The Witcher 3 developer explains controversial graphics downgrade

Anyone who's followed The Witcher 3's development from the first teasers and trailers to the finished product has likely noticed not-quite-subtle changes to the graphics—and definitely not for the better. A NeoGaf poster whipped up a quick comparison, and the differences are rather stark, I'd say. And this guy agrees.

Eurogamer asked developer CD Projekt Red about the graphical downgrade. According to the team behind the game, the eye candy in the early tech demo would have been too difficult to scale up to the full game world. They cite a few specific examples, and they suggest difficulties "regardless of the platform."

The official statements contradict those made by an unnamed insider who detailed the graphical downgrade for What If Gaming. That story claims CD Projekt Red scaled things back because it couldn't realize its original vision with the relatively limited horsepower of current consoles. It's a decidedly different perspective on the events, and it's dredged up old quarrels about console peasants and their master races.

The Witcher 3 is still getting lots of love from both gamers and press alike. Despite the graphics not being quite as stratospheric as expected, the game looks like a success. And, hey, any post-2000 game that dares to include a map, manual, and thank-you note in the regular physical version deserves respect.

Comments closed
    • willmore
    • 4 years ago

    Okay, this is confusing. If the game was so strongly targetd for the PS4 and Xbox One and that limited the PC graphics performance, then why did they use a propriatary nVidia toolkit? Or do they not use HairWorks on the console versions?

    Both current gen consoles are AMD based designs. Why would you ever use anything from Gameworks? That just sounds like a great way to shoot yourself in the foot.

    • ZGradt
    • 4 years ago

    It’s probably more likely that the artists realized it would be a heck of a lot of work to fill the entire game world with that level of detail and decided not to put in the effort.

    • Shobai
    • 4 years ago

    I’ve really enjoyed playing both previous Witcher games, they’re really great. Having said that, there’s no way I’ll buy this one before the ‘Enhanced Edition’ or equivalent is released.

      • NovusBogus
      • 4 years ago

      I preordered because I loved the first two, but I’m not in a rush to play it for this reason. CDPR seems to be like a less-extreme Egosoft, they rush something out the door to please stakeholders then spend the next 1-2 years patching it up to the real game.

        • K-L-Waster
        • 4 years ago

        It’s these kind of issues that have pushed me from the “pre-order and get it right away” camp to the “put it in the Steam wishlist and wait for a 50% off” camp on pretty much all games. By the time the sales come by, most of the bugs have been patched too.

        • Froz
        • 4 years ago

        Witcher 3 is one of the best game I ever played in regards to bugs at release. I played over 30 hours now and I encountered almost none bugs at all (few graphical glitches, once or twice the game froze). It’s much better then Witcher 2. And the game itself is really fun, I didn’t expect to be enjoying it that much. It seems to be huge with so many sidequest – and none of those are typical RPG “bring me 10 x”, each has some interesting story (with full voice-over). So far I really recommend trying it out, if you have time.

    • TwoEars
    • 4 years ago

    Some people are never happy. If the game looked like it did in the 2013 trailer the same people would be complaining that it only runs at 10fps instead.

    I for one is extremely happy with the game, it’s everything I hoped it would be and more!! CD Projekt RED has truly outdone themselves. W3 is a masterpiece for the ages.

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 4 years ago

      The game doesn’t run poorly because of the graphics. It doesn’t even need more than a 2gb video card as is. It runs poorly because CDPred did a shoddy port, and threw gameworks on top of it.

      NV also screwed Kepler owners over with bad drivers, where a 780Ti is beaten by a 960 and a 280, which is complete bunk. After about a million people complained, NV has finally owned up to the problem, and is claiming a fix is in the works. ETA unknown.
      [url<]https://i.imgur.com/Wb7oiuH.jpg[/url<] Really. People who can't tell the difference between horrible ports and good graphics are retarded. TW3 is totally a graphically downgraded console port. The reason why it runs so poorly is the same reason why Assassins Creed runs poorly. It's a badly coded game, and NV dropped the ball with proper Kepler support. Right now, AMD users are better off, and can even use Hairworks as long as they limit the tessellation factor to 8.

      • bodom81
      • 4 years ago

      I would like it to look like it did personally, just so that it is available, the hardware may not be there yet but at least you have something to aim for, You could also tweak things until you are satisfied with performance and visuals. Isn’t that the point of having a PC? To be free to decide what sacrifices to make.

      I haven’t played enough yet to form an opinion on gameplay.

