Separator

How Witcher 2 slayed my "gaming" laptop

Trit_warhol
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom Rob Savillo

PC gaming may be a little bumpy from time to time -- even our own Jay Henningsen can attest to that -- but I'll still stick by the only open platform available despite the need to tweak .ini files or apply fan-produced patches to fix unforeseen issues.

At first I couldn't believe it: Triss Merigold's flawless, female form writhing naked next to Geralt of Rivia. No stuttering, no wrinkles. Visuals of the highest calibre appearing on screen. My machine wasn't even making that much noise.

The protagonist conversed with his captivating, scarlet-haired companion. Each face animated with a painstaking level of attention to detail. I could hardly believe my eyes. I had to go and ruin it by leaving the tent where the opening love-in was staged.

The frame rate slowed to a crawl. What I can only imagine to be the processor started screaming in a high-pitched tenor. My coffee table, where the laptop resides, was hot to the touch. I wasn't mad; I was just disappointed.

More than any other, The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings is a PC-exclusive release that needs to find its way onto a console.

 

Why? Because the PC as a platform has too many variables despite my laptop apparently being, at least according to the launcher's auto-detect option, capable of rendering the game with medium settings at the highest possible resolution.

How to remedy my situation? At first I picked the most extreme solution. I lowered the resolution and changed the settings to the lowest possible configuration. It wasn't immediately noticeable, but I couldn't play the game like this. Geralt was washed out. So were the pursuing figures in the nightmare of the Wild Hunt. It mattered not, until I saw Triss again. She was pale, plain. She looked unhealthy. This would not stand, so I immediately closed the game. For the first chapter I thought I had found a work-around. Using medium settings and a reasonably high resolution, Triss was returned to an immaculate state.


 How could you ruin a love so beautiful? Try setting the configuration to low.
 

So now that I finally got to play the game, I engaged in a series of well-directed conversations. I witnessed a siege which almost challenged my improvised software solution. Thankfully, the game still looked a cut above most console releases, and I was happy to delude myself with thoughts of more acquisitions for the substantially cheaper PC platform. Even the epic battle against the Kayran was able to be portrayed with an acceptable frame rate and no shortage of effects.

As the story progressed, though, my faith in the makeshift configuration waned. Firstly, there were issues with a sex scene in an Elven bath and then the unforgivable end to the first chapter -- the stuttering mess that was the battle to the barge with character models disappearing or stammering about in an unnatural fashion. Still I persisted, until the battle at Aedirn. So much heat and noise...none of which was created by the game itself. Sacrifices had to be made.

Sacrifices, it would seem, are hard to suffer. Saskia's blank, textureless face. Geralt was once again blank and colourless. Someone needs to optimize this for a console; I don't care which one, it just has to happen. I need to know that what I'm seeing on screen is the best that it can be. I need to know that I don't need to spend upwards of a thousand dollars for the game to be as beautiful as it should be.

Wouldn't console gamers like to see it ported?

 
Problem? Report this post
TRISTAN DAMEN'S SPONSOR
Comments (30)
Me04
May 22, 2011

I think everyone is suffering performance issues with The Witcher 2. My PC should be able to play it on High (with some of the sliders at Ultra) but can only manage Medium-HIgh.

They need to sort it.

Default_picture
May 25, 2011

What, by buying you a better PC? Don't be silly, if you want to run the game on higher settings, upgrade your rig!

Me04
May 26, 2011

Buying a better PC would make little difference to the fact that The Witcher 2 runs like dog crap and clearly has performance issues.

There's a 50-page thread on GAF dedicated to simply discussing community workarounds and driver patches to fix the fact that CDP really need to optimise this game.

Even CDP acknowledge the performance issues because they're releasing a patch, so simply telling me to buy a better PC is such a load of crap.

I've already said that my PC should be able to play it on High, but it struggles on Medium sometimes. And that's not me feeling entitled to having it run on High because I'm just so simply awesome, but because it should.

There are performance issues. Deal with it.

Default_picture
May 26, 2011

Firstly, you need to calm down.

Secondly, I have been playing TW2 on High settings on my PC without any problems.

Me04
May 26, 2011

Well maybe your PC will run it on Ultra once CDP fix it. ;)

And I'm not angry in any way, and as such don't need to calm down. I'm just curtly replying to your assumption that I need to upgrade my PC to stop the game from running like poop full of bugs and performance hitches.

