Yeah but look at the NPC's. They look hideous.
To me the entire thing looks very...average. Let's hope everything looks better in motion.
But hey, at least the gameplay sounds awesome. That's my main concern.
Another Preview vs Review(day 1 patched) comparison. (the lighting/colors certainly look better IMO)
LINK
when did this happen?
Tomorrow somebody run it on max settings and let me know if I'm buying this thing or waiting for a sale. Can't believe it's gotten to this point, why CDPR why ?
Anti-Aliasing
To tackle jagged edges, CD Projekt RED has developed their own post-process anti-aliasing solution, as hardware anti-aliasing techniques such as MSAA and TXAA are incompatible with REDengine 3's renderer. This unnamed post-processing technique operates with a level of fidelity similar to FXAA, but with an added temporal anti-aliasing component to reduce the crawling and shimmering of anti-aliased edges when the camera or player's viewpoint is in motion.
Tomorrow somebody run it on max settings and let me know if I'm buying this thing or waiting for a sale. Can't believe it's gotten to this point, why CDPR why ?
Quite honestly this is why the PC gaming community is a laughing stock.
Im just saying that at some point it stopped being about playing the games but rather what crazy effects you can turn on and cram in the amount of vram you have. Then we nitpick every shadow and every plant in the game world looking for flaws on purpose.
Im just saying that at some point it stopped being about playing the games but rather what crazy effects you can turn on and cram in the amount of vram you have. Then we nitpick every shadow and every plant in the game world looking for flaws on purpose.
I'm sure its going to look very good even if you can't crank all the settings. To me gameplay was the big factor in these type of games.
Ya'll enjoy spending your time looking at the game. I'll enjoy playing it.
Quite honestly this is why the PC gaming community is kind of a joke these days. "If it doesn't require $2000 in GPUs to run at max then it isn't worth buying until it is $20"
I know you didn't say that and I am not picking on you, just a general statement. Every time a game releases there are huge threads with posts saying "game looks bad, consoles ruined the game. Not buying". It's no wonder developers would rather make console games sometimes.
Im just saying that at some point it stopped being about playing the games but rather what crazy effects you can turn on and cram in the amount of vram you have. Then we nitpick every shadow and every plant in the game world looking for flaws on purpose.
But this is the same argument every time there is a console version. Same as when there is a ps4/x1 game that is new but was also made for the ps3/360.I get what you're saying, I'm going to buy it, it is clearly an incredible game it just sucks basically knowing how much better the developers wanted the game to be and what they had to settle for because they focused on the consoles.
I could never quite figure out that reasoning, although it does seem the devs are reluctant to show up consoles. But if the PC looks better someone who wants to play the game will either play the console for some reason (it is good enough, they dont have a powerful PC, their freinds play on console, etc.) or they will get the game for PC. In either case the game gets sold. In fact, they might sell a few extra games to PC gamers who will not play console or a poor PC port. Now I am talking about game devs here. I suppose what is more likely is that either Sony or Microsoft pressure game developers to tone down PC graphics in order to sell more on the console.
I
Crysis was both the high and low point for PC Gaming. It was the best visuals seen to that time - but it also brought most machines to their knees.
I don't think this has much, if anything to do with showing up the consoles, I think this is a problem in the PC world itself. Here is why:
Crysis was both the high and low point for PC Gaming. It was the best visuals seen to that time - but it also brought most machines to their knees. The result is that the initial sales were lack-luster. I think this has caused developers to be a little gun shy. They still develop to the lowest common denominator - which isn't the consoles, but the integrated HD4000 graphics that many lower end PC users have.
kepler got screwed so hard, but what's even more pressing is that you need a titan x to run it in ultra in 1080p 60fps. that means this game is 2x more demanding than even gtav. i woulda been ok had the graphics look like the 2013 ingame footage, but the current downgraded graphics doesn't justify. poor showing from a developer that made its name on pc.
The death of Kepler:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-PC-237266/Specials/Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1159196/#a3
OG Titan can barely crack 30FPS and a 960 is faster than a 780.
Quite honestly this is why the PC gaming community is kind of a joke these days. "If it doesn't require $2000 in GPUs to run at max then it isn't worth buying until it is $20"
I know you didn't say that and I am not picking on you, just a general statement. Every time a game releases there are huge threads with posts saying "game looks bad, consoles ruined the game. Not buying". It's no wonder developers would rather make console games sometimes.