Most disappointing graphical downgrades of this gen?

Oct 29, 2017
2,832
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.
Its like when people were complaining why fallout 4 does not look as good as witcher or other open world games , like ffs . Or why sony exclusives look quite a lot better than multi platform titles , nothing to do with resource management or having advantage of focusing on one platform , really
 
Oct 28, 2017
4,865
A dumpster
Ooof. i forgot about Zelda.



And lets not forget about the so called realtime tech demo that made everyone think Wii U was capable of these graphics.


Real time demos aren’t games but rather test on what the hardware being demoed is capable. A game has to account for a player moving a camera and other stuff while a Real Time demo doesn’t have to account for that because it’s not trying to show what a game looks like but rather the graphical effects the giving hardware can do. That’s why this demo has a ton of ridiculous effects like the floor that is reflecting everything.
 
Jul 10, 2018
536
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.
I don't know what you are seeing but none of the examples you have posted look as good as that initial Witcher 3 reveal.

Days Gone is being released 4 years after Witcher 3 and also being developed for only 1 platform. Witcher 3 on the upgraded Cyberpunk 2077 engine would exceed Red dead redemption 2 even let alone the games you are mentioning.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,664
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.
cant lie days gone look crazy right there
 
Oct 26, 2017
14,504
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.
Yes frustum culling is a thing that exists.

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.
And still have less to handle on screen vs. The Witcher 3. On top of this, all of the games you mentioned have set TOD at all times. Compared to a dynamic TOD. So ofc they're going to look better and with more consistency.

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.
See above.

Witcher 3 has like 10 NPCs on scren at once. by your logic Witcher 3 should look a 100 times better.
If I understand rendering budgets and simulation as poorly as you then yes I would argue that. What you're doing is essentially the equivalent of arguing that TW3's dialogue sequences don't look as good as Infamous Second Son's 1 and a half worth of cinematics.
 
Oct 26, 2017
14,504
Its like when people were complaining why fallout 4 does not look as good as witcher or other open world games , like ffs . Or why sony exclusives look quite a lot better than multi platform titles , nothing to do with resource management or having advantage of focusing on one platform , really
What is resource management?
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,373
If I understand rendering budgets and simulation as poorly as you then yes I would argue that.
you do realize that i am applying YOUR faulty and poor logic here right? for someone who routintely insults the intelligence of other people, you seem to lack a basic understanding of your own logic.
 
Oct 28, 2017
4,865
A dumpster
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.
A thing you have to understand is that first party studio have a lot more resources than a studio like CD which has little to no support from the big three. So Horizon and especially Second Son where more than likely thought about during the hardware choosing process, CD and most third parties don’t have that luxury so early on in the gen they have guess what the hardware will be like.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,573
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.
The Witcher 3 didn't look bad for its time. I don't think it's fair to compare the very rural environments of that game to modern games using more advanced techniques like photogrammetry to create realistic environments, nor is the comparison to games set in modern, urban environments that meaningful.

There are tons of factors. If I recall correctly a cause of The Witcher 3's downgrade was changing the lighting model, due to it being unable to accommodate the changes in lighting (such as a day-night cycle) that the game would need. Batman Arkham Knight, Infamous Second Son and Assassin's Creed Unity all lack a day-night cycle. It's not as simple as "making it work like everyone else did".
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,559
One interesting opposite situation was Ryse which ended up looking better when shown in its final form, but at lower resolution. Crytek had such a bad rep at that point that when they said that the game was running at 900p instead of 1080p people would actually try to convince you that the screenshots with the older flatter lighting looked better than the final product, or that there must be a catch.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,373
Witcher 3 on the upgraded Cyberpunk 2077 engine would exceed Red dead redemption 2 even let alone the games you are mentioning.
this right here is it. its the crux of the issue. They already HAD an upgraded engine. they got rid of it. read their interviews. they changed their entire rendering pipeline to get witcher 3 to run on current gen consoles. its the classic example of a downgrade.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,573
this right here is it. its the crux of the issue. They already HAD an upgraded engine. they got rid of it. read their interviews. they changed their entire rendering pipeline to get witcher 3 to run on current gen consoles. its the classic example of a downgrade.
It was a downgrade in visual fidelity. It's still an incorrect statement to say "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. "
 
Jul 10, 2018
536
this right here is it. its the crux of the issue. They already HAD an upgraded engine.
What?

