Behold! The Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt Gallery

CDP sent over a bunch of images from the forthcoming The Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt. I suspect you are going to want to look at these. Holy shit. You can see where they’re going with that “thirty times larger than The Witcher 2” stuff.

Click for full size. (I would suggest right click -> new tab.)

This is basically at the top of my list, now. Might play The Witcher 2 again for kicks.


  1. Drake Sigar says:

    Ugh, oh god yes, ugh, ugh, UGGHGAGH!

    It’s going to be a hell of a year for RPGs.

    • Jesse L says:

      You know, that’s just gross and not clever.

      • SuperNashwanPower says:

        Oh but its FINE when they do it in the Herbal Essences advert

      • Drake Sigar says:

        Sorry, the excitement got to me. Project Divinity, Cyberpunk 2077, The Witcher 3, Grimrock 2, Wasteland 2, it’s all like some crazy dream.

        • rei says:

          Cyberpunk’s at least not coming out this year. Maybe not even the next three years!

    • Larry-Allen says:

      my buddy’s half-sister makes $83/hour on the internet. She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay check was $13073 just working on the internet for a few hours. Here’s the site to read more… link to

    • Douglas_Taylor says:

      what Glenn explained I am surprised that a person can make $9261 in 1 month on the internet. did you read this web page.. link to

  2. MuscleHorse says:

    I need a new computer.

    • akstro says:

      If its as badly optimised as Witcher 2 then Minimum Requirement: 2 GTX Titans in SLI

      • Chmilz says:

        And it’ll be nearly unplayable without an Xbox gamepad with a UI that forgets PC’s have resolutions beyond 480i

        • Keyrock says:

          I played it with mouse & keyboard at 1920×1200 without any issues. I’ll concede that their menu design left a lot to be desired, but it was quite usable.

          • RProxyOnly says:

            Mouse and keyboard were NEVER any good for TW2, it’s more perseverance than involvement.. and yes, I prefer M/KB, but some games just play better with a gamepad… NOT FP shooters though.

          • Cinek says:

            “Mouse and keyboard were NEVER any good for TW2” – huh? You ever actually played it?

          • RProxyOnly says:

            Well I could hardly comment if I hadn’t.

      • Dominic White says:

        Badly optimized? Huh? It ran great at very high detail on my old PC (ancient 2.1hz Core2Quad, 560ti). On my new PC (a thoroughly mid-range i5-3570k and a 660ti), I run it at ultra detail, 1080p, 60fps solid. The only thing I have turned off is Ubersampling, because that’s just excessive and has almost no visual effect.

        • akstro says:

          560ti and 660ti are midrange? Well, you know what they say about learning something new everyday…

          • Wreckdum says:

            What else would you call a 660? Considering the price point of 680, 690 and Titan I would argue that 660 is a little below mid range.

          • Dominic White says:

            Given that a budget card is £100-150, a 660ti is £200 (I got mine for £197 off Amazon) and high-end cards go for anything from £250 to £700, yeah, a 660ti is midrange. Don’t buy the pre-OC’d models, either. They jack up the price by £20-30 and aren’t anything you can’t do with five minutes in Afterburner, assuming the cooler on yours isn’t borked.

            It’ll also run absolutely everything on the market today at max detail, silky smooth. Exceptions are rare, and due to actual optimization issues (Crysis 3 will likely run amazingly once they fix the rope glitches) rather than a shortage of CPU/GPU grunt.

          • kael13 says:

            Don’t be a pansy – pony up the pennies for the proper PC.

            Honestly, if you have to go without food for a bit, it’ll be worth it.
            Oh and The Witcher 2 ran great after AMD fixed their drivers.

          • RProxyOnly says:

            Dominique White. I’ve just got a gtx 660 SC for just a fiver more than a 660 and that WAS a good buy. It inches towards ti performance for ‘about’ £50 less.

        • Cinek says:

          For me the performance of TW2 was rather crap initially, but after 3-4 patches of nVidia drivers I could easily play it on 260 GTS in high details.

          People got trauma after TW2 release, but forget that actually majority of fault was on nVidia side. After they handled it – game worked brilliantly fine.

          • RProxyOnly says:

            Actually those with AMD say the exact same thing.. I think if both sets of drivers were so useless then it can be reasonably supposed that the problems lay on the game’s/dev’s end.

        • waltC says:

          TW2 actually ran acceptably (20-30 frames per second averages) on my older box whose important specs are 4gigs ram, AMD Athlon II x2 (Regor) @2.9GHz (stock), and an HD 5770 (stock). Game settings were all on highest possible save for Ubersampling, which was turned off. Resolution 1920×1200. Not too shabby, if I say so myself. Game was definitely playable.

      • suibhne says:

        TW2 ran fantastically well on my 2.5-year-old machine (i.e., it was 2.5 years old when I played TW2; now it’s a good bit older), with almost all settings maxed at 19×12. There may have been performance bugs with specific configurations, but it’s not accurate to claim that it was poorly optimized overall. On the contrary, it ran shockingly well on older hardware, particularly given how beautiful it looked.

