Game News The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Patch 1.1 Notes

[Black]

They didn't resolve the issues with pre order dlc crap and downloading them with the launcher so they released them all for free (well, technically you had to ask for the specific address via emall)

http://wpc.420C.edgecastcdn.net/00420C/files/InstalDLC/dlc_finishers.exe
http://wpc.420C.edgecastcdn.net/00420C/files/InstalDLC/roche_jacket.exe
http://wpc.420C.edgecastcdn.net/00420C/files/InstalDLC/magical_suit.exe
http://wpc.420C.edgecastcdn.net/00420C/files/InstalDLC/swordsman_suit.exe
http://wpc.420C.edgecastcdn.net/00420C/files/InstalDLC/merchant.exe
http://wpc.420C.edgecastcdn.net/00420C/files/InstalDLC/alchemy_suit.exe

Do you put this into the cookedpc folder or what?

 

[gromit]

You run them from wherever you save them, and it puts the appropriate dzips into the folder for you.

 

[Mangoose]

Yeah, not at all because I'd rather have screen estate to my left and right instead of getting a cramp in my neck/eyes to look up and down.

I never got cramp in my eyes. I can see all of my 20.1' without moving neck.

That's because a 20.1" is tiny. 24" is a common resolution for widescreen users. If you had a 4:3 screen of comparable area then you would then feel the strain.

I use heigh more then width I open my browser in window because I have to much width.

Some of us need two windows on the screen.

 

[AlaCarcuss]

So? How is that relevant before you get close to that limit? I can see all of my 20'1 4:3 without moving my neck. My eyeballs had never hurt me so dunno about this problem but if proportions that correspond to human field of vision disregarding the size of the object that you look at were most comfortable for humans then why books are not in widescreen format? Try to open something in ini, and read it when it covers all of your width, then decrease width much worse no?

errrm... i can see my two 26" widescreens perfectly without moving my neck and having only minimal eye movement between the two centers. if you ever have to move your neck (or extensively move your eyes) when looking at a monitor, it is too fucking close and you should stop trying to kiss it.
reading does not depend on fov but on perceptual span, which is a tiny weeny area of your total fov that you can see sharp enough in to read. books can have any format because you will be constantly moving your eyes anyhow to keep that teeny weeny bit of your fov on the letters you currently read.
go outside and use your eyes. you still get a lot of and depend on information from the edges, even if it is not sharp.

Ha, yeah these potato eaters coming up with all these ridiculous reasons not to upgrade to widescreen is quite funny.

I play most games @ 5900x1080 (5760 with bevel correction) with nVidia surround on 3x 23" 16:9 monitors. It's fucking glorious, best thing I've ever done to enhance my gaming experience. It'll be a while before I can play TW2 at that res on high though.

Look, I agree, for some things (usually business apps and tablets) 4:3 may be preferable, but certainly not for gaming and movies. That's not the point though, 4:3 is a dead format - hell I preferred Beta to VHS too, but what can you do?

 

[DwarvenFood]

CDP is starting to piss me off , if they don't get their shit working and won't release a 4:3 in next 2 weeks i'm never buying their stuff again.

You must be butthurt about HDTV as well ?

I still use 4:3 and a CRT TV but it is a choice I make and being butthurt about new technology surpassing old hardware is not going to change anything maybe u prefer using a fixed line & modem for your internet as well, but then do not complain about speed.

 

[Kraszu]

Ha, yeah these potato eaters coming up with all these ridiculous reasons not to upgrade to widescreen is quite funny.

That isn't an upgrade bigger screen could be an upgrade not different aspect ratio.

I play most games @ 5900x1080 (5760 with bevel correction) with nVidia surround on 3x 23" 16:9 monitors. It's fucking glorious, best thing I've ever done to enhance my gaming experience. It'll be a while before I can play TW2 at that res on high though.

And you didn't reach the point when you could use more heigh then width? I have more heigh then you, and I see a use for more. How having ~the same amount of pixels in 4:3 would be worse?

btw. bevels fucking suck.

Look, I agree, for some things (usually business apps and tablets) 4:3 may be preferable, but certainly not for gaming and movies.

That all depends on what format they develop it for. I don't see how more balanced view isn't better for top down games. In other games it would vary in racing game you don't have much use for heigh but in say portal you do.

That's not the point though, 4:3 is a dead format - hell I preferred Beta to VHS too, but what can you do?

I am not saying that it isn't just that it is better. I didn't even lost by choosing 4:3 when they were still popular as they prices hold much better so I am butthurt about the change of aspect ratio not about having 4:3 myself so far I prefer it over 16:10, and definitely over 16: 9 but 16:10 will be obsolete as well.

 

[Kraszu]

CDP is starting to piss me off , if they don't get their shit working and won't release a 4:3 in next 2 weeks i'm never buying their stuff again.

