The Witcher 2

probably gonna require newer ati and/or nvidia drivers to fix this.

 

so far having a lot of fun going through the prologue settings. I moved the laptop over near the 40" tv, it's a couple years old so it goes only to 1360x768 but damn it looks good on that and getting 40+ fps while dipping down to 20's occasionally. Runs smooth as hell and plays GREAT on a 360 controller. It definitely feels right at home with it as menus and everything is perfectly implemented for a controller. Awesome stuff. stuff on high, shadows etc on high while blur/aa/ssao off. Still looks great.

 

What fps are you getting at native resolution and what settings are you using?

If you can play it smoothly then I should have no problems (Steam download not complete yet).

 

SO what do people think? Is it better with an XBOX 360 Controller or a KBM?

Mr. Mysterious

 

Thanks! I guess I'll put off getting the game, or wait until it goes on sale before buying.

I appreciate the heads up on the SLI issues.

 

Sli is working in latest betas but its not scaling as it should.
Problem has been aknowledged by cdprojekt, so its a game issue.

Also people stop saying that ATI has Sli. Ati has Crossfire, nvidia has sli.
Technologies are similar but quite different.

Right now nvidia does offer a sli profile for it while ati doesnt.

 

I saw your video and i just dont think its "accurate". Not to mention you hardly playing it on macbook pro iself and rather just on low res screen.

Sure i was getting decent fps in dungeons and in prologue at some point but getting to my first city in act 1 and getting 12-20 fps on medium/low.. meh. I guess we all agree that no one will want fps to deep below 20-22 fps at most intensive times.

Maybe there is smth wrong with my drivers? i downloaded "latest" bootcamp ati drivers but i think they are from january or february. You are using the same, right?

Also i am getting HUGE load times save from act 1 may take 5 minutes (!) to load.
p.s. sorry if i am repeating myself somewhere.

 

Is it realistic to expect 9800M gs/x9100 to be able to handle the game at 1280x720 with medium settings?

 

^^ no. I am not sure if it will be comfortable on low for you.

 

I would say yes, especially at that res, depending on your comfort level. See this post I put in another thread for an idea, your rig is a step up from mine, spec-wise.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/579284-witcher-2-gpu-benchmarks-3.html#post7504280

 

No way, Crysis on its days (2007) brought down all GPUs (desktop included). TW2 can be played, according to benchmarks, at 30-40 FPS with high end GPUs.

 

Thanks, that gives me some hope at least, you say you get 24-28ish fps on medium at 1600x1024? That's in fact pretty impressive!! I would probably lower the resolution further or drop some settings to get the fps close to 30.

 

i overclocked my gpu 800 core 1400 memory 1600 shaders!!

 

Thinking of bying this game, but what resolution and setting can my laptop handle?. i7 740 and GTX460m

Thanks in advance

 

Wow, it looks great!!!

 

I don't know how, but I totally missed Witcher 1 when it came out. Is it worth getting it now that it's dirt cheap on GOG before diving into Witcher 2, or just go straight for 2?

 

Not sure what you want in terms of accuracy. I don't hide the fact that I'm playing at 720p on my tv. You'll notice that most, though not all users, that want to play at 1080p either have the best mobile card available now or at the time, that or they are desktop users. That's unrealistic for me. If you read a couple posts above I even moved my laptop to play on a 40" at "low res" 1360x768 which still seems standard for many ASIs 15" gaming notebooks. The game looked and played great, no complaints. Spent three hours with it and major hiccups come from saving or immediately casting a sign. I also played with a 360 controller and sat on the couch. If people want to see it played on the Mbp screen just deduce either you'll get slightly lower fps depending on your res and the fact there will be black bars on 16:10 it seems you might as well use a 16:9 lower res. Just my opinion.

My video is not to mislead as I like to assume most gamers are knowledgable about it and can infer what they may get for fps when changing a variable up or down from my personal settings. Some vids I make I play on the native Mbp screen others I do on the tv. Witcher is one of those games I feel benefits from pc hardware yet plays like a console game, hence my use of controller, couch and tv although for the video I used kb/m.

Oh yeah I'm using stock bootcamp and drivers that came on disc. Noticed they work the best, even with brink.

 

Hey johnnyman27, you need to make your settings screenshot bigger, because it's impossible to read.

Just Snipping Tool the window.

 

his settings: 1600x900.

no texture downscaling
texture memory size: large
shadow quality: high
# of shadowed lights: high
LOD Distance: Near
Bloom: Enabled
Light Shafts: Enabled
AA: On
Blur: On
DoF - Gameplay: On
Vignette: On
Wet surfaces rain effect: On
SSAO: Disabled
Motion Blur: Disabled
Cinematic DoF: Disabled
DoF -Cutscenes: On
Dangling Objects Limit: On
Ubersampling: Off
VSync: Off
Decals: Medium Spec

 

No! play witcher 1 first! This series is heavily dependent on great story telling. Witcher 1 might take quite a bit to start liking the gameplay, but it gets much better when you leave the initial village area.

 

I skipped the first game, because I just couldn't bring myself to finish it, after having seen screenshots of the sequel.

Plus, I've played an hour of TW1, and the combat is so improved in the sequel, that I doubt I'll be able to go back to the first game.

 

Witcher 2 ultra settings with 2 GTX-580's = 30 FPS average

 

Yeah that Uber Sampling is no freaking joke. I'd probably pull 5fps with that activated.

