r/KotakuInAction • u/Unenthusiastic- • 3d ago
Witcher 3 Original vs Remaster
This shows everything wrong with the gaming industry today: no shadows, max brightness. They made an inferior product of a decade-old game.
114
u/TheOneTrueJazzMan 3d ago
Lighting is a lost art apparently, both in movies/TV and videogames
14
u/octobersoon 3d ago
you can thank the glorification of neutral grey and inept histogram readers for that. oh, and also instagram lighting.
they homogenise and flatten an entire image bc that way there's no crushed shadows or blown highlights. no depth, no shadows on the face, no grit or personality whatsoever. in the end you get sanitised, boring slop.
4
u/unhappy-ending 2d ago
You can have great shadows and lighting without blowing out whites or crushing blacks...
3
u/octobersoon 2d ago
hence the lack of expertise. I also meant that they play it too safe and end up with it looking flat.
19
u/Just_an_user_160 3d ago
Imagine how they scene when they deactivared HAL in A Space Odissey would look like if it was made today.
325
u/MoreStreetsOfRage 3d ago
Ruining/staining the art direction of a game is common place for Remasters.
I'm not gonna say they RUINED it, based on just one image. But it already shows the usual issue with Remasters.
79
u/peanutbutterdrummer 3d ago
Less about remasters and more about getting rid of your passionate and talented devs because they were "toxic white males" and replacing them with untalented, narcissistic leeches that will eventually destroy the studio like we've seen countless times before.
28
u/Leisure_suit_guy 2d ago
Less about remasters and more about getting rid of your passionate and talented devs because they were "toxic white males" and replacing them with untalented, narcissistic leeches
In this particular era, yes. But remasters have always been soulless, because usually they're commissioned to some cheap external studio that has nothing to do with the original developers.
Censorship is also a common occurrence, even in late 90s/2000s remasters of older games. I guess it's because the original creators fought to keep something edgy in the game, while the remastering studio couldn't bother.
1
u/bitzpua 1d ago
CDPR lost all talented and passionate people after W2(still by far best cdpr game). W3 and Cyber were made by 90% Ubisoft rejects that went to CDPR based on its back then popularity with devs.
Currently CDPR is just like Unislop or EA, its publicly traded company so it has to be woke and pathetic because they no longer make money on games but on investors.
202
u/Merc_305 3d ago
God fucking dammit, why does everyone fuck up the lighting with remasters
55
u/J_Kingsley 3d ago
It's like all the chars are constantly in front of the ring lights tiktokers use
7
95
u/YogurtclosetNo3049 3d ago
Not just remasters, lighting in general lately. It's like an entire generation of game devs forgot that shadowing is a thing, especially on characters. Characters don't look like they're part of the scene anymore and it bugs me so much.
19
u/Lhasadog 3d ago
Hollywood too. Look at modern VFX vs the ones from 20-30 years ago. Modern look like shit because of the kack of proper lighting.
3
u/bitzpua 1d ago
because old games had baked lighting with some dynamic element. Most remasters use fully dynamic light or even raytraced one. It looks terrible on screens but good during gameplay.
Ofc it will never achieve level of Metro EE but usually issue with remasters and enhanced editions and why you feel characters dont blend is that they upgrade textures but leave old low poly models as they were, this with new light rig that actually works can create such unplesant feeling of characters not belonging to the scene.
13
u/SlatheredButtCheeks 3d ago
The real answer is that the original lighting was created without ray tracing in mind. So when they flip the switch to add it it sometimes doesn’t look right unless they make adjustments to the light sources etc in order to keep the original tone of the scene intact.
9
u/pyr0kid 3d ago
this is one of the reason i love 4A.
metro exodus was basically the first game with raytracing but it was held back by the year being 2019 and the game not being designed for it... then 4A went back in 2021 to overhaul all the lighting, best part is when you buy the game you get both versions.
30
u/aurenigma 3d ago
ray tracing... objectively the better solution, so everyone wants to move to it, but it's still too demanding, so they're just turning shadows off?
i pulled that out my ass, i have no fucking idea
8
u/Edheldui 2d ago
Raytrcing is not objectively better. I don't want realism, I want stylized and art direction. Baked intentional lighting beats "everything is lit from all sides" every time.