        • RProxyOnly says:

          I’m having trouble believing your hyperbilous “fantastically” and “shockingly well” or maybe it is just your definition of “almost all settings maxed” not being nearly as maxed as you say.

          I too have played this and was there for the “shocking” performance right up to and through the first patch, after that it was admittedly better optimised, however up to then was a mess.

          Your inclusion of a duration based pc spec is useless and pointless, should you decide to put an actual REAL pc spec up for consideration then I may re-think, but til then I know what my specs were, q9550 and HD4890, and I know how poor the performance was.

          I will say though, that I fired it up today on my new spec’ed machine, i5 3470 and a 2Gb GTX 660 SC with 16 Gb ram, and it ran EVERYTHING maxed to the full, WITH Ubersampling. It played very smoothly and looked FAR better than without Ubersampling.. Ubersampling (stupid name) certainly does affect the visual fidelity a hell of a lot.

          • suibhne says:

            The word is “hyperbolic”, not “hyperbilous”. I’m only pointing that out because you’re being a bit of a dick.

            However, I was wrong about the age of my PC when I played TW2. It was 1.5 years at that point, not 2.5 years. Maybe that isn’t a useful metric to you, but people who’ve watched hardware evolution will immediately see the absolute maximum platform I could be talking about, and mine was a good bit below that level. Anyway, believe what you like – it’s no skin off my back! My specs were a generation better than yours, with a Radeon 5870 and a midrange i5 CPU from the autumn of 2009, so maybe that accounts for the difference.

            When I say “almost all settings maxed”, I mean that I maxed all the typical texture, draw distance, etc. settings, but I didn’t max ubersampling or AA (which is a performance-killer on my machine and isn’t overwhelmingly necessary at 1920×1200 anyway) and I kept shadows on a medium setting. When I say “fantastically”, I mean fps generally above 50 when measured with FRAPS – more than good enough for a game like this (tho I might find it inadequate in, say, BF3). When I say “shockingly well”, I mean that I got pretty great performance at mostly “ultra” settings for what was one of the most beautiful PC games I’d ever played, in terms of graphical quality and detail. I was getting better performance out of TW2 than many games that looked considerably less great, and I considered that to be surprising. From my perspective, then, it seemed quite well optimized relative to other games of mid-2011 in terms of the graphical performance it got out of my hardware.

            My point was that I don’t think it’s fair to claim that TW2 was poorly optimized, as the OP did. Compared to performance from its peer games, it did quite well.

  3. simoroth says:

    Looking absolutely great. :)

    If only Bethesda would embrace such an attention to detail.

    • Stevostin says:

      Actually I was thinking “it’s not as ugly as previous game but compared to Skyrim, they’re still quite not there”. One ton of filters, bloom and artificial lightning and fx will not cut it vs right tones, contrast and shapes understanding. It’s not bad, it’s just not Skyrim’s level. And speaking of detail :

      link to

      compared to this

      link to

      I feel invited by the first one while the second one feels like a lifeless 3D scene. A collection of assets isn’t enough to “paint” a landscape. I always found Bethesda’s art direction to “nail” that like no other.

      • coldvvvave says:

        It doesn’t look better than unmodded Skyrim. Actually it looks overshopped.

      • Wreckdum says:

        Witcher 2 looked better than Skyrim and these are early screens. I’m sure they’ll get it all cleaned up before launch.

      • MattMk1 says:

        You’re trolling, right?

        It’s one thing to say that you like the Skyrim visual style better than The Witcher 2’s, but the idea that Skyrim is ahead either in terms of graphics technology or the quality of the art direction is fairly laughable.

        It’s kind of like saying Wrath of the Titans looks better than the the LotR trilogy.

        • Snargelfargen says:

          “It’s kind of like saying Wrath of the Titans looks better than the the LotR trilogy.”

          At least it was shorter.

        • coldvvvave says:

          Nope. Lighting and character models are the only thing in these screenshots that looks better than in unmodded Skyrim. Also, art direction? Where? Teal and Orange?

          • johnnyan says:

            No matter how many blind dudes like you will keep saying this, vanilla Skyrim cant hold a candle to The Witcher 2 in the graphics department…

        • Davie says:

          TW2’s art direction was some of the best in the business, to be sure, but its environments were pretty cramped and there was a definite divide between the playable areas and background scenery. It doesn’t look like they quite have a handle on making huge open spaces look good in TW3–there’s a lot of repeated detail and low-res distant objects.

          On the other hand, vast scenery is the one thing that Bethesda pretty much nails every time they try it. So yes, I would say at this point, Skyrim looks like an open world with better visual design than TW3. It’s entirely possible that it won’t stay that way, but it’s hard to dispute at the moment.