    • Silus
    • 4 years ago

    If what we have now is a graphics downgrade, wow! My graphics card can’t handle the game with everything maxed, but I’m playing acceptably with most on high (no AA though) @ 1080p and it’s beautiful. Kudos to CD Projekt Red. Oh and besides the awesome graphics, it’s an amazing game. Thus far it trumps everything that The Elder Scrolls has put out (except the story, I still like the Elder Scrolls lore and story very much) and after all the crap Bethesda did with the release of Skyrim, CD Projekt Red and The Witcher series will be where I’ll get my fix of an open world third person RPG.

    • MpG
    • 4 years ago

    Hmm… downgraded visuals due to insufficient graphic horsepower, and I just finished reading about how this game is being given away to Titan X purchasers… there’s irony here, I’m sure of it.

    • ptsant
    • 4 years ago

    +1 for providing actual physical content in the box
    Although I wouldn’t expect the final version to be exactly as the demo, I don’t think the graphics look bad. In fact, I perfectly understand having to code for multiple targets. What I don’t like is console PORTS. Witcher 3 is not a port.

    • bodom81
    • 4 years ago

    The Witcher 3 is “owning” my computer…. I have an I7-860, and a gtx660 ti…. and a first gen 80gb ssd from intel. 8gb of ram is even too little for some games, I had to enable virtual memory just to run GTA 5.

      • NovusBogus
      • 4 years ago

      I have a 650ti still…not even gonna try until I get the GPU sorted out and maybe bump the 2500k a couple notches above stock.

        • bodom81
        • 4 years ago

        Yeah, I am still using PCI-E 2.0 so even if I get a new video card that will slow it down. I can’t even use sata 3 because it will lower my PCI-E to 8X. You have a good CPU and chipset at least!

          • Airmantharp
          • 4 years ago

          A full x16 PCI-E 2.0 slot runs the same bandwidth as an x8 PCI-E 3.0 slot- which still works great for single and dual GPU applications.

          I’m running PCI-E 2.0 as well and dropping a 970 in tomorrow- and I don’t anticipate any issues :D.

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 4 years ago

      [url<]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/833016/geforce-700-600-series/gtx-780-possible-fail-as-performance-in-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt-/post/4537394/#4537394[/url<] [quote<]We discovered a couple of issues in regards to Kepler GPUs and are working on driver updates. [/quote<] NV botched the driver. Wait for a fix.

        • bodom81
        • 4 years ago

        Ah, I haven’t seen this, thanks man. I still want to upgrade my system regardless. it’s fairly out of date. I remember when sandy bridge came out, my CPU was crushed in the benchmarks. There have been quite a few improvements since then. Not only that, damage’s article made me jealous, I love building systems.

          • l33t-g4m3r
          • 4 years ago

          Kepler Fix / Workaround:
          [url<]https://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/comments/37o6sl/how_i_went_from_35_fps_average_on_low_to_45/[/url<]

      • morphine
      • 4 years ago

      Wait, you had to “enable virtual memory”? What does that mean?

    • DragonDaddyBear
    • 4 years ago

    I’m not happy about them using a proprietary tech that favors a lone vendor over another. I know AMD is in a bad spot on a lot of ways but this crap isn’t helping. If developers continue it then we won’t have an AMD left, even when a (hopefully) superior is released (like the upcoming 390).

      • Klimax
      • 4 years ago

      Well, in this case it’s in the end AMD’s fault. They made GCN weak on tessellation (only Tonga closed the gap) and got massive hit when some titles used it. (And since they were so bad at it very few engines use it)

        • DragonDaddyBear
        • 4 years ago

        That wasn’t the point I was trying to make because even the 780 supposedly has problems. NV, though, knew they were going to go tessalation crazy In their next gem GPU and pushed tech that favored it and it alone. Given everything going on with AMD, they don’t have the resources to counter. It’s not helping anyone but NV.

          • Klimax
          • 4 years ago

          Actually tesselators AMD is missing are fairly simpler HW block out of all DX 11 hardware as it is mostly driver independent (what AMD needs given their drivers), it is fixed function block having only one task: generate massive number of triangles, nothing more.

          They did get message with 285, but still lag bit behind. (IIRC at one point Iris Pro had better tessellation performance then any APUs put there…

      • Sabresiberian
      • 4 years ago

      AMD deserves to lose out if they can’t even be bothered to figure out that players using their graphics cards can pretty much have Hairworks in Witcher 3 without a huge performance penalty by changing a setting in CCC. But no, they’d rather try to make the people that have bought into the “poor us, we are the underdog company and so deserve your sympathy” image feel sorry for them. They’d rather try to muddy the waters and confuse potential buyers than provide great support for the hardware they sell.

