Witcher 3 Dev says Nvidia HairWorks unoptimizable for AMD GPUs
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
It was an ingame trailer, As in it wasn't pre-rendered, As in live gameplay................
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
GameStar used max settings, They even did a 4K video to show it off, Still looked inferior to the original ingame demonstration.
Tripp
too many shrooms
well fuck
.....why would they even do that, sure it would make more sense to just turn things down on the consoles
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
well fuck
Probably the same reason why Ubisoft were made to make all platforms look the same with Watch_Dogs, Parity.
They don't want any 1 platform to look better.
The only studios left now that aren't bending over for the consoles are those of Star Citizen, Elite Dangerous etc...
Dark NighT
New member
Having better trailer/gameplay quality before release is a nice way to generate a shit ton of hype, which the witcher 3 has by now.
I think its a bad way to present games but im also suprised people still fall for the old goat called hype, in this day it is hard to trust a developer based on bad game after bad game. Aliens Colonial marines was in my eye the pinnicle of how not to do things and then watch dogs came along and everyone believed it at the time, by now it is a forgotten game and no one cares about it anymore.
I think the only difference here is that the gameplay will probably be quite good, in comparison to watch dog's, it was just a open world game in a city that felt dead and the hacking was more of a chore then actual fun.
Still CDPR should know better, put another delay in and get it right.
I think its a bad way to present games but im also suprised people still fall for the old goat called hype, in this day it is hard to trust a developer based on bad game after bad game. Aliens Colonial marines was in my eye the pinnicle of how not to do things and then watch dogs came along and everyone believed it at the time, by now it is a forgotten game and no one cares about it anymore.
I think the only difference here is that the gameplay will probably be quite good, in comparison to watch dog's, it was just a open world game in a city that felt dead and the hacking was more of a chore then actual fun.
Still CDPR should know better, put another delay in and get it right.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
They never downgraded the graphics.. people just overblow these things and the fact YouTube compression doesn't help. I'llleave this here.. this was why I never worried. http://www.neoseeker.com/news/26837...r-comparing-early-trailers-to-gameplay-demos/
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Pointless.
Compared to earlier in game demos the graphics are lesser, Not as rich.
Unless you are blind it's easy to see.
Thelosouvlakia
Classy-Fried-Chicken
Royally pissed off to be honest with the graphics game. Everyone should agree on standards and make everything open source and let the best silicon win the war...
[Games are still far from 'real' at least with the current harware and APIs. Good to some APIs try to bring more lifelike graphics to us, but I don't like the "closed" and all. (as a consumer and an enthusiast)]
[Games are still far from 'real' at least with the current harware and APIs. Good to some APIs try to bring more lifelike graphics to us, but I don't like the "closed" and all. (as a consumer and an enthusiast)]
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Pointless if you don't read the article and the fact no one here knows how game development works. SPS is really the only qualified one to talk about this.. along with the person interviewed in the article. If you read it-
"They look totally different because at the time we were using a very old shader system. It wasn't this physically based shader with all the reflections and the shining metals and everything. It was very -- it was a little bit flatter. Some things were very sharp, or too sharp even. We had some problems with the vegetation that they had a sharpening filter that didn't work. After a while it was uncomfortable for the eyes. It's very hard to describe. When walking through the forest very sharp vegetation was terrible. So we changed the whole shader system, we put in the PBR (he did not clarify what it was) system. Then one year later we did this 35-minute demo in Novigrad.. (muffled) demo and so on walking through the forest. And it just keeps getting nicer and nicer. It's one of the most beautiful games ever made, probably."
That explains it really, along with the fact that he says this- which people overlook.
"There also something that people probably have to understand, is that it's very unfair to compare trailers and gameplay demos. A trailer is a beautiful shot. A trailer is this prepared -- you take one location, you put the perfect lights and the perfect camera angle and the perfect set-up. It looks set-up so it is beautiful and it is captured at super high definition and you post-process it and -- it's a trailer. It's a trailer and we pick beautiful shots." A demo is not a trailer. Cannot be compared, yet everyone is anyways. Even if you compare gameplay demo's, just the first quote alone explains everything.
I'm not blind. I already knew they changed something to do with the lightning system, it was clearly different. The only blind people are the ones who know nothing of game development and just rage at something and accuse of making it worse when they really just changed something. Even if the kept the "better version" he implies it would not have been very optimised, as they changed render techniques to make it better(to them it's better, i won't argue, they know more than i do) and better optimization. Would you rather have shitty optimization or slightly "worse" visuals? Ya not a hard thing to choose on.
Last edited:
shambles1980
New member
well lets be fair to the nay sayers.
They always have a reason why it looks worse at release than when they showed you what you would be pre ordering..
and they wont say
"well we didnt want to do that much work so we just cranked it down a level so we didn't have to optimize the code much more."
Im not saying that is what they did do.. But if it was what they did they wouldnt just say that..
they would say something like..
"Well it was too sharp and some things that no one else ever saw looked bad. so we changed every thing. and now it looks better, honestly.."
They always have a reason why it looks worse at release than when they showed you what you would be pre ordering..
and they wont say
"well we didnt want to do that much work so we just cranked it down a level so we didn't have to optimize the code much more."
Im not saying that is what they did do.. But if it was what they did they wouldnt just say that..
they would say something like..
"Well it was too sharp and some things that no one else ever saw looked bad. so we changed every thing. and now it looks better, honestly.."
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
No that's what negative people think. Only other game in recent memory that has done this was Watch Dogs. But look at who was backing it, Ubisoft. They don't exactly have an amazing track record. CDPR on the other hand do. I'd be more apt to let it go with them than Ubisoft as would any other sane person. CDPR promised free dlc(all of them) and they are honoring that, only other company I know of currently that does that is Eugen Systems(makes the Wargame series). They aren't shady like other AAA studios are. Know who is making the DRM free GOG galaxy? CDPR. I'd say thats a very good start for that track record of theirs along with free dlc. Only reason why people find something to point the finger at is because they probably so over hyped it in their heads that the actual game itself didn't meet it and they got mad and pointed out some slight graphical changes. It's honestly being way overblown due to it's popularity. If this game didn't have as much popularity nobody would have cared. But Media for the win.
Last edited:
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Pointless yet again.
Ubisoft came up with similar claims saying pretty much the same thing about Watch_Dogs.
This is just the devs saying "We had to leave out certain graphical elements that we originally showed you all because it was too much work".
Taking a dev at their word is like trusting a politician, You just don't do it.
Ubisoft came up with similar claims saying pretty much the same thing about Watch_Dogs.
This is just the devs saying "We had to leave out certain graphical elements that we originally showed you all because it was too much work".
Taking a dev at their word is like trusting a politician, You just don't do it.
Last edited:
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
They aren't Ubisoft. No sense in continuing this. I mean it's pointless right? You've already formed an opinion and nothing I say will matter to you. Won't waste my time any further then
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
You mean devs don't lie and you have to believe everything they say ? Shocker... ^_^
Similar threads