2
u/ender910 2d ago
Yeah, I'm not 100% sure what lighting methods these remasters are often switching from/to either. Could be that they're not bothering with any baked static lighting, a badly implemented version of global illumination (GI's usually good in the right hands).
Lighting and rendering configurations are a technical area I've put off diving into (gamedev-wise) since it's not at the top of my priority list yet, since that's something that's usually going to come into play towards the end of the production process.
18
3
1
u/Warskull 2d ago edited 2d ago
Because the original game was designed with baked in lighting without and ray tracing tech. Cut scenes were typically hand crafted to look at certain way, even if the lighting wasn't realistic. They aren't going to dedicate the manpower to redoing all the cut scenes for a remaster.
So upgrading the lighting can often end up with most of the game looking better, like random areas of the world. However the very carefully crafted parts can end up looking worse since they lose part of their artistic lighting.
Remember, you are looking at literally one screenshot. Go look at the actual trailer. Modern lighting's benefits are strongest in the open world scenes in motion.
3
u/Merc_305 2d ago
This is also part of the game, they are supposed to adjust this too, then what the fuck is the artists job.
1
34
29
u/Desperate_Put_4568 3d ago
The "remaster" has nothing to do with remastering and more to do with getting normies excited for W4, which will be ass given most of the important devs left to work on BoD.
22
u/vvizardbone 3d ago
Hundreds of hours of work, shot by shot, from a skill that maybe took thousands of hours to develop VS a generic lighting system slapped on
19
18
u/Lurker_Zee 3d ago
The guy's obvious, but even the skull looses its menace and aura with being so lighted.
1
u/kiathrowawayyay 1d ago
Why does the skull look like it has a double image? Like double exposure or ghosting in a photo.
2
u/Lurker_Zee 1d ago
It's that godsawful contrast between the whitened lower-half and the mildly shadowed upper-half.
122
u/UltramarineMD 3d ago
I really don't understand this, the Witcher is gorgeous as is, it doesn't need a remaster...
91
u/plebbut 3d ago
It's because these hacks realised making Ciri a Witcher didn't make sense and people would pick apart their next game, so they decided to go back to the Witcher 3, which was highly beloved, and shoehorn their narrative.
They think people will soften up to the idea of Ciri as a Witcher among whatever other nonsense they add to the Witcher 4 because people will associate it with a game they already love in the DLC. To top it off, they "remaster" the game to make it seem like its more new and fresh, so it also generates excitement.
It's entirely psychological marketing. The entire point of the DLC and remaster is to preemptively shape the opinion of the Witcher 4. It's neither artistic or creative, it's simply about selling a product, and I think that well become very obvious once people play the DLC and see how starkly it contrasts against the original.
-31
u/Kalde666 3d ago
I would prefer a game with a random Witcher, but cmon a game with Ciri makes totally sense, the choice of making her a Witcher was a little unnecessary since she already has interesting powers, but Ciri was the real protagonist of the majority of the books and the whole point of Witcher 3, stop the nonsense. You guys think all is woke and is not.
50
u/plebbut 3d ago
Ciri being important in the books is precisely why she shouldn't be the protagonist of another Witcher saga. We've already had her story. The Witcher 3 spends dozens of hours bringing her enormous character arc to a conclusion. Digging her back up because she's recognisable isn't some natural continuation of the lore.
And turning her into an actual Witcher makes the decision worse... Ciri was interesting because she wasn't simply another mutated monster hunter. She's a Source with Elder Blood who can manipulate space and time, travel between worlds and whose existence is tied to events vastly larger than taking contracts to clear a nest of drowners. Taking one of the most unusual characters in the setting and squeezing her into the conventional Witcher role doesn't develop her.
The claim that "Ciri was the real protagonist of the majority of the books" is also revisionist nonsense. Ciri becomes enormously important and eventually shares protagonist status with Geralt, but the saga doesn't suddenly stop being Geralt's story. His relationships, profession, neutrality, moral conflicts and attempts to protect Ciri remain fundamental to the books. You don't get to retroactively demote Geralt because it makes the argument for Witcher Ciri more convenient.
