Why wouldn't a game that was better in every respect receive better reviews? For a company with five games under their collective belt, including two extremely successful ones, I'd assume they would have more confidence in their work as a team.

What they used to do is to release a PC game that was still relatively small. Now they made a huge open world game, with simultaneous release across platforms with publishers probably breathing down their necks. That is way bigger in scope than any previous thing they have done.

That, and here in Poland many people treat those games like the Second Coming of Christ. Seriously, they were talking about this game in the news for like 3 days straight. There is a reason why our prime minister gave Obama a copy of The Witcher 2

Back in 2011, Polish prime minister Donald Tusk gave U.S. president Barack Obama a copy of The Witcher 2, because it's pretty much the best thing Poland has ever done.

You'd be surprised how many people here believe that. And again, CDPR is still a relatively small company. They aren't Bioware that has EA backing them up with tons of money. There is a lot of pressure on them.

I know this chart, that's why I got excited when NB264 said he/she's running it with a GTX 560, because this chart says it's unplayable with it.

Cool chart, good info there! Apparently, I'm in the yellow! My parts aren't that old, but I always build budget gaming PCs (which works well, because I buy games a year or two later when they're dirt cheap).

Graphics are important because they contribute to the experience of the game. They accentuate the beauty, add to the overall quality, and emphasize the immersion one can feel when engrossed in the game. When it comes to video games (or any form of media, for that matter), I have no interest in choosing story over graphics or gameplay over story or anything of the sort. A good game is one which skillfully achieves quality in all aspects and which possesses few weaknesses that detract from its overall merit. Why should I have to choose one over the other and imply that I would sacrifice, for example, graphics for story? Why not have both? I'd ultimately choose story and gameplay over graphics, yes, but if I have to rationalize a game's quality through those means, then the game is obviously not very good.

I call myself a gamer because I play video games regularly and I enjoy video games both as sources of entertainment and works of art. Do you even understand what a "gamer" is? Or do you operate under some arbitrary, elitist definition of the term that excludes virtually everyone who isn't you or exactly like you? I'm upset about the graphical downgrade because it is a downgrade of the quality of the game as a whole. Contrary to what you may think, graphics are an essential component of a game and a well-designed game is one which possesses good graphics. ("Good graphics" are, in my opinion, graphics which complement the game, does not distract from the story or gameplay, can be considered beautiful or noteworthy on their own, properly represents the game, and adequately conveys the intended mood in each setting.) When the graphics are downgraded, the game suffers—the story is less vibrant and the gameplay is less lively. There is no mutual exclusivity here. You can have good graphics and good story and gameplay, you know. Why the hell am I required to choose one and sacrifice another? If I have to, then that's not a good game at all.

are you going to play the game or watch the game?

I'm literally using my eyes as the main sensory organ to experience the game. Graphics are kind of important, and even more important than the audio. I'm watching the cutscenes, admiring the environment and designs, and appreciating the visual work put into the game. I also play the game, but a game is an experience, not a job.

One aspect of experiencing the game is through visually perceiving it. Graphics is how this visual component manifests, so it's absurd not to care about it. Tell me, can a game be GOAT if it has zero animations, zero sprites or models, and zero designs? Do you think you'd enjoy a game that is literally nothing but text (a text adventure without images)? It doesn't matter how great the story is or the barely-qualifying "gameplay" it may possess; if it had any sort of graphics, whether it be in the form of a static image or even a visual representation in ASCII, it would help improve the game tremendously. Sorry, I'm playing a game, not reading a book.

Im simply a hardcore old school gamer, in my times we learned to apreciate a game for the quality of the content, not the graphics, some of the gamers in this age seems more like the disabled ones

Oh, so you're an elitist with nostalgia glasses who complains about the young folk because they prefer a game that is both beautiful and enjoyable? The graphics are a component which determines the quality of the content. Are you even aware of what "graphics" are? They are essential to the game and defines what constitutes a video game. Like those 8-bit or 16-bit graphics on the NES/SNES? Those are graphics. Like the still images in your text adventure? Those are graphics. Like the ASCII designs in your imageless text adventure game? Those are graphics, too. If you're seriously going to tell me this doesn't matter at all, then you better have some strong arguments to back it up. Otherwise, I wonder if you are incapable of appreciating a video game, and not only because you seem completely oblivious to what a video game is. It's called video games for a reason. I feel like I'm trying to explain basic video game theory a self-righteous pissant who's never actually played a game before.

