The Witcher 3 To Look Same on All 3 Platforms

[Lepton87]

I haven't read this thread or that interview just yet but I have read this one:
http://pclab.pl/art61452.html

The author was allowed to play the game. He clearly stated that even though he was too busy playing the PC version to look at the console version his collegues did and they said that the console version looks significantly worse. His remark:
"W tym miejscu powinienem napisać słowo o tym, jak gra wygląda w wersji na najnowsze konsole, ale byłem na tyle pochłonięty doznaniami na komputerze, że nie zerknąłem. Jednak z kilkoma osobami rozmawiałem już po zabawie i stwierdziły one, że spadek jakości był spory."

My quick translation:

Here I should write a word or two about how the game looks like on the newest consoles. The truth is I was so immersed playing the PC version that I didn't even look however I talked to a few people who did play the console version and they all said that there was a significant drop in the image quality compared to the PC version of the game.

ps. I want to clarify a few things that popped up in this thread.

Based on his account there is no 30fps lock although that is what he feels like the game runs most of the time at high settings 1080p light AA didn't clarify if this was MSAA or FXAA or other shader based anti-aliasing. 30fps average with very frequent drops to 10-15fps, that doesn't sound good. And that was on GeForce 980 and 4790K...

 

[tential]

Ya I didn't post the OP the way I wanted to, was in a rush to get out of the house.
I saw the same thing you did Lepton87.
4790k+GTX 980 that struggled to play the game at 1080p and that was without things like Hairworks, and some other gameworks features.

Very likely we'll see AC Unity levels of performance, hopefully without all of the bugs though.

 

[Midwayman]

Ah, this thread makes me happy. It just confirms my bias against "PC gamers". If a game only needs a 4 year old graphics card to run at ultra, everyone screams "OMG consoles are holding us back!" If a game can't even hit 60FPS on the best graphics cards available when it is released, everyone screams "OMG consoles are holding us back!".


So, how does a game created to tell a story unable to perform that task at 30 frames per second, but able to do that at 60 frames per second?

The issue is that they're simultaneously claiming no improvement over console and requiring hardware that is more than twice a capable. We're fine with a game requires hardware that isn't even out yet in order to turn everything on. We're not okay with unoptimized crap and needless restrictions like frame caps, etc.

 

[sweenish]

@ sweenish,

You are suggesting a 5960X @ 4.5Ghz and Quad-980s should still be locked to 30 fps? How in the world have they not finalized the mouse and keyboard controls 4 months before launch? 30 fps lock with Ultra PC settings locked out -- wow they will need to work some insane overtime. Might as well delay the PC version 6 more months, but make it the best version and well-optimized!

So I bothered to look at the link and:

PC has better shaders, textures, more colorful and better AA compared to consoles.
Grass and similar detail pops in ~5m on consoles. Double that on PC.
PS4>X1. PS4 textures blurrier than PC high.
PS4 runs at 1080p/30FPS
XB1 runs at 900p/30FPS, slightly blurrier than PS4.
Still looks great on any platform.

I mean from the moment I saw before 900p on XO and upscaled, there's just no way it's the same, lol.

You're happy with a 30fps lock? Screw that...honestly I will refuse to buy it if this is the case. If the game launches and it runs like crap I can wait until it's $10 like I did for witcher 2 before I finally played it.

30 fps wasn't guaranteed. M/K controls don't take 4 months to configure. Complaining about that is beyond moot. NO ONE throwing a fit has actually read the interview.

The game is being built on a unified base that they can then distribute to all platforms, thanks to the console hardware being so similar to PC. As said earlier by others from other articles, the PC version does look better. Because surprise!, a unified base does not mean the game can't scale.

Google Translate makes it sound like the recommended specs will get you 30 fps, not that there's a lock. The question asked was whether the recommended spec gets you 30 or 60 fps.

It just re-iterates my point. Devs don't give PC love for an obvious reason. PC gamers. Piracy is just a nice scapegoat for "our customers are <expletive>."

My first response in this thread stands. If you guys had your way, there wouldn't be any good PC devs. Because they'd all flip the platform the bird thanks to the way you'll turn on a dime. And not just turn, but get nasty.

 

[bystander36]

The game is being built on a unified base that they can then distribute to all platforms, thanks to the console hardware being so similar to PC. As said earlier by others from other articles, the PC version does look better. Because surprise!, a unified base does not mean the game can't scale.

The problem I have, is all the new AAA games that have done the same, are becoming increasingly difficult to play with a mouse and keyboard.