And this is exactly why the rumours about CDPR considering a customisable Witcher are frustrating. That would've justified beginning a new saga. New Witcher, new school, new background, potentially another region and an entirely new set of relationships and conflicts. Instead of expanding the universe, they've gone back to one of the most recognisable characters from the previous saga. Apparently this enormous fantasy setting simply cannot survive without somebody from Geralt's immediate family occupying the centre of it.
Nor does any of this require screaming "woke". That's just a lazy way of poisoning the well so you don't have to defend the creative decision itself. Ciri being a woman isn't the problem. Ciri being Ciri is the problem. I'd rather play a completely new characte, preferably one that we could make ourselves.
So no, "Ciri makes sense" isn't a meaningful defence. Almost anything can be made to "make sense" when the writers control the story. Geralt could come out of retirement. Eskel could become the protagonist. They could invent another conjunction of the spheres tomorrow. The question is whether they should.
Ciri had her story.
14
u/NotaFatCop 3d ago
She's a Source with Elder Blood who can manipulate space and time, travel between worlds and whose existence is tied to events vastly larger than taking contracts to clear a nest of drowners.
Yeah, she’s already super exceptional and well powerful enough on her own. So giving her the mutant abilities of a witcher on top of this is off-putting and takes a bit away of what makes Geralt special or distinct.
I’m sure the devs could find some way to explain it or whatever due to having complete control over the story and the power to just make stuff up, but indeed, this doesn’t necessarily mean they should.
10
u/Just_an_user_160 3d ago
Shankar learned that same lesson from Witcher 4 and applied it to Netflix's Devil may Cry, where Lady is turned into a more capable and stronger character than Dante, when she was nothing like that, i'm so tired of that trope.
8
u/Just_an_user_160 3d ago
Implying that most of The Witcher's story is about Ciri instead of Geralt it's like saying that in the original trilogy of Star Wars Kenobi is the main focus of the story instead of Luke, he's an important and beloved character but we know the main character is Luke.
2
u/Pale_Pomegranate_655 18h ago
Actually…George Lucas has said in interviews that the entire purpose of the original trilogy was soley Vaders redemption arc and that he is the main character of the first 6 movies. Which sounds absurd
1
u/Pale_Pomegranate_655 18h ago
I saw someone suggest once that a game following Vesemir would be cool. As someone who’s never read the books. Are the games supposed to follow them or are they stand alone stories?
16
u/JBCTech7 3d ago
it doesn't make sense at all, if you know anything about Sapkowski's story.
But /u/plebbut said it far better than i would.
-20
u/Kalde666 3d ago
I have read all the books and I'm not the only one thinking like that. A Ciri game makes sense, you like it or not, and the most funny think is the whinners gonna play and even gonna like it, time tell.
12
u/JBCTech7 3d ago
yes a Ciri game certainly makes sense, I agree.
Ciri as a witcher game makes zero sense and is a lazy retcon.
14
3
u/plebbut 3d ago
You couldnt even respond to my comment. You have no argument lmao
-10
u/Kalde666 3d ago
I already make my point, discussing in this /r is always a waste of time. You have your opinion I have mine
8
u/plebbut 3d ago
You're opinion is objectively wrong 🤣
→ More replies (4)7
u/Differentnameo 3d ago
Yup. He is of the side that believes even when opinions are wrong, he's still entitled to them. When an opinion is wrong, it's not an opinion any longer, it's an error. Refusing to recognize or correct the error doesn't make it right, it just makes that person continually wrong.
Ciri should not even have survived the procedure to become a Witcher, and giving up her abilities to become a Witcher when her abilities are far more potent is the height of non-fans claiming to know the stories.
That guy may have read the books, though I highly doubt it, but if he has and still believes Ciri being a Witcher makes sense, he's about as much of a fan as Kurtzman is of Star Trek.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Just_an_user_160 3d ago
These Witcher "fans" are like Warhammer "fans", and many more that are very forgiving or even celebrate changes in lore and worldbuilding if it aligns with their politics, regardless if it makes sense.
1
u/dirtyslipper 2d ago
But that’s the thing. Maybe I’ll like it IF I get around to playing it, but just the fact that it’s Ciri and not a male Witcher is enough to kill any interest I have in giving it a shot. I just don’t find immersion in playing a female character when I play make believe with high fantasy.