      The fact is, the only way that any Nvidia software suite could work better exclusively on an Nvidia product is because Nvidia products were better at doing what graphics cards do. There is no real secret sauce here, there is just Nvidia showing game devs how to make their games look better. If AMD isn’t willing to take a look at what’s going on in their end of things and adjust their drivers to match what Nvidia provides, that’s on AMD. If they aren’t building competitive hardware, that’s on AMD.

        • l33t-g4m3r
        • 4 years ago

        This is bunk, and frankly oversimplifying the issue, because Kepler cards can’t run the game either. Yes, amd has issues running nv sabotoged effects, which can be addressed with tweaks. However, tw3 has performance issues above and beyond gameworks, as the engine was optimized for consoles and then backported to PC like assassins creed.

        That, and the graphics downgrade all scream lazy console port that isn’t optimized for dx11. Console hardware is radically slower than mid range Kepler cards, yet it runs smoother on consoles. Cdpred obviously did not optimize for PC, so they shifted the blame onto gameworks.

        Yes, gameworks is an issue, but you are not recognizing the elephant in the room that is just screaming bad port.

        Cdpred has this ridiculous rdf going on here, that causes fanboys to ignore reality. Pretty sad, because they’re just going to keep doing it if you let them get away with this diversion.

        The problem here is dx11. Consoles are already using an api similar to dx12, and it’s pretty obvious that this is what’s causing the problems. Mantle has shown dx11 is inefficient, and lazy ports have shown performance issues. Nv has also demonstrated their capability to mitigate some of these issues, but Kepler has not received the same driver optimizations as Maxwell. A 780 should not be running slower than a 280 in this game, but yet it is. The problem is we have a bad port, and both sides need to optimize for it. Overall, i think a future dx12 patch should virtually eliminate all the current issues.

          • Meadows
          • 4 years ago

          A single GTX 970 runs the game smoothly at Ultra detail, 1080p, and with HairWorks turned off. (If you turn on HW, you still stay above 30 fps). Performance scales up in a close to linear way with further added GPU power, so it seems pretty optimised to me.

          According to at least one benchmark review, it’s similarly playable on Kepler but you probably want to stick to the High preset instead.

          Add that to the fact that consoles probably use the Medium preset only with possibly some details/effects turned down a notch more.

          Your hyperbole is not only wrong, it’s tiring. (“Can’t run the game”? Please.)

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 4 years ago

            So does the 290. The problem is that the game does not perform according to the detail level available. The game should not run as slow as it does, nor require a 970 to play, especially when cdpred cut most of the next gen effects out of the game.

            • Meadows
            • 4 years ago

            Still scales well with added GPU power, meaning it’s optimised. Which means you’re missing something in this picture.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 4 years ago

            Crysis also scaled with GPU power. Doesn’t mean it was optimized. Crysis 2 scaled with GPU power, doesn’t mean tessellated underground water and cement blocks was optimized.

            TW3 is not optimized for PC. Sure it scales, but so does everything else. The game still under-performs for what meager downgraded graphics you’re getting. Hairworks obviously scales with GPU power, but that doesn’t mean it’s optimized. The devs admitted it was NOT optimal, and they couldn’t fix it’s poor performance.
            [quote<]op·ti·mize (ŏp′tə-mīz′) tr.v. op·ti·mized, op·ti·miz·ing, op·ti·miz·es 1. To make as perfect or effective as possible.[/quote<] L O Freaking L, TW3 is not coded to run as effective as possible. It's bloatware, and you're just throwing raw power at it to handle the bloat. The HARDWARE and drivers are the only thing qualified to be called optimized here, the game is not. CDPred made their own engine for this game. The performance problem lies with the engine, just like texture pop-in was a problem with Rage. New engines from devs are often problematic, since the devs John Romero the game without Carmacking the FPS. That's what happened here. It's been ground-up optimized for console API's, and not dx11, which was tacked on. DX11 has a lot of inefficiencies that need to be mitigated before you can call a game optimized. Assassin's Creed was not optimized, but according to your "logic", it was. Right.

            • Meadows
            • 4 years ago

            No, back in the day Crysis didn’t scale especially well, not even with two 8800 GTX cards in SLI. (At least in the reviews which insisted on a usual degree of AA.)

