Perhaps stop seeing those as promises and start seeing them as what they are - expectations which may or may not come true once the game is finished?
Here’s the thing: the images people are comparing to were in a trailer. It never said “This is exactly how your game will look.” Absolutely agree that they probably shouldn’t have been showing target renders. Sometimes you wonder how much of that is a marketing team that is given shitloads of footage, cherry picks it, and designs a trailer without talking to anyone else at the company.
Compare to Watch Dogs, which showed footage that said “This is actual in-game playing footage” and then downgraded from that.
Hair-splitting, probably. But the difference does seem significant enough to me. And I say that as someone who enjoyed Watch Dogs even so.
Not only that, but the 2013 reveal video apparently wasn’t a cgi video, it was running on a computer at that time. Did they overestimate what highend video cards would be able to do in 2015? Yes, absolutely. Also, I believe the specs of the consoles hadn’t even been announced yet, and I know they were a lot lower than what many people were expecting. And I think the lower than expected console specs had a larger effect than anything else, personally. But that’s a risk anytime you show something years out from release, like he said.
olaf
1945
Yeah the disparity between the Intel/AMD minimum required CPUs is interesting. My i5-760 is about 25-30% less powerful than the i5 2500k, but more powerful than the 940. I wonder if it has anything to do with both the Xbone and PS4 CPUs being AMD based, and the game maybe being optimized for AMD CPUs. Or if its just oversight and the PC system reqs have not been revisited in a while.
The only outcome of this will be more trailers in the future with “May not represent final product” stamped over the footage. It’s about as self-explanatory as “This coffee is hot”, but I guess some people need it spelling out.
I guess for PC gamers, the upshot is that the mod tools will be out sooner rather than later and those who wish to try for those renders can give it a shot.
Honestly, I think this graphics whore is going to be OK with things as shipped. At least at start.
I watched two separate 3-minute swatches that were mostly spoiler free. One was the Playstation UK Access “ride across the map” thing. Then a bit of the IGN stream with the developers. I was honestly floored by what I was seeing. Especially Novigrad, which I had to turn off right away because it felt like something I wanted to fully experience myself in-game.
So Witcher 3 is sexist and mysoginyst, nobody buy this.
Polygon says so.
:p
Thanks, the posts are interesting.
Hahaha the dude is awesome
There are multiple troll quests in W3, I worked on some of them. If you guys kill those trolls I’m going to ask the mods to ban you.
I think they gave it a 8/10 though. Which brings to mind:
Plus, the review itself contains something even more disturbing and insidious than simple, garden of eggplants variety racism. From reading the review, here’s what we know about Jonah other than the fact that he’s koo koo:
1.He is bravely, strongly against racism, including - presumably - racism based solely on the color of your lesbianism.
2.Giants is a clear example of dehumanizing racist propaganda.
But it still gets 3 out of 5 stars! And that’s after he’s already complained bitterly about the repetitive gameplay, the crash bugs, and the various annoying ways in which Giants is not more like Tribes 2. So taking those non-trivial complaints into account, the fact that Giants espouses a dangerous ideology that Jonah Falcon finds morally repugnant ultimately only costs it one half of one star. In other words, if Borislav Herak’s Bosnian Rape Camp Superchamp is stable and lets you save anywhere, there’s still a good chance Jonah might give it a 4.5
It’s Arthur Gies. I just read his review, and it’s exactly what I expected. It just reminds me why I ignore him.
Eh, it’s a conversation worth having. I think Tom’s review of The Witcher 2 addresses the sexism/misogyny complaints fairly well, by noting that if you’re looking for those cues, you’ll find them…but at the risk of missing out on characters like Ves, Sile, Saskia, and Triss.
At any rate, I haven’t played Wild Hunt yet, so I won’t judge. I will note, however, that from what I can tell the first damsel in distress we meet in the game isn’t a damsel at all–it’s a dude with a black pudding-bowl haircut cowering under his cart while a Gryphon eats his horse. Beyond that, I just don’t have the information to judge.
Ok that is utterly brilliant.
Apparently the 960 can run Wild Hunt on high, which I’m perfectly fine with. My issue is its prospective usefulness in the next few years. Obviously the 970 is way better, if only for the VRAM, but I really shouldn’t shell out the extra $140 or whatever it is if I returned the 960 and got the 970.
Witcher 2 story choice questions that are asked in Witcher 3, saw this over on GAF. I guess you don’t have to import a save from Witcher 2?
Questions
Killed Aryan at the siege in the prologue or let him live
Joined Vernon or Iorveth
Helped Vernon/Iorveth or Triss at the end
Killed/Saved Sile
Killed/Didn’t kill Letho
I almost forgot I was going to have to choose between my two main playthroughs to decide which one to import. In every other RPG I would lean toward my first run, but they are so equally valid that it’s hard to do that. I’m even starting to waffle on that last decision even though I felt very strongly at the time about a choice that most people didn’t make.
robc04
1956
Since it’s been so long since I played The Witcher 2 I’m thinking I’d be better off answering the story questions rather than importing a save game. Reading the questions will also be a refresher on what actually happened.
JeffL
1957
[QUOTE=lordkosc;3775191]Witcher 2 story choice questions that are asked in Witcher 3, saw this over on GAF. I guess you don’t have to import a save from Witcher 2?
And how does someone who has not played the previous game answer those questions???
Who knows? I saw those questions and the context in which they’re asked isn’t very illuminating. Some guy basically walks up with a journal and starts asking what happened. There isn’t really any information given to the player at that point to make any kind of meaningful decision. I guess reading a wiki on previous games would be the only way for someone that didn’t actually play the game to know what happened.
I do know there is an option to go with a default start.
Don’t freak out, just go with the default.
I wonder what the default (canon?) start consists of?
There isn’t a default, which is why it’s The Witcher!
Kevin at Gamespot has promised a video for folks who never played the first two games to know what the choices mean later this week.
And here’s a similar video from UK Playstation Access: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_INEnvuPnk It will obviously contain Witcher 2 spoilers, if that’s a concern.
