Witcher 3 is 30FPS on consoles

  • 125 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by mrsheeno (149 posts) -

Interview with Balázs Török, head programmer at CD Projekt RED, they are currently targeting 30 FPS on next generation consoles.

"As always, we aim for the highest graphics quality, and this naturally imposes limitations. We haven’t reached the point in time when we’ll be able to divulge details regarding resolutions, but in terms of framerate we’re targeting 30 FPS."

Does this change your mind on what you will be playing W3 on?

#2 Posted by Muffin2020 (527 posts) -

Locked at 30 is fine for a RPG it's if it falls under 30 problems start.

#3 Posted by mrsheeno (149 posts) -

It could also be 720p depends how much of a killer on hardware it will be.

#4 Edited by shawn30 (4367 posts) -

I didn't enjoy the Witcher 2 and outsiude of graphics not aure if I want part 3. Will wait for reviews. Back on topic, 30 frames if rock solid is fine.

#5 Posted by clyde46 (46803 posts) -

Hopefully it will run at 60FPS on PC.

#6 Posted by Muffin2020 (527 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

Hopefully it will run at 60FPS on PC.

It will run at 60FPS if you have the hardware. I'm guessing it's going to need a beast though.

#7 Posted by -RPGamer- (34283 posts) -

30fps will be perfectly fine for a RPG, or most games for that matter. So no this won't change my mind from playing W3 on PS4.

#8 Edited by seanmcloughlin (38217 posts) -

@muffin2020 said:

@clyde46 said:

Hopefully it will run at 60FPS on PC.

It will run at 60FPS if you have the hardware. I'm guessing it's going to need a beast though.

My i7-4770K and 780Ti is readyz (yeah I'm gloating so what? :P)

While I normally do love a good ole "lolz 30fps consolez" thread, I don't really see it being that big a deal for TW3. If it's like TW2 then it will be pretty slow paced and 60 isn't a necessity. It's really really nice to have 60 but not the end of the world

#9 Posted by Heil68 (45750 posts) -

That's not going to hurt it in any way.

#10 Edited by zeeshanhaider (2675 posts) -

lol Witcher on consololes.

#11 Edited by Heil68 (45750 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

@muffin2020 said:

@clyde46 said:

Hopefully it will run at 60FPS on PC.

It will run at 60FPS if you have the hardware. I'm guessing it's going to need a beast though.

My i7-4770K and 780Ti is readyz (yeah I'm gloating so what? :P)

pffft, you should of got the i7-4960X

#12 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38217 posts) -

@Heil68 said:

@seanmcloughlin said:

@muffin2020 said:

@clyde46 said:

Hopefully it will run at 60FPS on PC.

It will run at 60FPS if you have the hardware. I'm guessing it's going to need a beast though.

My i7-4770K and 780Ti is readyz (yeah I'm gloating so what? :P)

pffft, you should of got the i7-4960X

and waste a tonne of money for fuck almost no difference? Nahhh

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4960X-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4770K

#13 Edited by seanmcloughlin (38217 posts) -

@zeeshanhaider said:

lol Witcher on consololes.

Why exactly is that lol worthy? The game will play the exact same across all platforms. In fact TW2 almost played better with a pad due to how crappy the combat was.

#14 Posted by silversix_ (14996 posts) -

i bet you'd need a beast of a rig to even handle tw3 in 30fps.

#15 Posted by Heil68 (45750 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

@Heil68 said:

@seanmcloughlin said:

@muffin2020 said:

@clyde46 said:

Hopefully it will run at 60FPS on PC.

It will run at 60FPS if you have the hardware. I'm guessing it's going to need a beast though.

My i7-4770K and 780Ti is readyz (yeah I'm gloating so what? :P)

pffft, you should of got the i7-4960X

and waste a tonne of money for fuck almost no difference? Nahhh

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4960X-vs-Intel-Core-i7-4770K

I guess you aren't EXTREME. Lerd'mercy

#16 Posted by heretrix (37453 posts) -

That doesn't surprise me, we are talking about consoles. I wouldn't waste my time playing TW3 on a console, it's just...wrong.

#17 Posted by jake44 (2024 posts) -

@muffin2020 said:

Locked at 30 is fine for a RPG it's if it falls under 30 problems start.

Pretty much

#18 Edited by zeeshanhaider (2675 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

@zeeshanhaider said:

lol Witcher on consololes.

Why exactly is that lol worthy? The game will play the exact same across all platforms. In fact TW2 almost played better with a pad due to how crappy the combat was.

Not the 'exact' same. Second I only play with KB/M so Pad is useless for me anyways and all Pads work with PC yo. Third the real reason it's lol worthy is because, the entire Witcher trilogy is available only on PC. I mean if you think from a perspective of a PS gamer you are playing the game which finishes the story arc of a character you know nothing about.

#19 Edited by Muffin2020 (527 posts) -

@zeeshanhaider said:

lol Witcher on consololes.