    • Wildchild
    • 4 years ago

    Funny this would pop up because I spent a good 4 hours tweaking TW3 via the .ini file last night. To keep things brief, let me break down some things I discovered:

    – Uber Sampling and MSAA are present and can be turned on (off by default)
    – nVidia’s TXAA is turned on by default

    The second I saw TXAA, I had a strong suspicion that it was one of the reasons why textures in the game look so blurry and washed out. Sure enough, I could finally make out individual blades of grass after disabling it, but to be honest I have found that the AA in TW3 to be just plain broken right now, so I turned everything off and just made a profile via nVidia’s control panel to override both the AA and AF. I also tweaked the shadows and edited it so that the game would make more use out of VRAM.

    The result? It looks AND runs better too! I sent the .ini file to a friend of mine who is using an r7 270 and he confirmed the same thing. It doesn’t look like the early trailers, but it’s a far cry from the stock “Ultra” settings.

      • Froz
      • 4 years ago

      Your friend runs R9 270 (I assume that’s what you meant) and could play on Ultra? I have that card and on a combination of medium/high settings I get 30-45 FPS (1920×1080).

      • AJSB
      • 4 years ago

      I would be nice if you publish the .ini file so we all could see what exactly you did in full detail.

    • Jigar
    • 4 years ago

    You can tame the FPS once you throttle the tessellation overflow. AMD users can do it, hope there is a way for Nvidia users.

      • ColeLT1
      • 4 years ago

      To lower tessellation and AA of the hair for any video card:

      [url<]https://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/comments/36jpe9/how_to_run_hairworks_on_amd_cards_without/[/url<] Open your config folder, find the rendering.ini. Look for HairworksAALevel. Change to 2, 4, 6, or 8 (default is 8) [url<]http://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/comments/36jjoz/psa_change_hairworksaa_in_renderingini_for_a/[/url<] Go to: isntallation directory\The Witcher 3 Wild Hunt\bin\config\base → rendering.ini search for: HairWorksAALevel and change it to 2 or 4 for a significant boost.

    • neahcrow
    • 4 years ago

    Marcin Iwinski co-founder CD Projekt Red: “If the consoles are not involved there is no Witcher 3 as it is. We can lay it out that simply. We just cannot afford it, because consoles allow us to go higher in terms of the possible or achievable sales; have a higher budget for the game, and invest it all into developing this huge, gigantic world. Developing only for the PC: yes, probably we could get more (graphics) as there would be nothing else- they would be so focused, like if we would develop only on Xbox One or PlayStation 4. But then we cannot afford such a game.”

    The consoles negatively effected the graphics but enhanced the game world and made the game possible. Period

    The Witcher is usually not my type of game, but I had my attention caught by the early trailers. I’m having lots of fun on my PS4 getting lost in this massive game and world, and will be for the next month. I’ll be happy to play it again someday on my gaming/video editing PC.

      • cynan
      • 4 years ago

      That’s largely moot.

      The issue is not that the game is on consoles, it’s that the graphics in the PC version was allegedly downscaled.

      The only reason that makes sense is to ensure that the PC version (on uber systems) does not substantially outshine consoles in the visual department. In reality, I’m not sure what this does.. Would people interested in the Witcher who have one of these consoles eschew the purchase just because the PC version might have better visuals on a $2000+ PC that they don’t own? Sounds dubious when you put it like that… Maybe it’s more like developers are happy with a healthy PC gaming market as long as it isn’t so healthy that their ultimate funders/bosses, ie, Sony and MS, start worrying that it may jeopardize their vast console investments in the process..

      However, this is obviously conjecture, there could be a valid technical reason.. But I can’t determine what they might be (maybe the size of the download due to requisite textures?). If they already had the upscaled graphics developed, why not just leave the super uber mode, even if it does bring 99% of current systems to their knees, for future players of the game that might be rocking video cards with 12GB of stackable memory, etc..

        • neahcrow
        • 4 years ago

        The early demo was just a “vertical slice”. More quotes from Iwinski:

        “Maybe we shouldn’t have shown that [trailer], I don’t know, but we didn’t know that it wasn’t going to work, so it’s not a lie or a bad will – that’s why we didn’t comment actively. We don’t agree there is a downgrade but it’s our opinion, and gamers’ feeling can be different. If they made their purchasing decision based on the 2013 materials, I’m deeply sorry for that, and we are discussing how we can make it up to them because that’s not fair.”

        The 2013 demo certainly grabbed my eye, but its just a demo, the whole open world has not been built yet.

