- Sep 9, 2018
The Witcher 3 looked pretty bad compared to other open worlds like GTAV Remastered & MGSV which came out around the same time.
I’d have no problem with you trying to bring context had you actually had anything to add to the topic, but you have yet to answer to the premise of the thread at all.
Ugly is a subjective term, and there’s no context for the downgraded visuals that makes my overall opinion ‘wrong’ on the matter. I considered it ugly at launch and ugly on Pro and misleading to post .ini file edits as if they shipped it that way. It isn’t a new opinion on a 4 year old game. It’s my answer to my thread title.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.
I already gave my opinion on the subject of "downgrades" people talk the most about. You should read your own thread.I’d have no problem with you trying to bring context had you actually had anything to add to the topic, but you have yet to answer to the premise of the thread at all.
It’s one thing to say “X game was my biggest disappointment on this topic, but I’d like to add that it was understandable for X reasons.”
But you’ve come in with no intention of actually joining the discussion and instead are making serial argument posts.
Seems so. Gotta love the more toxic threads.
I must just not like the art style, cause even at the time it just felt...meh.
Looks no where near as good as this:
And these aren't even close to the best shots from any of these games. It just looks average as hell to me.
I tend to associate IQ with the overall "image quality", that includes worse lightning, worse shadowing, worse filtering, etc. But you are right.
As we established, no TW3 does not look as good as games with lower ambitions and different priorities when it comes to resource management. But when it all comes together it results in an experience that's much more engrossing than any of the other games that year. Or even the years before it. Like novigrad is much smaller than Seattle in Infamous but good lord is the former more memorable. There's always a lot going on in The Witcher 3. It's definitely a technical marvel. And as someone else said, Bloodborne doesn't look quite like that. For example that screenshot lacks chromatic aberration. :|
I honestly kind of disagree about Zelda. Yes, there's an obvious technological downgrade, but the final game still ended up looking nicer because of the colors.
What does that have to do with the game being mis-adverised and hugely downgraded in final retail build comparative to early gameplay footage or builds?As we established, no TW3 does not look as good as games with lower ambitions and different priorities when it comes to resource management. But when it all comes together it results in an experience that's much more engrossing than any of the other games that year. Or even the years before it. Like novigrad is much smaller than Seattle in Infamous but good lord is the former more memorable. And as someone else said, Bloodborne doesn't look quite like that. For example that screenshot lacks chromatic aberration. :|
I imagine you haven't read the thread.
I imagine you haven't read the thread.
Can XC2 be considered a downgrade though? I don't remember it looking any different from when it was first revealed.I was actually disappointed in Anthem. It does look great, but not as mind-blowing as I expected.
Red dead redemption 2 looks amazing but I was disappointed in the hair and people in general outside of the main cast.
Xenoblade Chronicles 2 probably takes the cake for me though. It's a fun game but I can't stand the IQ.
No, it launched on PS360 only. It was later ported on PS4/X1 with the Scholar edition but it was made 100% as a PS360 game. Watch Dogs and MGSV were at least cross-gen at launch.
You're right, I was mistaken. Can I still be mad about the PC version though?
Right? The screenshots people are posting here of Witcher 3 are laughable, obvious attempts at finding the worst looking examples of the game either with lower end hardware or less than ideal time of day and lighting conditions. I get people were disappointed at the visual difference between early prototypes of the game and the final product (which happens ALL THE TIME), but there is no need to shit out straight up falsities when the game at release was still very impressive.
I wouldnt be shocked to hear that this can happen more. Paying for parity basicallyThe downgrade of Watch_Dogs on PC can be partially reversed with a mod (unlocking features). It is crazy to think about that. Some crazy money hatting might have occurred.
wow so ugly
There’s that too. The DLCs look significantly more impressive than the base game.
Halo 2's entire E3 demo was a carefully crafted bullshot. There was no way those lighting effects were going to be possible on a plain Xbox console at the time.
I thought Brute Force on the OG Xbox looked next gen when looking at magazine previews. I don't remember the final game blowing me away though.
These are mine own screenshots from vanilla version of TW3 with the majority of them with Medium graphic settings.. somehow I still don't see an ugly game