Most disappointing graphical downgrades of this gen?

Nov 10, 2017
2,724
That Witcher 3 downgrade hurts,but the way I see it the promised graphics from the future,but at least they delivered amazing modern graphics. Not like the games were they promise nice graphics and downgrade it to shit. Witcher 3 still looks AMAZING

Personally,I'd say the worst was Dark Souls 2 or Watch Dogs
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,758
Watch Dogs I wouldn’t even count since it released for last gen consoles as well. So I wouldn’t say it is a current gen game at all and is likely why it was downgraded so much.

The Witcher 3 was definitely a downgrade. Also let’s remember that a downgrade doesn’t mean the graphics aren’t good. The Witcher 3 is still a great looking game. But it doesn’t come close to what was first shown.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,864
Watchdogs for me. Witcher 3 and Dark Souls 2 look like it from the videos I've seen of their changes and cut content.

Anyone who says Rainbow Six Siege is wrong
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,373
There was nothing so-called about that demo being real-time, you could interact with it.
yeah i remember that. shouldnt have said so-called, but its pretty deceptive in that the final game or any other Wii U game even linear ones didnt come close to matching those graphics. Most games on the Wii U are smaller games that should have looked even better than that tech demo.
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,790
Taiwan
When you say witcher 3 is an ugly game and had the worst downgrade and then you compare to 2017 Horizon zero down a Sony exclusive and 2018 most expensive game to date from most successful developer on the planet. You dont see how ridiculous that sound?
Who's doing that? OP?
 
Oct 26, 2017
14,504
Lets do exactly that.

AC Unity, came out 6 months BEFORE Witcher 3.



Batman Arkham Knight. Came out a month after Witcher 3.



Here is another game that came out a full year before Witcher 3.



Inb4 screenshots of 2014-15 games with much smaller maps than the witcher 3 are posted.


This is a really interesting screenshot. It reminds me way more of how TW2 looked than how TW3 ended up, with the excessive bloom and sharpening.

Earlier builds of the game looked much closer to the Witcher 2.

yeah i remember that. shouldnt have said so-called, but its pretty deceptive in that the final game or any other Wii U game even linear ones didnt come close to matching those graphics.
It's a lot easier to make a single room made only to showcase rendering tech look pretty than it is an entire game and all of it's systems. For example, no room in MGSV looks as good as this Fox engine realtime render:
 
Oct 26, 2017
12,429
The worst was W_D without a doubt, the game not only looked worse but also you couldn'e replicate what was shown in the demo with the traffic light fuckery.

The most disappointing to me however was Zelda: BOTW :/



Still hurts. Witcher 3 is up there too.
Like, I get BotW not being a powerhouse, but what is it with people always picking the worst pic they can find?

 
Oct 25, 2017
1,375
Watchdogs was the most obvious and probably the first time where I said to myself "This isn't what I expected. Probably because of that as soon as I saw The Division I knew it was not going to look like the preview on consoles. I was right.

As soon as I saw Anthem I knew it wouldn't look that great.It could never hit the mark it set on current gen consoles.

But Zelda: BotW. That one cut the worst because I believed.
 
Jan 7, 2018
896
Slovakia
Yeah, Witcher 3 was downgraded and in some part pretty heavily.. but are you people serious comparing TW3 to AC games? A game made by 300 people who did a game for the first time on not two, but three different platforms, with one of them being for the first time (PS) compared to a game - for example ACUnity - which was made by how many, 5 - 6 different Ubisoft studios with overall more than 1000+people working on it and they had a ton of experiences with all 3 different platforms and that game still was a technical mess despite looking great and was in a way worse shape than TW3 at release
 
Oct 28, 2017
2,085
Like, I get BotW not being a powerhouse, but what is it with people always picking the worst pic they can find?

there's not that many comparison shots out there so you pick what you find.

either way, the game's draw distance for foliage is ridiculuously low and the lighting was also hugely downgraded, the overall texture quality is also pretty low.

BotW at time can absolutely be a good looking game, but more often than not its imperfections are just too obtuse and in your face.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,036
Yeah, that feel about being conned after you buy it...

Not only the graphics were downgraded, but level design was complate shit in comparison to DS1. Somehow critics were ok with the numerous flaws and the game ended up with second highest score in Souls series.
 
Oct 27, 2017
508
I would say TW3 and BoTW. And I don't thing either looked good when they came out. I played Witcher 3 on PS4 when it came out and was really disappointed. That's all I can say.