Also, casual gamers or "fashion" gamer are the players that i consider prefer more a game to look pretty than the content itself, so they are not really gamers, they only play for fashion or because the graphics looks "amazing" D:

Again, your arbitrary definition of what constitutes a "casual" gamer stinks of sanctimonious elitism that isn't shared by anyone except fellow sanctimonious elitists. In case you weren't aware, a casual gamer is a demographic of gamers who casually play video games, hence the term. They do not play video games in any sort of dedicated way, they typically have little interest in video games as a hobby or sport, and they typically prefer games which do not require any great investment of time or effort (such as RPGs or strategy games). For them, games are more a means of socialization and bonding rather than sources of entertainment themselves. Ease of play and access are important, and their preferred game time is usually casual games. This is why many mobile games are considered casual games for casual gamers: they required little effort or skill to play, they can be played anywhere with an Internet connection (some don't even require that), and they are typically built with socialization features.

I get that you have some sort of disdain for casual gamers, but I don't believe it's justified. If you don't enjoy casual games, and you prefer hardcore games; or if you don't play like a casual gamer and have no interest in their interests; then good for you. You're not a casual gamer and you don't like casual games. Others are and others do, so your contempt for them is as pointless as a rock fan hating jazz fans, or someone who likes RPGs hating those who like platformers. If you don't like the genre or play style, then don't play it or play like that. You are a different demographic of player, so you have different interests and needs. Why does it matter what others prefer?

Why dont enjoy the game instead to rant about the downgrade? For me it looks good, and i would not even mind if the game were pixelated, why? Because im here for the gameplay D:

Firstly, I neither own the game nor can I run it on my computer. I can't even run the second game, even though I own it. When I can play it, though, I will and I'll almost certainly enjoy it despite the graphical downgrade. If you wouldn't mind if it were pixelated, then that's your own preference. I consider your lack of interest for graphics whatsoever to be rather philistinic, though, as if you have to sacrifice it in order to get good story and gameplay. (You don't.) I'd prefer W3 to be as graphically excellent as its story and gameplay. Graphics may not be as important, but shunning them entirely and acquiescing to downgraded graphics is rather pathetic.

Btw, im not looking for a fight with you, so if you could stop the insults i would be apreciated, calling someone disabled is offensive, even for the people that really are disabled, so learn some manners dood, dont be inmature D:

Oh, so your passive-aggressive jabs and pompous attitude is just your normal demeanor? I technically didn't call you disabled; I only stated that if you called me a casual gamer who only cared about graphics, I'd consider you disabled. This is because it would take quite a feat to be so completely ignorant and presumptive and still be a reasonable, sophisticated individual.

Yeah, it is not as much about game being ugly but about this (quotes from article from the OP)

CD Projekt Red released a handful of new Witcher 3 screens last week, which you can see for yourself in this post. Not everyone was entirely thrilled with them, however. Some fans said in a NeoGAF thread that they really don't look as good as we've come to expect

And devs said:

The most important thing here is that the game will come out looking gorgeous when we are done working on it. There will be no downgrade.

And the situation wasn't really clear until pretty much the PC version came out. For the most part they denied that the graphics will be worse (even if they knew it isn't the case). That is what is getting people so riled up - that they were not exactly straight with us.

Although to be fair, they have hinted that not everything will be perfect, an yet they did not address the issue well enough, and people feel somewhat disappointed.

Yes, and yes.

But people are alluding to the fact that the developer wasn't honest about it either. Which is why I can understand why people are irritated, but I don't get the outrage (unless people are packing some big time rigs in anticipation of this game (alone)).

Honestly, unless the game looks like utter sheeit with a 290x, I don't care because I knew damn well when I saw the trailer that only some really high end rig could pull that off with good FPS.

That's not really enough to make up for the downgrade. It's still not what it could have been.

Maybe not, but the Metro 2033 Redux was charged separately as its entirely own game. It was kind of implied.

+1.

View attached image.

and if you played the game you'd know how nivdia "gameworks" is fucking over amd cards in terms of performance. but then again why would I except any rational thinking from a person with buyers remorse.

even racism.