Console and PC high settings are too different
as you seen, console version is really different, I could’t see anymore objects being crushed in this game
I was bought this game on xboxonex first, but I bought Steam version again because of potato graphics in console version like this (you might know how to distinguish this, one is 1080p high setting PC, and the other is 1440p X1X)
I want to believe in 1% of the likelihood that this will improve … and I hope …
I do not mind the graphics on console, I find them good enough and even beautiful at times. But no, it is not like HZD but I did not expect it to be like that so I am ok. What needs to be improved is not the graphics per se but rather graphical glitches and bugs like the infamous pop ins of objects and people.
So do not hold your breath about graphics improving on the console to even be close to those PC pictures, it will not happen. I play on the PS4-pro by the way and I was totally ok with the graphics until update 1.6 ruined the game.
Well consoles and PC which can run KCD on high settings are very different hardware.
On PC too, optimization is garbage: With my GTX 1060, I5-6300HQ and 16GB RAM, i’m not running in 60 FPS in low ( my resolution is 2560x1440) :((
Quite a few years ago now, console makers tried a new strategy: instead of making consoles the old fashioned way using new/present technology in clever ways; and having a high launch price (r&d cost to recoup on top of higher price tech had many consoles launch high, and then take two years to be purchased by the ‘masses’, with four five years to be adopted by a majority… - they tried using off the shelf PC parts in very convienient ways (minor changes and a lilttle tinkering). They also used cheaper parts where possible, so instead of launching with a cutting edge console that could at least compete with PCs for a few years… they made lots of money (minimal r&d to recoup) nearly instantly and could sell the console system for cheap.
Both manufacturers LIKED this method as it actually turned a profit on hardware for once and got them into more households rapidly having ‘a new generation’ take off.
Unfortunately microsoft didnt have a great idea: seeing playstations sell as bluray players (or dvd players in the story againt sega dreamcast) taking a major market slice: they positioned the xbox as a media hub (probably not a bad idea in itself) and spent their limoted console budget on ‘the wrong bits’ (like an hdmi input) rather than a stronger graphics card.
Whilst both machines were subpar to gaming PCs, the xbox had a small fraction of the graphics grunt of the competing system: about 40% less total/actual power.
(Hence why most launch games ran at 20%higher resolution and about 20% more framerate)(the xbox x being 40% over a pspro is ‘no accident’)
Selling dramtically underpowered systems in a generation of ‘underpowered systems’ did microsoft no favours and nearly cost them the console war.
It wasn’t just the dramatically lessened system power vs their competitors, and when they first discussed the platform with WE the public- so many ‘we are the giant-do as we say(we can get away with this)’ talk was smashed the next day when Sony simply said ’ we won’t be doing any of THAT’ (never previously had Sonys PR gone so overtly on the attack against ‘Goliath’).
Anyway Microsoft sold no xbox, or as close to none as to be equally insignificant.
They quickly offered Windows as a platform to extend the game experience, like a free media repeater, of course this required Win10. Which they happily gave away for free.
I am not suggesting here they gave Win10 for free simply for us to use as an XBOXrepeater; although I firmly believe they gave Win10 for free so they could include its sales numbers, combined with Xboxs, as number of platforms (running direct x 12) that developers could develop for )as an effort to utilise the ESRAM, a console difference on their platform, that if used correctly, went a long way towards ‘getting out of media centre’ territory their system was so firmly relegated to. (something owning Minecraft wasn’t going to change).
Rant shortned greatly, but short of it is PCplatform is being heavily gimped for gaming to force gamers back onto Xboxs. Its Microsofts stance going forward (hey they lost a lot of money giving win10 for free, arguably, and need to make it back… gaming on PCnets them no money from official hardware/peripheral sales and licensing, no money for network subcription and no money from games sold.
Theis ‘assistance’ helping studios ‘xbox-ise’ the software is to make sure that games are not magically better on PC. Surprised Warhorse hasn’t been aquired yet!
