If memory serves, there was a single dev interview where he said "you can't downgrade something that doesn't have a grade", there were some words on changed renderer (which, IIRC, was promised us later, together with modding tools), and then there was an interview of few big cheese devs on Eurogamer, but AFTER game being released. Kinda bit late, IMHO.

I think Sony been bashed for such practices multiple times. Unless I'm mistaken (as I'm PC gamer and I don't pay too much attention), now Sony shows more or less actual, even if somewhat rough and raw footage, instead of polished bullshots or vertical slice. I'm all up for that.

Doubtful. Problem is that these "outrageous" (Udina!:D) system requirements not used. Game barely uses more than 20% of i7-4790K, more than 3Gb of RAM, and 2 Gb of VRAM (less than 2.5 Gb of VRAM on 4K). I'd say plenty of free computing power to benefit from without going to TotalBiscuit's grade of PC (roughly 5 grands). That's why I think there is a little bit of slyness in CDPR's words about "no PC would handle that". If some PC handled that in 2013, I guess in 2015 same PC could be much, much more affordable and widespread.

Too much salt is unhealthy. That's why I think we need to stop developers from spreading bullshit around.


Well, maybe their gaming experience is not that big. I mean, they could play Batman Arkham Knight on PC or Assassin's Creed: Unity. /grin

a) i7s are not that common, and my i5 is not handling the game nearly as well.
b) While my VRAM is not capped, my GTX 970's processor is not exactly chill when chewing trough Witcher 3.

Anyway, I see the argument of "A PC in 2013 handled it just fine!" quite often, and I'm afraid it's quite a bad one. What you have seen in 2013 was a mere portion of the final product. The game didn't have to do nearly as much processing as it has to now, when all of its systems which interact with each other are finished. What you have seen in the demo back then was just that - a presentation, cut to the bare essentials, only serving to show vision of the developers. The final game has needs to handle a lot more than just that.

There's a difference between bullshit and enthusiasm. Most gaming developers I have ever met loved the games they were developing, regardless of them being called "Mafia" or just some random hidden object games. That was always the unifying factor I felt when conversing with them - they were willing to work under fairly shitty conditions just because they wanted to see their product finished.

What that also means, however, is that when they're told their product will be showcased to general public, they'll go nuts over making it look as good as possible. There's no dishonesty involved - only enthusiasm for the product they were working their ass off to create for years, and desire to share their vision with the world. I'm not going to claim PR won't abuse this enthusiasm, but that's another matter entirely, there's very little they can do about the final demo they'll be showcasing.

That's the thing tho - what you see in those previews, that's a vision. That's what developers want their product to be in the end. Sooner or later tho, that vision clashes with reality and corners need to be cut for technical reasons. Graphical effects need to be removed, features need to be cut etc. That's not a new thing - it's been like this for ages, it's only recently that internet started yelling bloody murder every time somebody looks at them wrong way.

Now, I don't want to put the blame on consumer, but it's also quite difficult for me to fault developers for wanting to create the best product imaginable. As you said in your post, one way out of this would be more transparent development of videogames - but that comes with its own share of pitfalls. Plainly said, it's just not feasible to know how is a final product going to look like 2 years before its release, that's something people need to realize. I'm also not going to claim that CD Project's public relations is good - I sort of ignore it after all the crap they pulled.

hahah I love the thread title.

It's not a bad game, once you complete the main quest [which I really enjoyed], it gets really boring, same random quests. 'use your witcher senses'

I'll look into the expansions when they come out. hopefully they bring the old companions back togther. The game feels so lonely without ciri, trish, et al.