          • Ravenholme says:

            We.. are looking at the same screenshots right? And talking about the same Skyrim? Because all that terrain? Looks crisper, sharper and more unique than anything I’ve seen in Skyrim. (With the possible exception of distant Vvardenfel in Dragonborn – and that because it’s a stonking great volcano)

          • RProxyOnly says:

            At the end of the day I would rather a cramped, limited area that at least feels full and provides good gameplay, than a wide open world that feels dead and provides bland, dead gameplay.

            But, yeah, TW2 looked far better than anything Bethesda has ever put out, but graphics aren’t everything, their gameplay sucks too.

          • Stevostin says:

            “At the end of the day I would rather a cramped, limited area that at least feels full and provides good gameplay, than a wide open world that feels dead and provides bland, dead gameplay.”

            Yup. So I want something with depth in the gameplay, were every item can be picked, moved, has a name, a weight, a value, where every NPC has a faction, and effectively carry everything he wears, where I can steal, where I can murder, where I can be jailed…

            Oh wait, turns out that Skyrim is the one that feels full and provides good gameplay. TW2 provides good dialog, decent writing, and more “in your face” complexity but when it comes to “options”, it’s not even remotely on the same scale.

            Also, mods. I am pretty sure that in the Witcher 3, you won’t be able to be “wet” after crossing a river, then get a cold because it’s windy and your wet. Actually you’ll probably won’t be able to cross a river.

      • kael13 says:

        Right, yeah.. just notice that obvious corner in the bottom right-hand side of the Skyrim shot. And it still looks like texture work from 2008.

      • Wut The Melon says:

        You are the first person I’ve ever seen say that Skyrim (unmodded) looks better than The Witcher 2… Even ignoring the low resolution of the textures in Skyrim, it always seems to me their ‘macro’ design is great but they are severely lacking in the ‘micro’ design, possibly due to the size of the world combined with a ridiculous 5GB size restriction.

        The world as a whole in Skyrim looks great, but focus on any one specific thing and you’ll find many sloppy errors with meshes and textures. That’s even ignoring that the lighting in Skyrim probably rivals Minecraft’s.

        • Brun says:

          He’s not the only one that thinks that, either. I’d say that, taken as a whole, unmodded Skyrim is about on par with The Witcher 2. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses graphically, but averaged out they come out about equal.

          • Sparkasaurusmex says:

            I suspect when people say this that perhaps they mean Skyrim at high settings and Witcher 2 at medium/low settings

          • RProxyOnly says:

            Sparkasaurusmex, I’d pretty much say that was the case. Skyrim played at max on relatively mediocre machines.. TW2 needed a beast to get even to middling-high, so I doubt that most people would have seen the game shine…. OH boy and fuck does it… my new machine plays it fully(!) maxed with ubersampling on.. and it looks simply wonderful, the best I’ve ever seen any game look.

          • Stevostin says:

            I could play it maxed out. Even with Art Direction aside, the line of sight was very short and it felt like a 3D action game on XBox with a lof of colorfoul lightning, blurry blur everywere and eat-bloom-until-you-die. It wasn’t as painful for the eye as TW1 was but really, the wood were way more convincing in… Oblivion.

            Woods are important in a fantasy game.

        • Stevostin says:

          The whole world was impressed by Skryim but by the Witcher ? Apparently not that much. It’s like the people who were thinking that Crysis was more beautiful than World of Warcraft, obviously missing the spot. I am speaking art direction here (as someone in the field). I see Skyrim and I see mature work. I see the Witcher and I see show off. There’s talent here, no denying, and more importantly, there’s orignality. For the better & the worst it’s a polish games with polish artists who have their own take on things. A few things they do, you usual US dev won’t ever think off. But there are also desperate attempt to impress with … just a heap of colors (and brightful ones). Must be cultural, like all german RPG looking like rainbows and making you fight ridiculous giant insect beasts. Well if that’s so, beware: not all culture are doing well with export. As long as The Witcher will look like a game who doesn’t properly understand the root of fantasy imagery and how works a Frazetta’s painting, it will be less efficient worldwide than Bethesda stuff. But again, CD Projekt is young, and every game they make is better than the previous one. Another pair and they may make their big achievement, reaching Bethesda’s/ Bioware’s level of sales, weight in game history, etc.

          Looking back at the picture, I think I can explain better now what I meaned : Skyrim stills look mostly like painting – not like shader stuff but like composition, dynamics, lightning, etc. TW2 is still stuck to the “render that 3D scene” feel.

      • krisk7 says:

        ALL those screenshots are using the old engine, the game will run on a new more advanced version.

        • RProxyOnly says:

          Yes, you are correct. CDPR have themselves admitted that they aren’t yet using their new engine or rendering techniques.. so TBH those screens aren’t a very good gauge for anything except art direction.

      • LostViking says:

        What in Jebus’ name are you smoking?

        Is it the blury textures, the repetitive buildings or the low detail characters that set Skyrim higher than Witcher 2?

        By the way, I had a lot of fun with Skyrim, but not because it set a new standard in graphics.

      • Didden says:

        Wow even RPG’s have graphic fanboi’s. It’s like I wandered into a console debate…

        • RProxyOnly says:

          Just wait til next generation.. consoles cease to exist and the market ends up with 3 different form factor PC’s on the market.. a real one and two that LOOK like consoles, but aren’t really.