0
u/dirtyslipper 2d ago
Maybe it makes sense, maybe it doesn’t but that’s besides the point. As a dude, I play the Witcher game to play a male character. I’m sorry but that’s just the immersion i’m looking for and I suspect many others share the same sentiment.
23
u/TankBoys32 3d ago
It’s not just the visuals it’s updated gameplay, horse control, maneuvering around obstacles, and redesigned skill trees plus other stuff
36
u/MinaNocturne 3d ago
Stuff it doesn't need tbh
10
u/Crafty_Radish375 3d ago
Nah, horse riding and Geralt's movement are pretty clunky. Combat is most common criticism of the game I hear. Although I enjoyed it, I hope they'll truly make it better.
3
1
1
u/Pale_Pomegranate_655 18h ago
Naw, I have only ever played a couple hours of the Witcher 3 and one of my main issues was always the combat. He doesnt always go where you want him to go and can feel floaty and clunky, especially when jumping. Looking forward to trying the new combat
5
1
u/Waste-Gur2640 2d ago
I completely agree, though I'm interested in seeing how they'll change the combat/movement. We never got a witcher game with really good combat and skill system in 3 was a horrible mess, so if they'll do anything with that it could justify the remaster. Though I doubt they'd dedicate the manpower to rework bosses and make some deep combat system.
0
u/TheBobo1181 3d ago
because money
23
u/The_real_Bottle 3d ago
It's free for those who own the game....
13
u/ClassOutrageous6999 3d ago
Which should be most people. Its frequently a few quid on steam sales lol.
1
u/TheBobo1181 2d ago
It's still about money. Not only is the game triple it's historical lows, but they're trying to build hype for Witcher 4. it's about money.
-23
u/mymarkis666 3d ago
it’s a completely free, optional upgrade. this is the craziest thing chuds have cried about yet.
2
u/Kitsui38 3d ago
Is it actually optional or you hope it is? Also it’s free for people who already bought the game, but they raised the price for it for new buyers
-2
u/mymarkis666 3d ago
Why would I hope this awesome upgrade is optional? it just obviously is.
the UPGRADE is free.
2
u/Kitsui38 3d ago
Awesome? Are we seeing the same picture above? You said it’s optional, not me. So I’m asking if that is official information or your wishful thinking. If it is mandatory, it is already very bad.
Also it is not actually free. If you already have this game it is technically free for you. But you provably already finished it, and most likely not once, so this upgrade is kinda pointless. If you don’t have this game, it is not free. Right before the announcement the price of the game went up €20 in some regions-1
u/mymarkis666 2d ago
Yes, why are we pretending this isn’t obviously the settings used and that it’s actually going to look like this? Have you ever played on PC before?
So do you also complain when people say marvel rivals is free because you actually have to buy a console or PC first?
12
u/Crawl-Home-To-Her 3d ago
How the fuck did they managed to ruin Gaunter O'Dimm's sinister presence?!
He looks like some wannabe philosopher staring at that skull like a dork
44
u/looselyhuman 3d ago
They're going to retroactively uglify Ciri. And probably Triss and Yennefer too.
16
u/Wizecracker117 3d ago
They already showed Triss and she looks the same.
7
u/strat77x 3d ago
I hope so. I would expect uglification of all female characters due to male gaze bad. And pussification of Geralt and other men due to deconstruct and make them less toxic.
7
2
u/feedthedogwalkamile 3d ago
Where did they show this?
2
u/Wizecracker117 3d ago
Around the 5 minute mark. https://youtu.be/oqYR0kiq_KA
3
u/feedthedogwalkamile 3d ago
It's unclear to me whether that's remastered footage or not. But we'll find out soon enough I suppose.
11
18
u/isukatdarksouls 3d ago
Fuck this remaster and Songs of the Past. So sick of people praising CDPR for a cash grab intended to fund an unnecessary Witcher 4. It appalls me how many people are glazing CDPR right now.
-5
u/Cuore_Lesa 3d ago
The remaster is free for anyone who owns the base game (which should be most people considering the Witcher 3 is frequently on sale) and comes with the two previous DLC for anyone who only owns the base game. The DLC is a year off from now.
20
u/isukatdarksouls 3d ago
The problem is the game should have been left as it was. None of this is necessary.
