Exactly, they downgraded the graphics and released an unoptimized game this month because they did not have the luxury of time and money to polish it up to what I know is WH’s standard. The decision to form a distribution deal with DS may have saved the project but with that came the console versions and pressure to release sooner than later. So that may have brought us the game we may never of had otherwise but in an undeniably problematic state at this point. I have over 55 hours playtime so far and just finished a 7.5 hour marathon. I am enjoying the game immensely…but still come on!
1 Like
About 5 months ago i complained about the horrible performance of the BETA, and that there was no way they could optimize it in a few months.
Everybody jumped on me, saying the final version would be much smoother, so i should stop complaining.
Guess they were right… MASSIVE downgrade in graphics, and voila, “Optimization”…
2 Likes
Great job with the comparison screenshots. Thank you.
Something was definitely changed with the way the global illumination works because everything far more “flat” in the official release.
“Flat” is definitely the most suitable word to describe the change.
2 Likes
Thank you very much for the pictures. Even if I know that it’s not a good idea to compare a final game to a beta, there was indeed a cut of many bushes and plant meshes in forests grounds. Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy the game the way it is right now, but forests just don’t look the same at all 
.
For the moment I think that Warhorse team will deal first with game breaking bugs and quest related issues. Maybe later, if they have time and money they will try to improve graphics and performances. Unfortunately, I don’t think that we’ll retrieve beta forests “spirit” unless some talented modders will work hard on that, and same goes for textures…maybe we can expect a higher resolution texture pack for PC owners, it’s possible as they already have them, we will see.
Regarding performances, I’m not an expert but some reviews pointed that low fps were tied to a high usage of CPU, not necessarily GPU. Perf issues seems to be mostly tied to IA calculations, and you will see that galopping in campain and forests with almost no one around is not that performance heavy compared to a heavy populated area like Rattay. They still have to polish IA and I think it’s the only way to improve overall performances. That being said, there was indeed graphics tweaks since beta, probably to reduce GPU usage and gain some FPS but it’s fair to say that high end graphic cards are capable of displaying way more, and I hope to see that later 
.
1 Like
This is basically false advertising, and it’s illegal in many fields, just not in software, yet.
I don’t understand why they didn’t leave the graphics as they were in the beta, on the ULTRA setting, and downgrade them on the lower presets.
i mean the assets already exist as they were implemented in the beta. It’s kind of a shame to just throw everything down the toilet.
1 Like
That is your own assumption, unless you are part of the team and have insight on the decisions made?
Every game has a big difference between beta and alpha builds and final product, some things don’t make the cut for various reasons.
But I’m wasting my time arguing with a PC elitist, it’s always the other’s fault with you guys, you have no humility and no understanding of how things work. Stuck in your own ideology.
If you think it’s that easy to make such a game, go on and make your own. Lets see where you’ll end.
I’m muting this conversation, because it’s a dead horse we are beating and people like you never admit when they’re wrong.
They showed plenty of footage between here and the alpha, and betas. Blame yourself for not noticing, we’ve known what the game was going to look like for months.
Wait a minute, you played the beta and are annoyed it changed? Erm…don’t betas come with the old disclaimer “Subject to change”?
1 Like
Yeah, from worse to better, not the other way around. And you actually PAID for it, and part of the advertisement were the graphics. If the graphics were shit (not saying that they are now) many people would not have funded it.
They actually put a lot of effort into the beta to make it look like it did just so people would buy, fully knowing that the game would not look like that when released.
2 Likes
OP is right, forest in the Beta looked absolutly incredible, never seen forest in a video games with such a high level of fidelity, was a pure pleasure to roam around there, specialy at dawn.
Now, while not looking bad, the forest in the release version dosen’t hold up a second to what it was before. Forest now feel like a gamey forest, while the beta nailed that “lost in the wood” feeling.
I understand that cut need to be made, but this foliage density/variety should have been kept under a specific option, instead of throwing to the bin what was an awesome feature. ( and unique no other games had such forest)
Of course it was demanding, but futur GPU would have made it easier to run ( remember how was PC gaming ten years ago…)
People need to stop with this mentality of “I got the last High end GPU so I HAVE TO got 4k 60fps on every games”. Say the same people that bitch everyday on forum about PC games being holded back by console but at the same time want 60+fps everywhere at any itme, you can’t have technical advancement or GI lighting with crazy performance, some feature even today are super demanding even on 1080Ti, Specialy GI.
So whatever some may think, it’s a fact that the forest was “downgraded”. And it’s a pity.
7 Likes
I’m totaly agree with you … forest is not so beautiful now. It’s a real downgrade and i 'm really disappointed…
PS : fuckin Staircase
4 Likes
You’re missing the point. PC games ARE tailored for high end rigs. It’s only games that are also designed for console from day 1 that are middling. That’s the whole reason we have graphics options, so that people can attempt to play it on their toaster, and so that those of us who have invested in 1080TIs can see what the game was meant to look like. By the way guys the only thing that has changed about the forests is the long distance lods on the trees (which hopefully they will improve later on down the line), and disabling volumetric fog. You can enable volumetric fog with a console command (google is your friend).
1 Like
Here is a petition people. Come with us.
Just look at the screenshots man. The foliage is different, the textures, the lighting.
4 Likes
It’s exactly what I said it is. Long distance LODs and volumetric fog. The fog affects how the lighting is filtered. LODS affect what level of geometry and which texture is loaded at which distance from the player.
The petition is messy, unclear, and not specific enough. If you make one to petition warhorse to include higher detail levels for the PC version, then many people will sign it. But by whining about bugs that 99% of us ALREADY know that the devs are working on fixing, you are just making the petition weaker. Rewrite it and you will get a lot of support.
2 Likes
Did the huge graphics downgrade stop the witcher 3 from being a good game?
1 Like
Ok, let’s go man ! Show me 
1 Like
I am talking about the screenshots in this post: The massive graphic downgrade is real. And here is proof (with screenshot)
There are a LOT more differences then LoD and Volumetric fog.
Well, we know they are fixing the bugs, so it’s a redundant thing to mention and just takes power away from anything that you are trying to push through. All you have to do is rewrite it in the simplest possible terms. Don’t talk about ‘feelings’, this is also important when trying to persuade people. Don’t tell them you are sad/disappointed/let down etc. It’s simply irrelevant. Just write something straightforward saying that PC gamers would like to be able to play this game at its visual best, as advertised by the beta footage. Write a simple, direct request for the devs to include the original high quality LODs and other graphics features that have been removed. I for one will sign it.
1 Like