          It’s going to be really funny to watch the fanboi justification there, at least PC’s will have a choice of graphics manufacturers.. both consoles are using the same stuff…. it’s gonna be a gas to watch the verbal contortions.

      • RProxyOnly says:

        “I always found Bethesda’s art direction to “nail” that like no other.”

        Well seeing as you are completely satisfied with their art, let’s hope next time they will ‘nail’ their gameplay.. or at the very least drastically improve it. Dead world’s aren’t fun.

    • Dowr says:

      If only Bethesda would develop primarily for PC so they can enable the capability to embrace such an attention to detail.

    • Brun says:

      Are you joking?

      Bethesda’s TES games blow both Witcher games out of the water in terms of attention to detail.

      • WrenBoy says:

        “Blows it out of the water” or “about on a par with it”? Im guessing that Skyrims continuity problems didnt bother you much.

        • Brun says:

          Graphical Fidelity and Attention to Detail are two very, very different things. They are related, but not identical.

          Example: Dwarf Fortress has high (some would say extreme) attention to detail and very low graphical fidelity.

          • WrenBoy says:

            Its almost embarrassing to have to point out that the graphical detail of Dwarf Fortress is obviously nowhere near the level of detail shown in these Witcher 3 screenshots.

            Its mechanics are likely to be far deeper but thats clearly not simoroth is talking about given that this is a screenshot article and the first line of his two line post was “Looking absolutely great”.

          • Brun says:

            I gave DF as an example of a case where you can have high attention to detail without high graphical fidelity, to emphasize that they are in fact two separate and distinct concepts. I wasn’t comparing Dwarf Fortress to The Witcher 2 or Skyrim at all.

            “Attention to detail” means careful, believable world building and set design. “Graphical Fidelity” means technical graphical quality, including texture resolution, quality of assets and effects, and art direction (though the latter often blends with attention to detail). Both of these qualities can be judged through the examination of screenshots.

            The OP’s exact quote was “If only Bethesda would embrace such attention to detail,” to which I pointed out that Skyrim’s attention to detail was far superior to that of The Witcher 2. A later post contained a more technical breakdown of graphical prowess, to which I replied that the technical fidelity of each game was similar. These are not contradictory statements.

          • WrenBoy says:

            I am sworn to carry your burdens

          • Brun says:

            I am sworn to carry your burdens

            Engraved on the wall is a masterfully designed image of Brun and WrenBoy by WordPress. WrenBoy is making a plaintive gesture. Brun is laughing. The image refers to the humiliation of WrenBoy by Brun in late winter 2013 at Castle Shotgun.

          • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

            Does Brun menace with spikes?

          • WrenBoy says:

            I heard he once menaced a man with a feather though he insisted in excruciating detail that it was actually a nuclear warhead.

      • RProxyOnly says:

        What kind of detail? you certainly don’t mean gameplay or story detail…it does have more pots and spoons though.

  4. jackthename says:

    Awesome, cannot wait!

    Hope they optimize the engine…

    • Stochastic says:

      What wasn’t optimized about it? Demanding != unoptimized.

      I think that demanding games (e.g. Crysis and Witcher series) are perceived as being unoptimized because people try running them at max settings on mid-range hardware. Usually you have to pay a huge performance penalty to get that last 10-15% of image quality, so by disabling excessive AA, SSAO, and other frame-killing features, you can usually reclaim a lot of smoothness with minimal loss to subjective image quality. link to

      • skyturnedred says:

        Whenever I buy a new a game, I always play it on medium graphical settings, because that is wahat my I perceive my PC to be. If ir runs really smooth, I put +1 on one of the settings to see what happens. One at a a time, to see how far I can pull it of. Often enough, I get very close to the max settings, mainly because we are still livng with this console generation (of course Crysis 3 etc. on max settings would destroy me).

        I’m too drunk to figure ouit what the point of this post is, but, In my fairly loose opinion, not too drunk to figure how to spell wods. If you’re out there, love you Gurnie!

      • RProxyOnly says:

        Wait a minute. You say it wasn’t unoptimised then point to a third party optimisation guide as justification for your point of view?

        Because logic?

        • Stochastic says:

          That Nvidia-sponsored guide was written by Koroush Ghazi from I linked it because it shows how the various settings affect the frame rate. Graphics tuning guides like these are useful since they show which settings have an inordinate effect on performance.

          • RProxyOnly says:

            which is my point.. you needed a tuning guide for it because it’s own ‘tuning’ was pretty piss poor.

          • Stochastic says:

            While it’s true that the game does run poorly on max settings, by turning off SSAO, ubersampling, and maybe one or two other settings down a notch, you can get the game to still look quite good IMO without bringing your rig down to its knees. Just because CDProjekt included these ultra image quality settings doesn’t mean the game isn’t tuned well. If you added SSAO and ubersampling to just about any modern game it would kill your framerate. I suppose you could make the argument that these settings shouldn’t have been included in the first place, but I would rather them be available and not be able to use them in 2012/2013 than they not be available at all.