I had the same feeling when I finished Dragon age orgins, I wanted more of the same :(

all the best

With power comes responsibility. After all, we are PC Master Race. /grin
If game is properly made (i.e. not like Project CARS, Assassin's Creed: Unity, or Batman: Arkham Knight) for PC it's only fair to have higher system requirements for better everything, not just slightly farther draw distance, a statistically insignificantly more grass patches, and "ultra" settings that somehow stagger-lock your PC, while to find difference between this setting and consoles visuals you'd need a forensics team (hint: they won't find any).
On serious side, true, i7 are more work-oriented CPUs, and I don't have any i5 at hand to verify it personally, yet none of my buddies with them were complaining on W3 performance. Neither were those with AMD CPU, and that I can verify as well (FX 6350 and 8350), Even i3 works fine, if coupled with adequate GPU - game may use only 2 Gb of VRAM, but if you prefer higher settings, faster GPU is welcomed.
As for temperatures, my 290x is not really that hot while playing W3, even in Crossfire mode (that is still have issues, and I don't think it's AMD fault) where primary GPU is hotter, temperatures are still lower than in some other games, not to mention stress-tests or benchmarks, which really warm GPUs up. In addition, even single GPU load diagram shown by, say, GPU-Z app, shows quite uneven load distribution. Given various timeframes jumps, this may be sign of not really good optimization. Or so I've heard.

Yeah, I read that in that Eurogamer interview I mentioned earlier. And that's where I become curious - how big that world actually was? How many NPCs were tracked, how exactly they are tracked, all are in real-time or there is something similar to X-universe approach, (okay, that was sector-based game, not "open world"), where calculation occurs differently for those whom you can see and for those whom you cannot, or it is something GTA V alike, where NPCs are spawned out of thin air? Moreover, I may be wrong, but while observing ingame NPCs I did not exactly saw much "life simulation". I tried to follow several NPCs, it's not like Elder Scrolls schedules where Skingrad butler could go shopping and fall off the bridge. Judging by load on CPU I don't really think Witcher 3 has so many issues computing all those unnamed NPCs schedules and behaviour.
So I think best proof of their words is just to give us those visuals so anyone could enjoy original palette, accompanied by earlier smoke FX and draw distance. Offering extended settings, a-la ArmA series offer, where you can adjust practically anything you want, including draw distance, would also be nice. Maybe we can do the same via digging in various .ini files, but come on, it's 2015, where is usability in that? I doubt you go down into the mines to chip some ore if you need nails.
Easier method would be real-time video interview, I guess we have few psychologists around who could easily tell whether CDPR are lying or not. :p

Enthusiasm is fine as long as it does not involves financial interactions between parties. That's where enthusiasm is substituted with something different. You can write down very intricate EULA, but it won't change the point.

Most interesting work does not always offers best salary.
Heard that from various developers how happy they are to work somewhere, how they wait for next morning so they could come to the job again, what anticipation they have while waiting for next monday, because every weekend is a torture away from work... And then you ask them why their game is that bad. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Oh well.
All I want to say is that things are not that sunshine and bunnies, because, well, they are not. Some abuse workers enthusiasm, some just publish shovelware games (hint: some won two golden poo in row, some cannot do that, because they aren't in US), negating all positive emotions generated on personal level.

Yeah, just like in ah, Aliens: Colonial Marines, right? Or Batman: Arkham Knight? Chipmunked Nvidia Gameworks video? Pure enthusiasm, desire to make it look as good as possible... To share their vision, or to sell as much copies, knowing that even game is not exactly good (okay, it's rubbish), people won't really issue a wave of refunds and will wait till game will be patched as it usually were?
Don't get me wrong, true, I'm sarcastic guy, I'm not hiding that, but I like games. Not like Anita, unlike her I do like games, and play them. And criticize them, if I like them (or there is just good target for pinching, like Sims - I don't play them, but that "always online" is just so good reason to bite them for it), just because I want to see them to became better. That's why when I see practices like these I will shove developers mugs into mud, just because these practices are bad, unhealthy, and promote negligence and lack of responsibility. Everyone who defends such practices only encourages developers to play this trick again, and again. The only thing developer will get - is loss of trust. No amount of "free" DLC would change that.
Nobody criticized CDPR for that awesome "Night to remember" trailer, because it is great, and it is trailer. Solutions to avoid situations like these? 1. Lazy way: write "this video does not represent final quality of product (which is most likely will deteriorate, because of consoles hardware limitations)" :P. 2. Honest way: show what you can show now, without bullshots or vertical slice. I'm not big fan of Bethesda's craftsmanship, but their way of showing rather ugly, yet actual visuals is impressing. And if Bethesda will manage to make game prettier - even better.
Leave visions where they belong, Otherwise, showing something unobtainable is outright misinformation. No matter how much I like and respect some developer. Yes, Sand if one of my favourite characters in NWN2. /grin