You must be butthurt about HDTV as well ?

I still use 4:3 and a CRT TV but it is a choice I make and being butthurt about new technology surpassing old hardware is not going to change anything maybe u prefer using a fixed line & modem for your internet as well, but then do not complain about speed.

Aspect ratio isn't a new technology moron.

 

[DwarvenFood]

CDP is starting to piss me off , if they don't get their shit working and won't release a 4:3 in next 2 weeks i'm never buying their stuff again.

You must be butthurt about HDTV as well ?

I still use 4:3 and a CRT TV but it is a choice I make and being butthurt about new technology surpassing old hardware is not going to change anything maybe u prefer using a fixed line & modem for your internet as well, but then do not complain about speed.

Aspect ratio isn't a new technology moron.

It is not a new idea, but

In 2008 the computer industry started to use 16:9 as standard aspect ratio for monitors and laptops

Also, I do not disagree with any of your posts. It is a choice what people would prefer to use, but we cannot expect the developers to cater for backward compatibility to make the game scalable to 4:3 without losing proportions.

 

[Kraszu]

It is not a new idea, but

In 2008 the computer industry started to use 16:9 as standard aspect ratio for monitors and laptops

Also, I do not disagree with any of your posts. It is a choice what people would prefer to use, but we cannot expect the developers to cater for backward compatibility to make the game scalable to 4:3 without losing proportions.

Then don't call it a technology advancement when it isn't. Eyefinity by hardware adds extra space so it can't be that hard, no? I don't know how hard it is to add those 33% extra heigh pixels to get from 16: 9 to 16:12, can somebody explain it?

Also don't cry about big fonts, and shitty low poly textures when consoles are more popular.

 

[villain of the story]

So? How is that relevant before you get close to that limit? I can see all of my 20'1 4:3 without moving my neck. My eyeballs had never hurt me so dunno about this problem but if proportions that correspond to human field of vision disregarding the size of the object that you look at were most comfortable for humans then why books are not in widescreen format? Try to open something in ini, and read it when it covers all of your width, then decrease width much worse no?

It's called "perry-feral-vision"* son. You don't have to focus on everything you see for a preliminary assessment because you can afford it. It's the reason you saved yourself from getting run over by a car or walking into people many times because you actually see and notice shit going on outside the tiny area of focus you can maintain at any given time, reaching even further back from your facing direction.

That's only for starters. Try rapidly moving your eyes between as far left and right as you can and try the same doing as far up and down, without moving your neck. Notice what's going on? Yeah, that's also an effect of having our lines horizontally oriented, thus our entire field view conforming to horizontal use.

As for books or browsing and reading teh internets, what SuicideBunny said. Reading, or doing similar focused activities are different because the area we can focuse on is tiny and vertical movement helps with correlation and memory because the amount of data you can squeeze into an area will be more efficient if it has continuity within itself, eg. reading sentence spanning two or three lines in a column will be more efficient and comfortable than scanning through a sideways because in the latter, the beginning and the end of the data and the other data before or after that it's related to will be out of your focus fast. But that area of focus composes such a tiny tiny area and requires so little eye movement, it doesn't factor into the letter box vs. widescreen argument on its own. Even then, you must realise that most of the eye movement is still horizontal, you only move up or down to change lines. Vertical movement is only helping you keep things tidy.

Any sort of medium that requires you to track and asses multiple factors, like in a game, will benefit the best from utilising your peripheral vision the most. Likewise, playing an RTS or a RPG and whatnot between a letterbox and widescreen doesn't have any difference regarding your ability to asses the information on an area you focus since by focusing on any given area, you are already relying on your peripheral vision to notice other changes on screen to shift your focus if need be. In this, widescreen offers more space for more "peripheral events". So it's all about peripheral. Unless you are visually impaired.

Plus, you can use most widescreen monitors at letterbox resolutions with vertical black bars to avoid botched proportions and without sacrificing height, eg. image integrity. Doing the same on a letterbox monitor actually shrinks the image by sacrificing height.

*: How would you write the -sion part of vision in English to achieve the same pronounciation* without resorting to phonetic symbols?

**: Fuck you Chrome, pronounciation is a valid word!

 

[Kraszu]

]It's called "perry-feral-vision"* son. You don't have to focus on and assess everything you see in detail but you can just afford to do so. It's the reason you saved yourself from getting run over by a car or walking into people many times because you actually see and notice shit going on outside the tiny area of focus you can maintain at any given time.

That's only for starters. Try rapidly moving your eyes between as far left and right as you can and try the same doing as far up and down, without moving your neck. Notice what's going on? Yeah, that's also an effect of having our lines horizontally oriented, thus our entire field view conforming to horizontal use.