 

[escrow4]

Except a cracked version of GTA 5 on consoles requires a modded console.
A Pirated version of GTA 5 on PC, just requires a PC.

We all know piracy is vastly easier on PCs lets not pretend we don't know why people are worried about piracy on the PC.

I can have a console modded with a phone call and a day or two work for a small fee or I can follow any of the myriad guides online. Isn't hard. The opposite.

 

[sweenish]

The problem I have, is all the new AAA games that have done the same, are becoming increasingly difficult to play with a mouse and keyboard.

Which has no bearing on the unified code base.

That's a design problem.

What I do, is just play with what works best for me for that game whether it's a controller or kb/m. As opposed to throwing a fit. I'll take the option over being forced into one or the other any day.

That doesn't mean I'll forgive poor controls on either.

 

[bystander36]

Which has no bearing on the unified code base.

That's a design problem.

What I do, is just play with what works best for me for that game whether it's a controller or kb/m. As opposed to throwing a fit. I'll take the option over being forced into one or the other any day.

That doesn't mean I'll forgive poor controls on either.

Who is "throwing a fit"? And yes, the unified code has made it so easy to port to a PC, the PC has become an after thought and has effected the games we get.

If the controls aren't good, or don't work properly with a K&M, I just won't buy it. Though I'm more forgiving than most, when it comes to K&M controls, as I use a G13, and reconfigured everything anyway, but games in the past that were ported, worked a lot better on a K&M than the games since the PS4 and Xbone has released. I don't think it is a coincidence.

 

[sweenish]

Have you been reading this thread? That's a dumb question. Did I say you were throwing a fit?

You're also making up experiences. Plenty of ports before the PS4 and Xbone had absolutely lousy kb/m controls. Medal of Honor stands out as an exceptional example. A FPS with the worst kb/m controls I've seen.

Your complaint is not new, and it's not a trend that the latest generation of consoles has engendered. Like I said, it's a design issue. It has nothing to do with a unified code base.

Besides, controllers are as old as PC gaming. I hate kb/m snobs. It is not always better. PC gamers used to know this, but they've decided to forget it for some reason.

 

[smackababy]

Besides, controllers are as old as PC gaming. I hate kb/m snobs. It is not always better. PC gamers used to know this, but they've decided to forget it for some reason.

Real PC gamers remember just how "superior" KB+Mouse were on on Xwing vs Tie Fighter over a controller. The amount of stupid arm waving I had to do to to fly using my mouse was beyond retarded.

 

[bystander36]

Besides, controllers are as old as PC gaming. I hate kb/m snobs. It is not always better. PC gamers used to know this, but they've decided to forget it for some reason.

Until this last year, I haven't had problems with any of the games I've bought, but this year, they've gone full console mode. The most notable was DA: Inquisition. And I much prefer the feel of a mouse to a controller. If you prefer a controller, great, but don't expect everyone else to.

I won't be buying a game which doesn't support the advantages of a mouse. I use a G13, because I do recognize some of the advantages of a controller, and I get that with the G13 mostly. You just will not get the same connection to the game without a mouse, when it comes to 1st person and over the shoulder games as well as a few other types of games. I do own a steering wheel and peddles for driving games, because I realize it is deficient in that type of game.

While the K&M isn't "always" better, it is what we are familiar with, and it is almost always better for the games I play, minus the occasional flight simulator (have joystick for that), and racing games (have wheel for that).

 

[sweenish]

You're putting words in my mouth and generalizing your very limited experience to the whole population across time. Two massive logical missteps in the first paragraph. I never said I prefer a controller. I said I use what I feel fits best for each game. There is a difference, it's more than subtle.

You also can't say that your experience is indicative of a trend. You're one sample. Or if you want to use the games, a half dozen samples. You can't extrapolate a trend and try to defend it the way you are. Is it possible it's just the games you're buying? Or does Titanfall also have terrible PC controls? There are way too many variables, and your worldview is currently way too small for you to make that claim. Especially, since, like I said, it's not a new trend AT ALL.

I'm not telling you what you should and shouldn't like. I'm telling you the problem isn't a unified code base. It's a design issue.

 

[Kev]

This article has a lot more useful info summarized comparing all 3 versions.
http://www.gamepur.com/news/17793-w...pecs-will-run-it-30fps-not-60fps-details.html

2 big takeaways
- i7 4790K and 980 to run PC on High, not Ultra.
- They are contemplating locking the PC to 30 fps.