I just never cared for either Watch dogs or the division so it didn't disappoint me. And I had guess the downgrade for Anthem, it was literally unbelievable.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,664
The worst was W_D without a doubt, the game not only looked worse but also you couldn'e replicate what was shown in the demo with the traffic light fuckery.

The most disappointing to me however was Zelda: BOTW :/



Still hurts. Witcher 3 is up there too.
Very bad for both pictures, cameras and angles. The first picture is even photoshopped and the real picture is a screengrab of a video
 
OP
OP
BAD

BAD

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,318
USA
Not even modded. I was actually quite surprised when I saw the trees in the PS4 version. LOD in vanilla PC just looks that much better even in medium to low settings.
I disagree
When you say witcher 3 is an ugly game and had the worst downgrade and then you compare to 2017 Horizon zero down a Sony exclusive and 2018 most expensive game to date from most successful developer on the planet. You dont see how ridiculous that sound?
who did all that? I just said it was ugly, not “worst downgrade” or any of the other stuff you’re mad about
 
Oct 26, 2017
12,429
there's not that many comparison shots out there so you pick what you find.

either way, the game's draw distance for foliage is ridiculuously low and the lighting was also hugely downgraded, the overall texture quality is also pretty low.

BotW at time can absolutely be a good looking game, but more often than not its imperfections are just too obtuse and in your face.
The foliage draw distance was indeed bad, but I think the lighting was gorgeous.
The problem are the very stoney areas where the low poly stuff is too obvious. Especially on some of the mountains where there's nothing else to distract you.
 
Feb 6, 2019
105
does BOTW even counts? people, different from other games on this thread that we actually could do side by side based on gameplay trailers. people are complaining about a cinematic reveal teaser.
and worst the "dowgrade" are images that ran around being cherry picked from youtube screenshot from early demos. rather than final product.
 
Feb 22, 2019
227
Watch Dogs and The Division.

The E3 trailers looked so damn good and as it turned out they did look way too good and the final product was a huge downgrade and we are talking way more downgrade than just simple textures, lighting etc. Real generational downgrade. Those games E3 trailers looked like PS5 games
 
Jan 20, 2019
75
How does the wither 3 run on a base ps4 these days? I havent played it since the last dlc and I remember fairly often reading about updates to the game going back and forth between improving visuals/performance and making them worse?
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,664
there's not that many comparison shots out there so you pick what you find.

either way, the game's draw distance for foliage is ridiculuously low and the lighting was also hugely downgraded, the overall texture quality is also pretty low.

BotW at time can absolutely be a good looking game, but more often than not its imperfections are just too obtuse and in your face.
I think yall on to something but can never point it out. Like receipts lol
 
Oct 26, 2017
14,504
It's not moving the goalpost it's called common sense.

-The Witcher 3 does not look as good as games with much smaller maps and way less assets released around the same time
-The Witcher 3 does not look as good as "x" games released years later, one an exclusive, note, (the devs of the witcher 3 even stated the game would've looked prettier if they could focus on one platform. Because "no shit"), and the other one with a much higher budget and workforce behind it.

If you can't parse the logic behind both statements you have no business discussing tech in video games.
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,559
I think it is kinda crazy how muddy the foliage looked in PS4. Trees that aren't even that far and the textures are a bit bury. At least in vanilla PC one could see the difference between pine needles and leaves. LOD took the biggest hit. The textures themselves were not such a drastic difference from up close.
 
Oct 28, 2017
2,085
The foliage draw distance was indeed bad, but I think the lighting was gorgeous.
The problem are the very stoney areas where the low poly stuff is too obvious. Especially on some of the mountains where there's nothing else to distract you.
Despite being downscaled, the lighting pulls the weight definitely, my most memorable scenes were when Link was running through grasslands and you could see sun reflecting on the blades of grass.

As much as I love Switch for portability, I'd love to see BotW2 on a more powerful system.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,373
Yeah, Witcher 3 was downgraded and in some part pretty heavily.. but are you people serious comparing TW3 to AC games? A game made by 300 people who did a game for the first time on not two, but three different platforms, with one of them being for the first time (PS) compared to a game - for example ACUnity - which was made by how many, 5 - 6 different Ubisoft studios with overall more than 1000+people working on it and they had a ton of experiences with all 3 different platforms and the game still was a technical mess despite looking great and was in a way worse shape than TW3 at release
I dont understand this logic. Witcher 3 cost $81 million to make. the in house team was 240 people but a lot of work was contracted out. Over 1500 people were involved in the production.

by comparison, Horizon cost $50 million and the first three uncharteds cost $20 million each. Sucker Punch made Infamous Second Son with 100 people. Sony Bend only just hit a 100 people recently and managed to create something like this.



