Why the hell does the timestamp read 2008? Guess the guy hadn't updated his camera… how surreal would it be if CD Projekt Red was seriously that far along and just sitting on stuff for that long tho?
The Witcher 3
-
-
Well that was fast.
Not very suprising, from PC standpoint PS4/Xbone 'tech numbers' are not very impressive. PS4 has similar memory/processor and GFX numbers of mediciore gaming rig of today. However consoles are much more optimized than PC's and you cant compare those numbers because consoles use its memory much more efficiently.
While PS4 is noticiable upgrade from PS3 numbers wise its not any technological marvel either, there wont be massive diffrence betwen PS3 and PS4 games visually, I would say The Last of Us would hold its candle against next year PS4 releases quite well.
-
Dat fucking combat camera looks sick!
-
You got me excited for a second. This is a pretty old video.
-
You got me excited for a second. This is a pretty old video.
It is? Where was it shown before? I thought only the initial CG trailer was the only video we've gotten.
-
The video you posted was shown at Microsoft's last E3 conference.
-
So it is. I never saw it, and it was just posted on Sony's channel so I figured it was new. It was never posted in this thread so well, there it is now.
-
This seems to be a brand new screenshot. No idea where it came from and if there are more though.
[hide][/hide]I want this game now.
-
So anyone here actually be able to expect to play this on highest settings? I got Witcher 2 on high settings, but couldn't handle ultra, so I figure I'll be going into medium settings with Witcher 3. It'd also be interesting to compare choices in the series so far.
-
This seems to be a brand new screenshot. No idea where it came from and if there are more though.
[hide][qimg]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/48700350/Screenshots/TW3Swamps.jpg[/qimg][/hide]I want this game now.
I believe that's from the new trailer shown during VGX, least I recall that scene being in it.
-
Well, yeah, but it isn't taken directly from the trailer. It's too clear, it had to have been an officially released screenshot. At least it seems that way to me.
-
So anyone here actually be able to expect to play this on highest settings? I got Witcher 2 on high settings, but couldn't handle ultra, so I figure I'll be going into medium settings with Witcher 3. It'd also be interesting to compare choices in the series so far.
Will really depend on optimization. But if I had to guess I'd say unlikely. A very careful maybe if I play it on my super old 19 inch tft.
-
I fear that Witcher 3 will butcher my poor PC if I try to run anything better than medium settings…hell even medium settings might set that thing on meltdown. Still, really anticipating this game, I guess I should play some Witcher 2 in meanwhile.
-
I think it'll be pretty well optimized, especially since it's DX11 only, which if implemented right will run better than DX9. Even so I still think nobody will be able to max it out (not even including ubersampling) when it's released. I mean, if they do as good a job as 4A did with Metro LL, adding a bit more performance hit because of the open world (stuff like draw distance) I'm guessing top tier cards when the game is released should be able to run it at high, with top tier cards now (high 600s and 7000s and up) should do well on medium.
-
hey, and at least it's coming from a dev that understands and cares about the PC crowd, unlike the big boys who bring their console games to the PC but don't bother to optimize it at all (AC4) because their mindset is "hey, if it doesn't run well enough, you can just buy a more expensive GPU right? that's what you PC gamers like to do isn't it?"
-
Yeah. Not as familiar with PCs as I'm still fairly new, but my graphics card right now is an AMD Radeon HD 6700 series 2.4 ghz, so I think that's the main part that might hold me back. I believe my processor's really good with an i7-2600 3.4 ghz though. I also believe resolution sometimes has to do with how well the game runs as well with my usual resolution being at 1920 x 1080.
-
Resolution is the biggest factor in performance actually. And yeah, your GPU is the weakest link. Your CPU seem to be pretty good. Is it a laptop? Because the only 6700 card I was able to find was a mobile card.
-
Resolution is the biggest factor in performance actually. And yeah, your GPU is the weakest link. Your CPU seem to be pretty good. Is it a laptop? Because the only 6700 card I was able to find was a mobile card.
Nope. It's a desktop. I did get it replaced with another graphics card that was weaker when buying it though. As I said before, I can play Witcher 2 on high at 1920x1080, but admittedly, it goes at a steady 25 fps which I can deal with, but is still really low.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Yep. Just tried ultra specs at 1280 x 720. What exactly does screen resolution affect?
Hmm.....Seems like it affects the whole 720p vs 1080p.
-
hey, and at least it's coming from a dev that understands and cares about the PC crowd, unlike the big boys who bring their console games to the PC but don't bother to optimize it at all (AC4) because their mindset is "hey, if it doesn't run well enough, you can just buy a more expensive GPU right? that's what you PC gamers like to do isn't it?"