Might be a 10/10 game, but I am starting to question if it's truly a well-optimized next gen PC game. If the PS4 and PC version will look very close at 1080p @ 30 fps but the PC needs an i7 4790K and a 980, those are some wild requirements vs. PS4. It also kinda tells me this is a 90% console port with focus on consoles first because:

- M+K controls not even finished yet, but gamepad controls are
- They haven't even figured out what PC hardware they need to hit 60 FPS on Ultra, and Ultra settings are currently disabled on the PC.

^ With the game launching in 4 months, whaaat?!



It's worse. See the article I linked. The guy says it was locked to 30 fps on a 4790K and a 980! Maybe without the lock it could run 53-55 but was stuttering? It sure has me worried right now as far as PC optimizations go, unless there is some poor translation happening.

whatever i'll just wait 2 years to get the collector's edition for 49 cents and play it on a beast rig.

 

[bystander36]

You're putting words in my mouth and generalizing your very limited experience to the whole population across time. Two massive logical missteps in the first paragraph. I never said I prefer a controller. I said I use what I feel fits best for each game. There is a difference, it's more than subtle.

You also can't say that your experience is indicative of a trend. You're one sample. Or if you want to use the games, a half dozen samples. You can't extrapolate a trend and try to defend it the way you are. Is it possible it's just the games you're buying? Or does Titanfall also have terrible PC controls? There are way too many variables, and your worldview is currently way too small for you to make that claim. Especially, since, like I said, it's not a new trend AT ALL.

I'm not telling you what you should and shouldn't like. I'm telling you the problem isn't a unified code base. It's a design issue.

I didn't say you only used a controller, or even that you did, only that "if" you prefer a controller, that is great (for you). Not everyone prefers to use a controller, or wants to give up the mouse.

On that note, with so many PC games now being ports, I for one would love it if they would give us analog movement options for a joystick (G13 joystick in my case) along with the mouse and keyboard controls. The code is there, it would be awesome if they'd take advantage of that.

And while you insist that the unified code plays no part in the UI controls, and it certainly doesn't have to, it is quite apparent that it has influenced their UI's and are clearly trying to make those unified as best they can. And yes, it has been happening slowly for years. This years games seem to have gone further than ever.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Until this last year, I haven't had problems with any of the games I've bought, but this year, they've gone full console mode. The most notable was DA: Inquisition. And I much prefer the feel of a mouse to a controller. If you prefer a controller, great, but don't expect everyone else to.

I won't be buying a game which doesn't support the advantages of a mouse. I use a G13, because I do recognize some of the advantages of a controller, and I get that with the G13 mostly. You just will not get the same connection to the game without a mouse, when it comes to 1st person and over the shoulder games as well as a few other types of games. I do own a steering wheel and peddles for driving games, because I realize it is deficient in that type of game.

While the K&M isn't "always" better, it is what we are familiar with, and it is almost always better for the games I play, minus the occasional flight simulator (have joystick for that), and racing games (have wheel for that).

I don't prefer anything, I use what's best for the given title.

 

[sweenish]

I think someone doesn't actually want to debate, but make sure everyone knows that they have a G13.

On a more serious note, I appreciate that you finally started addressing my main point. UI is still a design thing. I agree that a lot of console UI's have been making their way into PC games. Most of the time it's not a big deal. But the times it stinks, it really stinks. I know the solution is another module, breaking the UI out a bit more so that it can be easily traded for different platforms. I can't imagine a UI takes that much manpower, at least to design.

Better code modularity can be hard to come by when a AAA game is getting pressure from all sides.

This is where PC gamers being critical, but not the butthurt whine-about-anythings we currently have, could help. The problem is we have butthurt whine-about-anythings.

As for the original topic, I have faith in CDProjekt Red. They're a stand-up PC-centric dev house, and one of the few we have left. With how easily everyone decided to get all bent out of shape over piddly and false statements is amazing. No slack? No benefit? No petitioning for better information? Just pitchforks and moaning?

How pathetic is that? And all over a video game. There are better things to get that kind of worked up over.

 

[VashHT]

Is anyone really surprised about the controls? Witcher 2 seemed like it was designed for controller use from the start despite coming out on PC far before the console version. To me a controller makes more sense for the more actiony combat the second game had, but the menus and inventory with a controller are painful.

 

[cmdrdredd]

30 fps wasn't guaranteed. M/K controls don't take 4 months to configure. Complaining about that is beyond moot. NO ONE throwing a fit has actually read the interview.