And the point isnt that the Witcher doesnt look as good as other games, it's that it DID look as good as the other games BEFORE it was downgraded. They changed the entire rendering engine a year before the game came out. PS4 and X1 devkits were out a full year before they revealed the trailer. So this means two things. One they knew the specs were too low for their vision and showed the trailer a year later knowing it was going to get massively downgraded. Two, as we can see from other games that have launched since and came out around the same time, the graphics were definitely possible on these consoles and they just downgraded the engine instead of sticking with it and making it work like everyone else did.
 
OP
OP
BAD

BAD

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,318
USA
I think it is kinda crazy how muddy the foliage looked in PS4. Trees that aren't even that far and the textures are a bit bury. At least in vanilla PC one could see the difference between pine needles and leaves.
There are people on this forum who thinks it looks good on PS4. I’m on PS4 Pro and find the visuals messy.
 
Oct 29, 2017
2,832
It's not moving the goalpost it's called common sense.

-The Witcher 3 does not look as good as games with much smaller maps and way less assets released around the same time
-The Witcher 3 does not look as good as "x" games released years later, one an exclusive, note, (the devs of the witcher 3 even stated the game would've looked prettier if they could focus on one platform. Because "no shit"), and the other one with a much higher budget and workforce behind it.

If you can't parse the logic behind both statements you have no business discussing tech in video games.
Do not forget that Arkham knight has is only set at night and Infamous as beautiful that game is has only 4 time presets and its really empty .
AC unity also only has 3? time presets but the lighting more than makes up for it.
 
Nov 6, 2017
1,299
im fine with downgrades if the game still fun and looks good, wich is the case for me with TW3, now Watch Dogs and Anthem ... tsc, those two had the crown now
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,662
DS2 isn’t this gen? I mean I get it, the wounds of betrayal are still fresh but we in a new gen boys/girls.
I agree, but it's probably the worst example of a downgrade I've ever seen. So bad that it gutted what was supposed to be one of the game's main mechanics, fighting against pitch-black darkness.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,135
The Witcher III and Watch Dogs, though for different reasons.

Witcher was definitely downgraded and that was somewhat disappointing as it was a game I was really looking forward to. But I still feel that the final product still looked fine - I certainly wouldn't call it bad-looking by any means - and because it's a great game regardless, it was something I was able to look past.

Whereas the only reason I was ever really excited for Watch Dogs was because it appeared to be a graphical showcase for next-gen consoles. Once the visual downgrade was evident, so went my expectations for it.
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,559
There are people on this forum who thinks it looks good on PS4. I’m on PS4 Pro and find the visuals messy.
Well I wouldn't say It looks bad on PS4, since the art is just that good, and personally I'm ok with the LOD in BoTW for a more extreme example. Just that I genuinely thought I was looking at a bug the first time I saw trees in the base PS4 version.
 
Oct 26, 2017
14,504
I dont understand this logic. Witcher 3 cost $81 million to make. the in house team was 240 people but a lot of work was contracted out. Over 1500 people were involved in the production.

by comparison, Horizon cost $50 million and the first three uncharteds cost $20 million each
We don't have a budget for Horizon, we only know the LEAST amount it could've cost because it was said to the most expensive project ever made in Amsterdam.
Sucker Punch made Infamous Second Son with 100 people. Sony Bend only just hit a 100 people recently and managed to create something like this.
And you're still making comparisons to devs who had the advantage of working on a single SKU, and yea none of those games had any outsourcing whatsoever involved in production..
 
Sep 9, 2018
446
It's not moving the goalpost it's called common sense.

-The Witcher 3 does not look as good as games with much smaller maps and way less assets released around the same time
-The Witcher 3 does not look as good as "x" games released years later, one an exclusive, note, (the devs of the witcher 3 even stated the game would've looked prettier if they could focus on one platform. Because "no shit"), and the other one with a much higher budget and workforce behind it.

If you can't parse the logic behind both statements you have no business discussing tech in video games.
Would you mind posting a comparable game?
 