  5. CaspianRoach says:

    What’s up with AA in the right part of this picture? link to

    • Rian Snuff says:

      It’s a bit mangled that’s for sure, I noticed it in a few shots. Though this is ruff work I’m sure, as someone else pointed out this is still using the last engine. I suppose we can expect a lot more.

      But it’s odd, it seems like they didn’t even pump the graphics on max for these shots.

    • WoundedBum says:

      The Witcher 2 was a nice looking game but the AA was always kinda not good. It wasn’t really proper AA and obviously Ubersampling is extremely expensive.

  6. TheApologist says:

    Might need a new graphics card for this, because wow I want that in my eyeballs

  7. aliksy says:

    I feel like I should like the witcher games more, but they just didn’t click with me. Witcher2 especially had clunky movement (can’t backup without turning around or rolling), invisible walls, and a lot of annoying “run back and forth several times”. Plus no respec. Pictures sure are pretty, though.

    • mildante says:

      Yea, I hope they will improve the combat system. All that rolling was pretty weird.

    • kael13 says:

      The Witcher 2 was a great game, but yes, you’re right that the walking animations desperately needed work. That said, finding the ‘walk’ button was a godsend.

  8. yurusei says:

    Simply bewitching….

  9. Paul says:

    Yes, this is at the top of my list too.
    Right under Witcher 3 is guess what ? Cyberpunk 2077.
    After Witcher 2, CDP frankly could not make more appealing two games than these two. And pictures look fantastic, despite still using old renderer that will be replaced by new one before release, so it will look even better.
    All the news they released so far sound fantastic. And all the game informer preview videos were really good.

    I will play Witcher 2 for a third time before TW3 comes out as well.

  10. amateurviking says:

    Some of the later ones look a bit bullshotty? Maybe?

    I hope not, because it looks beautiful.

    • SuperNashwanPower says:

      Its confirmed for release on PC and Playstation 4, so IMO what you are seeing is the brakes being taken off visuals now that the new consoles have finally been announced. Perhaps its what a game can look like when its built from the ground up for modern technology, not built for chips designed in 2006 and then given a little bit of polish for a PC version. Given that the PS4 will have hardware equivalent to last years mid-range PC equipment, its galling to think that we could have had this level of fidelity a while ago. W2 couldn’t be accused of being ugly by any means, but still.

      I know I will probably get abuse from people for saying that, but sod it. Those people smell funny and have one ear lower than the other.

      EDIT: Actually upon embiggening, there are some small shonkinesses in those images. Eyes haven’t quite got the The Crysis Effect, and the images could do with some AA. That bar scene however reminds me of the images in Metro 2033, in the Metro Stations.

      • RProxyOnly says:

        Well as has been said already, they aren’t using the new engine or rendering techniques yet so it’s not going to look as bad as that. However I will admit that W2 without AA looks fucking horrible, jaggies are VERY pronounced in the W2 engine… but with, it looks great.

    • sonson says:

      Nah, it’s not much(if any) advance on what you can already get in Witcher 2, Metro at its best, I’d say Crysis 3’s visuals are probably more intricate and heavy than those as well.

      • SuperNashwanPower says:

        True, but take into account this will be open world, rather than the more controlled spaces of Metro or Crysis. If they can make those landscapes flow and be freely explorable AND look that good, that would be quite a thing I think.

    • nimbulan says:

      I wouldn’t say so, it looks just like The Witcher 2 to me in all the shots. I just hope it doesn’t have the same grainy over-sharpened look that some areas in The Witcher 2 had. I can see that effect coming through in the screenshot here where Geralt is shooting fire at the troll and it looks really ugly so I really hope that’s just JPEG compression artifacts.

  11. DaftPunk says:

    Looks kinda to blurry :|

  12. Shooop says:

    And that’s not even the best part.

    The best part is those were made with the same engine for the second game, not the new engine. So it’s going to look even better.

    • sonson says:

      In terms of visuals there is no need at all to improve on the engine of W2, it’s head and shoulders above pretty much everything else. I hope it isn’t too much of an improvement otherwise it will be too demanding for most people.

      And this will be a very good game at the very least. CDPR have never failed to hype their games, but that hype has always been justified. They’re the most ambitious developer I think there’s been since Creative Assembly with the TW engine a decade back. It’s not just scope and noise with them, ala Skyrim; their games are both massive and intricate and exquisitely nuanced compared to the vast majority if the competition.

      • WoundedBum says:

        Proper AA and we’re good.

      • SuperNashwanPower says:

        I am not so sure that increases in graphical capability will necessarily mean that everyone needs a new machine. Don’t forget, these new games will be built from the ground up to look that good, and so will be much better optimised for new technology. An aim on consoles was always to squeeze as much as possible out of what was available, so presuming that this will be a straight port I think you are going see surprisingly modest system requirements.