        I don’t think any graphics ‘downgrade’ is that noticeable. Certainly not as significant as Watch Dogs, etc.. Its still a beautiful game on console and definitely on a PC with a Titan and one with a 980 at work. After playing in for a bit on PC it is hard to go back to the console framerate however. That’s my only complaint.

        • VincentHanna
        • 4 years ago

        [quote<]The issue is not that the game is on consoles, it's that the graphics in the PC version was allegedly downscaled. [/quote<] The Issue is that the consoles are both so pathetic that Rekt was forced to downscale the graphics for PC, because the cost/benefit was not there to support a project of this scale if the consoles could not be included.

    • jessterman21
    • 4 years ago

    What this game chiefly needs is a little desaturation, IMO.

    The original full-quality trailers are bundled with the game from GOG, and I think the sharpening is what made those trailers look so detailed on YouTube back in 2013. With the 1.03 patch CDPR added Low and High options to the Sharpening filter that basically re-enables the same sharpening from the trailers. Folks were mad they didn’t include it after it gave playtesters headaches, so I guess CDPR was like, “you want sharpening!?!? HAVE SOME SHARPENING!”

    (Also they did manage to optimize HairWorks quite a bit – probably toned the tessellation factor down to 32x and reduced the built-in MSAA to 4x. )

    I haven’t seen any crashes in my 12 hours of play, and Afterburner says frametimes have been extremely consistent on my GTX 960 – aside from the FMVs which stutter a lot. High settings are almost unnoticeably similar to Ultra, and it runs at 45-50fps on my PC. In fact, the combination of great camera motion-blur and extremely low input lag makes me feel like I’ve got an Adaptive-Sync monitor.

    CDPR should’ve come right out and said they had to cut/optimize some things to get it running well on consoles, but I’m sure Sony and M$ were leaning on them hard to blow it off like Ubisoft did last year with their “cinematic framerate” BS. But you have to give them some credit for coming out in less than a week after launch and addressing it truthfully. (Reminder to the disappointed graphics-whores: it’s a complete, awesome, 100+hour game that launched pretty much flawlessly, and we’re all getting free DLC.)

    (Edits for grammar and clarity.)

      • jessterman21
      • 4 years ago

      SweetFX works wonders for this game. Adjustable sharpness, color, saturation, contrast, and SMAA are just what I needed 🙂

    • EndlessWaves
    • 4 years ago

    I thought the boxed version was disappointing. The last one included an actual cursed oren coin. This one was a choice between normal edition with nothing more in terms of feelies than a paper map and the stupidly expensive collector’s edition.

    That, some less than stellar marketing decisions (expansion pass) and an ageing computer meant I decided to give it a miss and buy it when it comes out in a complete edition.

      • Airmantharp
      • 4 years ago

      I seriously wanted a Collector’s Edition, but I waited too long- oh well 🙂

    • llisandro
    • 4 years ago

    This game is crying for an inside-the-second treatment! Pretty please?

    Somebody email Damage a code!

      • Ninjitsu
      • 4 years ago

      He probably got two codes with the 970s he just got.

    • puppetworx
    • 4 years ago

    Step one: Reduce graphics quality for consoles
    Step two: Add HairWorks for NVidia users
    Step three: “Le cookies are ready”

      • chuckula
      • 4 years ago

      [quote<]Step one: Reduce graphics quality for consoles[/quote<] Step Zero: Call out AMD fanboy who actually acts like consoles from 2014 with lower-end AMD chips must have exactly the same performance and feature sets as AMD $850 GPUs that only make it to market in 2H 2015. Point out that he just said a lot more to insult AMD's products that Nvidia ever did.

        • ptsant
        • 4 years ago

        Well, nobody expects the consoles to have the same graphics as a top-end PC. However, a low-end PC can run at medium or low settings and a high-end PC can run at ultra settings. What I don’t get is why the limited console performance interacts with what settings/textures etc are available for the PC. Just like the game accomodates multiple PCs, it should accomodate the console hardware without imposing restrictions.

        An don’t get me started on the hair…

    • anotherengineer
    • 4 years ago

    Meh.

    It’s snowing a bit outside, that concerns me more than the Witcher 3 or anything having to do with the Witcher 3.

      • anotherengineer
      • 4 years ago

      lol

      fanbois gonna hate lol

      • sweatshopking
      • 4 years ago

      TELL ME ABOUT IT. I HAVE A BEACH CLEAN UP TOMORROW AND IT’S GOING TO BE LIKE 3 DEGREES AND RAINING ;(

        • anotherengineer
        • 4 years ago

        Trade you, I have priming and painting. At least with that weather you shouldn’t have no one bugging you 😉

        We had snow here this morning lol

        O wait +20 here this weekend, have fun on the beach sucka!!!!!!!!!