It's weird, I've played AC4(not all the way through but a good chunk of it) and it ran pretty well on the highest settings(only problem where side mission bugs).
Normally I'm part of the crowd that has shares the problems of badly optimized games.But yeah that statement was pretty disgusting. It's awesome that a studio like CD Red can be successful with their philosophy but them owning GoG and being stationed in Poland does open up major leeway for any decision they make.
-
Nope. It's a desktop. I did get it replaced with another graphics card that was weaker when buying it though. As I said before, I can play Witcher 2 on high at 1920x1080, but admittedly, it goes at a steady 25 fps which I can deal with, but is still really low.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Yep. Just tried ultra specs at 1280 x 720. What exactly does screen resolution affect?
Hmm.....Seems like it affects the whole 720p vs 1080p.
It affects the size of the rendered image. A lower resolution requires less pixels to be rendered and so each frame can be rendered faster. 1080p has twice as many pixels as 720p and so ideally would require twice the amount of time to render, effectively cutting your framerate in half.
And yikes, 25 fps. That's about how ubersampling in TW2 causes my game to play while it's 60 fps otherwise.
-
It's weird, I've played AC4(not all the way through but a good chunk of it) and it ran pretty well on the highest settings(only problem where side mission bugs).
Normally I'm part of the crowd that has shares the problems of badly optimized games.But yeah that statement was pretty disgusting. It's awesome that a studio like CD Red can be successful with their philosophy but them owning GoG and being stationed in Poland does open up major leeway for any decision they make.
Me too. It seems AC is running better for others because I've been running the thing on high(which I don't usually do since I have a slightly weak Graphics card) and I haven't been having any issues.
-
25 fps is just fine. That's what we had for a long ass time, and it's fine. 30 is fine too. All the fuss over 60fps anymore is really silly I think. Sure it's nice, but I'll take visuals over it any day.
-
I realize it does vary from person to person, as my brother said he didn't see a difference in the smoothness of the current gen BF4 vs the next gen version. I can tolerate 30 fps as long as it's stable (which is rare), but anything lower will really get on my nerves. I had to play GTA SA at 24 fps at certain points because the game breaks otherwise and it was pretty bad. And like I said I turned ubersampling on in TW2 just to see what it looked like and I turned it off after that session because of how low it dropped the framerate (15-30 fps depending on what part). I'm so used to 60 fps that it's pretty jarring to play at anything lower than that for any extended period of time.
-
Actually, I just tested out Witcher 2 again, and I think I can run just about everything with a steady 24 fps as long as I turn off ubersampling and Cinematic depth of field.
-
You should try turning off all the blur, bloom, and depth of field stuff and see how much that improves the framerate. I actually think it looks better with that stuff disabled.
Edit: Oh yeah and the antialiasing if you don't already have that off. It's post processing but it still has a decent sized performance hit. Also SSAO.
-
Hmm…..yeah. About 45 fps if I turn all of that off.
-
My laptop can't do crap for the Witcher 2, lol. I literally turned every single setting off/lowest they can go, and even changed the resolution to like 360p or something. After all that it was finally playable… at like 15-20 fps with noticable input lag. Hey, least I can run Left 4 Dead 2 at high... that's something right?
-
Resolution is the biggest factor in performance actually. And yeah, your GPU is the weakest link. Your CPU seem to be pretty good. Is it a laptop? Because the only 6700 card I was able to find was a mobile card.
I think you are mistaken here, resolution used to be main factor how smooth game runs but many modern games have greater impact on how high your shadow quality. I have been testing graphic settins on many games and texture,shadow,lighting and antialliancing settings can often have much greater impact than resolution itself, unless resolution is taken from 1920x1020 to 1020x920 or such extreme ends.
But also optimization is great deal in games these days aswell, nothing demands more from good gaming PC than atrocious port from console game.
-
Shadow quality and msaa (now that everything is deferred rendered) do usually have very large performance hits now but at least in TW2 they really don't. The shadow quality setting in TW2 has pretty much no impact and the aa setting has a fairly small impact as it's post processing. A few games with the worst msaa I've seen were Hitman Absolution and Max Payne 3 where they'd give an enormous framerate hit if enabled. I went from 100+ fps in MP3 to 40 fps by enabling 4x msaa for example. And it doesn't work as well as the fxaa. Same with Hitman Absolution. I could only get a decent framerate with 2x msaa, anything higher would tank it. And as you brought up shadows, I was struggling to get good framerates in HM:A when I first played it and found out that turning shadow quality down from ultra to high made me go from 30-40 fps to a constant 60 fps. Still though, neither of those settings have all that much affect on the framerate in TW2, though they might have more impact in TW3. I hope they find a different way to do shadows too since TW2 has pretty horrible shadow dithering.