Care to elaborate or is just some pointless troll comment?

#20 Posted by Joedgabe (5129 posts) -

source ?

#21 Posted by PAL360 (27009 posts) -

I can live with 30fps on RPGs, but i hope it's 1080p.

#22 Posted by NFJSupreme (5380 posts) -

I was getting this on pc so nope doesn't change my mind. Anyway now that pc is once again proving it's superiority (as if it still needed to) are cows gonna now say that fps and resolution isn't important again? Or is it only important when you guys start bashing the xbone?

#23 Posted by sukraj (23204 posts) -

30fps is about right for a rpg

#24 Edited by mrsheeno (149 posts) -

@Joedgabe said:

source ?

Link (Italian)

#25 Edited by redskins26rocs (2674 posts) -

I disagree with those saying 30 fps dont matter in a RPG especially this one. Alot of RPGs have fast paced combat and some are even first person, and in both I would much prefer 60 fps. The only RPG it would not matter are slow paced and/or turn based, and the Witcher 3 is neither of these

#26 Posted by DarthaPerkinjan (910 posts) -

@NFJSupreme you know it will be superior on pc how?

#27 Posted by cfisher2833 (1720 posts) -

@muffin2020 said:

@clyde46 said:

Hopefully it will run at 60FPS on PC.

It will run at 60FPS if you have the hardware. I'm guessing it's going to need a beast though.

I doubt it. The underlying engine is still the same as the Witcher 2, but with DX11 effects and such. Things like the PhysX fur will probably be a huge fps hit, but that was the same with the Witcher 2 and its ubersampling non-sense. The Witcher 2 was only remotely demanding if you turned on ubersampling---otherwise you could easily hit 60fps with something like a 560ti (which I had).

#28 Posted by Shewgenja (9827 posts) -

Why does everyone expect every kind of game to need to perform like a twitch-kill FPS? Oh yeah, Call of Duty crowd.

#29 Edited by NFJSupreme (5380 posts) -

@DarthaPerkinjan. Is that a serious question?

#30 Edited by DarthaPerkinjan (910 posts) -

@NFJSupreme: If its 30fps at max settings and 1080p on PS4 what will we miss out on. $ 2000 pcs will run it at 60 fps and 1440p whoopidy doo. we laugh at x bone because they paid more for less power

#31 Posted by uninspiredcup (9666 posts) -

Practically all console titles run 30fps. These are very low standards specifically designed for the young console people. They are use to it and thus, need worry not. It is the way of the world my friends.

#32 Posted by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

My God these new console suck. Even $400 PC hardware is outperforming them already. I'd be fucking pissed if I were a PS4 or most especially an XB1 owner...

#33 Edited by DarthaPerkinjan (910 posts) -

@uninspiredcup: and how many hermits actually have pcs that run the latest games at 60fps and max settings? i think youll find more hermits game at sub 30 fps then 60fps

#34 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38217 posts) -

@zeeshanhaider said:

@seanmcloughlin said:

@zeeshanhaider said:

lol Witcher on consololes.

Why exactly is that lol worthy? The game will play the exact same across all platforms. In fact TW2 almost played better with a pad due to how crappy the combat was.

Not the 'exact' same. Second I only play with KB/M so Pad is useless for me anyways and all Pads work with PC yo. Third the real reason it's lol worthy is because, the entire Witcher trilogy is available only on PC. I mean if you think from a perspective of a PS gamer you are playing the game which finishes the story arc of a character you know nothing about.

Why isn't the gameplay the exact same? what's different about it? and I never said you couldn't use a pad on PC, in fact I was insinuating the opposite of that.

I will say having TW3 be the first witcher game on a PS system is a bit weird but still a lot of what you said doesn't clarify what's "lol" worthy about it.

#35 Posted by uninspiredcup (9666 posts) -

@DarthaPerkinjan said:

@uninspiredcup: and how many hermits actually have pcs that run the latest games at 60fps and max settings? i

Me.

#36 Posted by Muffin2020 (527 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

My God these new console suck. Even $400 PC hardware is outperforming them already. I'd be fucking pissed if I were a PS4 or most especially an XB1 owner...

I can walk into a shop and buy a $400.00 PC that will outperform a PS4 and is guaranteed to run all games for the next 5 years. Cool do you mind linking it because I'd buy it today

#37 Posted by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

@DarthaPerkinjan said:

@uninspiredcup: and how many hermits actually have pcs that run the latest games at 60fps and max settings? i think youll find more hermits game at sub 30 fps then 60fps

That's just wishful thinking. Mid range PC hardware from 2012 is already faster than PS4 hardware, and a $200 upgrade every 3 or so years keeps us well ahead of consoles, so I doubt many are playing anything at less than 30fps, as we know how terrible it is.

#38 Posted by good_sk8er7 (4322 posts) -

30 is fine for me.

