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?
...it was realtime though.And lets not forget about the so called realtime tech demo that made everyone think Wii U was capable of these graphics.
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.
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:
Like, I get BotW not being a powerhouse, but what is it with people always picking the worst pic they can find?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?
My god that is actually a huge downgrade.for me its TW3 and it aint even close
Very bad for both pictures, cameras and angles. The first picture is even photoshopped and the real picture is a screengrab of a videoThe 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.
I disagree
who did all that? I just said it was ugly, not "worst downgrade" or any of the other stuff you're mad about
The foliage draw distance was indeed bad, but I think the lighting was gorgeous.
I think yall on to something but can never point it out. Like receipts lol
It's not moving the goalpost it's called common sense.
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.
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.
There are people on this forum who thinks it looks good on PS4. I'm on PS4 Pro and find the visuals messy.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
AC UnityLets 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.
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:
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.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.
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.