And nobody blames them for it. But you can't have everything, you either provide better visuals, physics, gameplay, and immersion for one platform, or you follow the herd who believes there are far more money on consoles and downgrade or tailor your game for them. You can't have both, unless you really want to have best of both worlds or created wonderfully scalable engine that automatically adjusts everything to platform it works on. Which is not the case. Judging by recently published numbers, calculations I've made more than 2 months ago on CDPR's revenue from Witcher 3 sales were correct. One more reasons for me to doubt "this game exist only because of consoles" statement.

But that's fine. It's better to see how game starts to appear from lines of codes, crude "clay" models and sketches how it turns into playable concept, how new features are tested,

Quite the contrary. I was among those who pre-ordered Galactic Civilization 3 (among other things) early on when Stardock opened it on their site, so I got access to Alpha and Beta versions. Yes, it was around a year, not two, but still it was clear how game was about to look and how it looks now.
Of course games development is not something solid, things change, something new appears, something old disappears, but it's not an excuse to show something unobtainable. This situations resembles a case where you ordered a book, but first reviews showblurry text and illustrations on worse quality paper than promoted, with borders cut and some pages torn out. When you ask them WTF, they start telling you that it's reviewers bad camera and Youtube compression so you don't have to worry, but when you finally get the book yourself, they comfirm that original paper is too dark for pictures, pages were too thick and heavy, so glue can't hold them in place, their printing machine couldn't handle fidelity of original fonts and pictures, that's why they are blurry, and they cut books borders and torn some pages, because they couldn't fit it into their box.

While we are not Geth, we finally found consensus. ;)

Finally, someone who doesn't have the 'spergs.

yeah the idea of a sense of humour is dwindling in this community unfortunately haha.

My GPU is always relatively cold. I meant 'not chill' as in 'It's under load'. Additionally, while most of my game runs at steady 60FPS, there are areas which can easily drop to 30 - remember, the entire game has to be playable, not just 70% of it. Anyway, run the game on minimal configuration and benchmark that. I've not tried it myself, but since it's obviously the bottom-line CD Project was shooting for, that's the comparison you want to be making, not "Oh dear me, the game won't even stress my 1500 dollar computer properly, how silly those developers are!"

It doesn't matter. Two years old alpha contains a lot less finished content and mechanics than a finished product. I don't think we really have to argue about that, do we?

Eh... Now there's a terrible idea. You do realize that every setting a developer makes availible needs to be optimized, right? Okay, there's several points against what you said in that particular paragraph:
a) You have no idea why were individual decisions made. For all we know, they might just have not found a way to make the smoke FX work properly in all areas, so they sacked it. That applies to just about everything. View that "It didn't work on consoles so they removed it!" is rather simplistic, and while making the game run on a weaker hardware might have been the reason (and probably was) to do a lot of visual changes in the first place, there's a ton of other things to take into consideration. What happens when these effects are used too often? Oh, it kills the performance completely even on powerful hardware. Well, sack it. Wait, why the hell do these effects keep breaking? Damn, redo them from the ground.
b) Everything needs to be optimized and work correctly. If there are two approaches and one of them is more universal, the other one gets cut, otherwise you're looking at twice the work. Simple as that.

