Print

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

[Ozyton]

So it's a bit more like Dark Souls 2 instead of an actual open world then?

[lordcooper]

So it's a bit more like Dark Souls 2 instead of an actual open world then?

Possibly a contradiction in terms, but it seems to consist of several open worlds.

[Ozyton]

I dunno, Dark Souls 2 felt more like a bunch of different little areas instead of one big area

[umiman]

This is more like Dragon Age 3.

[Teneb]

This is more like Dragon Age 3.

Yeah, Inquisition is probably the best comparison for this. They both have huge areas you get to explore at your own pace, but you'll eventually run out of things to do, at which point only plot is left. Not that this is a bad thing (it isn't), but it's not an actual open world.

[umiman]

More or less, though the production quality in this is leagues about DA3. Like the other guy said, even the fetch quests are so much better.

[Vgray]

Without stepping on the landmine that is the exact definition of 'open world', everything I've read about the game says the world is spit into two (maybe three?) huge zones.

[sebcool]

I'd say it definitely adds to it. Witcher 2 always felt too. . . Limited for me. Everything was always small, boxed in, in small zones with a few pathways. The game is definitely more vast now. Hell, even the prologue area is huge, or at least feels that way; and from what I've seen, it's still as deep as the previous games, if not more. Mind you, I'm still only in the prologue area.

One thing I've noticed is that there are barely any loading screens. In the hours I've played it, I can't remember seeing a single loading screen anywhere. Not even in the buildings or the caves.

Also, I've been fiddling some more with the graphics, and I've managed to crank it all to ultra, barring the foliage settings, while still maintaining a solid 30 FPS, with occasional dips below that. Might be the updated drivers.

[Shadowlord]

Performance-wise, it's a bloody beast. Running an I5-4670K and a GTX 770 (not exactly high-end, but it could play Witcher 2 at a solid 60 FPS), and I can only get this thing to 60 at the lowest settings. I can get a solid 30 at high, getting closer to 60 in some places, if I disable the NVIDIA hair physics, and it looks really good, even at those settings. Ran into a few bugs (my horse's head clipped through the wall) and crashed once, but otherwise it's fine.

I was already planning on waiting for the EE, however many years away that is, but I guess I shouldn't even consider getting it while I only have a GTX 460.

[Wimopy]

One thing I've noticed is that there are barely any loading screens. In the hours I've played it, I can't remember seeing a single loading screen anywhere. Not even in the buildings or the caves.

Yeah, they specifically upgraded the engine to make it stream in the background continuously. So you're basically loading all the time, instead of at specific transitions.

I was already planning on waiting for the EE, however many years away that is, but I guess I shouldn't even consider getting it while I only have a GTX 460.

GT 555M here. Yes, that's a laptop. I seriously doubt I have any chance to run it. I am planning to get a new laptop anyway though (since this one is nearing its end, seemingly), so there's that. The new lenovo Y50-70 with GTX 960M sounds promising...

Until then, I'll just be sobbing in that corner there.

[Vendayn]

I don't think my...

i5 660 3.3 GHZ
GTX 660 2gb

would play very nicely with Witcher 3 (if it does, it be on the lowest ugliest settings with still low FPS) and probably not at all as my CPU sucks so bad compared to what the minimum is needed let alone recommended.

Its Crysis all over again. My favorite FPS game to come out for PC, and my PC couldn't run it at the time rofl. Well it could, but only on the bare minimum settings and it looked so ugly I didn't bother playing. And it still lagged anyway lol.

[lastverb]

I don't think my...

i5 660 3.3 GHZ
GTX 660 2gb

would play very nicely with Witcher 3.

Then you must have some terrible software on your pc then, or brainwashed by hardware companies. I play on medium-high settings with 30 fps on slightly lower specs. 1600x900 res thought.

[Sonlirain]

Honestly? I generally suggest that people demo games with pirate copies before buying.

Games can sometimes have requirements far below of what you might think they have.
Especially now with all games being restricted by consoles.

Personally i think a semi decent rig from 2012 will be able to play W3 on low/medium.
However take my words with a spoonfull of salt.

[Retropunch]

brainwashed by hardware companies. I play on medium-high settings with 30 fps on slightly lower specs. 1600x900 res thought.

THIS THIS THIS. So many people I know say 'oh, I need to upgrade my graphics card before I can play X' just because the game company have put the newest AMD as their recommended one, and the second newest as their minimum.

Game and hardware companies are best, best buddies and it's absolutely marketing. They rely on each other to keep you buying their newest products. I've been playing all the newest games on medium settings on a pretty bog-standard gaming laptop with a few tweaks. My specs were no where near what Dying Light asked for but that runs fine.

As long as you've got an i5 or over, 6gb+ Ram, 1gb or over Graphics card and a decent harddrive (you'd be surprised how many people are running a really, really slow HD from 10 years back) you'll be absolutely fine for the moment. I do feel there will be a big shift as companies finally start moving everything over to Xbone and PS4, but I think that's still a good 6 months off and even then you'll be able to play on low for a while.

If you've got around those specs and are struggling to get it running at all, it's probably something different causing problems. Look around on the net for how to optimise your pc for gaming, or,  although it's not usually recommended, try something like gamebooster if you're not too techy as it can be background processors grabbing everything.

[Vendayn]

Well, I'll just travel the high seas and pillage the land and get Witcher 3 as a test to see if my PC works with it. I don't want to spend all that money and find out it doesn't work. GOG is probably better at refunds than Steam...but...I don't want to risk them going "well game works, get a better PC" or whatever version they'd give me.

By works, I also mean plays higher than the lowest or low While I'll play games like Dwarf Fortress...I can pretty much play any 2d/ascii game. I'll even play Morrowind and Oblivion. But when it comes to new 3d games, I better be playing it at medium (with some low/off options, like SSAO is going right off or leaving disabled lol) for it to be playable as I want the nice graphics to enhance the game

Except I won't like really it if its only 30 FPS (and I play on a 1920x1080 monitor). That means it would probably drop below that and start jittering or acting weird (at least Skyrim does that when its heavily modded). But guess I'll just see for myself. I'll just start lowest and go from there. Heck, maybe it'll look nice enough even on low...most games don't, but a few do.

And thats the main reason why I liked demos. I got to see if the game worked or not lol.