Witcher 3 - RED Engine 3
Cyberpunk 2077 - RED Engine 4

You also mentioned Arkham Knight which was released the same year as Witcher 3.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt�(CD Projekt RED)
Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain (Kojima Productions / Konami)
Star Wars Battlefront (DICE / Electronic Arts)
Fallout 4 (Bethesda Game Studios / Bethesda Softworks)
Just Cause 3 (Avalanche Studios / Square Enix)
Honorable Mentions: Rise of the Tomb Raider (Crystal Dynamics / Square Enix), Batman: Arkham Knight (Rocksteady Studios / Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment), Splatoon (Nintendo EAD Group No. 2 / Nintendo), Super Mario Maker (Nintendo EAD Group No. 4 / Nintendo), Halo 5: Guardians (343 Industries / Microsoft Studios)

http://www.gamechoiceawards.com/archive/gdca_16th.html
 
Oct 26, 2017
14,504
you do realize that i am applying YOUR faulty and poor logic here right?
No you're not. You reduced the argument of resource management down solely to npcs. TW3 isn't just handling npcs. It's handling a lot of other systems on the regular. For example, every npc in the witcher 3 is systemic as they have a day/night schedule, react to weather, react to other entities in the world hostile/non hostile. Gee, those "ten npcs," (there are multiple scenes and areas in the witcher 3 that have more than 10 npcs onscreen at once) sure do a lot. Surely it's not resource intensive to manage something like that.

it does not exist really , and all engines work in the same way and all games have same budgets and priorities so all of em should look as good as the next one , context and reason be damned
Yes. We are smart gamers.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
BAD

BAD

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,318
USA
Some of you are so desperate to give defense and context to the point you are hardly even discussing the fact these titles got downgrades anymore.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,373
One interesting opposite situation was Ryse which ended up looking better when shown in its final form, but at lower resolution. Crytek had such a bad rep at that point that when they said that the game was running at 900p instead of 1080p people would actually try to convince you that the screenshots with the older flatter lighting looked better than the final product, or that there must be a catch.
As much as I hated Ryse, it looked phenomenal at the time and again, despite the fact that it was 900p just like Unity on the PS4, it looked amazing regardless of the non-native yes.

the downgrade in witcher 3 was absolutely massive. they downgraded the foliage, their lighting went to shit, the water, the weather effects were all severely downgraded. the city buildings and crowd density was massively downgraded.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,373
What?

Witcher 3 - RED Engine 3
Cyberpunk 2077 - RED Engine 4

You also mentioned Arkham Knight which was released the same year as Witcher 3.

http://www.gamechoiceawards.com/archive/technology.html
http://www.gamechoiceawards.com/archive/gdca_16th.html
sigh,.

It was captured PC footage, not pre-rendered, Badowski confirms, but a lot had to change. "I cannot argue - if people see changes, we cannot argue," Adam Badowski says, "but there are complex technical reasons behind it.
"Maybe it was our bad decision to change the rendering system," he mulls, "because the rendering system after VGX was changed." There were two possible rendering systems but one won out because it looked nicer across the whole world, in daytime and at night. The other would have required lots of dynamic lighting "and with such a huge world simply didn't work".


______________________________________________

They changed the engines. They call it a bad decision themselves. i think i am done here.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...he-witcher-3-graphics-downgrade-issue-head-on

Some of you are so desperate to give defense and context to the point you are hardly even discussing the fact these titles got downgrades anymore.
They are literally defending devs who admitted to making poor decisions.
 
Oct 26, 2017
14,504
Some of you are so desperate to give defense and context to the point you are hardly even discussing the fact these titles got downgrades anymore.
Is the overall point of your thread to just complain about games not looking as pretty as in earlier vertical slices and just not acknowledge any sort of context?