The game is being built on a unified base that they can then distribute to all platforms, thanks to the console hardware being so similar to PC. As said earlier by others from other articles, the PC version does look better. Because surprise!, a unified base does not mean the game can't scale.

Google Translate makes it sound like the recommended specs will get you 30 fps, not that there's a lock. The question asked was whether the recommended spec gets you 30 or 60 fps.

It just re-iterates my point. Devs don't give PC love for an obvious reason. PC gamers. Piracy is just a nice scapegoat for "our customers are <expletive>."

My first response in this thread stands. If you guys had your way, there wouldn't be any good PC devs. Because they'd all flip the platform the bird thanks to the way you'll turn on a dime. And not just turn, but get nasty.

It can scale but when the requirements are ridiculous it becomes a joke. When you have games that look drastically better than the console, I understand the requirements to be high. Like Crysis 3 on PC vs console. However if you take a game that looks marginally better on PC but say you need a 4Ghz quad core CPU and a 980. I'll laugh at you.

So I have to see the comparisons in order to draw a conclusion. I still stand by what I said though. If it releases with major problems or runs very poorly I can wait it out, I didn't buy Witcher 2 until it was $10.

 

[bystander36]

As for the original topic, I have faith in CDProjekt Red. They're a stand-up PC-centric dev house, and one of the few we have left. With how easily everyone decided to get all bent out of shape over piddly and false statements is amazing. No slack? No benefit? No petitioning for better information? Just pitchforks and moaning? .

I don't think anything is safe. I'll wait to see, but Bioware has always been a PC 1st developer, but they certainly pulled a 180 with their latest game.

 

[escrow4]

http://www.pcgamer.com/cd-projekt-explains-why-the-witcher-3-has-16-hours-of-sex-scene-mo-cap-data/

SOLD! :awe:

I wouldn't say CD Projekt is PC centric anymore, the Witcher 2 was (and is) consolized and 3 is just continuing the trend. I remember the collectors edition of 1 had detailed dev diaries and more stuff explaining the game, No 2 had way less. The series should have remained PC exclusive.

 

[tential]

http://www.pcgamer.com/cd-projekt-explains-why-the-witcher-3-has-16-hours-of-sex-scene-mo-cap-data/

SOLD! :awe:

I wouldn't say CD Projekt is PC centric anymore, the Witcher 2 was (and is) consolized and 3 is just continuing the trend. I remember the collectors edition of 1 had detailed dev diaries and more stuff explaining the game, No 2 had way less. The series should have remained PC exclusive.

The Witcher 3 Oculus Rift lets you get POV during the sex scenes.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I see a real danger here for PC gaming. The cost of entry is simply becoming too high for the incremental increase in quality vs console. I dont really plan to purchase any next gen games in the foreseeable future. I wanted to play DA:I, and managed to struggle through on my current rig, but there is no new game on the horizon that is worth a 200.00 plus gpu upgrade because of the outlandish vram requirements. I guess the console devs were right when they said a console was going to be the equivalent of a top end PC. What they did not say was that it was because the PC ports would be poorly optimized pieces of crap, not that the consoles would be that great.

And actually, after playing DA:I, I went back and started playing the Dragonborn expansion to Skyrim. My two thoughts were:

1. Wow these graphics are not as great as they seemed at the time, but the game sure runs a lot better, and
2. No matter, this game is still a lot more fun than DA:I was. I could use stealth, archery, magic, healing (thank god), and my enchanted 2 handed glass sword, all with one character.

Sort of an off topic rant, I guess, but the point is, there is a lot more to gameplay than good graphics, and DA:I, while a good game, didnt break ground in any area *except* graphics. In fact, in some ways it was a regression. I guess my point is overall I think all we have seen from next gen PC console ports is somewhat better graphics at a huge increase in system requirements.

 

[tential]

I'm hoping FrozenTundra that Pascal/R9 300 series change that.

I'm hoping the performance improvement of the R9 300 series will be enough to allow us to power through poorly optimized ports.

I'm thinking by 2017, we get better pc ports and by then we'll have GPUs that can also push through and deliver us great experiences at 4K.

 

[WittyRemark]

sigh.. I need to find a new hobby,
here I come soccer!

 

[smackababy]

Is anyone really surprised about the controls? Witcher 2 seemed like it was designed for controller use from the start despite coming out on PC far before the console version. To me a controller makes more sense for the more actiony combat the second game had, but the menus and inventory with a controller are painful.

After the first, the Witcher 2's controls were amazing. The combat in the first was pretty awful, IMO.