        PC has always been sandbagging due to lack of optimisation and the API layer involved. Perhaps we will start to see a reduction of at least one of those elements, and maybe even two if the new consoles (well, the xbox at least) are running the same DX versions as PC.

    • Danopian says:

      Where’d you see that? I thought these were RedEngine3 shots.

  13. Snargelfargen says:

    Nary a waist-high fence or hedge in sight. Hurra!

  14. BobbyKotickIsTheAntichrist says:

    Hopefully, i’ll have a new rig until then. Q6600, 4GB DDR2 and a 8800 GTS 640 are getting rather shabby. I guess i have to thank this console generation that it lasted as long as it did in the first place. Before that i bought 3 new rigs in the same timespan.

    • Stevostin says:

      There’s nothing crazy displayed here. Not a lot of detail, not a huge line of sight, loatsa bloom but it comes cheap. Don’t worry, you’ll be fine :P

      • BobbyKotickIsTheAntichrist says:

        Nah, i guess i’ll have to replace my graphics card anyway. Nowadays it heats up to about 100-105 degrees celcius and then automatically clocks down although the fan works at full capacity and nothing is blocking the airflow. 6-7 years of hard labour will do that to a graphics card i guess. xD

      • jerf says:

        These screenshots are displaying the cabailities of the old engine, the new one will be much better, as they say.

  15. Rian Snuff says:

    Freakin’ brilliant. I can’t wait.
    This is likely going to be what I wish skyrim was more so.
    Huge fan of the previous titles and always wanted to see it go open world.

  16. Loyal_Viggo says:

    Is that a Nazi Zombie I see in one of those pictures?

  17. Shepardus says:

    While playing The Witcher 2 I couldn’t help but think what fun it would be to play as Geralt in an open, nonlinear world with the quality of The Witcher 2’s locations, despite The Witcher 2 having one of the better video game narratives I’ve seen.

    And then along comes The Witcher 3. This looks absolutely amazing. I haven’t anticipated a game this much ever since Dark Souls was announced for PC, and I don’t think I’ve ever been more optimistic about a game.

  18. Stevostin says:

    I don’t think they should make it open world considering it’s the closure of the trilogy, but I’ll probably won’t buy it. Never could get myself to finish the second one. Too ugly, too messy, Throwing one thousand ideas at the same time without caring if one was efficiently introduced to the player. Still, some excellent innovations and attitudes – and decent writing, wich is allways welcome.

    I’ll wait for their new licenses, uncluttered by the Witcher’s lore, that let us choose instead of forcing us to play a virile chippendale. I think somehow RPG means that you define your character. Look Shepard : you pick his/her face & gender & attitude. It’s still story driver RPG, but the “Role Playing” part isn’t just a fancy word there.

    Or if CD Projekt decide to embrace the open world RPG paradigm, be my guest. Some competitions certainly wouldn’t hurt Bethesa’s lonely (then highly profitable) path.

    • jerf says:

      “Role Playing” means playing some role, not necessarily choosing it. So there is no contradiction.

      • RProxyOnly says:

        Exactly.. Roleplaying DOESN’T necessarily mean choosing the character you get to play, it’s as relevant with a pregenerated ‘personality’ as it is with a chosen char…. it’s not ‘Roll-play’.

    • Citrus says:

      I don’t think you know what “PLAYING A ROLE” is.

  19. WoundedBum says:

    I just hope the new engine has a better AA system. Apart from that it looks gorgeous.

    • RProxyOnly says:

      There wasn’t anything wrong with the AA in W2, they even gave you two methods… it’s just that UBER was VERY demanding.

  20. Solidstate89 says:

    Sweet baby jesus, looks like I have a few new background for my computer.

  21. Azdeus says:

    I.. don’t like it. Technically, artistically great, but it looks so weirdly small. Especially the farm valley(Witch4), the mountain looks to be 300-400 meters away, to me. Does’nt feel right.
    I’m spoiled though, if you take away the farm in witch 4, replace it with a lake, you’ve got the view from my front lawn basically.

    I should point out that I don’t like open world games, just for this very reason; Unless you’re willing to do something on the scale of Arma 2, Just Cause 2 or FUEL, it’ll feel cramped. Alternatively use an “over map” travel system like Mount and Blade/Fallout 1 & 2 or something.

  22. Niko says:


  23. mehteh says:

    sooooooooooooooo looking forward to this. The Witcher games have been a breath of fresh air. With all the console focus titles these days its refreshing to have RPGs made for PC, its smarter audience, controls, etc

  24. Clavus says:

    Finished reading all the books (fan translations) just this week. I’m hyped, too bad I’ll have to wait a year at the least :(

  25. webwielder says:

    I’m excited by the lack of QTEs. I wasn’t able to get past the opening scene of the Witcher 2 where I had to mash a button to load a catapult or something. Thus ended my career as a Witcher.

    • aliksy says:

      You can turn quick time events off in the options menu.

