The Witcher 2 HANDS DOWN THE BEST LOOKING GAME ON PC TO DATE!

[imaheadcase]

Graphics helps bring in better realism and immersion into the game world, and a lot of game play elements also evolve around graphics improvement. Graphics is part of the equation of gameplay, the best game should have great game play with great graphics.

Well the trend has been this.

1. Great graphics terrible gameplay.
2. Great graphics..less than 10 hours of gameplay
3. Ok graphics, good gameplay.

History is not in great graphics favor.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Well the trend has been this.

1. Great graphics terrible gameplay.
2. Great graphics..less than 10 hours of gameplay
3. Ok graphics, good gameplay.

History is not in great graphics favor.

Bullshit.

 

[alcoholbob]

Had a wierd bug I figured I'd detail here.

I got TW2 on release day and was able to play the game. But I was experiencing a sound bug issue where dialog during cutscenes was jittery and it sounded like voices were doubled up or echoing.
Finally, someone posted a file download of the GOG version of their witcher2.exe file just to give it a try. It goes into "the witcher 2\bin" directory. Well when I went there, I discovered I didn't even have that file in there! This is the Steam version too. As soon as I dropped it in, the game launched fine. No stuttering/echoing sound problem either. I'm pretty sure I never deleted that file or anything and I did perform several file integrity checks that always returned saying everything was normal.

Where is this file? I'm on Steam too and my audio keeps popping during the video cutscenes too and it's incredibly annoying.

 

[Barfo]

I am kinda bummed because I bought my XPS15 just for this game. I was going to play during my break at work I guess DoW retribution will be subing in.

You bought hardware specifically for one game before said game was released and you could have an idea on how it performs, and now you're sad because it doesn't run well? no way

 

[PUN]

You bought hardware specifically for one game before said game was released and you could have an idea on how it performs, and now you're sad because it doesn't run well? no way

There is no need to wait for the game to be released. Did you know that ALL games come with different graphics setting? ranging from 640x480 to 2560x1600, low to ultra settings.

I am just bummed that even under 1280x768 under low, it's unplayable. It has nothing to do with the hardware, and the game needs to be patched. I can even run crysis 1600x900 under high settings.

 

[notty22]

I'm reading 25-40 hours of gameplay.
http://xtremespeeds.net/browse.phphttp://www.vg247.com/2011/03/22/witcher-2-gop-details-combat-confirms-pc-controller-support/

Gop goes on to discuss gameplay details, some reiterated and some new. There will be 16 ‘states’ in which the main plot, which Gop places at some 40 hours of gameplay, can end. Gop says that ten of these will feature big changes – such as the death of a companion or whether or not a particular country has been wiped from the map entirely – and the other six will be based on relatively minor details, such as which factions you’re on speaking terms with when the plot concludes.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/975399-the-witcher-2-assassins-of-kings/57968866



None of that matters to me, because I know thats for a hardcore gamer. What I mean by that , I casually play for a half hour here , or there, often times re-starting the same early levels, for lack of time.

 

[gorcorps]

There is no need to wait for the game to be released. Did you know that ALL games come with different graphics setting? ranging from 640x480 to 2560x1600, low to ultra settings.

I am just bummed that even under 1280x768 under low, it's unplayable. It has nothing to do with the hardware, and the game needs to be patched. I can even run crysis 1600x900 under high settings.

Crysis came out 3-4 years ago. Being able to run that hasn't been impressive for quite some time.

 

[PUN]

Crysis came out 3-4 years ago. Being able to run that hasn't been impressive for quite some time.

Well crysis is still the most demanding game.

 

[gorcorps]

Well crysis is still the most demanding game.

No, it's not. Metro 2033 is. Hell even STALKER is more demanding.

I don't know why so many PC gamers cream themselves over the original crysis. It was great for the day and a year or 2 after that, but it is not even close to the shining beacon of modern graphics people still claim. Without some heavy modding and texture packs it looks quite dated, which means it's not crysis that looks great... it's modders that MADE it look great.

 

[Wanescotting]

ErM, what in the world? Now, I do like what I have seen so far (morning of the assualt), but I liked the first game better (well so far). TW2 looks.....too polished (graphically, not gameplay). I can't quite explain what seems different, but it just doesn't feel like the first witcher, the flow seems to be .......off. Now, I have no doubts that I will enjoy the game, but it isn't what I expected. Maybe its the lack of isometric camera? the odd angles? The whole witcher world seems....light and fluffy, not dark and dismal like TW1, even the dialog doesn't seem to fit so far.

 

[Coffinmaker]

How would this game run on a single GTX460 1gb with 4gb of ram and a Phenom II x4 955?

 

[demonic790]

To address some of the doubters on graphics:
The game simply cannot be judged through screenshots, nor can it be judged through video.

It has to be played in order for people to realize why everybody is freaking out over the visuals. It's not the art-style itself, rather the way the developers managed to implement the motion-blur and depth of field. It looks simply astonishing as you're walking and notice the blur. How smooth it looks from transition of close-far. I cannot see somebody calling these visuals, "standard". You must get your eyes checked if you feel this game doesn't look good. I have played practically every other game that's come out in the past...5 years or so? When I buy a game, the aspect that I want to be most impressed about is the graphics. I'm a graphics whore and I always have been. I've played The Witcher 2 for countless hours on end, and I still find myself taking a second to stop and stare at a piece of lighting illuminating an object.

Jesus, it just looks amazing.

There's no other way to describe it.

 

[PUN]

No, it's not. Metro 2033 is. Hell even STALKER is more demanding.

