The Witcher II

[ReFaN]

Bought it, No sound, everyone with a G35 headset doesent have any sound.

Waiting desperately for a fix :X

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by ReFaN

Bought it, No sound, everyone with a G35 headset doesent have any sound.

Waiting desperately for a fix :X

Oh dear. Thanks for the heads up.

Assuming a fix does come, I have questions about this game!

1) What kind of specs are required to get it to run at 60fps at 1366x768?
2) What is the game like to newcomers? I've not played the first Witcher, so will I be able understand everything that's going on?

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Oh dear. Thanks for the heads up.

Assuming a fix does come, I have questions about this game!

1) What kind of specs are required to get it to run at 60fps at 1366x768?
2) What is the game like to newcomers? I've not played the first Witcher, so will I be able understand everything that's going on?

1. GTX460 will get you to about a stable 40 on "high", 1680x1050. (haven't tried ultra)

It will (nearly) use the full 2GB it can, so 3-4GB system minimal. Pretty heavy on my CPU, so I guess a fast quad is desirable, say 3GHz Core2 or equivalent.
2. Didn't have a clue what was going on, but then, I usually don't. Think having played the first would have helped though.

[Feuer Frei!]

I played the first one and finished it, wasn't too bad.
Looking forward to this 1.
I've heard a lot of stories about bugs a plenty with people having installation errors, things like "disc 2 not found" and a few other issues...
Yes, these people had bought the game.
Not sure about the dig d/l one...
Anyone have this game?
Screenshots would be a good thing, would love to see what it looks like, compared to the first one.
Cheers.

[Arclight]

Got the download from GoG. Can't say I ran into any bugs, few containers that were unreachable, but never anything important in there.

Full resolution on the first 2

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Arclight

1. GTX460 will get you to about a stable 40 on "high", 1680x1050. (haven't tried ultra)

It will (nearly) use the full 2GB it can, so 3-4GB system minimal. Pretty heavy on my CPU, so I guess a fast quad is desirable, say 3GHz Core2 or equivalent.
2. Didn't have a clue what was going on, but then, I usually don't. Think having played the first would have helped though.

Thanks Arclight. So GTX460 = 40fps on high? So basically there's no card in existence that can run this game at 60fps on Ultra. Well that's typical of a PC exclusive (and I suppose it explains why the frame rate in the trailers is invariably awful). If there's one good thing about the dominance of consoles it's that it forces cross-platform developers to learn how to optimize their code! /rant off

LOL @ your response to 2.

Hmm... maybe I'll just wait for Skyrim.

[Feuer Frei!]

@ Arclight, thanks a bunch for the screenies, game looks a lot better than the first 1.
Time has 'healed' this game.
Can't help but notice the mini map and the red dots and waypoint arrow, reminds me of DragonAge? Kind of...
And prob. a dozen other games which i can't for the life of me think of right now.
Are the trees, grass, and any other things that could move, 'active'? A gust of wind moves the tall grass, or moves the leaves in the trees etc?
Once again, thanks for your time posting screenies.

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

@ Arclight, thanks a bunch for the screenies, game looks a lot better than the first 1.
Time has 'healed' this game.
Can't help but notice the mini map and the red dots and waypoint arrow, reminds me of DragonAge? Kind of...
And prob. a dozen other games which i can't for the life of me think of right now.
Are the trees, grass, and any other things that could move, 'active'? A gust of wind moves the tall grass, or moves the leaves in the trees etc?
Once again, thanks for your time posting screenies.

My pleasure.

The environments are very dynamic. Guess you would have to see it in motion, see if I can manage that.

Most believable world I've seen to date.

And yeah, there are markers on the map. That's it though; no magical golden arrows or things like that floating around in the actual world.

It's reminiscent of Dragon Age, same genre after all. Perhaps comparable to a less chatty, DA2-done-right: not the vast scale of DA1, but more focused and condensed like the 2nd one, but without the failings of, for example, copy-paste environments.

[Arclight]

Er, come again?

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Thanks Arclight. So GTX460 = 40fps on high? So basically there's no card in existence that can run this game at 60fps on Ultra.

Er, maybe not. Why does that matter? Those visuals with a constant minimum of 40fps isn't good enough?

Well that's typical of a PC exclusive.

It is, kinda nice to have something that actually uses the resources of my PC for a change. Not much point buying decent hardware were it not for titles like these.

If there's one good thing about the dominance of consoles it's that it forces cross-platform developers to learn how to optimize their code! /rant off

Console ports tend to be the shodiest of them all. Playing on a console can be fun, granted, but their influence improves absolutely nothing.

If you want to skip it for TES5, then by all means. I just don't follow the reasoning.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Arclight

Er, come again?

Er, maybe not. Why does that matter? Those visuals with a constant minimum of 40fps isn't good enough?

It is, kinda nice to have something that actually uses the resources of my PC for a change. Not much point buying decent hardware were it not for titles like these.
Console ports tend to be the shodiest of them all. Playing on a console can be fun, granted, but their influence improves absolutely nothing.

If you want to skip it for TES5, then by all means. I just don't follow the reasoning.

In the past I've played my share of shoddy console ports, but in recent years the problem seems to have gone away, at least in terms of graphics (controls can still be an issue but that's something else). All of the console ports I currently own (Mass Effect 2, Dead Space, Batman: Arkham Asylum, DiRT, GRID, F.E.A.R. 2, Mirror's Edge, and some other's I'm too embarrassed to list here) run at a constant v-sync'd 60fps on my modest GTX 260, with all details turned on, 1366x768 resolution, and 4x MSAA. Seems to me that as a general rule, anything that runs on a console at 30fps will run on my machine at 60fps. In contrast, all of the PC-exclusives I own suffer frame rate drops and stutters, even old ones like F.E.A.R. and Company of Heroes.

And once you've gotten used to a v-sync'd 60fps, anything else looks bloody horrible.

My GTX 260 will soon be upgraded to a top-end card, but by the sound of it that won't help me in Witcher 2... at least not on Ultra. But then, if those shots you posted are taken on High... well, they do look nice...

[Arclight]

F.E.A.R. ran over 100fps full open on the old 8800, never had any trouble with CoH. Had trouble with the original ME (overheating) and GTA4 (fps drops), to name a few examples.

Just saying that the worst games I've seen are invariably console ports, not that every console port is shoddy.

At any rate, I don't see how more than 30-40fps would help you here, but if reaching higher is a requirement then it falls short.


* ah, glimpse of it in motion. Well, the environment, anyway: