The Witcher 3 official specs revealed.

inb4 you manage 1080p medium

 

Bloated minimum system requirements then! LOL but seriously, my laptop will be over 2 years old by the time Witcher 3 comes out and it was barely mid-range when I got it. I'll be extremely surprised, but I doubt it's gonna happen.

 

Don't you own a pretty decent desktop already? Or are you just waiting to build that ultra supreme monster desktop once AMD brings out 390X cards?

 

Both . I was just remarking that I don't expect to have an enjoyable experience on my laptop.

 

The specs are in line to what I expected but the min does seem a bit high. Perhaps they set the bar high to avoid potential criticism and I am curious what the lowest spec that actually gets this game started and played @720p w/ lowest settings everything off. Either way I doubt my 5 yo dualcore 1gb vram will get this game going but time will tell. (not getting my hopes up)

Other than that game looks great so far and I like projekt reds drm views and practices. The graphics on the consoles look good just hoping its optimized and smoother on pc with m60fps instead of 30. Honestly so far I think skyrim is still the game to beat rpg wise. It would be nice if the devs gave us access to modding tools via workshop eventually. I rather have the girl as the main char but thats just me.

 

So you saying 7970M/680M as minimum for lowest settings or an enjoyable gaming experience? I'm going to attempt to play this game on my 5 year old Alienware

 

I'm saying 680M/7970M because they are roughly equivalent to the desktop 660 and 7870 listed in the Witcher 3 minspec. No idea on resolution/settings or performance; this game is far from release.

 

The evil within and Metalgear5 totally surprised me with the level of optimization to where I played them on my pc with 720p@26-30 fps and I was overjoyed. I support not only great games but great developers who do proper ports. Japan has clearly the least pc support yet the developers seem to have no problem making these games work on pc despite the so called lack of pc experience or support. Anyway, back to witcher 3 I love how this game is looking in every department and unlike GTA I think the delay was a genuine one to improve the overall experience and quality. It would be great if they dropped a demo so we can play a bit while its delayed. I would love to try this out a bit while its being polished.

 

Idk what you're talking about. The Evil Within is id Tech 5 and one of the worst ports of 2014.

 

Not for me it was, thats just opinion really. The minimum specs were way above my machine and yet it works great and is more than playable for me. Thats my real test of optimization running on lower than min required specs. The other issues they had were also patched eventually.

 

Bethesda announced minimum specs that were a bit higher than needed to run at 1080p low settings for a few recent games (Dishonored, Evil Within); however, Witcher 2 published minimum specs were not enough for the game to be playable even at 720p.

Rather than pre-ordering Witcher 3, I'll just wait until after launch once someone confirms playable, smooth frame rate with whatever hardware I will be using at the time.

 

Yeah bud, bethesda did not disappoint me one bit and I prefer companies do it that way instead of undermining the min specs when in fact the requirements are higher than whats posted. In regards to witcher 3 most of what I have seen looks impressive at least on consoles. I like the story and the graphics and the detail witcher3 is showing me but the pc port of witcher 2 also makes me hesitant as well on how W3 will be optimized. I think any game that does not have a public demo/beta should never be pre-purchased. Ive seen to much disasters in my years of pc gaming and now even consoles are having hard times running games properly at launch.

 

The witcher 2 is not a "port". It is a pc game.Your hesitation should get worse^^

 

Still suffered from consilitis, and being a PC game first makes it even worse.

 

Witcher 2 was a PC exclusive that was later ported to Xbox 360 and a great PC version through-and-through. Good controls on both KB&M and gamepad (unlike Witcher 1, which could only be played with KB&M), mind-blowing graphics that really took advantage of modern hardware, lots of configuration and tweaking options, and great mod support. Maybe it wasn't the most scalable game in terms of hardware requirements, but that's because it didn't look like poo at lowest settings. Like Crysis, it pushes hardware to the max and isn't enjoyable on low-end systems as a result.

 

That TW2 inventory... Nope.jpg
I also preferred combat and potion consumption of TW1.

 

Dude, there are mods for all of that if it floats your boat.

If your definition of a poor console port is based on things that trivial and biased, well then you're gonna be pretty much disappointed by any game, including PC exclusives. Never mind the other big stuff I mentioned like performance, graphics, controls, tweaking, and mod support.