        Hey new DD1 patches coming this month, Moonbase map coming to Ranked!!!

          • sweatshopking
          • 4 years ago

          YOU’RE A JERK.

            • Deanjo
            • 4 years ago

            It has been +25 and up here all week and for the long term foreseeable future.

            Edit: 29.7 in the shade in town and 32.1 on the farm according to the tell tale thermometers today.

            • anotherengineer
            • 4 years ago

            [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLP1_jwT9_M&hd=1[/url<]

            • sweatshopking
            • 4 years ago

            How much ocean you have in sask?

            • anotherengineer
            • 4 years ago

            ooooooooooooo

            Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!! 😀

    • derFunkenstein
    • 4 years ago

    “Unnamed insider” generally means one of two things:

    1.) I made it up
    2.) I talked to somebody who made it up and bought it

    And thanks to confirmation bias, whatever side you’re on now has something to point to. PC [s<]Nazis[/s<] "master races" can say "ooh but this insider said it's consolization" and console owners will say "see, they said it'd be a problem on PC too!" As someone who owns both, meh.

    • Bensam123
    • 4 years ago

    Yup, you can tell some things are extremely well detailed and then other things like just common boards and houses lack a lot of detail. Characters for instance are extremely detailed and it actually looks out of place in cut scenes. Like they don’t match because the amount of detail they have on their character.

    Weapons, armor, and anything you wear is also extremely detailed. A lot of monsters aren’t except for special monsters, usually ones that are in cut scenes. It’s actually kinda distracting, just like Geralts hair in cutscenes that continually waves no matter what is happening.

    • VincentHanna
    • 4 years ago

    This is fine. Console gamers can fund the R&D to finish the game for me.

    *puts the master back in master race

    • l33t-g4m3r
    • 4 years ago

    That, and it’s ridiculously unoptimized for PC. Kind of like Crysis, or even Morrowind, which had it’s own performance issues due to it’s engine.

      • Waco
      • 4 years ago

      Are you implying that Morrowind was optimized for…anything?

      • Meadows
      • 4 years ago

      Not unoptimised at all.

        • l33t-g4m3r
        • 4 years ago

        You’re an idiot. The devs admitted Hairworks is unoptimized and runs like crap, and then you spout this nonsense. CDPred did not optimize for PC. They optimized for consoles, then shoddily threw gameworks on top of that.

        PC optimization would have been having pre-downgrade graphics, all while performing at acceptable framerates. There are plenty of games with better graphics that perform faster, and also examples of games that were poorly ported that perform terribly. Assassins Creed, or even Watchdogs for a recent example.

        CDPred did a sloppy PC port, and made excuses for it. IMO, they used gameworks just to shift blame onto NV. Meanwhile, they’re the ones who really screwed the customers with a crappy unoptimized, and downgraded console port.

          • Meadows
          • 4 years ago

          Namecalling won’t make you right. The game is pretty well optimised *except* for that single optional feature that we’ve already discussed. If that pains anyone, then they can just turn it off.

          I don’t know whether it’s a GameWorks title, I haven’t checked. (I won’t simply take your word for it after seeing your unfounded frothing about Project Cars.) It’s probably not even important at this point.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 4 years ago

            Baldfaced lying doesn’t make you right. The only thing CDPred optimized for was Consoles. They Assassin’s Creeded the PC port. It doesn’t have graphics on par with other next gen titles, as they removed the features that would have made it next gen. That’s the whole point of the downgrade controversy.

            People have tested this game with various tools, and it’s not getting 100% Gpu usage on Kepler, nor using more than 2GB of Vram. It’s NOT a next gen title. It’s just a buggy and unoptimized PC port.

            [quote<]I don't know whether it's a GameWorks title, I haven't checked.[/quote<] Exactly. You know nothing, and you have checked nothing. You're just lying through your teeth. [quote<]I won't simply take your word for it [/quote<] Me: 1+1=2 You: "NO it's 5. I don't believe you, and I won't bother to check." LOL, pathetic. You're just trying to take the default opposing view, because you do that every time you reply to me, whether or not you're right. Problem is, you're wrong, especially here where there's proof, and it's making you look stupid. Moreso than usual. TW3 IS a gameworks title, but there's more to the performance issues than just that. It is very unoptimized, not to mention NV is having driver issues with Kepler. From what I've seen on the graphics, this game has no real reason to run poorly, especially since gameworks is the only distinguishing feature on the PC. You can't tell me it's not unoptimized when it's literally running the same graphics as the consoles, while high end PC cards can't handle it. No, there's something fundamentally wrong here with this game's pc performance. It isn't optimized for dx11, it's only optimized for the console's API, or dx12. A dx12 port may very well double framerates here. Assassin's creed has already highlighted the problem with modern ports, that's the issue. It's not a game that can run on dx11 properly, because it's been coded for dx12 and shoddily downported to dx11.

