Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Trolldefender99]

Not to be cynical...but I remembered after seeing the new spider-man game get downgraded graphically. And many big companies showcase amazing graphics, but they almost always downgrade at release

Don't be surprised if Cyberpunk 2077 looks worse at release.

Witcher 3 looked amazing in their E3 trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOkP7C0WrkU

Game looked nothing like that at release.

Now, I don't care about graphics. But companies should show what the game REALLY looks like. Not trick people into a better looking game. They can showcase ascii graphics, and if that was how the game looked, that be fine. I'd play it since I do like dwarf fortress, Aurora 4x and Rimworld. But it always feels like a bait and switch when they falsely show better graphics than what it will be.

[nenjin]

Which is why I'm guessing they went to great pains to say over and over how everything may be subject to change. It felt like a little more than your average pre-release preview disclaimer.

[Trolldefender99]

Which is why I'm guessing they went to great pains to say over and over how everything may be subject to change. It felt like a little more than your average pre-release preview disclaimer.

Yeah, so they did do that. Since its probably really won't look that good at release.

But I added in a edit...but I don't really care about graphics. They just should show the real game (even though they kept saying the game is subjected to change). Even if it was ascii graphics they showed, I'd play it and wouldn't be disappointed if that is how they chose the game to look. Since I do play Aurora 4x, Dwarf Fortress or the 2d style Rimworld.

I really despise it when a company shows a game, and then manages to make it look a lot worse even if they try to save face and say its subjected to change.

It be better (for me) to show a worse game, but then at release it looks better than they showed. At least in that case they don't have to nerf anything and it in fact ends up being an upgrade.

[Radsoc]

Witcher. I think the current gfx look better than in the trailer. (Finishing the last DLC now). There are some cinematic snippets mixed in though. Didn't know you could dismount riders with aard. Some cutscenes I don't recognize as well.

Witcher is a bit uneven, but if Cyperpunk is anything like Witcher mission/story wise, it will be a great game.

[Egan_BW]

They show a trailer like this because they actually don't know what the game's going to look like by the end, because they're still making it.
The demo represents what they want to do with the game, ideally. Part of that statement of intent is to make the game look good.

[Retropunch]

I'd say the Witcher Trailer and the Cyberpunk trailer are a bit different - the Witcher trailer was basically one of those 'in engine graphics' ones, where they're not really showing you actual gameplay, rather a sort of 'gameplay trailer' which was probably all pre-rendered whereas with cyberpunk we saw someone actually playing it a good chunk of it. 

I can imagine they might downgrade it a bit, but I doubt it'll be drastic - it'll probably just be that they have to cut back on some of the lighting/effects so that consoles can handle it, but I doubt it'll be much.

For the record though, I honestly don't think there was much of a downgrade with the Witcher 3 - they apparently took out:

Level of horizon detail (essentially the draw distance had to be completely tuned down to tax the consoles less)
Volume based translucency
Ambient occlusion and foliage density / tree count
Flexible water simulation / tessellation  we resorted to a (script texture effect similar to most games than physical based simulation)
Ground/building tessellation
Forward lit soft particles (this is the fire, smoke, fog that you would encounter while going through thick terrain into open space)
Real-time reflections in the water are completely off and replaced with a cheaper render solution estimator (this is a primary reason blood splatter was also removed from water)

All due to having to downgrade it for consoles and because a lot of the stuff that they used was Nvidia only tech with no analogue. Whilst the effects look worse (and the water does) it isn't like it's a huge step down like Watchdogs etc.

Also, after the flak that game devs have been taking recently for doing the bait and switch with trailers I really doubt they'd do that. CDPR seem to be very on the ball in terms of not making the usual industry mistakes, and they certainly aren't rushing into anything.
 

[Dorsidwarf]

Yeah it’s not being made by Ubisoft. They’re really really blatant with the fake demo gameplay where the graphics and lighting are utterly different to the real game

[scriver]

I've also just been playing Witcher 3 and to me the game looks that good... In the cut-scenes.

[Ant]

Little excited. Looks are a secondary thought, the gfx and animation can easily be dropped to Deus Ex grade without mood being affected. I'm more conserned with enviromental and open world elements of the game, as well as potential script-immunity effects.

The graphics, if I recon correctly, may be improved by modders on later date. The convo system and scripts are harder to mod.

Nevertheless, it looks like worthy game version for CP 2020 atm.

[Retropunch]

Yeah graphics can always get overhauls - I'm also imagining that they may add options later on. Also, from what I've been reading Nvidia (of which CDPR is a big partner with) have a lot of features that devs should be able to drop in games that will improve them a lot with little work. This is a bit like the hairworks stuff there was before, but more general. This will probably allow for a bit more flexibility in graphical quality between console and PC releases

The one thing that did annoy me was the convo system having the 'short' options and then the player saying something completely different. Fallout was notorious for that:
Nice NPC: 'Hello, can I help you with this?'
Option1: yes, of course.
Option2: maybe, I guess.
Option3: no thank you.

*Pick option 2*
Player: FUCK YOU GUY YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP ME SHOVE MY BULLETS IN YOUR FACE.

Normally a mod comes along that shows you what you'll actually say, but it annoys me so much when you don't actually know what you're going to say.

[Ant]

Yea, that kinda worries me too... And even tho that particular example would be hilarious (esp with low INT char), it kinda breaks immersion. Not that dialogue would ever beat the subtlety at ttrpg level; my first GM:ing ended in total slaughter, and I was just trying to get the PCs to know each other. At least the 2077 introduces the very same technique of human relations- shoot through wall until new aquitance stops moving.

[Retropunch]

Yea, that kinda worries me too... And even tho that particular example would be hilarious (esp with low INT char), it kinda breaks immersion. Not that dialogue would ever beat the subtlety at ttrpg level; my first GM:ing ended in total slaughter, and I was just trying to get the PCs to know each other. At least the 2077 introduces the very same technique of human relations- shoot through wall until new aquitance stops moving.

Yeah I get why they do it - if they don't do the shortened version then you're basically just hearing what you've already read which for some people might be a bit tedious, but for me I just find it really, really annoying to not know. I've had to reload so many times with games that shorten it due to picking an option I really didn't want.

[Trolldefender99]

Guess someone either had the same idea, or saw my post on reddit (or maybe he was browsing this thread) and used it for his thread article lol

https://www.gamespace.com/featured/cyberpunk-2077-revealing-gameplay-was-a-mistake

[lastverb]

It all assumes CDPR will downgrade the game graphics and only focuses on that part (graphics). Understandably since that's all most of players looks for nowadays. I'm almost sure they will, unless they pull some magic hamsters from somewhere and put them in code. The only other way would be to tell everyone who thinks their "highend" out of the box system will run this on ultra with 60 fps: "You are reta*%ed". Keep in mind the game can have such high ultra specs even if low settings works great on potato. Not a single AAA company, even including CDPR, is going to do that until shooting is acceptable solution to people trying to lynch. This is modern playerbase problem - everything has to run on ultra with 60fps on hardware that some marketer sold as "will run everything".
Signed, proud owner of midend pc

[Sirian]

I don't really care about how good it will look, I will still play this even if I have to upgrade my PC. My only fear is that the game will be too short or too small (map size), due to the level of detail & complexity they seem to be putting in.

I'm glad that we had this gameplay demo, because I had not heard much about this since 2012. It's looking promising so far.