So much this. I made an entire thread about that.
-
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.
The Witcher 3 runs at 1080p ULTRA ~60 fps on a 980
- Thread starter Kezen
- Start date
my r9-290 should be fine then
That's what i was thinking too, my r9 290 overclocked + i7 4770k should run it on ultra at 1080p and about 30fps with no problem
I'm not asking developers to include these things, I'm asking for consumers not to create an environment where developers CAN'T do it. It's a different argument.
I understand and don't complain that developers often don't include these ultra enthusiast settings. THIS IS NOT MY ISSUE. My issue is gamers basically demanding that developers don't include them because they can't handle their feelings being hurt because the settings screen isn't set to all max values on their particular piece of hardware.
I'll repeat, my problem here isn't with developers at all. My problem here is *entirely* with a type of consumer, some of which are in this thread.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
You know, I may actually go down to 1080p for this one.
Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not sure this is even a big problem to deserve such a debate, then. People spending in excess of $500 for a card to play games are bound to have high, and sometimes unreasonable, expectations. Let them vent. I don't think it creates an environment for developers that prevents them from doing what they want. There aren't THAT many people.
Physx doesn't run on AMD cards. It either runs on the CPU or a Nvidia card. Not even a secondary nvidia card, still very bitter about that...
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
Without going to twitter:
Is this going to be like Crysis 2, where they didn't have the ultra settings ready at launch? Hopefully not, but seems like the are still figuring them out.
chromatic9
Member
Maybe they'll be some heavy DOF to turn off like Witcher 2, turn shadows down a touch..
Without going to twitter:
Again, I don't think maxing out all the settings will make a tremendous difference compared to the screens we have now.
I'd like to see POM/tessellation on the rocks though.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. E.g. Dying Light had its draw distance setting range nerfed because of the "ALL MAX SETTINGS" clientele.
CarbonFire
Member
I was actually hoping to go up to 1440p for this one, but not until those fancy new 1440p Acer GSync monitors come out. I'd be totally fine with this at ~2k at 30fps if it's a nice smooth 30.
I didnt say resolution was everything. I am saying that people who want to push their hardware can/will do so by increasing resolution.
They dropped it further? I thought the lowest setting was equivalent to console.
No, the lowest setting was ABOVE what consoles were doing.
They nerfed the 100% on PC though. What was 50% is now 100%.
Shark Attack
Banned
That's shitty but expected as it ran look poop
Hmmm… I think devs choose to do that because they don't want settings that make them look bad. It's a design philosophy that exists in all kinds of software, not just games. If you aren't optimized for it, then don't bother giving it as an option. As a consumer who can afford it, I can see that being frustrating. But as a dev, it seems like the right call to make.
The solution, imo, is to make such settings available outside the game, in the form of ini files or mods, for those really interested.
Ooccoo
Member
I love how CD Projekt RED has been on damage control ever since they revealed actual gameplay of Wild Hunt. That's what happens when you show a CG trailer that isn't possible to reproduce with current hardware and manpower. I still think the game looks gorgeous but come on, that video was impossible to translate into actual gameplay with our technology. I still think this developer is great, the game will sell like hotcakes and the DLC approach alone beats most other devs on the market.
Dictator93
Member
The thing is, who cares?
In years down the line, having your game scale higher leads to a greater reception over time.
Crysis scaling so well forward makes it a joy to load up everytime you upgrade your hardware.
So they don't want extra graphical settings? I don't buy that at all. As an enthusiast, I'd like as many as the developer is willing to offer.
I'm not entirely sure you're getting my original point because I still don't quite understand where you're coming from.
Projectjustice
Banned
This is geat news for my R9 290. I cant wait for this game.
jim2point0
Banned
People just want to crank things to the max for no bloody good reason and then complain when it doesn't run well. There's definitely something fishy about the performance of that setting though. Way too big a hit for what it actually gives you.
Probably a good thing they lowered the in-game max. You can still crank the setting to the original max (10) via my CE table
Caayn
Member
Lol crap, smh. is this shit for real?
Is everyone really that certain that their maxed settings will not match the reveal? I hope they do for 2 reasons:
Both sound equally enticing at this point. Please make it happen, CDPR!
- I can push my new rig to its limits
- I can watch all the naysayers eat crow. I mean holy shit at the number of people who seemed to have jumped to that conclusion!
Both sound equally enticing at this point. Please make it happen, CDPR!
matrixman92
Member
Prophet Steve
Member
Lol, crap in a year. No it won't. People just have to learn that they shouldn't want to put everything on max nor want developers to make sure the max settings run on lower specced PCs.
People also have to learn that there isn't such a thing as future proofing and buying a super expensive graphics card means you are getting relatively less performance for your money.
The Xbox One and PS4 have games that look way worse than the same games on the PC, does that mean their purchases are crap? Hell nowadays it seems that an equally powerful GPU as the one the consoles use gives you about the same performance.