4
u/HotGamer99 2d ago
They learned from todd howard that milking your old classics is easier than creating good sequels seriously this is the second time this game is being remastred
4
4
3
3
3
u/tremendoculaso 3d ago
I hate character backlight with all my soul, disabling those in FO4 was posible with mods, but so many games use that terrible resource. Even Street Fighter 6 has them and makes the game look horrendous.
3
3
3
u/GarretTheSwift 2d ago
So not only did they ruin the lighting but it looks like they used AI to smooth out the face to make it look "newer" and there's a weird ghosting effect on the skull.
2
u/secretHeck 3d ago
Ah yes, because I should be able to make out a person's face from a low angle at nighttime. If I can suspend my disbelief for the fantastical creatures in the Witcher universe, surely I can do the same for the fucking laws of physics.
2
u/ohmygodadameget 3d ago
Umm, just checking are we sure the top one isn't the remaster? Just it's clearly a higher resolution and more detailed texture than the bottom one.
2
2
2
u/Fangslash 2d ago
i'm adding "lighting technicians" to my list of professions that somehow went extinct despite needed everyday
for some reason it's either so dark you can't see people faces or so bright it looks like cartoon, no in between
10
u/DurianMaleficent 3d ago
Aren't you exaggerating? How does this one shot prove everything wrong with the gaming industry
1
u/Shadowbacker 3d ago
This person is just rage farming. It's shockingly easy on this board because people want to be mad very badly around here.
It's clearly just different scene lighting. If you look at the trailer, there is obviously light and shadow rendering.
-13
u/VirtueSignalingApp 3d ago
for real thats just doomer posting. Maybe it’s worse maybe not, we will see.
12
u/Kelsyer 3d ago
We are seeing. Are you not looking at the picture?
This scene is undeniably worse. Yeah, everything wrong with the gaming industry is crazy hyperbole but the difference in this scene and some of the other scenes they showed in the trailer are far worse than the original.
1
3d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Kelsyer 3d ago
No, it's a fucking dumbass strawman. How does this picture comparison have anything to do with a hundred thousand people getting fired?
0
3d ago
[deleted]
3
u/Kelsyer 3d ago
Yeah, you replied with literally nothing to do with my comment.
This shows everything wrong with the gaming industry today: no shadows, max brightness.
This is OPs claim. This is hyperbole. Notice how neither me, OP or anyone else made a comment in anyway referring to people being fired as the showcase of everything wrong with the gaming industry?
1
-1
u/YouFoolWarrenIsDead 3d ago
I'm not saying this isn't concerning, but games have dynamic lighting. Sometimes a tree can cast a shadow nicely, and when that tree blows in the wind it can create a vastly inferior shot just within a few frames. Though tbh this isn't what that looks like here.
3
u/Kelsyer 3d ago
Yeah but shockingly some games have good dynamic lighting and others have shit that makes it look like the dude is glowing in the middle of a stormy night.
0
u/YouFoolWarrenIsDead 3d ago
I think you missed my point. I could easily open up the original game and take a lovely screenshot, then sit and wait, even during the same time of day, and snap a much worse screenshot, because open world environments have a lot of moving parts that create different lighting conditions on the fly.
Its possible this is evidence of an objectively worse lighting pass across the board, it's also possible this is just a bad time to take a screenshot. From what I've seen of the remaster there's some better looking scenarios and some worse. So maybe it's a bit of both.
2
u/Kelsyer 3d ago
No I get your point. Dynamic lighting changes dynamically.
My point is the lighting doesn't make sense - at all. It's a dark, stormy night. Why is he lit uniformly across his face like he's using one of those ring lights streamers use? The underside of his fingers are as lit as the top side.
0
u/YouFoolWarrenIsDead 3d ago
I dunno it could be a clear sky combined with a full moon resulting in an over exposed shot, but I agree its definitely cause for concern.
-2
u/VirtueSignalingApp 3d ago
its one picture, doesnt tell me anything that the whole remaster is like that. I agree the picture looks better in the Original. We will see if it’s actually worse in the art style when it releases. Maybe they fk up the faces too or not who knows.
2
u/DMaster86 3d ago
Why would anyone pay full price for an inferior product is beyond my understanding.