I don't know why so many PC gamers cream themselves over the original crysis. It was great for the day and a year or 2 after that, but it is not even close to the shining beacon of modern graphics people still claim. Without some heavy modding and texture packs it looks quite dated, which means it's not crysis that looks great... it's modders that MADE it look great.

Check the benchmarks on anands. Metro is only demanding when Tesselation is enabled. Otherwise still an average looking title.
Heck, even Crysis 2 looks worse than Crysis 1. Stalker? Pleaseeeee.
get ur eyes checked on your next annual physical.

Here is a quote from anand "Kicking things off as always is Crysis: Warhead, still one of the toughest game in our benchmark suite. Even 2 years since the release of the original Crysis, “but can it run Crysis?” is still an important question, and the answer continues to be “no.” While we’re closer than ever, full Enthusiast settings at a playable framerate is still beyond the grasp of a single card." Dec 2010

keep in mind that Warhead runs smoother than Crysis.

 

[CrystalBay]

This game is CPU limited , not GPU. It has some good high rez textures and very nice artwork, and decent lighting/shadows that's it. It also has some kind of screen door noise going on high settings.
Has anyone noticed ?


Metro 2033 has a better lighting/shadows though...

TW2 is a very cool and fun game all in all

 

[PUN]

This game is CPU limited , not GPU. It has some good high rez textures and very nice artwork, and decent lighting/shadows that's it. It also has some kind of screen door noise going on high settings.
Has anyone noticed ?


Metro 2033 has a better lighting/shadows though...

TW2 is a very cool and fun game all in all

I doubt it's CPU limited. My 2630QM runs like PII450 with TW2.

Metro 2033 was an ok game...graphics look severely dated with poor texture and details.

 

[Nintendesert]

Game runs really great for me and looks amazing. Not sure what's going on with your setups. I'm using a 5870 and a 2500K@4.2ghz. And at 1920x1080. I turned everything up, but turned off AA and use the Morpho AA in the CCC. Looks great and runs great. The game is tough but I'm starting to enjoy it more and more. I didn't play the first one, but have picked up on this story and find it engrossing so far.

 

[CrystalBay]

I doubt it's CPU limited. My 2630QM runs like PII450 with TW2.

Well that means your CPU limited, the reports out there are indicating the same . I am hoping for a performance review from some well known site.

This is a Ten year old graphics API(DX9) that is dogging out modern cards due to the inefficiencies of DX9. If it was coded DX 11 it would run better on modern cards

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

The game simply cannot be judged through screenshots, nor can it be judged through video.

It has to be played in order for people to realize why everybody is freaking out over the visuals.

This statement is literally so stupid that its existence on the AT database should be considered malware.

 

[Dankk]

This statement is literally so stupid that its existence on the AT database should be considered malware.

No... actually he has a point. There are many video games that absolutely have to be played and seen in motion in order to really capture all of the technical brilliance. Like he said, a screenshot in this case isn't going to cut it. A video COULD technically show off the games visuals in their entirety, but it would have to be extremely large, encoded losslessly, and at a high framerate (60fps). Youtube compressed garbage won't do it.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

No... actually he has a point. There are many video games that absolutely have to be played and seen in motion in order to really capture all of the technical brilliance. Like he said, a screenshot in this case isn't going to cut it. A video COULD technically show off the games visuals in their entirety, but it would have to be extremely large, encoded losslessly, and at a high framerate (60fps). Youtube compressed garbage won't do it.

Stop being a retard. You're telling me I can't tell how good as game looks by looking at it? No. Stop being stupid. Jesus fucking Christ some of the shit you people come up with.

 

[adlep]

To address some of the doubters on graphics:
The game simply cannot be judged through screenshots, nor can it be judged through video.

It has to be played in order for people to realize why everybody is freaking out over the visuals. It's not the art-style itself, rather the way the developers managed to implement the motion-blur and depth of field. It looks simply astonishing as you're walking and notice the blur. How smooth it looks from transition of close-far. I cannot see somebody calling these visuals, "standard". You must get your eyes checked if you feel this game doesn't look good. I have played practically every other game that's come out in the past...5 years or so? When I buy a game, the aspect that I want to be most impressed about is the graphics. I'm a graphics whore and I always have been. I've played The Witcher 2 for countless hours on end, and I still find myself taking a second to stop and stare at a piece of lighting illuminating an object.

Jesus, it just looks amazing.

There's no other way to describe it.

Well, I guess it is safe to assume that you really, really like the game...
Nice writeup that devs would really appreciate..

 

[Barfo]

Stop being a retard. You're telling me I can't tell how good as game looks by looking at it? No. Stop being stupid. Jesus fucking Christ some of the shit you people come up with.

You can't tell the difference between a screenshot, an over compressed video and an actual game running? either you're retarded or visually impaired.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Nice writeup that devs would really appreciate..

Looks like a CDProjekt employee to me.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

You can't tell the difference between a screenshot, an over compressed video and an actual game running? either you're retarded or visually impaired.

No, I'm contending the idea that you can't judge how a game looks through screens and high-quality videos. The very idea is absurd.

 

[Dumac]

Stop being a retard. You're telling me I can't tell how good as game looks by looking at it? No. Stop being stupid. Jesus fucking Christ some of the shit you people come up with.

There is a difference seeing a game in a video online, and then actually experiencing the game in front of you, where you control what you see.

It isn't a huge difference, but it is definitely there. The Witcher 2 looks much better playing it at home then any video I've seen online, and I'm not even on max settings.