Tbh, I don't even see much of difference between the carefully picked trailer shots and the non carefully picked unedited long amounts of gameplay footage.
Honestly, lightning-wise I even prefer this screenshot. Without massive amounts of contrast everywhere people are quick to say downgrade. I doubt the extra effects suddenly will make it look entirely different though, I am just assuming some Nvidia effects.
Corronchilejano
Member
Dude, wat
Sure, you won't be running stuff at ultra, but It'll have a useful live for a few years. Definetly at least until the end of the console generation and a few years down the line.
SuperEpicGuy
Banned
Haha, I wish that was the case. With my 780ti and 3570k @4.2 GHz I still can't get 60 fps on many current gen games (ac unity, dead rising 3, watch dogs, and a few others). That's at 1080p with no MSAA.
SmoothRunningGun
Member
Someone bought a 980 to run at 1080p? Ok...
The biggest improvements I'm expecting are in HDAO+ and tessellation. I'm almost certain they have better ground textures behind some setting in there. All of these, in my opinions, should bring it very close to the reveal trailer. Only time will tell if they match or exceed it. But instead of waiting, we are all raising our pitchforks prematurely, as always.
Prophet Steve
Member
I would kind of expect better textures to be shown in a screenshot like this, since it wouldn't really be difficult to implement, but we'll see.
I am sure most people are thinking of much more drastic changes than you mention. Although I agree with you, those are pretty much the points that bother me right now about the screenshot.
Have my doubts about whether there will be tessellation there though.
CarbonFire
Member
I have the exact same setup. I got Watch Dogs to 60 FPS with TXAA enabled, but I had to tweak a few settings to get there. I expect to do the same with The Wticher 3.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
I think the console versions will look just fine.
What's this 6 months bullshit? My computer ran every game I threw at it completely fine for 6 years. We're talking high settings, if not a mixture of high and ultra. It wasn't even a top-end PC when I built it! When I built my new one last year, I didn't have to upgrade everything, and I was able to build a pretty top-end PC for less than my first computer.
Sure, I occasionally missed out on some extra bells and whistles, but I was able to make every game I played during that 6 year period look as good, if not better than, current consoles and achieve stable framerates.
Sure, I occasionally missed out on some extra bells and whistles, but I was able to make every game I played during that 6 year period look as good, if not better than, current consoles and achieve stable framerates.
No conclusive evidence of that, factually speaking.
This is a massive open world game that is said to have over 100 hours of gameplay. I wouldn't say they limited anything. Its more like time is limiting them. everything has to have a budget and scope and they chose to go for scale while still maintaining impressive graphics. Im sure they could have made a much prettier game had they scaled down the world and I'm sure the game would be less graphically impressive if the scale was larger than what it is now. Things need to be viewed in the proper context.
daninthemix
Member
To be honest, as long as it has a decent motion blur implementation I'll be happy with a stable 30fps.
Ran DAI at 30, though the motion blur in that was either nonexistent or ineffective for me.
Ran DAI at 30, though the motion blur in that was either nonexistent or ineffective for me.
No conclusive evidence of the reverse, either. Besides, we have seen what the console versions look like : the game was shown on Xbox One.
It will probably look about the same on PS4, except for the resolution.
Not to mention PC at high settings has been showcased which is basically console settings.
Dictator93
Member
DAI has no perobject blur, it was using an older version of frostbite in that regards unfortunately.
All footage from TW3 so far has had no per object blur, just a screen implementation sadly. I hope the "ultra" post processing settings include it. It does wonders to games IMO.
Stop already. There's like 10 posts in this thread debunking that. Quit spreding misinformation.
It's too early for that. We do not have gameplay side by side, only accounts. No nothing has been "debunked", yet.
Why is this crazy? the 960 certainly isnt gonna get 60fps on new games. And the 970... well.
It's far prudent to be skeptical at this point given the numerous opportunities they had to show both versions publicly but didn't. And that E3 demo was a small vertical slice.
Also, is that your claim or theirs? Forgive me but I can't take that claim seriously unless the product is shown. And before someone thinks I am a troll, I have the game preordered for PS4 and it simply irks me that they have been continuously showing the PC version without even a hint of PS4 gameplay; only second hand impressions have been provided thus far for console versions (esp. PS4 version).
Maybe I do misunderstand. It seemed like you were distressed that "Ultra settings" can be achieved with a single 980. My response to that is that is that you can increase resolution if you want to further stress your hardware. Resolution is not everything but it is a significant "extra graphical setting".
Beyond resolution, sure it would be nice to have other settings that can be cranked up. That is not something I would expect from an ultra preset that, presumably, has to be optimized the same as any other preset. Whether things can be tweaked beyond that in the ui or via ini is up in the air at this point. We do know that ubersampling is not part of the ultra spec, I think hairworks may even be a separate toggle.
SuperEpicGuy
Banned
I literally went lowest settings and 720p and still stuttered. Odd.
Similar threads
- Locked