No it doesn’t. I played the game on medium- low, and it looks far worse than on high in the finished product. The only noticeable thing is the foliage is much thicker in the beta, but i’d rather be getting 60 fps then have a few extra plants.
And why are you only singling out the foliage? The people look far worse in the beta.
Crysis had the most lush jungles which could be modded and expanded to the extreme with super high res textures, new lighting. This is how I know you have not played and experimented heavily with Crysis using a high end rig…
If we received an appropriately titled “Enthusiast” setting, I would not mind at all if it ran at 30 fps on my 1080 Ti. That way I would look forward to playing the game in the future at that setting, maybe 2 GPU generations later… Our issue is that they denied us that opportunity…
You do realise that consoles barely manage to run the game @ 30 fps with heavily reduced graphics …
Again you’re not comprehending my posts. Crysis was a linear shooter, not a large open world game like KC:D. There is a reason linear games tend to look better, it’s much easier to optimize them.
So you’re proof that the game was downgraded for the sake of the consoles, is that the game runs like shit on consoles? 
I don’t quite understand where all the nostalgia for the beta comes from when it comes to performance. I currently get twice the framerate on twice as high settings as I had in the beta. If anything the beta was a horror-scenario for me, because I was afraid that the devs wouldn’t be able to optimize the game enough for release and that the game would fall flat and barely sell anything because of cripping performance issues.
Sure, the game doesn’t potentially look as good as the beta did. There has been reduced object counts, the rendering of vegetation in particular has become cheaper GPU-wise, but at least the game runs smoothly. Especially if run on a SSD. That’s not something that can be said about the beta.
no, but it gives you a big hint on what consoles are capable of. i dont need to say that consoles dont have the raw power u can utilize with a pc right? simply because the hardware is already outdated when the consoles are on the market. there is just a limit to optimisation on which the consoles depend to run the games smoothly. if a pc game would recieve such polishing like zero down u would probably accomplish graphics never seen before. because even i have to admit that this game looks amazing on every console, which are … crap on hardware site.
just compare the computing power and u will see that consoles are pretty much trash compared to a good pc. thats the fact. altough consoles are for the price good multimedia devices.
Agreed, the beta scared the living shit out of a lot of the backers. I was fucking terrified that the game would run horribly at launch, luckily i was pleasantly surprised.
We are not asking for the game’s current “Ultra High” setting to be reverted to the Beta’s “Ultra High”. We merely want it added back as a CHOICE! Like a setting above “Ultra High” called “Enthusiast” would be a great way to do it.
That way, those who want to experiment with it can do so and those who want to play at Ultra High can do it without ever touching Enthusiast and pretend it never existed.
Um, okay? Again, how is the low quality of the consoles hardware, and the fact that it runs like shit on them, proof Warhorse downgrade fo their sake?
If Warhorse was really trying to cater to console, like you are all inferring, then you would expect the console version to be polished, when in reality it’s far more bug ridden than the pc version.
It’s far more likely warhorse downgraded the graphics due to the massive disappointment, and backlash they received over the performance of the beta. Most of their feed back came from this forum, and you could not find one person claiming the beta ran well, even the most powerful machines could only get to 45 fps, and even they suffered stutters and massive drops, especially during baptism of fire, and in the deep woods.
And that was when the game still lacked over 2/3rds of the map, most of the armor and clothing assets, the interior of cities, and large buildings, animals, and more.
Put it this way,
There is a higher chance that the visuals were downgraded in order to preserve visual parity between platforms rather than because the game with its Beta visuals COULD NOT POSSIBLY ever run on PCs fine even after proper thorough optimisation right?
Even after the downgrade the console versions look and run like crap, meaning that in order to bring the game to consoles in the first place, a downgrade was absolutely needed.
Are you so confident to say that had the game been a PC exclusive we wouldn’t be having beta level visuals but this time properly optimised?
What do you think makes more sense from a business perspective? Give PC players a godly version and console players (who provide large sums of money) a gimped, inferior version?
Or bring all the versions more or less to the same level, give the PC a few extra bells and whistles and call it a day so that console players still feel like their purchase is worth it?
If you have played games for a while and been around game development from a purely business perspective, the latter is always true.
This game is Make or Die for Warhorse at the moment which is a new studio with very limited budget and an uncertain future, trying to enter AAA gaming. It would be in their absolute best interest to sell as many copies to console players as well as PC players so every decision they make will take console players in great consideration and that means not making them feel like they received the short end of the stick and visual parity is one of the best ways to tackle this.
People are destroying this dude on reddit lol
Yes foliage is the key here, and now foliage looks like shit, especially LoD. And foliage in this game is the main graphical feature.
Is it bad that I like the 2018 version better? Because it looks way better
No you don’t get twice the framerate on twice as high settings because settings are different in this console version.
It “performs” better, especially on weaker hardware which might trick you into thinking it’s better and speak in its favor. That is normal human behavior
I’ve no complaints on my 1070ti. Looks amazing, and better than the crappy 2015 screenshots.
Exactly! And that is why I draw comparison to Crysis all the time. One of the main graphical features in Crysis was the foliage. DENSE, forested areas with impressive foliage. Some levels were huge and made even bigger with total conversion mods. And a game that was made 11 years ago 
I am noticing a pattern here. People who are shutting down the disgruntled gamers about the downgrade are mostly those with weaker hardware who are happy they “at least got something playable” for their system 
Kingdom Come: Deliverance – PC version will not be downgraded due to consoles!
Sure baby!