(They are back to aquiring first party studios as the Xbox X hasn’t a chance n hell if they don’t ‘buy the market’ and manipulate software specifically (strong on Xbox X and weak on PC).
-the take away NEVERtouch a microsoft product. They have no alligience to gaming, just profits. They will kill the first to make the second.
Anyhow, five six year old consoles had low power (by PCspec) many years ago… their replacements? not much stronger… my several year old PC with a $200 graphics card has more raw power than the ‘X’.
Not saying Turn 10 (Forza team) won’t utilise the X and gimp their game on a PC, but EVERY OTHER DEVELOPER is going to give better on PC, and generally Playstation (due to market share, naturally being the console platform to build for).
PS4 Pro was simply for VR. The product needed to exist. Sony had market strategy in place to ensure no consumer would suffer during a mid generation refresh.
Microsoft saw it as opportunity to release a new platform.
To the detriment of console gaming in a major way.
Console games were always impressive when made by studio on their second and third attempt at ‘any given platform’. They learn the tricks and improve/tweak and push harder.
Generally the second wave of titles are where things start to get impressive.
Games in the modern world, take longer and longer to make. Studios have to be larger in order to have the art and sound and experience that their customers pratically expect for any given release.
Anything that bucks that trend is relegated to indy developers (two guys in a garage made THIS!?)
Not having the money to develop means that caveats are made…
Having the money to develop means that the team aims for the stars, or at least the moon.
Well developed software for a known platform leads to impressive software (Guerilla Games-Sony first party:Horizon Zero Dawn… both platforms have first party racers Gran Turismo and Forza-)
outside of first party studios; second generation titles is what generally nets consoles being really impressive.
A rapidfying of console releases (Xbox X) stops the improved titles coming forward, and leaves the market with a range of first party titles that become untouchable (think Nintendo for the last twenty years).
Microsoft know this and are focusing on first party developers to have their X essentially destroy the console market.
It won’t happen as they lost too much market share with the xbox and xbox s shenanigan.
and they lost trust from developers considering their platform.
Like due to how underpowered the xbox one is against the ps4, they had to do an eleventh hour removal of the kinnect; something they had been promising would be included with every unit and therefor could be utilised by games. (peripherals not in everyones houses usually only have a few titles developed for them).(removing kinnect lowered price but more importantly-freed~10% more CPU/netted more system power to equate to a PS4.
TL:DR the 40$ outdated video chip in an xbox isnt going to push as many triangles as a cutting edge PC. The outdated video chip in a xbox X isnt going to do much better when targeting box shot and ‘bragging rights’ resolutions such as 4K.
My PC eats an xbox x for breakfast. (Two at lunchtime). I wouldnt consider my PC a 4K rig.
Sure Life is Strange even with heavy antialiasing (wont say it can be done), but not something that pushes tech like Kingdom Come…
Gamers on forums often have no clue.
Telling me cryengine doesnt yield some of the best forrested areas of modern games (a reshade from 2013s Arma doesnt cut it either);… it makes sense many dont understand the underlying tech, or even what makes it to their screens.
Just cause Joe Bloggs reckons it should, doesnt mean it will.
Just cause Random Ranter says they shouldnt be close, isnt the case either.
That KCD has been targeted for present console platforms (the PS4 and Xbox one S), is fantastic as everyone can get into it.
I do feel that the studio has had more than their fair share of hiccups bringing this to us.
During the year it will fix itself.
The game on the consoles should then prove a superior and reliable experience vs the Windows version of the game.
People with obscene money to spend on ‘entertainment’ can see what the enhanced edition may look like when rereleased on future consoles…(PC ultra)
I personally think Warhorse spread their product well across the platforms, and credit them for how nearly impossible a game like this is to do as a multiplatform release.
When the product settles and they can get back to playing with it as their CREATIVE SELVES, we will then have rosier days (not just cause of rosey coloured glasses).
i just assumed everyone knew this already.