      • webwielder says:

        Zounds! And just when I thought I was almost through my backlog…

  26. senorpoco says:

    I have had Witcher 2 installed for over a year now and never got more than 10 hours in. The issue is if anything, that it is too good. I want to dedicate a good chunk of time to it to really explore and play it right and I never seem to get the time. Damn you quality storytelling!

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      This. I just don’t have time to finish the game. I could whittle away at it, but if I don’t have a good chunk of hours to sit down and play it doesn’t seem worth it.

  27. PatMan33 says:

    Just a heads up to everyone, since nobody anywhere seems to be reporting this story correctly.

    These screenshots are of an in-engine version of the current Witcher 2 engine. They DO NOT represent the final product, and CDPR has said themselves that you can expect the shots from Witcher 3’s engine to look even better.

    CDPR via GameInformer:

    “CD Projekt RED has provided the screenshots you see here from its current in-game assets running on its Internal PC development hardware. However, the renderer – the part of the engine that translates the game files into what you ultimately see on screen – is still in development and will boast significant improvements by the time The Witcher 3 ships. “Right now you see the game in the old renderer, but it’s going to be taken to a truly next level,” says gameplay producer Marek ZSiemak. In particular, the developers tell us that skin shaders and the dynamic lighting model will be markedly more advanced in the final version.”

    Source: link to

  28. Svant says:

    I hope those big empty looking areas are just that big and empty. It feels so bloody stupid in the TES games for example where there is an ancient never before seen ruin/crypt/dungeon/cave behind every rock and tree. Make the world feel big by not putting tons of shit in it please.

    • Serenegoose says:

      I hope they don’t put interesting things in the game either. I definitely want there to be just fields with nothing in it and no conceivable reason to go there, and ancient forests that are just trees. Because I cannot just go outside where that’s already the case, and need it to be put into videogames instead.

    • RProxyOnly says:

      I sincerely hope that was a satire on TES world building.. because if it wasn’t…

  29. Iskariot says:

    That whale……. my god that looks more awesome than the awesomest monster.

  30. Brun says:

    Looks like a Skyrim clone. Seriously. Any one of those images could have come out of Skyrim. I don’t understand why everyone is hyping and fapping over this game to the high heavens.

    Color me passingly interested. The last two Witcher games couldn’t hold my interest through to completion, and this one looks like it’s just taking a big page out of the TES book (which is an improvement, but still).

    EDIT: As for their development plans – prepare to be disappointed. I sure as hell am. The stuff they are promising is a pipe dream at best, I am *highly* skeptical that they will be able to deliver on both their narrative and world-building promises. I expect something more along the lines of The Witcher 2, with better combat and shinier graphics, and maybe fewer invisible walls.

    • RProxyOnly says:


      Vapid comment is vapid.

      • Brun says:

        Not being an unapologetic Witcher fanboy does not make my comment vapid. While they were decent games they weren’t particularly compelling, and I think both are consistently overrated because CDPR panders to the community a lot.

  31. Borklund says:


  32. v_ware says:

    Nice Skyrim mod!

  33. LTK says:

    The Witcher 3: Skyrim? Or The Elder Scrolls VI: The Wild Hunt?

  34. GoliathBro says:

    Why not just get rid of that stupid, stupid light box? When I middle click a pic I want it full size in a new tab, and not in some ridiculously overanimated box that obscures the site I’m trying to read.


  35. Megakoresh says:

    WOW some of these comments will make me hurt myself with a very strong facepalm.

    “Witcher 2 was badly optimized”
    “Witcher 2 looks worse than Skyrim”

    Comparing Witcher games to ES… Just… what is WRONG with some people these days?!

    Those screens are like a troll message to us “Ha, see all that awesome stuff? Well you can’t have it! U mad?”
    That game is going to be so awesome people’ll forget BioWare ever existed.
    I can’t wait. 2014 seems to be full of potentially amazing RPGs. DA3 also comes out that year, though after DA2 and ME3 I am not exactly excited. But who knows? Maybe they will surprise us all and actually deliver a game up to their old standards.

    • RProxyOnly says:

      I can say this because I love it… W2 WAS badly optimised…

      Unfortunately it won’t sell or review as well as Bioware’s or Bethesda’s effort despite being orders of magnitude better in terms of graphics, maturity and gameplay… people are stupid in general and the ‘journalism’ system is bought and paid for by the publishers… So cdpr will again be the bastard step child, despite being one of, if not the best dev working today…

      • grenadeh says:

        Are you…trolling? Are you actually that stupid? You just said….the witcher….is a deeper game than Skyrim; nay, any Bethesda game. Bethesda games have tens and hundreds of hours of content in them, they have deep, long established story lines with a ton of lore, they have FAR BETTER graphics than the witcher – even Morrowind looks better; the character customization isn’t even a contest, and the combat actually involves the player thinking and not just waiting to time mouse clicks. As for maturity, last time I checked the Witcher was written to appeal to 12 year olds and there isn’t a sliver of any grit in the material.

