I just don't like (and its been happening for years now) that they dupe you with the crazy over the top graphics when the product really is nothing like it. At the beginning they were heavily selling this product on graphics and technical achievements.
If it was any other product wouldn't this shit be illegal? They show you a Ferrari so you pre-order, then a corolla is delivered to your door. I guess it is legal.. i.e McDonalds burger picture vs. actual product received.
In all of these cases (Sony/ND included), anyone who thinks that any footage, at any reveal, anywhere, ever, is actual in-game footage is clearly deluded. It'll often be in-engine, but it'll also be running at whatever they can get to run on whatever system they can get their hands on. And particularly in the case of PS360 games, it was almost always rendered at least at 1080p (if not higher; a lot of this promo footage is very clearly supersampled) with full AA, so anyone expecting that to actually happen back then was a retard. That is still the case now.
And that was the case 15-20 years ago too. Unreal didn't look like the previews either. And I remember a HL trailer that had clearly faked sound effects. Difference is that back then hardware did not have as big of an impact as it does now, simply because there were far fewer and far less advanced rendering techniques. So what they do now is just go all-out with rendering for the reveal and then actually make it run on reasonable systems later.
It doesn't bother me much, except when games drop in quality by half a dozen years
I want the fucking game to be good looking to be atmospheric I want lots of ass and a charismatic big dick witcher. Can they deliver? The polish wonderbra developers.
I'm sorry Paul, but you're kind of sounding like Apple's lawyers right now. If we're SHOWN something then we BELIEVE it, if that something later turns out to be bullshit, WE are not the fools for believing it, WE are not the ones in the wrong, THEY are.
I'm sorry Paul, but you're kind of sounding like Apple's lawyers right now. If we're SHOWN something then we BELIEVE it, if that something later turns out to be bullshit, WE are not the fools for believing it, WE are not the ones in the wrong, THEY are.
All I'm saying is that this shit isn't new. And 15 years ago it was worse for many games, because way more games used full-on CGI "gameplay" screenshots in magazine previews and such. There's a reason video game developers have had this "NOT FINAL", "ALPHA BUILD" shit in these previews (and yes, they did that back then too). I've never seen a developer go "FINAL BUILD, WILL RUN LIKE THIS ON LAST DECADE'S HARDWARE" like Apple did. Given the development cycles of video games, the "make it run on real systems" bit has to come near the end because otherwise you do end up with a game built for a generation ago. That's just the reality of software development, just like there is no such thing as bug-free software.
I'm not defending CDPR, they should've been upfront about what we can expect, as all developers should be (and no, most aren't). I still think it's a far cry () from the shit Ubisoft pulled though. The differences we saw with FC3 or what we're seeing here (at least for as far as I've been following it all, sorry if I missed an obvious shot comparison) isn't like dropping from Avatar quality to sprites. W_D almost was that bad.
The "CGI gameplay, real, honest!" stuff was what forced the EU to start demanding disclaimers be placed on commercials. I get that. I'm not saying it was any better before, but that doesn't mean it should still be an accepted practice now. If they show "gameplay! real! honest!" at E3 and then show a PS1 game at reveal, they SHOULD be brought to task over it.
The "CGI gameplay, real, honest!" stuff was what forced the EU to start demanding disclaimers be placed on commercials. I get that. I'm not saying it was any better before, but that doesn't mean it should still be an accepted practice now. If they show "gameplay! real! honest!" at E3 and then show a PS1 game at reveal, they SHOULD be brought to task over it.
So that's where that little text blurb came from, didn't know there were regulations for it but I suppose it's a good thing.
(Like the US warning disclaimers on stuff like screwdrivers that you absolutely must not put into penis or how junk food can actually make you gain weight. )
While I agree with the sentiments about marketing practices, there's absolutely no value in whining about them and it does get old pretty fast.
The simple truth is: most (I think at least - it's not like I'm making a poll) people don't really care that much about downgrades and differences when the end result is a beautiful game, especially when it's beautiful to the point of standing on the forefront of graphical fidelity. Times when they do care, is when the line's been streched too far. Aliens: Colonial Marines created an outrage because the game looked like shit, while the promos were nothing like that. Same goes for Watch Dogs - sure, it's not completely bad and you can get a pretty screenshot out of it sometimes, but other (many) times it looks like a game with 5 years under the belt - and there already are better looking games of the same genre. DS2 is another example. In all of these cases the difference of quality was staggering. In TW3's case it simply isn't. When there actually is one, because many a time the game actually looks as gorgeous as it was promised to. Hell, looking at that last batch of in-game screenshots and gameplay vids, it may actually do so more often than not.
Comparing TW3 to above examples is what usually sparks a "C'mon, WTF" reaction from the "happy" group - in fact, it's that difference, and not a difference in developers (contrary to some accusations occasionally floating here and there), that's crucial to them. The "unhappy" group, on the other hand, gets all worked up when someone says there's no difference at all - because for them it's a 0-1 situation - they either have 100% of what was promised or they don't - and these details, again, make all the difference. In the end, after the launch most members of the former group will be happy they got a beautiful game, while some members of the latter wil stilll be dissapointed it looks worse than that 1.5 minute vid they saw 3 years back or one pimped out screenshot or another - the rest will join the happy crowd. All of them will still use TW3 as a benchamrk and example for other titles from now on.
Q: Do I need Internet access to install the retail PC version of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt?
A: The initial, pre-premiere retail PC batch of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt needs to download a file from our servers to allow play. This file will either be downloaded automatically during installation process or you can choose to download it manually from a dedicated website. Since we have no DRM in the game, this is a security measure we needed to incorporate so the game doesn’t leak during the production process. No worries, the file will not be big. Copies of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt produced after launch will not contain this security feature.
Anyone hoping for a retail/GOG leak will be disappointed
Quote:
Q: Will I be able to install updates and the free DLCs without using the GOG.com game code?
A: We decided to offer software support, DLCs, and extra goodies only to gamers who confirm their purchase with the provided game code on GOG.com. This is the only way for us to differentiate between you, honest gamers who bought our game, and pirates who snatched it from the Internet.
No more GOG patches that you simply download and install, it seems, now it looks like everything will be going through Galaxy, perhaps? Either way; FTS/etc will just put out xdelta updates as always.. so this little preventative measure once again only inconveniences legitimate owners, not pirates.
This page is reaching new levels if derpiness. W3 looking worse than w2 ... Then again I'm not surprised considering who's making these comments
Couldn't agree more...comparing a video of a game that's been out for a couple of years to an unreleased game. That alone shows level of intellect (or lack thereof).
Geralt's cock has 11 inches, so no, it is not downgraded.
so they added a couple of polygons more, but they removed alot of detail like the fine veins, the shaft hair and the dingleberry leftovers from triss' last anal entry
11 inches? Not bad for a witcher. And dont forget there is the pc with high and ultra settings and there are the consoles. Not everything we see is pc 4k ultra shit and not every scene will blow our dick minds. Doesnt mean it looks worse and worse. It just means these assholes dont know what to show us and fuck it up all the time.
Question: how long is the main story? All these 100-200 or 500 hour sidequests can kiss my machinegun...
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
) from the shit Ubisoft pulled though. The differences we saw with FC3 or what we're seeing here (at least for as far as I've been following it all, sorry if I missed an obvious shot comparison) isn't like dropping from Avatar quality to sprites. W_D almost was that bad.