They changed the engines. They call it a bad decision themselves.
I like how the dev says "maybe" and then states the following:

There were two possible rendering systems but one won out because it looked nicer across the whole world, in daytime and at night. The other would have required lots of dynamic lighting "and with such a huge world simply didn't work".
And we're supposed to treat it as an across the board downgrade.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,307
this right here is it. its the crux of the issue. They already HAD an upgraded engine. they got rid of it. read their interviews. they changed their entire rendering pipeline to get witcher 3 to run on current gen consoles. its the classic example of a downgrade.
I thought the reason was because the old lighting model didn't work well with realtime day/night changes?
 
Oct 26, 2017
14,504
You can accept that games change during development and compromises must be made
Many people don't do this, especially when they not only make braindead comparisons but also call the end product ugly regardless of the context. Even OP started the thread with stating that a four year old game is actually ugly along with the implication that the only way for it to be consistently pretty is by editing ini setting.
 
Sorry, The Witcher 3 is ugly to you? I've seen some hot takes around but that's pushing it a tad far.
That´s not a "hot take". The thread describes the intent very well. Witcher 3 experienced a severe change in IQ between the gameplay videos reveal and the actual game launch. That is a fact. And some people were dissapointed.

Whats´"hot" about that take?
 
Oct 27, 2017
74
I don't really understand the context for the arguments in this thread. Are we even talking about downgrades anymore, and what merits "most disappointing"? Page 2+ is basically a mosh of whether or not games are even comparable based on different priorities, and available resources of a dev.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,312
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Many people don't do this, especially when they not only make braindead comparisons but also call the end product ugly regardless of the context.
I'm sorry but I don't see what's bad about this.

I know why some areas in Dark Souls 2 looks the way they do, but they're still ugly. There being a reason for it doesn't make them less unpleasant to look at.
 
Oct 26, 2017
14,504
That´s not a "hot take". The thread describes the intent very well. Witcher 3 experienced a severe change in IQ between the gameplay videos reveal and the actual game launch. That is a fact. And some people were dissapointed.

Whats´"hot" about that take?
That the end game is ugly. And the difference wasn't IQ.

I'm sorry but I don't see what's bad about this.
I tend to take issue with poor argumentation and bad logic. Better discourse should be the end goal, not worse discourse overall.
 
Nov 3, 2017
1,676
Watchdogs definitely. It was the game that made me stop trusting in Ubisoft. Not even the build PC version looked like the original reveal. Such an iconic downgrade.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,352
Canada
That´s not a "hot take". The thread describes the intent very well. Witcher 3 experienced a severe change in IQ between the gameplay videos reveal and the actual game launch. That is a fact. And some people were dissapointed.

Whats´"hot" about that take?
There is a difference between "this game looks worse from reveal to launch" and "this game is ugly".

A very large difference.

Also no, the difference is not in IQ lol
 
Jul 10, 2018
536
Is the overall point of your thread to just complain about games not looking as pretty as in earlier vertical slices and just not acknowledge any sort of context?


I like how the dev says "maybe" and then states the following:



And we're supposed to treat it as an across the board downgrade.
Digital Foundry also called the downgrade minor as there were improvements made elsewhere.

There were changes made from this demo that impacted the final game in both positive and negative ways, but the differences are relatively minor.

Yet, some improvements were made including a greater draw distance, additional foliage, and what seems to be a stronger wind simulation.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...-we-learn-from-the-witcher-3-downgrade-fiasco
 
Oct 27, 2017
74
I think if the OP is to be followed, Watch Dogs is probably the most disappointing on the basis that it had all the hype of the upcoming generation and didn't deliver.
 
Mar 23, 2018
1,048
*raises hand* I really dont get how anyone can think it looks good. At best its passable.
When it came it was easily best looking game on market. That was almost 4 years ago, beginning of generation.

Sure there was huge downgrade, but the game still looks beautiful. Ofc it is nothing compared to new games like HZD or RDR2, God of War etc.
 

Morrigan

Armoring
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
8,359
How are there so many mentions of Dark Souls 2 when it's last-gen? Thread title clearly says "this gen". Come on people.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,947
the fact that it's a discussion is the most depressing or disappointing downgrade of the entire artistic medium, to me...

...oh and Watchdogs. Immediately started this generation on a wet fart.