"FSX may be a PC exclusive, but it's got performance issues out the wazoo! Therefore, consolitis!!!"

 

Witcher 2 interface is a real mess for a "pc" rpg. But the game compensates

 

It was a compromise to adapt the UI for both KB&M and controller and also listening to player feedback, esp. PC players who wanted to play Witcher 1 with a pad and weren't able to do so.

 

It's the same for Dragon Age Inquisition too. The UI is meant for consoles but at least they're great games

 

Fair enough. After all, I do the same for any Bugthesda game.

I never said anything about TW2 performance issues being consilitis. I define consilitis as bad and/or simplified controls/gameplay/UI/something else I probably missed. Performance issues, well that depends on a lot of factors, some may be due to poor console port (I.e. ACU), others may be crap support (FSX and also ACU )

Sometimes trying to combine best of both worlds results in a not very good compromise. Someone usually always suffers...

 

If Witcher 2 has consolitis, then Bugthesda must have a terminal case of console cancer.

 

Yeah but why play a rpg on pc with a controler. It's a nonsense

 

I think it makes sense when its third person. It feels more precise to me.

 

But Witcher is a third-person RPG, not a third-person action game or shooter, and doesn't require much in the way of super-precise aim like shooting. It's not Max Payne or Tomb Raider or the shooting parts of Sleeping Dogs. So I actually tend to prefer a controller for Witcher 2. The best part is that both controller and KB&M work fairly well.

 

I'd say its more comfortable, because it is definitely less precise to use a controller than KB&M. I do remember sometimes playing tomb raider with a controller to relax, but when I needed to kill fast and efficiently, I used KB&M. Same for most third person shooters.

 

Nah, it's just Bugthesda. That's the way they do it (TM).
But Witcher games also have a lot of performance issues (note, not from porting), usually fixed with EE. But that horrible inventory still wasn't fixed in TW2 after EE...

 

Right. That's just the way it feels to me. But I agree that the KB&M combo is probably more precise.

 

Err... a tour of my steam screenshots might disabuse you of these notions.

At lowest settings and reduced to 720p resolution Witcher 2 both looked like crap IMO and ran like crap compared to nearly every other game released during the past 4 years. Even Crysis 3 Beta multiplayer ran much better on my laptop. (Was playable at 1080p and relatively smooth at 900p.)

 

Really? Care to provide an example?

It doesn't look too shabby here:

Spoiler

Besides the blurrier textures and less grass, not much difference. Even the lighting and draw distance are the same, which is much more than you can say for something like Crysis 1, where highest settings and lowest settings looked like totally different games.

Spoiler

 

Lol crysis on low looks like a 3DS game

 

If you pre-order on GOG, you get a complimentary copy of Neverwinter Nights: Diamond Edition and a Witcher digital comic book from Dark Horse. Pretty cool.

 

Not sure I would want to pre-order any game with all the broken games that have recently come out.. I think it's better waiting for a few months and seeing how it goes before buying the games nowadays lol..

 

Some previews:
The Witcher 3 hands-on: my god it's full of bears - PC Gamer
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, and the Call of the Sirens - GameSpot
(There are many others.)

Sadly none said on what kind of PC they played.

EDIT: didn't watch Gamespot video. They said they played with GTX 980 SLI...

 

I concur. I tried to play TW2, but it ran and looked like crap on low 768p.

 

From PCGamer article...

After not being able to run Witcher 2 on lowest settings, this doesn't exactly sound promising for scalability and being able to get playable frame rate at 1080p with minimum specs. Hopefully they have enough time to optimize more before launch, but even if I get a new laptop before then, I'll wait until someone confirms what performance is like on the exact same hardware before buying the game.

 

What if...I told you I got it for free?

 

If you can't run Witcher 2, how in the world do you expect to run Witcher 3? System requirements are there for a reason. You can't blame it on poor optimization if you don't at least meet the bare minimum.

 

No plans to even attempt running W3 on my current laptop. I'm concerned CDPR's minimum specs are going to be once again way off and it won't even run smoothly at 1080p on my new laptop, whatever that will be.

As for system requirements, the requirement for W2 was Intel Core 2 duo, 1GB RAM, Windows XP, and ATI 3850 with 512MB VRAM. I pre-ordered Witcher 2 six months before release, my laptop exceeded the system requirements but the game was not playable at minimum settings, even reducing far below native 1080p resolution. Meanwhile, every other game released during the following few years was quite playable at 1080p and looked much better than Witcher 2.

