You can't run WD on Win XP as (officialy) it is DX11 only. You are creating to much excuses. Are you from Ubisoft?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
What is up with game media sites recently defending CD Project Red so much?
- Thread starter NineConsonants
- Start date
Were you upset that the final battle in *insert superhero movie here* looked different during release then it did in final trailers?
Then they should show the game earlier only to people who understand game development.
They do. Internal only trailers exist too. Add that to the list of things you've learned today.
My specific examples are just that: examples. I don't care what specific OSes you can run Watch Dogs on. I'm giving you examples so you can see why game developers make the decisions they do. I wasn't in their studio when they made the decisions so I can't tell you their exact scenario. I can only illustrate how common this stuff is in game development and why it happens
I'm not from Ubisoft - this is just important to me because I want to give people the best experience with my games I can. I'm on your side, and you perpetuating this idea that we're trying to scam you is hindering us as developers and it's giving you worse games. The idea that I can't work on anything that showed up in a trailer once because it might be perceived as a "downgrade" is potentially preventing me from bringing people the best experience possible.
I know and I give zero fucks about them. We are obviouly talking about the videos already on YT that anyone can see.
Well, some publishers/devs fail to deliver the best experience possible, especially cuting out entirely graphical effects that some modders gladly turn on/tweak after.
Last edited:
Do you disregard the fact that a ton of gameplay is marked with "alpha" or?
I expect alpha builds looking worse than betas and final builds. And all videos from Witcher 3 were marked with "alpha"?
1) I agree! But they're not doing that to scam you, they're making the best decisions they can at the time and then sometimes some people don't like those decisions. In this case, they didn't support graphical effects that you wanted, likely because it wasn't worth their time and money in their eyes. This is fine for you to criticize, but it is neither a scam nor objectively bad.
2) Every change to a game is a trade-off. They can't magically support those graphical features without it effecting development. If they supported the graphical effects that you wanted, that means that something else would need to change, because supporting it takes time, and time is money. Do they extend development? Maybe some other area of the game doesn't get worked on as much, and then other people would be unhappy about that. Maybe other types of bugs make it through the cracks, etc.
Bullshit, the Witcher 3 downgrade was obvious and we have objective proof that many effects were reduced or eliminated in the retail build.
I wish someone would take a deep look into what actually happened with W3's development. People forget, but they mentioned several times in 2013 that they game would not look like the initial gameplay or VGX reveal, as they were still using TW2's render because W3's one wasn't ready yet, which you can clearly see in uncompressed footage as it uses the same dithering effect on shadows that TW2 has.
They doubled down on the Sword of Destiny and 40 minute demo, saying even in 2015, that the game looked exactly the same, when it obviously didn't. Anyone remember when the CEO of CDPR said that the fire effect from the VGX trailer wasn't in the game because they had to focus on getting 5000 doors to work? It's blatant lying like that I don't understand. Just, what!? There aren't even 5000 doors in Novigrad, and it's a door. What are you even saying?
There's nothing in that 40 minute demo that looked unreasonable to me. Consoles should have been able to handle that. Hell, the Microsoft E3 Demo was apparently running on an Xbone devkit. Even more strangely, those leaked dev documents, which even though were outdated when they were leaked, mentioned the game running at 30fps on consoles, so the argument that it got downgraded because of consoles never make sense to me. There are pictures in those were where you can see them using the SoD renderer, as well as these from their UI mockup.
It wasn't the graphics downgrades that bugged me though. It was chunks of the story that they promised being in the game, which were cut for reasons. The biggest being the whole Nilfgaardian war effort and plague questline with the rogue Nilfgaardians, Mr Mirror and Iorveth being forced to join up with the Temerains, and the questline with Geralt infiltrating the Wild Hunt. I've always had a suspicion that the plot of the game was originally very different, definitely less Ciri focused. Take a listen to the behind closed doors 2013 demo of the game, the Wild Hunt has center stage.
Anyone remember CDPR advertising a Linux port, or saying that the full REDkit would be released for mod support? They talked so much shit during TW3's life cycle, I'm surprised that they're still have so must trust with their community.
They doubled down on the Sword of Destiny and 40 minute demo, saying even in 2015, that the game looked exactly the same, when it obviously didn't. Anyone remember when the CEO of CDPR said that the fire effect from the VGX trailer wasn't in the game because they had to focus on getting 5000 doors to work? It's blatant lying like that I don't understand. Just, what!? There aren't even 5000 doors in Novigrad, and it's a door. What are you even saying?
There's nothing in that 40 minute demo that looked unreasonable to me. Consoles should have been able to handle that. Hell, the Microsoft E3 Demo was apparently running on an Xbone devkit. Even more strangely, those leaked dev documents, which even though were outdated when they were leaked, mentioned the game running at 30fps on consoles, so the argument that it got downgraded because of consoles never make sense to me. There are pictures in those were where you can see them using the SoD renderer, as well as these from their UI mockup.
It wasn't the graphics downgrades that bugged me though. It was chunks of the story that they promised being in the game, which were cut for reasons. The biggest being the whole Nilfgaardian war effort and plague questline with the rogue Nilfgaardians, Mr Mirror and Iorveth being forced to join up with the Temerains, and the questline with Geralt infiltrating the Wild Hunt. I've always had a suspicion that the plot of the game was originally very different, definitely less Ciri focused. Take a listen to the behind closed doors 2013 demo of the game, the Wild Hunt has center stage.
Anyone remember CDPR advertising a Linux port, or saying that the full REDkit would be released for mod support? They talked so much shit during TW3's life cycle, I'm surprised that they're still have so must trust with their community.
After all the "changes" in tons of games out there before release, especially Ubisoft games and Witcher 3, now I have. ;P
You're not going to get far here with "my opponents are all paid shills/astroturfers" takes.
User Warned: Inflammatory accusations
Yeah, too many of them embedded at this point. But as long as I pose my points instead of making one word / image macro replies, at least I'll be providing value and making a contribution.
2 things:
1. I wasn't sure what Watch Dogs mod you were referring too, but insofar as Witcher 3 is concerned, that one didn't add any of the effects that didn't make release. You were essentially saying that a modder replaced what CDPR downgraded, and that is not the case.
2. As for theworse mod for Watch Dogs, a mod I am familiar with since it was released, it absolutely has a performance hit, shadows always do. Fact is most of these mods have a performance hit to some degree.
Getting your game running optimally on as many systems as possible is the goal, that's the intent. Granted, showing off what you hope to release was/is not the best idea, it is understandable given the money at stake. But then reality hits and things have to change with only a limited amount of time to finish.
Downgrades aren't ideal and disappointing, but hardly unnecessary. Pretty sure given the option both developers would have preferred to release exactly what they promised, rather than deal with the feedback. Now people see downgrades everywhere, either because they blow things out of proportion or just want the attention that comes with it (probably both). In any case, it's something that should be common sense, things change during development, and not always for the better.