        • cHeal says:

          TES has hours, nay hundreds of hours of the blandest, most mind numbingly generic fantasy lore I’ve ever come across and that is a good thing? It’s childish nonsense. The worlds Bethesda create look great from a distance, but upclose they are horribly sparse in detail. The worlds themselves make no sense. Whiterun has a massive 2 metre thick wall protecting it with a population of circa 40 people and no viable form of wealth creation. This goes for every single city in Skyrim except Markarth which while feeling more real than the rest is all very… well grey.

          The TES games have almost become a parody of themselves. There is absolutely NO cohesion to the world, with little continuity to anything you do. The game reaks of Bethesda believing their own hype.

          TES is shallow, because while it may have hundreds of hours of tedious lore nobody in their right mind would ever want to read, the world in which it exists is completely lifeless and shallow. It all feels like an elaborate facade, which of course it is, but I shouldn’t be reminded of that with every building I enter.

          The witcher games have all the lore they need. It is not simply left lying around in bookshelves, it is a breathing living part of the world and story that we engage with. Dragon Age and Skyrim both, are so shallow and hackneyed that my heart sinks to think of them. Really simply awful games. Skyrim gave me 40 or 50 hours of gameplay, but so has Angry Birds. They are not so far apart in all honesty.

          And The Witcher is far far more mature than the TES games. While you may think that sex with ladies is for 12 year olds, I happen to think it does add to the game and make it more enjoyable, not because it’s there, but because it’s not not there. There isn’t that awkward feel to characters and relationships in the game because nobody can talk about SEX!!!! The story also deals with political intrigue, terrorism, betrayal, love and geo-political machinations. The decisions i make in the game rarely involve the ownership of livestock or some other trivial matter. I am at the frontline of a war and my decisions reflect that. Bethesda wouldn’t know where to begin.

          As for graphics, I don’t really care but from a technical standpoint the Witcher 2 HAD better graphics than Skyrim. Higher res texture, more polygons, better lighting and and more shaders being used. Im not sure what world you live in thinking that Morrowind looks better than either game but you clearly have a great affinity for the series which is clouding your mental processes.

          As for Art Direction. I personally prefer both Witcher games. They use a more renaissance time period, with more colour for both characters and environments. Colours are lush, darks are dark and the world feels used and more real by how it is cobbled together. It’s a personal choice but I find Skyrim to be a very very bland looking game. All very grey and brown. Not for me.

  36. orient says:

    Looks about on par with The Witcher 2. Not a bad thing — in fact, pretty impressive considering this one’s open world.

  37. Havok9120 says:

    I’ll be interested to see how much of the game is taking place in Skellige.

    I mean, I love Skellige. Those guys are the bomb, and Crach an Craite was pretty much chomping at the bit to get around the Peace of Cintra, so I’m sure he’s just ecstatic that Nilfgard has started a new war…But Skellige is only about 1% of the the settled lands on the continent. I’m excited to find out how much of the world we’re going to have access to.

  38. Nick says:

    Hope the combat isn’t unsufferably shit this time. Roll simulator 2011.

    • RProxyOnly says:

      Really? You prefer Bio’s or Bethesda combat?

      • grenadeh says:

        Uh, yes, like I said as well a second ago. MMO controls do not belong in single player RPGs, it ruined the game for a lot of people who might otherwise have enjoyed it. Especially those of us who have had more than our share of pressing 1.

    • cHeal says:

      Harsh Nick, harsh. TBH I never found the combat to be too awful and they did improve it a lot with the updates. How and ever, I did like the combat in the first game so I probably just have shitty taste.

  39. Crosmando says:

    Wow, look at all those sheep in that one screenshot.

    Guaranteed hit in New Zealand

  40. grenadeh says:

    Is this game actually going to look good enough and be interesting enough to overcome its terrible MMORPG control scheme? I’m sorry to the dev’s but after playing WoW for 8 years and then Dragon Age, the MMORPG controls need to leave the industry – permanently – unless the game is actually an MMORPG. The beginning of the Witcher is so boring and disconnected from the player that i haven’t bothered to even get out of the second area.

    • Sparkasaurusmex says:

      This is weird people keep saying MMO controls.
      Maybe I’m confused but isn’t Witcher that game with action based combat that feels more like Batman mixed with Ninja Gaiden? You don’t stand in one spot and press 1 3 3 3 2 1 over and over again

    • Liudeius says:

      Hey, it’s your fault for playing WoW for eight years.
      If you played eight years of any game mechanic you would likely get bored, some of us haven’t done that.

      I highly question your interpretation of the controls system though. While I have not played WoW, I have played Dragon Age, The Witcher, and a number of MMO’s, and their control schemes are quite dissimilar.
      You’re over-generalizing controls far too much, just because mouse control is used in combat does not make it an MMO system.

  41. Liudeius says:

    Wow, I really need to catch up.
    I quit The Witcher after I went OCD on it and spent over 40 hours on the first chapter alone.

  42. akaleus says:

    I hope we won’t have to wait for one person to go through a doorway and shut it before we can go the the same doorway. I also hope that we will be able to jump. :)