 

So using the nvidia 270.61 WHQL or the 275.27 beta drivers did not make a difference to me. I get about 18 - 20 fps in the starting (outside the tent) zone with low, medium or high settings (all at 1920x1080). I tried all other graphics options, but none are making a difference. I haven't changed the resolution yet. For some reason, I do not have the option for the correct lower resolution i.e. 1600x900 (I get 1600x1024 instead).

 

here is mine running at 1600x900 with gtx 460m but i have i7 2710qm!!i overclocked my gpu 800 core 1400 memory 1600 shaders!!

 

I don't think the CPU is the bottleneck or is really holding back the game. I should be fine with my 2630QM.

Mr. Mysterious

 

If you missed the preorder boat, amazon is rewarding you(???) with 20% off, so $40. Or if you were holding out for reviews.

Amazon.com: The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings: Video Games

 

^ cool good price, never used amazon's digital download games service though. Is it like GoG I assume? Just d/l the installer and go from there.

 

No, I'm not waiting for anything except the funds to come in, lol

Mr. Mysterious

 

No lie there, a real kneecapper.

 

Thanks dude - you made my mind up

 

TW1 seems like a good game, but it seems like it has too many problems and bugs to be worth it. It's a good thing that TW2 might as well be an early favorite for GOTY, I'm looking forward to play it.

Mr. Mysterious

 

so guessing by the poor performance, this game must kill crysis graphically am i right?

 

My god my 5650 is brought to its knees and then some
I can pretty much max BFBC2 but this game even on medium with crap turned off is giving me 22-25 frames X_X.

Ill try it on my desktop with a 4670...i doubt it will be much better.

 

I'm not sure if I can accurately compare. I really liked how good Crysis 2 looked. Witcher 2 looks good but not as oooh damn I get from Crysis 2. But then again I'm not maxed on Witcher 2, although when I did try it with uber sampling ultras the game did look pretty good. I guess those that can really max it can tell you.

 

Not at all. Even at launch the game was still worth overlooking its problems. Since the enhanced edition was released, that's not even close to true -- CDPR's post release support for the game was fantastic.

 

ok now thats super frustrating... i am in the first town, my first night, level 6, basic equipment going track down that squid with Marigold.

5 drowndman attack. I drink pot, set up a trap and then...
Well, i died like 15 times there already and i am frustrated.
My sword seem to be doing 0 damage (its not silver yet, is it fine at this stage?) So they just surround me and no matter if i press block or use signs, i am getting eaten through it ><

 

You should have been able to make the silver sword by that point, which is much stronger against monsters. Also, just stay on the elevated point Triss is on and harass them from there, you die pretty fast if you full on assault any enemies in this game.

 

Sigh. I have the same problem as others in this thread. Had the Witcher 1 back before it was the EE...upgraded to the EE when it came out, but never got around to playing it.

Now I feel obligated to make it through the first one before starting the sequel. :/

Well, it's not like the first one is a bad game--it's just annoying knowing #2 is sitting right there......

 

I tried several times to get into the first Witcher game but in the end, I just could do it. The Witcher 2 is light years better IMO.

 

Hint: Go to the dwarven smithy and buy some silver ore, then ask them to craft a basic Witcher silver blade.

 

The problem is that the first two chapters in TW1 are really slow. The last chapters are quite amazing though. (Oddly enough, I've heard that TW2 is awesome except for the ending -- I haven't played it yet though)

 

Played till Aedirn, TW2 is really a masterpiece, tons of improvement since TW2. Combat is a lot more fun; You almost never notice the loading times -> Huge contrast to TW1 before enhanced patch where loading times each time you enter a house etc takes MINUTES.

 

Wow, my 5850m runs 30-35 fps on medium setting.

Time to drop my money on 6970....

 

i agree, i think this game could be labelled a masterpiece, im loving the gameplay, but am truly loving the mature shady storyline, what a breath of fresh air.....

 

Agree, it seems to me they make games mostly for kids but the kids have grown up. Gamers are all ages now and I am enjoying playing a game that is not made for kids.

 

In fact i didnt get "formula" to make silver sword so gathering ore was kinda pointless. HOWEVER i was able to buy the sword itself for 300 orens from said smith. Now its way better.

I am still struggling to get better performance though, i throttle the game, it goes fine then it start overheating and eventually becomes unplayable. Gotto wait for ati drivers i guess.

 

^ lieto are you playing on your MBP? What resolution are you playing? I got to chapter 1 and still no complaints at all. OC'd GPU still.

 

i am playing at native resolution 1440x, mostly low/medium settings. Shadows to medium and some other stuff. (everything gpu intensive disabled), however changing some settings here and there doesnt make massive difference

GPU OCed with msi afterburner, 750 / 900 (no massive difference compared to non-oced as well but it adds up i know.

Biggest FPS difference i was able to achieve (+10 fps straight right away) is throttlestop but if i set it to permanent turbo, it overheats, else it still helps, i am getting 24-38 fps, however every time there is a battle its more on the 24 end (may drop even more when there is some magic going on) and i am not enjoying it at all.

 

Just finished the game. I have to say that it's just too freaking short. Just when I thought I got to mid game the game ended abruptly just like that... There are only 3 acts in all and you can finish in a day.