Lolface
May 22, 2011

According to the launcher's auto-detect, I should be able to handle the game on high (and I'm using a Mac!). But when I started, it was a slideshow, even when I turned the settings down to low. After a while, I figured out that turning down the resolution helped the most. Now, I can run the game smoothly with high settings with my resolution set at 1600x900.

Also, turn off ubersampling and blur effects. Only super high-end PCs can utilize ubersampling, and blur effects aren't needed.

Default_picture
May 25, 2011

The Auto-detect thing is getting fixed in patch 1.1 to give more accurate results.

Trit_warhol
May 22, 2011

Thanks for the hints, guys. I didn't dare enable ubersampling; not because I knew it was a system hog, rather because I had no idea what it does and it sounds resource intensive. Blur will be turned off as of now.

Me04
May 22, 2011

The way I see ubersampling is that it's CDP's way of releasing bullshots whilst saying the game can actually look this good*.

 

*If your PC is from 2-3 years in the future.

Trit_warhol
May 23, 2011

They are some bullshots though. Makes we want to investigate time travel.

Default_picture
May 25, 2011

That comment reminded me of the awesomeness that is Timesplitters. On topic, I am in the process of a friend building a high end gaming PC for me, with the express instruction of it being able to play BF3 on ultra settings. I honestly don't really mind if other games play like a Master System, as long as BF3 runs amazing.

Trit_warhol
May 26, 2011

If your new rig can run BF3 on Ultra then I would be confident that it could run Witcher 2 pretty well.

I think this experience has further consolidated my preference towards consoles. The software may be cheaper on PC, but at least on a console you know it will run well in 80% of of cases.

Me04
May 26, 2011

I think preferring consoles is the way to go if you like to keep things simple. However, as much as I was annoyed at CDP for releasing the game as it is, I think the PC is a great open platform that provides a vastly superior experience than the console one.

If a console game has framerate issues you'll have to wait weeks for the developer to run a patch through cert. On PC I downloaded some leaked ATi/AMD drivers and then applied the 1.1 patch which was released about an hour ago and my framerate went up by 10fps and I can finally run the game on High at 1080p. That made a huge difference to me, and I'm no longer watching a slideshow -- it runs at a modest 35 fps.. :)

You just don't get that kind speedy support on consoles.

Robsavillo
May 25, 2011

Laptop graphics hardware is generally underpar for almost any triple-A game. Check the system requirements here, then cross check your laptop graphics chip with the desktop cards listed. Despite what the auto-detect says, I'm willing to bet you don't meet the minimum requirements somewhere.

Also, you can get a decent gaming desktop for something much closer to $400 or $500 these days. The longer console cycle and increased developer focus on consoles has kept system requirements relatively low.

Default_picture
May 25, 2011

It's supposed to come out for 360, no?

Your problem: playing on a laptop. Especially Witcher 2, which is a higher-end PC game. Back in 2007, not many laptops I knew of could play Crysis.

Robsavillo
May 25, 2011

No, I don't think so. The only information I can find suggesting a 360 release is based on rumor and speculation, and the supporting evidence appears to be nonexistent. (The Escapist claimed that the ESRB page for Witcher 2 lists PC and Xbox 360, but if you go there now, you'll just see PC.)

Default_picture
May 25, 2011

Thanks. I was going off on what Gop said last year. (http://scrawlfx.com/2011/02/cd-projekt-talks-the-witcher-2-for-consoles) My mistake.

Fo1_hires_power_armour-1-2
May 25, 2011

That's extremely odd, Rob. I checked last night before going to bed and it did say "Windows PC, Xbox 360"

Robsavillo
May 25, 2011

I have little doubt that it might have also said Xbox 360, but it's much more likely that the listing was merely human error. I noticed that The Escapist never mentions whether they actually contacted the ESRB to verify the information before going foward with the story (and they probably didn't).

Fo1_hires_power_armour-1-2
May 25, 2011

Could have been human error, but I still think that The Witcher 2 will make its way to consoles eventually.

Still, I will get it for PC. See if I can play it, at least with medium settings. If not, I will just wait until it comes to consoles/I upgrade my GPU.

