Except that the foilage looks completely flat, and the massively reduced draw distance.
Spencer
In a word - no. This is simply the latest and nearly final build versus the old code and old build that wasn’t finished, plus the different time of day.
So far, PC ultra hasn’t been seen. All that we have seen so far is the high PC/next gen console experience, the only difference being the consoles run at 900/1080p and 30fps.
I don’t get the myth behind console graphics being bad, especially given how amazing Far Cry 4, Dragon Age, etc look on console.
/ Alessio Palumbo
No one said console graphics looks bad, but it’s comparatively worse to high-end PC graphics for sure, with the exception of a few exclusives such as The Order: 1886.
And while it’s likely that this is showing a different PC build, it’s fair to assume that consoles will adopt a reduced draw distance like in the first screenshots as it’s a good compromise to have.
Spencer
Assumptions aren’t really a good practice when we haven’t really seen the console editions in action, and everything we have heard in interviews and such seem to imply pairity with PC in terms of textures, character models and draw distances, with PC having an advantage in the usual areas such as resolution, framerate, and aliasing.
Dynasty2021
Assumptions are what peasants do best though.
The game has clearly gone through a graphical downgrade, and the only answer to that is rubbish console hardware not coping.
True, we have yet to see confirmed PC footage at Ultra, which will of course look and be the best version anyway.
This game just kind of smells like a console port coming - and as we all know, when a PC game comes to consoles at the same time, it’s ruined. They’re delaying PC news because the controls are being tweaked and it doesn’t feel right. That’s a massive worry, as they’ve clearly made the game with consoles in mind instead of how it should be FROM A PC DEVELOPER - PC first, then deal with the rubbish console port later.
The Witcher was a PC classic, and like Thief, I think we have another classic ruined by ***king consoles.
Spencer
You seem really salty and of the conspiracy theory crowd, which demolishes your credibility with me.
Console hardware is lower end than PC hardware - duh, that’s how they keep down costs. It’s still powerful enough to produce amazing graphics. Your theory doesn’t hold water, because PC games are fundamentally scalable. If the console hardware was lower end, it would just run the game at lower settings. It’s as simple as that. If it couldn’t run on modern day consoles, it wouldn’t run on the majority of PCs, and everyone would cry and bitch about it being unoptimized.
If your PC game doesn’t look that good, it’s either because of your PC, or because 99.9% of PCs couldn’t run it either and they chose to make a game people could actually play.
Hvd
you need $1000-$1500 to run it on pc at ultra $400 console and it still looks pretty dang good and most people wont have the pc to run it at ultra 60pfs.
Robert
There’s no myth. But it’s also not “bad”. But it’s fact that console graphics lacks of features like high MSAA or even Supersampling. Tomb Raider on PS4/XOne for example is missing Tessellation entirely you can activate on PC. And looking at the screen where Geralt’s walking towards the cliff’s end, you see there’s also a lack of terrain detail beneath his feets which MIGHT indicate missing tessellation, too, regardless if this is console or PC. But fact is, that console version often don’t offer the same features.
Spencer
Yes, console versions don’t look as good as high end PC. They also cost a fraction of what high end PCs do.
In Tomb Raider, I would much rather sacrifice tesselation, a barely noticeable effect, for better facial models and sub-surface scattering with better skin shaders, something PC will never have on that game.
Robert
In many other games on PC you can decide which feature you want to sacrifice (a shame CD didn’t add those features to the PC version). That’s the real beauty of the PC as it comes down to your own preferences. If you think tesselation is a rather subtle effect (which I think it isn’t, btw, I’m totally in love with those “smooth” polygons) you could disable it and activate let’s say a better anti-aliasing method. Or enjoy some nore FPS. Of course for most features you’re dependent on the developers but at least some AA methods are possible to force through drivers, giving old games a new shine. Especially if you downsampling those games. But that’s clearly for enthusiasts.
And those possibilities cost more money than a console, of course. If you’re satisfied with the visuals of console call yourself happy. Buying a console –I’m owning several old ones and a PS3/4 myself– is completely allright. They have a raison d’être.
Sunny
My GTX 750ti won’t do ultra for sure il just get it on console
AA
Neither will your console, wait for benchmark to see what gives the best performance.
Tha Truth
I have to say…if this is what the PC peasants are spending their money on overpriced graphics cards for…then I don’t see the point. There’s barely any difference between the screenshots you just posted.
The only difference is that the lighting clearly looks better in one set but that’s because those screens were clearly taken at a different time of day. The first set of screens were taken late afternoon when the sun is setting, the second set were obviously taken around midday.
If that’s all the “Ultra” that the PC peasants are getting then LMFAO! What a waste, all that money spent on trashy, overpriced graphics cards and for what? To look at screens that were taken at a diffrent time of day and pretend like they’re “better”? Oh dear.
CerN
Screenshots don’t tell the whole tale, like resolution, or for those of us who have 144hz monitors. The smoothness difference between 144hz/fps compared to 60 and especially 30 is mind blowing. Also, jaggies, we can run superior anti aliasing.
/ Alessio Palumbo
That as well. 60+FPS and GSYNC are a revelation compared to 30 FPS console gaming.
/ Alessio Palumbo
No one said that this was “all” the difference, just perhaps a glimpse into it.
And it’s not just about the different lighting, unless you’re deluding yourself. Check the blurred horizon and massively crippled draw distance, you can’t even see a thing where there’s actually a city.
Dawid Szmukier
If you don’t see the difference then visit a doctor. Look at the cliff, on the second one it clearly has more details so as the flora. Outfits also have more details, so there is a big difference. Atleast for me. I’m not protecting the PC race, but saying that thos screens look nearly the same is a huge lie… In addition games aren’t about the graphics, they’re about the storyline, characters, music… Graphics is the least important thing especially in a RPG…
Dynasty2021
PC peasants huh?
If you can only afford a £250 console, odds are you live with your parents. So more likely a peasant.
But hey, you enjoy your 900p, 30 FPS (barely) with stuttering and a lack of exclusives for the next 5 years.
Tha Truth
900p? Congratulations, you just confirmed yourself as the biggest, most ignorant moron on the face of the earth! CDPR themselves confirmed the PS4 version was running in 1080p so are you now such an ignorant peasant that you’re going to try arguing with the very people who made the game?
Complete and utter ignorance of the videogames industry…one of the more common side - effects of being a PC peasant. Oh dear.
