interesting link.

 

[jayu26]

This post has outdated information after the recent patches. The PC version is now sharper after the latest patch. The X1 version should have more stable FPS than PS4 after the FPS Lock patch.

Weren't people saying that it is still smoother on PS4 yesterday in another thread. I think they were using gamersyde video.

 

[R_Deckard]

It always makes me laugh because his bias is so crystal clear.

lol I can see the same bunch are all riled up again.

Did you even watch the video, he states that the gtx970 is the BEST place to experience the game and puts the ps4 3rd with the 750ti machine both his other machines above it.

He also states the lack of effects and PS4 frame dips esp in cutscenes is bad...but you all go on reading into everything as you see fit.

The colour depth part is talking about the low level shadows being lower than PC lowest not the entire games colour...do people even watch as the tessellation is not only in the video and game but as linked above shown tested, but experts are always calling foul with nothing detailed, it just seems like a detailed analysis with some subjective opinions on dun dun duhhhhh... "HairWorks" lol

 

[tuxfool]

Is there any evidence of tessellated ground in Witcher 3 release? You see it in the 2014 shot and NVidia claim its disabled (looks disabled to me) but NX gamer claims its on.

They don't claim it is disabled, only that the option to change ground tessellation does nothing.