100media_imag0065
May 25, 2011

This happens often. You'll see a game you want, and you'll go to great lengths to make sure it can run properly. Heck, when I bought my gaming laptop the first thing I did was install Crysis and play it to completion with completely maxed settings. It was glorious, with a stable 35ish frame rate. When I was done, I decided to play through Battlefield Bad Company 2 again.

I installed it and laughed the whole way, knowing that my brand new gaming laptop would chew up and spit out anything this measley game can throw at it. To my horror, the game played like a 1890 slide show at the local carnival. How could this be? I just finished Crysis at maxed setting, and Bad Company 2 plays like load of poop.

Well, my answer was found on the internet. Some developers just don't know how to optomize games properly. Your PC can technically destory a game, but if the developers didn't optomize it right, it will feel like trying to run Crysis on a NES.

I spent $1700 on this laptop, it has top of the line everything. I got a great deal, considering two things. A) If you build the same exact computer on Alienwares website, they charge you $3500. And B) If you were to buy all the components yourself and build it yourself, it would cost you $1500. So I payed an extra $200 to have someone make it for me.

It is a beast of a laptop. It obviously won't be as powerful as a tower, but for $1700 I have yet to find something it couldn't play maxed besides Bad Company 2. Heck, it even played Metro 2033 maxed, and that game destroyed my friends $5000 rig in about 2 seconds.

Boy was he mad when I showed him a laptop running Metro 2033 maxed at 45 fps.

Comic061111
May 25, 2011

I find it strange that Bad Company 2 is consisdered less optimized than Crysis, but perhaps that's just my experience.  Certain games run better on certain graphics cards and even specific driver versions than others, perhaps something like this was the case.

Robsavillo
May 25, 2011

I don't. Bad Company 2 is a sequel to a console-only release while Crysis is a PC exclusive.

Avatarrob
May 25, 2011
Unfortunately this seems to have become one of the natural consequences of the exponential increase in computing power over the past twenty years. I started programming at work a few months back, and found two distinct mindsets amongst the programmers; the older, more experienced programmers would take extra care and attention to keep their code efficient, even when he task didn't require it, whereas newer programmers didn't see the need to waste time optimising, since the programs we were working on were no more complex than their equivalent a decade ago. There seems to be a similar effect with modern games, except they have gotten far more complex, and so each little inefficiency mounts up.
Trit_warhol
May 25, 2011

The rumours that surfaced yesterday have given me hope. If only they can fix the difficulty curve; then we're looking at a brilliant game.

My_face_2
May 26, 2011

I didn't notice anything wrong with the difficulty curve. It seemed good to me.

What did you find wrong about it?

Trit_warhol
May 26, 2011

I died thirty something times at the first fight on Normal. Lost patience, switched it to Easy. Easy is way too easy. There's no scaling at all. Even the Penny Arcade boys are having a similar problem:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/5/25/

My_face_2
May 26, 2011

My PC can handle it just fine. I am playing with everything cranked up (except for ubersampling) at 1920x1080. I have a GTX 480, and a quad core CPU @ 3.0 GHz. The game looks amazing, and I can understand why it demands so much resources.

It's not the end of the world if your PC can't handle the game on it's highest settings. Medium, and low, both look good. High is meant for, well, high-end machines. If you didn't buy your PC in the past year, or you haven't upgraded anything in a while, the chances are that the game's high settings are too much for your system.

While it may seem bad for you, it's good for PC gaming in the long run. We want each and every new game that comes out to push graphics forward and take advantage of the latest hardware. It would suck if new games ran perfectly on 5 year old hardware, then we would be the same as the consoles, and we don't want that.

Trit_warhol
May 26, 2011

I purchased my laptop in January. I think Rob nailed it above: laptop graphics hardware is usually below par and that may be why I am experiencing trouble. I have a quad core CPU and a 1gb graphics card, and it is not able to run the game at Medium settings without compromise.

I went straight to Low and it does look bad. I'm trying a custom configuration with a lower resolution and it seems to working a little better. Thanks to some of the feedback from Chris and Matthew above, I've disabled any frivolous sliders and I have noticed an improvement.

Me04
May 26, 2011

For anyone having trouble with the settings on this, then check out this GAF thread.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=430456

They discuss each individual setting, and also have anecdotal accounts of roughly what performance you should get on your system. This is good for helping you optimise your config to make the most of your specs.

Also, anyone with AMD/ATi CrossFire configs (either in dual or single card) should try this hotfix:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=28056055&postcount=2072

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.