PS4 has a better Ambient Occlusion effect than on XboxOne. That’s a known fact. This makes a huge difference in graphic quality in the end since it enhance the contrast and shadows which is clearly not the case with your screenshots comparison.
Also, please stop the PC vs Console debate since everyone knows the PC version will always look better (given that you have a proper rig). That’s the case for almost every game that exists with the exception of game exclusive to consoles.
Operating System
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1
CPU
Intel Core i7 2700K @ 3.50GHz
Sandy Bridge 32nm Technology
RAM
8.00GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 666MHz
Motherboard
ASUSTeK Computer INC. Maximus IV Extreme-Z
Graphics
SAMSUNG (1920x1080@60Hz) <- my tv
Intel HD Graphics Family (ASUStek Computer Inc)
4095MB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (EVGA)
Storage
1 TB Seagate ST1000 ATA Device
500 GB Hitachi HDS ATA Device
Optical Drives
HL-DT-ST ATA Device
Audio
Realtek High Definition Audio
i built this in 2012. i get 55- 60 fps in kcd on the highest settings. with small stutters once in a great while. if i run it on high, it looks pretty much the same as ultra imo but it runs very smooth for me so i normally have it on high.
PS Tuesday i ordered a 2 tb gaming HDD and a 256 gb ssd for windows. i also orderd 2 8gb sticks of ram. im only useing 2/4 ram slots. so someday soon ill hook it all up and ill have 24 gb of ram.
The discussion about console graphics (perhaps in this game) being ‘ugly’ is subjective.
Wgent games like Myst and the Secenth Guest came out, being prerendered graphics- many thought of them as the prettiest games…
Graphics created in real time is way tricker to do.
So whilst Rogue Leader/Squadron (or whatwver its name was), an early CD-Rom title that used streaming graphics as the kevel background; it looked ‘ahead of its time’.
Prerendering effects ALWAYS allows this: the reflections on the windows in Daytona USA? Prebaked!
Eventually when games start to do these same effects in realtime, certain hardware enthusiasts and tech get excited.
Now I am a big favour of a little from colum A, a little from column B.
Suspension of disbelief and blurring the edges is what matters.
Battlefield 3 did some very clever design and Prebaked a lot of lighting. For video cards which only handled eight hardware light sources; it often seemed way more capable, in high resolution at high framerate.
There is no free lunch.
Low powered parts- somethings gotta give.
Would I have made the xbox x version of KCD run at 1400p (not likely, but perhaps, if that was only effective way to net close to 100% system utilisation).
I personally, art frontend allowing, have aimed for 720 or 900 res if that eased systems to working 100% and allowed more detail/weather etc.
Given most consumers TV wont render 600 lines of motion resolution - all this resolution war is stupid.
Games as art and games as fun have no requirement in the area of resolution.
Microsoft cares about xbox x res and so do bragging rights console gamers (a true oxymoronic argument).
The game should work, yield a vision that extends to the horizon, and allow immersion in a medieval world.
As hardware improves, so too can this games performance.
A lil more polish for present consoles and the game will be fine.
A year or so of DLC, paid for by present platform users, and a future product, refined, for a next gen system will likely play with the enhanced graphics people in PC with video cards worth more than a console presently get.
Should several hundred dollar consoles have same graphics output as +$1000 video cards can yield? (only microshaft seems to think so) of course not!
What is the argument…?
My daughter takes an old ‘graphing calculator’ to school
It has a colour LCD and is of vastly higher resolution that typical calculators.
Does this entitle regular calculator users to complain that their black LCD single line displays are stuck spelling the word ‘BOOBIES’ (upside down, no less).
Ive degenerated this argent to its most childish.
Shall we leave it at ‘you het what you pay for’.
Some of us can see the complexities in Warhorses’ phenominal world, and understand why our hardware is taxed.