#39 Posted by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

@muffin2020 said:

@farrell2k said:

My God these new console suck. Even $400 PC hardware is outperforming them already. I'd be fucking pissed if I were a PS4 or most especially an XB1 owner...

I can walk into a shop and buy a $400.00 PC that will outperform a PS4 and is guaranteed to run all games for the next 5 years. Cool do you mind linking it because I'd buy it today

Go to the PC and MAC discussion forums. Thee are about 8 threads with builds that destroy both the PS4 and XB1.

#40 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (16692 posts) -

30 fps is a perfectly playable framerate to me so long as it doesn't dip below.

#41 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

@mrsheeno said:

Does this change your mind on what you will be playing W3 on?

No, I was always getting it for PC and am still set to do so. But if I didn't have PC, it wouldn't bother me that a game like this ran at 30fps. It's not a fast paced game like a FPS or racing game, so 30fps is a non issue.

#42 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

Also is it Mrs Heeno or Mr Sheeno?

#43 Edited by KHAndAnime (14065 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

My God these new console suck. Even $400 PC hardware is outperforming them already. I'd be fucking pissed if I were a PS4 or most especially an XB1 owner...

Why? Targeting 30 FPS doesn't imply any limitations on the consoles behalf - it's merely the target they're aiming for so they can squeeze out the best graphics. $400 PC hardware doesn't come close to matching PS4's graphical capabilities.

#44 Edited by farrell2k (6675 posts) -

@KHAndAnime said:

@farrell2k said:

My God these new console suck. Even $400 PC hardware is outperforming them already. I'd be fucking pissed if I were a PS4 or most especially an XB1 owner...

Why? Targeting 30 FPS doesn't imply any limitations on the consoles behalf - it's merely the target they're aiming for so they can squeeze out the best graphics. $400 PC hardware doesn't come close to matching PS4's graphical capabilities.

Targeting 30fps absolutely does demonstrate the limits of console hardware. It's game, not a movie! You are ignorant of the status of current PC hardware. There are about 8 thread in the pc and mac discussion forums, and even one in system wars demonstrating a $400 pc that outperforms the PS4.

#45 Posted by Muffin2020 (527 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@farrell2k said:

My God these new console suck. Even $400 PC hardware is outperforming them already. I'd be fucking pissed if I were a PS4 or most especially an XB1 owner...

Why? Targeting 30 FPS doesn't imply any limitations on the consoles behalf - it's merely the target they're aiming for so they can squeeze out the best graphics. $400 PC hardware doesn't come close to matching PS4's graphical capabilities.

You are ignorant of the status of current PC hardware. There are about 8 thread in the pc and mac discussion forums, and even one in system wars demonstrating a $400 pc that outperforms the PS4.

You have made a statement "Even $400 PC hardware is outperforming them already" Now provide the backup and a link to this $400.00 PC. You need to back these claims up or no one will take your seriously.

#46 Posted by K1ngd0m4g3rul3z (178 posts) -

IF we got an AC4 like situation, then I'll pick it up for the PS4

But CDProjekt ain't no Ubisoft Kiev, so let's hope for the best (ie basic multicore support at the very least).

Witcher 2 ran exceptionally well considering the kick-arse graphics.

#47 Edited by KHAndAnime (14065 posts) -
@farrell2k said:

@KHAndAnime said:

@farrell2k said:

My God these new console suck. Even $400 PC hardware is outperforming them already. I'd be fucking pissed if I were a PS4 or most especially an XB1 owner...

Why? Targeting 30 FPS doesn't imply any limitations on the consoles behalf - it's merely the target they're aiming for so they can squeeze out the best graphics. $400 PC hardware doesn't come close to matching PS4's graphical capabilities.

Targeting 30fps absolutely does demonstrate the limits of console hardware. It's game, not a movie! You are ignorant of the status of current PC hardware. There are about 8 thread in the pc and mac discussion forums, and even one in system wars demonstrating a $400 pc that outperforms the PS4.

Sorry, I think you're the ignorant one. There isn't a single thread posting any substantial proof that the PS4 is weaker than a $400 PC - go ahead, try to link me one. The Trine 2 comparison thread isn't substantial - his $400 PC only runs the game at High Settings, no AA, and at 50 FPS avg (dips to 40). PS4 version runs at max settings, has FXAA, and 60 FPS (never dips beneath 60). The developers even said Trine 2 could run at 30 FPS, Max Settings, at 4k resolution.

RPGs don't necessarily benefit dramatically from having more than locked 30-FPS, that's why 30FPS was chosen. Why would a hermit need to lie so hard? Insecure about something?

#48 Posted by osirisx3 (1890 posts) -

lol pc is already a gen ahead

#49 Edited by jer_1 (7451 posts) -

This is a non-issue. 30 Fps is acceptable for a game like this, but it should look amazing in the process. I'm sure the PS4 and probably the x1 will look damn near as amazing as PC but some rigs will have better framerates than the consoles.

#50 Posted by MK-Professor (3840 posts) -

Smelly peasants don't care...