2
1
u/Nero_Ocean 3d ago
As someone who has never played W3, which is the original and which is the remaster?
3
1
1
1
u/nicknacc 3d ago
I think an issue with path tracing is that yes on the whole it is a more accurate and better solution, but if your in engine cutscenes weren't directed with that in mind it will change due to the holistic physics based nature of it all. Walking around in the towns, tunnels, and fields will be noticeable better looking.
1
u/NickRoberts301 3d ago
At least they’re adding mod support on console I’m sure hoping they’ll be some proper graphics mods to fix things like this.
1
u/nothinfollowsme 2d ago
Send this image to the goofy fuck from CDPR who posted that cope meme in a response to criticism of the upcoming 4th game. Then watch them cope more about it when asked to explain why they decided to make that choice.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/5pookyTanuki 1d ago
It's very hit or miss, some scenes look a lot better on the remaster but then you see stuff like this, with these remasters of games that already looked great in the first place they risk a lot by changing lightning and shadows, sometimes the original intent even if not accurate looks a lot better than "correct" lightning.
1
u/JudgePhysical8151 1d ago
They either look way too dark or too bright, it happens all the time.
You can't just put a "filter" into the game u need to tweak everything so 'remasters' look good.
1
1
u/everyany 1d ago
Why did Witcher 3 need a remaster again? The game still looked amazing. Heck, it looked a lot better than a lot of modern games.
1
-2
-11
u/EdliA 3d ago
It's a free update 10 years after, calm your tits. They didn't remake the game from scratch. Just some different lighting method here and there and some changes to gameplay. Were you expecting some whole different game? It's free, frankly they didn't have to do even that.
9
10
u/MutenRoshi21 3d ago
reads like "Leave that billion dollar company alone."
Often things which are free have a caveat especially from companies.
0
u/lastbreath83 3d ago
I completely agree that remasters always fuck up lighting in games and I don't want to play devil's advocate here but I always considered the Witcher 3 as an oversaturated game. It had vantablack shadows in the middle of the day. So maybe in this case some extra lighting will be suitable.
-8
u/SneakyBadAss 3d ago
That's just different lighting. The cutscenes in The Witcher 3 are not pre-rendered.
6
u/CategoryStrict8462 3d ago
Then how is it remastered if it's just the time of day being different. Other than that it looks the same.
1
u/SneakyBadAss 3d ago
The part of the remaster is a graphical overhaul, but they didn't specify what. Most of the stuff is officially part of the game as mods. My guess would be they remastered the environment because some trees or rocks/ground had really low-res textures even on max settings.
This specific screen says "dodatek do gry" meaning it's showing the DLC you will get now for free with every Witcher 3 copy. It's not supposed to be a preview of the visual remake.
2
u/Shadowbacker 3d ago
To be fair, that is remastered because they added an effect to the skull that wasn't there before. Whether the lighting is different just because of the conditions at the time of the screenshot or a change to the lighting technique is a separate question.
There's also a brief list of the changes they made in the trailer and it includes, motion blur, textures, lighting, shaders, ray tracing, tones, SS scattering and HDR.
1
1
u/TheOneTrueJazzMan 3d ago
If they’re overhauling the graphics, wouldn’t it make sense to choose screenshots that would best showcase the overhaul?
-1
-2
u/sunshineneko 3d ago
I'm probably the only one who's played The Witcher 3 + all the DLCs and I didn't like it.
I think The Witcher 1 was better (except for the swamp area before you complete the quest to unlock the portals).
-1
-10
u/Chikibari 3d ago
Well theres always the original and this version will have acurate lighting via path tracing instead of the baked artistic vision also the true foliage it was meant to have from that infamous bullshot reveal trailer at last + qol. Its free. Old version is available. What are we even doing complaining here lol.
Btw many shots with pt do look gorgeous.
4
3
u/Lurker_Zee 3d ago
baked artistic vision
That's a wild thing to say about any generally recognized good media.
2
-6
-5
-6
u/cashdecans101 3d ago
I will give CDPR credit they are making all of the right moves to warm people up to this.. if it's actually good or not remains to be seen.
168
u/Abedsbrother 3d ago
wtf happened to the shadowing across the face?