Oct 26, 2017
14,504
Do not forget that Arkham knight has is only set at night and Infamous as beautiful that game is has only 4 time presets and its really empty .
AC unity also only has 3? time presets but the lighting more than makes up for it.
We should definitely ignore the fact that games with preset TOD look better than a game with a dynamic day/night lighting system. Just as we should ignore map sizes, as well as what's going on in the world itself because dontcha know graphics are all that matters when it comes to how pretty a game looks. The Witcher 3 having more going on underneath the hood means like ZERO in the grand scheme of things. I smart.

Would you mind posting a comparable game?
The only comparable games are games that came out 2-3 years after The Witcher 3. Namely the 2 AC games that reach that map size and similar if not more underlying simulations in the world. And the answer to them looking better than a game that came out 2-3 years later, is "no shit." But it is hilarious considering that even those games don't look as good on the surface as the 2014-5 games with much smaller maps and less underlying systems to manage. Emphasis on the bolded.
 
Last edited:
Oct 28, 2017
4,865
A dumpster
Lets do exactly that.

AC Unity, came out 6 months BEFORE Witcher 3.



Batman Arkham Knight. Came out a month after Witcher 3.



Here is another game that came out a full year before Witcher 3.

AC Unity







Earlier builds of the game looked much closer to the Witcher 2.


It's a lot easier to make a single room made only to showcase rendering tech look pretty than it is an entire game and all of it's systems. For example, no room in MGSV looks as good as this Fox engine realtime render:
Lets do exactly that.

AC Unity, came out 6 months BEFORE Witcher 3.



Batman Arkham Knight. Came out a month after Witcher 3.



Here is another game that came out a full year before Witcher 3.

W3 is several hundred times larger than all these game. Not sure about AC Unity but neither AK or SS have a dynamic lightning system and AK in particular looks as good as it does partly because it’s always night so it can go really far with tons of different effects and texture details while Witcher 3 has to constantly account for hundreds of different variables. To put it simply it’s much easier to render something that is a controlled environment as supposed to something that is dynamic environment.

Just Cause 3 is a much better example and it came out a few months after W3.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,352
Canada
I dont understand this logic. Witcher 3 cost $81 million to make. the in house team was 240 people but a lot of work was contracted out. Over 1500 people were involved in the production.

by comparison, Horizon cost $50 million and the first three uncharteds cost $20 million each. Sucker Punch made Infamous Second Son with 100 people. Sony Bend only just hit a 100 people recently and managed to create something like this.



And the point isnt that the Witcher doesnt look as good as other games, it's that it DID look as good as the other games BEFORE it was downgraded. They changed the entire rendering engine a year before the game came out. PS4 and X1 devkits were out a full year before they revealed the trailer. So this means two things. One they knew the specs were too low for their vision and showed the trailer a year later knowing it was going to get massively downgraded. Two, as we can see from other games that have launched since and came out around the same time, the graphics were definitely possible on these consoles and they just downgraded the engine instead of sticking with it and making it work like everyone else did.
Stop listing Sony first parties. Those games are all going to look better, they have the assistance of being able to optimize for a single platform (PS4) as well as having help from Sony's graphics division ICE. It's not a decent comparison.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,535
tw3 lighting is just not very good from a tech perspective. i still think it's a nice looking game though

i'd say anthem is most disappointing, because not only the visuals were downgraded, the world was shown to be much more alive and dynamic.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,373
It's not moving the goalpost it's called common sense.

-The Witcher 3 does not look as good as games with much smaller maps and way less assets released around the same time
-The Witcher 3 does not look as good as "x" games released years later, one an exclusive, note, (the devs of the witcher 3 even stated the game would've looked prettier if they could focus on one platform. Because "no shit"), and the other one with a much higher budget and workforce behind it.

If you can't parse the logic behind both statements you have no business discussing tech in video games.
Games dont render the whole goddamn world at the same time. every game has a streaming tech. most games are smart about where to place mountains and 100% of the games only render what the player can see at any given moment. If anything games like Infamous and Batman Arkham Knight are even harder to render because they basically allow the player to fly around the map in speeds and at vertical levels witcher 3 just couldnt.

AC Unity is pushing literally thousands of NPCs on the screen at once. Their rendering budget was spent on that and yet the game still looked phenomenal. Witcher 3 has like 10 NPCs on scren at once. by your logic Witcher 3 should look a 100 times better.

Two of the three games i mentioned werent even exclusives. Witcher 3 runs at 1080p on PS4, same as other games and has some of the worst foliage ive ever seen.

The bottomline is that they were running the game at those graphical settings until they werent. its a downgrade.