I'd much prefer actually using my puny brainpower while looking at game previews and thinking "It's not the final product, things can change" than to take away enthusiasm from game development, thank you very much :D

Yeah, totally comparable with Witcher 3. Have you seen the game's reviews?

Yes! Please! Stop trusting previews! Fantastic, everybody wins - developers can show what they want to show, people won't get as excited and stop preordering, as far as I'm concerned, everybody wins! Why on earth does anybody trust that what they are told several years in advance without any guarantee will actually come true is completely beyond me.

Isn't that bloody obvious tho? And yes, I'm ignoring the console comment on purpose.

So um... Didn't they? How do you know?

Sooo... How do they know two years in advance that what they're showing is unattainable? Where exactly do visions belong is not in a bloody form of artistic expression?

For a person liking Sand, you're making a whole lot of assumptions.

Oh. I'm guessing you know better than CD Project how to finance their products?

You can't have both? Witcher 3 is currently amongst the most technically advanced AAA games on PC, and probably the best looking one.

Galactic Civiliztions 3 was focused on top tier graphical fidelity at any point in its development? Because Witcher 3 was, from the get go. That makes it a pretty bad comparison.

At the end of the day, I just don't get. I know people on the internet need things to be outraged about to live, but why focus on graphics of all things? This had been happening since forever - not necessarily for graphical representation, but for a variety of other things, usually gameplay-related features, which seem a lot more important to me than graphics. And that's been going on for the whole 20 years I'm watching videogame press. It doesn't matter which aspect of a game's development you're going to talk about - graphics, gameplay, writing, whatever, when it gets mentioned in a preview, a vision is layed out in front of you. You should not trust this vision until you see it implemented in the final product.

What you and a lot of other people don't realize with these arguments is that what you call for, at the end of the day, is a bit stop sign to innovation. The only way for a promise to be 100% attainable for a final release is to not have a vision. It's to not experiment and create new things. It's to keep to what we know will work, to what is tried and tested, and to what we know how much money will cost and how long it'll take to develop. I for one will much rather take previews for what they are - previews, and do what I have done my entire life - I won't put any trust into PR departments. And sure, CDP RED PR deserves all the shit they get. Witcher 3, given how it surpassed just about every product on the market with its graphical fidelity, most certainly does not deserve shit for quite simply not looking as good as it did 2 years ago. You know nothing of its development save for a few interviews and one developer saying they've had to cut some corners on account of consoles.

By George, someone with a few years even on me...! Nice to meet you, sir!...:D

Well, what I suppose I mean is that even way back in my Amiga days when I'd play a good game I always had in my mind's eye an idea of what it *should* look like and how it should play, assuming it ever became possible...W3 more closely approximates that ideal than anything in memory. Even with the Amiga I have always been visually oriented--bought a Toaster for video work, used Lightwave, etc.

If I want a really good story sans graphics I'll read a book--I do plenty of that, too. But books & movies are passive forms of entertainment and I play computer games because of their "interactivity"--a cliche', yes, and also overused, but it's a word with value. Basically, I like being able to decide "what's next" and then doing it. Older games were far more linear in design--although to be truthful all games are linear to one degree or another. It's the games that allow me the most freedom to pick & choose my paths that I enjoy the most.

For me, the world of the RPG has to be convincing & compelling on a number of fronts aside from sheer graphics, and I think W3 is a masterpiece all around. It's not perfect, of course; as is no book or movie perfect--but I don't demand perfection. Entertainment is what I demand--and W3 is supremely entertaining for me...;)

2Fenixp
My reply doesn't fit, so I can either split it in two, or we can go to PM. Your take.

PLEASE take it PM! Oh dear god! This thread, man. Just let it die. I started it with the intent of chastising twatty behavior and in doing so kicked the twat beehive, thus initiating a "who can be the biggest twat" contest. None of the stuff you guys are arguing about matters to a normal, well-adjusted human being.

You mean as opposed to people complaining about Witcher 3, which is totally a concern to humanity? :-P But yes, I'm finished with the argument.