Others compare realism prerendered or faked in major ways as equivalent and do not understand a technical marvel/breakthrough when it happens.
I look forward to this game being patched to work and let console users show the real grunt of their (mini) supercomputers.
Nature in realtime is difficult, end of…
Nice and good post. I can personally say that I do not expect to be able to play KCD with graphics even close to PC graphics with my PS4-pro, and that is ok with me. In my experience tha game ran quite good and if just the rain would have been tweaked to look better than Minecraft, 1.5 would have been more or less perfect. 1.6 made the blood on the sword look like Minecraft plus all the other graphical issues like no dirt or grime on armour and it made pop ins way worse.
I think all(most) console users understand that our consoles will never be able to play this game with anything close to PC graphics, but it really should not look like Minecraft neither. I would be happy to have to option to decrease my resolution to get a better graphical and less bugged experience.
Yes, you’re same as my computer and I have i7-8700k. most game run with 50 ~ 60 fps. but in this game, sometimes lower than 30fps
I mean…We know that the console lacks performance. I’v never complained about every console transplants before. But KCD is poor compared to other console transplants.
I play on x box one x whit a 4 k tv and i lo ve it
Some times, say when you wake at sunrise and walk out your Inn bedroom in Sassu, after it been raining. It can look damn amazing.
Other times you can start to notice the peoples headwear not showing till you right up infront of them or the stuff that probably bothers you.
All I can say is that something happened with 1.6 patch that was booth good and bad for ps4 (standard).
The good, The game basically never crash now a whole pretty complete playthrough including From the Ashes on hardcore without a single crash. 60h+ Not one crash. Almost no bugs and only one that forced a restart of the game and some lost progress (with giving gifts to Theresa).
The bad. The loading times for the graphics have become ridiculously slow at times. The game seem to render at snail pace resulting in “pop ins” of objects frequently. This sometimes even happens in cut-scenes when some textures load in way after the cut-scene have started. This was never really a problem before at least not at the scale it is now. Not even close.
It seems they might have made thing more stable at the expense of speed and maybe they have somewhat overdone it cause this “pop in” rendering is not pretty and incredibly frequent though I am grateful I know pretty much only lose progress to my own stupidity and not random crashes. 
There is plenty of bugs…
This is very useful feedback. I’ve only started playing this game with patch 1.6, so I don’t have an experience with previous versions. I’ve been having a fairly stable playthrough, the only real issue being the very persistent pop-in (I’m playing on a standard PS4). Knowing that this wasn’t such a big issue on version 1.5, I’m confident they will fix it, hopefully soon.
Other than the pop-in, I really enjoy the graphics in this game, especially the detail inside forests, with shadows and sun coming through the branches, or other little details like the way rain causes ripples in water, or little fish in ponds. Obviously, it doesn’t compete with a PC when it comes to performance. And it’s also clear that the Cry Engine is much more PC friendly. But it’s still a very well executed visual world, and possibly one of the most realistic/authentic environments I’ve ever seen in a videogame.
We probably just mean somewhat different things when saying “bugs”. Point is I have not encountered much of anything that halted or altered progress or did not work as intended or close enough as to intended so it bothered me.
Also I don’t normally consider graphical glitches a “bug” if they don’t interfere with progress and they rarely do they just make the game “ugly”.
A bug is a bug. Just because a bug doesn’t prevent you from continuing doesn’t make it any less of a bug.
But what really constitute a “bug” what is “glitch” what is an “unintended feature” This are words that can all relate to same thing in software. An error in the code that produced an unexpected outcome. However these words are usually not used for the same things in programming depending on the actual outcome. For clarification I explained my use (which i’m not particularly alone in using) in what I considered “bugs” and just “graphical glitches”. You however choose the route of an arrogant prick thinking your use and interpretation is the only one. Try understand what others actually try to say instead of just marking on words not to your liking or to your exact personal definition and you’ll be (and sound) much wiser for it.
