Hynad said:
Turkish said:
Hynad said:
Turkish said:
This sounds disingenuous. He's leaving out the majority of pc users who don't have a high end PC. It was not just consoles holding their game back. Look at Steam hw survey: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
The majority of people have 1GB or less VRAM in their gpu's. They had to consider everyone when making the game, they needed everyone's money. It was disingenious to show the early graphics off on a high end system when they knew only a minority would be able to run it like that. But no, it's easier to blame "lolconsulz" now.
|
You're the one being disingeuous. Trying to spin it to make the console's limited power to be less of a problem. You're clearly dismissing this part to push that spin of yours:
"But working on the game across 3 platforms did not make it feasible to keep features included that could potentially break the game as we kept building around it. "
|
Read my comment again before you hit the reply button. The majority of pc's are not even as powerful as the PS4, stop getting excited and click the link of the steam hw survey in my previous post. A huge majority of pc users don't have enough vram. When making a game which I'm sure you haven't, you want to reach as many people as you can, not just the elite. Crysis is the last that did this, which wasn't worth it considering the sequels went to consoles day 1. Even Witcher 2 which was PC exclusive for a whole year (aka not held back by consoles), didnt look that much better than anything else in that generation. This is because the lowest common denominator is also a part of the pc audience. The high end users are a minority.
|
That's why PC games have scalability options. So... What are you on about?
Who's being desingenuous again?
|
Scalability doesn't affect geometry, lighting system, asset density, AI etc. Tell me about the scalability of the untouched, made with pc in mind Witcher 2?