 

5830M has higher FLOPS but less than half the memory bandwidth of 3850, so maybe that was your downfall.

Going by the recommended specs for Witcher 3, your should look into at least 970M, if not 980M, for your next laptop if you want 1080p with good frame rate and eye candy.

 

It was not even playable at 720P, let alone 30fps 1080p, which is what most other developers use as the goalpost for what a PC with minimum specs should be able to do.

Haven't tried Assassin's creed unity or Inquisition yet, but for some 2014 games like Shadow of Mordor, Wolfenstein New Order, Evil Within, etc., I just need to reduce to 1680x1050 or 1600x900. Just about all the other games I tried from 2013 and earlier (all of these with higher minimum specs than Witcher 2) run fine at 1080p, sometimes on higher graphics settings, never had to reduce resolution to 720p.

Not sure what it is exactly about Witcher 2, but it really seems CDPR minimum specs are out of line compared to the rest of the industry, at least in terms describing what you actually need to run the game smoothly at 1080p.

 

Before I sold my G73JH, I was playing BF3 at 900p Low to get 60 FPS on an overclocked 5870M GDDR5, so maybe your expectations/preferences are vey different from mine.

Also, I think I might've been bottlenecked by my lowly 1.86 GHz (!) i7-740QM in that particular case, but I never did try to find out as XM chips were far too expensive back then. Your 820QM is the same speed so I think once you upgrade to a modern i7 and GPU you will be blown away.

Minimum specs are never meant for 1080p. It's your expectations that are out of line, not CDPR's minimum specs.

 

I have participated in some betas and I asked and was informed by a couple different developers that the published minimum specs correspond to the hardware tested to be able to run their game at 1080p 30 fps on low settings. There may be some variation, but this seems to be the standard for most games, at least since Skyrim was released in 2011.

I'd be interested to know how CDPR arrived at those specs for Witcher 2 - were they running on CRT monitor at 800x600?

Oh, yes - after watching 60fps youtube videos, dreaming of the day when I can do it!

 

My personal experience over the years is minspec is anything from "barely enough to run the game in an unplayable manner" to 30 FPS @ 1280x720/1280x800/1024x768 Low. I have yet to see a game whose minspec allows 30 FPS @ 1080p Low.

You complain a lot about Witcher 2's system requirements, but I bet you weren't around during the Crysis. That was much worse.

 

But TW3 will be the first real "new gen" game (apart Unity's disaster) so we'll see ^^

 

We'll see...

 

Haven't tried Crysis 1 or 2, but Crysis 3 multiplayer beta seemed to be a lot more scalable for lower end systems than Witcher 2. Multiplayer was playable for me at 1080p on low settings, although it was more smooth at 1600x900 and I was able to dial up some of the settings.

I certainly hope for upcoming games coming out in 2015 developers aren't pushing minimum specs tested on 1024x768, but who knows with many of these folks the PC version seems to be an afterthought.

 

Oh man, then you have no idea of the schiitstorm that took place during release of the original Crysis. Witcher 2, or any other game for that matter, had nothing on that.

 

New 14 minute gameplay video, you can download the high quality 30fps quicktime file here (3GB file size): http://bit.ly/15LNjQT

Looks pretty amazing, maybe something like if Skyrim and Witcher had a baby...


<iframe width='640' height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BgJUL3nN4iI?rel=0" frameborder='0' allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

 

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (PC) in der Vorschau - GameStar.de ( Translated)

TL;DR

PC: Fluid at 1080p (?) High on i7-4790 & GTX 980. Better AA, color, texture and more shaders and glossy effects than consoles. However, waxed leather armor does not reflect light on all 3 platforms. Pop-in distance on ground details, e.g. grass, twice as far as on consoles. Ultra still needs to be optimized, devs say will run fine on the same system.

PS4: 1080p 30 FPS. Textures blurrier than PC High but sharper than XB1. Sharper and stronger color than XB1.

XB1: 900p 30 FPS. Still being worked on per CDPR, 1080p a possibility, but no promises.

Take all that with a grain of salt and keep in mind we are still 4 months from release.

Also, HUD customization has been confirmed: