By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TheJimbo1234 on 20 May 2015
Edit Thread
fps_d0minat0r said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Arkaign said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

ok let me ask you two questions.

1) What spec of PC do you think would be required to run the witcher 3 as it was originally showed, before the downgrade?

2) Take an educated guess as to how many PC gamers will have these builds.

 

My answers would be

1) atleast an i7/GTX970

2) the minority

 

Therefore, for the majority who dont have that, wont be disappointed by the 'downgrade' since they were not going to be able to play it at the higher setting anyway. When people bought expensive PC's that money went to hardware manufacturers, CD projeckt got nothing and therefore they dont owe it to you to make software that justifies your hardware purchase.

If you think it looks pants then fine, but most gamers know it runs as good as it can be on their hardware.

You speak as if PC gamers will just buy the game and most will set it to ultra and it will run ok because 'it looks pants' anyway. Thats not how it works.

The thing is that PC games can have really long legs, particularly if they scale well. It's nice to see games that offer what may seem like excessive settings (ironically like the Witcher 2 'ubersampling') because the hardware WILL come.

Ideally you have :

Low end settings in the realm of somewhat playable with mediocre hardware

Midrange settings in the realm of PS4/X1

High end settings that go beyond the current top end cards

We have 390X, Pascal, sub-20nm, all kinds of stuff coming soon, so leaving in the better graphics options for PC wouldn't have been a bad idea. For now maybe only high end people could run it, but HBM + dieshrinks and a midrange card in 2016 might make a 980 look slow, while a high end card in mid/late 2016 will laugh at today's SLI/CF stuff.

At least downsampling in drivers from 4K to 1080 and mods can help. Skyrim stock vs. Skyrim heavily modded is incredibly impressive for example.

Now if they simply didn't have the resources to live up to their 2013 goals, fine. Regardless of source (MS, Sony, CDPR, whoever), I'm REALLY tired at this point of the bullshots and intentionally misleading 'early' footage, trailers, etc. Yes, anyone who knows the industry knows to expect it, but it's still annoying. What's wrong with a little honesty? I remember the X1 Forza 5 gameplay they had on the Jimmy Fallon show, and we came to find out later that was the pre-downgrade version running on a ludicrous PC, with the final version being downgraded pretty heavily. Sony has done similar I'm sure, and it just seems to be too tempting for people to BS as much as they can get away with until they get closer to release, and then : "Oh, it's not downgraded!".

True, but once again, its not worth investing in futureproofing the game since the number of people playing it on upgraded PC's years down the line will be very small compared to everyone that wants a good running version of the game right now. The priority should be the people buying the game now, not the people who will buy this 5 years later because its $1 flash sale and they are curious to see how far it can push their hardware.


That's just garbage.

Firstly, CDPR only have this game series to sell ergo people will be playing it years down the line just like the Witcher 2 so this game series really has a good reason to be future proof. However a Titan X would trash this game at 1080p if it had been built properly. Heck, a 970 should. The fact is that this game has been downgraded because the engine is dire. It is clear that with how poorly it performs compared to its graphical fidelity the engine is just as bad as the Witcher 2's engine....which is no surprise. You are just looking for excuses on why not to be dissappointed for a game you have clealry been waiting sometime for.

You're still missing the point that whenever you use the words like 'dire', its coming from the perspective of someone that wants to max out his top of the range hardware, which not many people have, and thats the point im making. I dont see why any dev should waste their resources towards a number of gamers who will contribute the least in software revenue.

And the game runs above 60fps average on 1080p and ultra settings with a titan, so I'm not sure what you mean there.

http://www.gamersnexus.net/game-bench/1947-witcher-3-pc-graphics-card-fps-benchmark

I've been curious about this game but im not a huge rpg fan and not getting this anytime soon. I'm just fed up of a certain vocal minority who continually ask that devs should commit a disproportionate amount of resources on them and then downplay the game (which most people are happy with how it performs on their hardware) when they dont meet this selfish and unrealistic expectation.


Who said max out? Max out hardware is in the realms of Pixar animation; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6EMc6eu3c8   That is Titan X maxed out. But I'm just asking for basic next gen graphics andf features...which the Witcher 3 has none. Hell, it doesn't even have tessellation!

Also for fps to go from 60 to 14 shows the engine is terrible. It is clearly not optimised and buggy to have such drop in frame rates. The website even says that!

As I have said from the start, you clealry have no idea just how much performance can be harnessed from a mid range card, and just how cheap higher end cards are. You are just saying that people should be happy with these poor graphics and dire optimisation because gpus are expensive and no one has good pcs....even though gpus are now very cheap, very powerful, and lots of people can run  games at better fps which look far better than this junk. Star Citizen,  looks far and runs far better, and that is a startup studio and in alpha. So what is CDPR excuse? Oh right, they can't program as shown by their last engine and this new one.