            • Meadows
            • 4 years ago

            Do you take pills for that temper?

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 4 years ago

            Wow, that insult totally vindicates your stubborn ignorance. Not.

            Pro tip: You should stop knee jerk opposing everything I say without thought, because it makes you look bad, and I don’t hate you other than dealing with your baseless opposition. Mindless fanboyism helps nothing, and I don’t defend shady business practices, regardless of who does it, because it hurts everyone in the long run.

            Nv just happens to be the lead instigator, and I’ll admit that while using their products. Also, if amd has a better perf/$ product, I will have no problem switching. I don’t have blind loyalty to either side, nor will I justify consumer unfriendly tactics.

            • Meadows
            • 4 years ago

            I oppose almost everything you say because your attitude is insufferable and I enjoy calling you out over it. As an added bonus, oftentimes you’re wrong or don’t see the full picture, too, making my job even easier.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 4 years ago

            Pot, meet Kettle. At least I’m not saying things like “TW3 doesn’t have gameworks”, and not owning up to it.

            I’m not one to blindly claim things like that. If there was actual proof to the contrary, I would accept it. You? LOL. You deny reality as it point blank stares you in the face. That’s why I have an attitude with you, and I’m well entitled to have it. Drop the stubborn ignorance, and there won’t be an issue.

            There’s definitely issues with this game. It may well be multiple problems too, both on the driver side, and on the engine side. Whatever it is, denying it outright is just ridiculous.

            This is just like SSK/MMO on the Win8 launch, singing it’s praises. LOL, people hated win8. Your acknowledgement of an issue doesn’t make it not exist. Truth isn’t subjective. The issue exists whether or not you admit it, so you’re better off admitting it instead of developing cognitive dissonance or something. Microsoft eventually recanted win8. Can’t deny reality forever.

            • Meadows
            • 4 years ago

            I didn’t claim anything about GameWorks. 🙂

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 4 years ago

            Yes you did. You specifically said you wouldn’t take my word for it. So if I said it used Gameworks, you are by default denying that it does. Not a smart move on your part, but that’s exactly what you’re doing.

            Some info on memory usage.
            [url<]http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/the_witcher_3_graphics_performance_review,9.html[/url<] [quote<]We have seen some scenes use a little more and others a little less, but it's all cool really. We have not been able to pass 2 GB of graphics memory. Meaning the game doesn't use huge succulent textures[/quote<] Features removed from the game: [url<]http://whatifgaming.com/developer-insider-the-witcher-3-was-downgraded-from-2013-list-of-all-features-taken-out-why[/url<] Explain how a game uses under 2GB and had all those features cut runs so poorly, if it's so optimized for pc. Lollersakes. You can't, because it's a crappy port. That's reality. Also: Project Cars was indeed sabotaged. [url<]https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/366iqs/nvidia_gameworks_project_cars_and_why_we_should/[/url<] [url<]https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/367qav/mark_my_word_if_we_dont_stop_the_nvidia_gameworks/[/url<] [url<]http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/716414575163477576/1C4C0DFBD54040F3A7AED01461B427AF9D81076A/[/url<]

            • Meadows
            • 4 years ago

            I’m sorry, I didn’t realise you don’t speak English very well. Not taking someone’s word does not equal denial. It’s okay, probably an honest mistake on your part.

            • sweatshopking
            • 4 years ago

            Guize!! Who has bigger muscles, me or chuckula?????

            • Meadows
            • 4 years ago

            Unfortunately, your mum.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 4 years ago

            You are denying, and still are. You have not addressed or admitted the fact that:

            *TW3 uses less than 2gb of vram.
            *Features were cut from the game.
            *It’s primarily a console port, and consoles use api’s similar to dx12, which backporting to dx11 causes performance issues.
            *Gameworks runs unnecessarily slow.
            *Hairworks in particular runs slower than TressFX even on Nvidia cards, proving that it is in fact unoptimized.

            Instead, all you have done is throw insults. Gotta love it.

            • Meadows
            • 4 years ago

            You’re the only person who threw insults.