I really haven't played very many horrible ports lately. Some games lack some optimization but they still typically run decently. Not that there hasn't been some. Apparently the new Need for Speed game is locked at 30 fps and making it go higher screws up the physics.
Edit: Here's the official upload of the VGX trailer
[hide]It says in game footage so apparently the scene with the Hunt is real time. I saw some people arguing about that.
-
I kinda wish I could finish up Witcher book series before getting my hands on Witcher 3 because books serve as prequel to games. However only 4 Witcher books has been translated to finnish (two story collection books and first two books of Ciri saga). Third book will be translated at summer but there are total 5 books in Ciri saga so it would take to 2015 atleast to finish whole series, unless I order english translated books.
But I doubt I can stay patient when such an amazing installment such as Witcher 3 will arive, no doubt I will make pre-order in coming days.
-
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/23/the-witcher-3-new-details-to-blow-your-mind
Game will be 50 hours to 120 hours plus depending on whether players tackle sidequests or not
They're trying to tweak the difficulty balance of the game, because apparently a number people got stuck on the prologue in Witcher 2
Putting more emphasis on hunting monsters.
Keeping mum on whether you can keep playing the game after finish it.
36 or more Endings
-
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/23/the-witcher-3-new-details-to-blow-your-mind
hmmm mixed news.
the questionable "after ending" is a bit dissapointing. I hope one can just run around do whatever like in Skyrim
The difficulty also is a tad dissapointing. Witcher 2 is really easy imo. Would hate it to be easier. The beginning was probably the best part cause it was a slight, and i mean slight challenge. Later when you get your skills the game is a cake walk.
So i'm more concerned that they increase the difficulty of the later half of game and leave beginning the same.
otherwise the rest is great to hear.
-
For some reason dark mode for me is easier than normal. That's what difficulty levels are for. If they're just talking about making easy easier then fine but a lot of games are really easy even on hard mode. What they need to do is make more than numbers scale with difficulty. Make the AI simpler on easier difficulties or something. I really hope it isn't too easy.
-
Yeah the Witcher 2 wasn't that hard of a game even Nightmare mode didn't feel very taxing.
-
Well the thing about Witcher's difficulty design was that it somewhat focused around preparation not so much on execution.
So if you've done your preparation work (potion, traps, etc) yeah it's easy. -
^ I barely used traps & potions.
-
That's the point of the game. The harder the difficulty the more you had to prepare. On easy and normal preperation was pretty much not needed but on the higher difficulties it was. It was more so than in the first one where you could drink potions while playing but still had to prepare them and other weapons while meditating.
-
36+ Endings?! Is this normal for these types of games?
-
36+ Endings?! Is this normal for these types of games?
I believe they've already confirmed it's basically 3 or 4 different core endings with the rest being different world states based on your choices in an earlier interview. It might possibly depend on your choices in the previous Witchers as well since Witcher 2 changes up the political landscape depending on your choices pretty well.
-
I'm jumping this! Guys although I have installed them several times I haven't played neither the first or second game. Does story is really good that I should? I'm PLANNING to play this one though.
-
Both Witchers have really well done stories though the first has aged worse. Ironically though, I think I liked the gameplay in the first better since I planned out using my potions more in the first one while I just used a bunch of bombs and knives in the second one.
-
Delayed till February 2015 :(
http://www.joystiq.com/2014/03/11/the-witcher-3-delayed-to-february-2015/
-
Of course it is!!
-
That is very depressing to hear.
-
Delayed till February 2015 :(
http://www.joystiq.com/2014/03/11/the-witcher-3-delayed-to-february-2015/
Hmmm what gif can I use to describe my reaction to this news…..which?
!
!
! -
Haha I think I'm the only one that is happy about this. Too much stuff to play not enough time. Like this I don't have to pick between inquisition and witcher 3.
-
Delayed till February 2015 :(
http://www.joystiq.com/2014/03/11/the-witcher-3-delayed-to-february-2015/
Well I suppose I'll probably have updated my PC by then or around then so I guess I'll run it better by the delay
-
I need to start The Witcher 2 (I guess I'll never play the first). This looks super nice.
Collector's Edition:
-
That trailer isn't really a gameplay trailer. Hopefully they have actual uncut gameplay at E3. Game looks incredibly though. Also I wonder if I can get the loyalty discount with the physical or collector's edition.