            [i<]None of your bullet points[/i<] means the game is unoptimised. In fact, you only make it sound more optimised until we get to the problematic HairWorks thing.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 4 years ago

            It sounds like a last gen console port that was upgraded to run on a 2gb video card, yet it surprisingly can’t get decent framerates on anything but Maxwell. That’s ridiculously unoptimized, and something is blatantly wrong with the game.

            Like I said, the game was coded for next gen API’s then backported to dx11, and if you don’t natively optimize for dx11, you get Assassins Creed. Gameworks is only a part of the problem, not the whole problem itself.

            Now, the game is somewhat playable on the 290 / 780. However, consoles are slower than a 7870, and people with 770’s are having issues playing it. There’s definitely porting issues with the game if you need Maxwell for such a graphically downgraded title. There’s no way it’s taxing video cards with gameworks turned off, and vram usage being under 2GB, so if it’s not performing well after disabling Hairworks, it’s absolutely a poorly coded game. Considering that Hairworks is what you’re focusing on, it sounds like you don’t realize the game runs poorly regardless of it’s use. Hairworks is one thing, but I’m saying the base game runs too slow to be a properly optimized pc title. Disabling hairworks should get you 300 FPS, considering how downgraded the core graphics are. The simple fact that you don’t, proves the engine isn’t very efficient.

            • Meadows
            • 4 years ago

            Of course the Ultra preset doesn’t get “decent” framerates on anything but Maxwell. That’s what makes it the Ultra preset.

            Suck it up and play using High or Medium. The end.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 4 years ago

            LOL. You’re off in your own little world, aren’t you. I was talking about the High setting’s performance.

            Oh, and Ultra runs bad because of gameworks, not because of anything else. Hairworks is just a techdemo for Maxwell. Other than that, Ultra offers NOTHING extra to making TW3 look decent. It doesn’t increase texture resolution, or add tessellation to the ground or buildings, BECAUSE THOSE FEATURES WERE CUT OUT. The only thing Ultra does is Hairworks, and frankly WHO FREAKING CARES. AMD users can just use the tessellation limiter if they want to use that.

            The problem isn’t Ultra, you tunnel visioned fanboy, it’s the NORMAL settings. They don’t perform up to par with how normal settings should be performing, and that’s why I’m saying the game is unoptimized. EVERYTHING about TW3 is unoptimized.

            • Meadows
            • 4 years ago

            Fair enough, carry on with your hyperboles and delusions. I have more important things to do from this point on.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 4 years ago

            KTHXBYE. Been a pleasure not talking to you.

    • PrincipalSkinner
    • 4 years ago

    I’ll wait for Witcher 3 : Enhanced Edition.

      • mcnabney
      • 4 years ago

      Yeah, we know the real reason that you waiting for the Enhanced version.

        • VincentHanna
        • 4 years ago

        Because $11 instead of $60?

      • ptsant
      • 4 years ago

      Ye, Witcher 3: Enhanced and on sale.

      I cannot justify paying full price while I have a few hundred games on GOG and Steam that I haven’t even started. I still haven’t finished Half Life 2…

    • Thrashdog
    • 4 years ago

    Seeing how my 780 is having a hard time keeping up on Medium at 1440p, (Hairworks off, thankyouverymuch)I shudder to think what kind of big iron it would have taken to get the pre-downgrade version of the game to run passably well…

      • bthylafh
      • 4 years ago

      Yeah. My 7850 needs the settings turned down for pretty much anything on 1680×1050 so I’m not real concerned about this. Tempest in a teacup.

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 4 years ago

      The 780 thing seems to be a driver issue, considering that AMD’s cards are handling it better. There’s a lot of complaints in the NV forums about it.

      • Mikael33
      • 4 years ago

      My mildly overclocked R9 290 does 1440P on ultra for most things with hairworks off around 40 fps, if I turn everything to max including hairworks it runs around 30 fps, with the tweak to hairworks fsaa (2x AA) and amd tessellation setting set to 16x .
      Btw my Phenom II 965BE@ 4ghz not bottlenecking me, for those with older cpus, I started at the stock R290 core freq and increased it (till where I know it will start artifacting) and my fps continued to increase.

    • Anovoca
    • 4 years ago

    Taking pixels away from hardware rich PCs to help the poor consoles. Obama ruined Witcher 3!!!!

      • davidbowser
      • 4 years ago

      Blame Canada!

      [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA[/url<]

        • anotherengineer
        • 4 years ago

        Hey it’s colder up here, you can OC more 😉

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This