None of the monitors have heigh big enough to make you do it, so how does it make 16: 9 better? Now the new shit is 3 monitors giving you a ratio of 16:3 + bevels fucking perfect no?

Likewise, playing an RTS or a RPG and whatnot between a letterbox and widescreen doesn't have any difference regarding your ability to asses the information on an area you focus since by focusing on any given area, you are already relying on your peripheral vision to notice other changes on screen to shift your focus if need be. In this, widescreen offers more space for more "peripheral events". So it's all about peripheral. Unless you are visually impaired.

So if somebody flying towards you from button or up you can't see it before it hits your focus zone? Wiescreen doesn't offer more visible space until you would reach big enough monitor sizes.

 

[Devil]

My God, you have some serious problems.

 

[Kraszu]

Plus, you can use most widescreen monitors at letterbox resolutions with vertical black bars to avoid botched proportions and without sacrificing height, eg. image integrity. Doing the same on a letterbox monitor actually shrinks the image by sacrificing height.

What are you talking about? you are sacrificing width or height proportions stay the same. When I play in 1600:900 on 1600x1200 the proportions stay the same as they would be on widescreen monitor.

 

[villain of the story]

Think of it like this: you get yourself a 4:3 monitor just the size you want. It's perfect for your 4:3 needs. Now, imagine they offered you a widescreen monitor that has the exact same height but only wider. You don't have to use the extra width but you can. You can just limit it to 4:3 but if you want widescreen, you can just adjust so. That is, assuming whatever software you intend to use in 4:3 supports 4:3 resolutions for correct proportions.

On the other side, imagine "going widescreen" in your natively 4:3 monitor. Image will be shrinked. It will be smaller.

If you're still not getting this, you are beyond hope.

So if somebody flying towards you from button or up you can't see it before it hits your focus zone? Wiescreen doesn't offer more visible space until you would reach big enough monitor sizes.

Are you being this stupid on purpose? Focus zone by itself has nothing to do with widescreen or, uh, a hypothetical "highscreen". Focus zone is a tiny area you focus to process details. You still see and notice everything outside your focus zone so you don't "wait for shit to hit your focus zone". Instead, you shift your focus. It just so happens that we have to eyes and those two eyes are lined up horizontally and as a result, our peripheral vision is horizontally oriented which means that you would sooner see and notice things at a wider horizontal arc than a vertical arc. For fuck's sake, how many times do I have to repeat it? Yes, in real life, if something is coming down on your from above and something else is coming onto you from back or sideways, you will sooner notice the latter than the former. It's likely that you won't even notice the former until it would be too late. Also as a result of our lines being lined up horizontally, horizontal eye movement is more comfortable then vertical eye movement. When you are reading a book or a page, you are still reading it all horizontally, the only vertical movement being between lines.

 

[Kraszu]

Think of it like this: you get yourself a 4:3 monitor just the size you want. It's perfect for your 4:3 needs. Now, imagine they offered you a widescreen monitor that has the exact same height but only wider. You don't have to use the extra width but you can. You can just limit it to 4:3 but if you want widescreen, you can just adjust so. That is, assuming whatever software you intend to use in 4:3 supports 4:3 resolutions for correct proportions..

On the other side, imagine "going widescreen" in your natively 4:3 monitor. Image will be shrinked. It will be smaller.

Think of it like this: you get yourself a 16: 9 monitor just the size you want. It's perfect for your 16: 9 needs. Now, imagine they offered you a letterbox monitor that has the exact same width but is higher. You don't have to use the extra height but you can. You can just limit it to 16: 9 but if you want letterbox, you can just adjust so. That is, assuming whatever software you intend to use in 16: 9 supports 16: 9 resolutions for correct proportions..

If you're still not getting this, you are beyond hope.

1600:900 is not shrinked on 1600:1200 monitor. You have black bars, and the image is exactly the same as it would be on smaller widescreen monitor.

So if somebody flying towards you from button or up you can't see it before it hits your focus zone? Wiescreen doesn't offer more visible space until you would reach big enough monitor sizes.

Are you being this stupid on purpose? Focus zone by itself has nothing to do with widescreen or, uh, a hypothetical "highscreen". Focus zone is a tiny area you focus to process details. You still see and notice everything outside your focus zone so you don't "wait for shit to hit your focus zone". Instead, you shift your focus. It just so happens that we have to eyes and those two eyes are lined up horizontally and as a result, our peripheral vision is horizontally oriented which means that you would sooner see and notice things at a wider horizontal arc than a vertical arc. For fuck's sake, how many times do I have to repeat it? Yes, in real life, if something is coming down on your from above and something else is coming onto you from back or sideways, you will sooner notice the latter than the former. It's likely that you won't even notice the former until it would be too late. Also as a result of our lines being lined up horizontally, horizontal eye movement is more comfortable then vertical eye movement. When you are reading a book or a page, you are still reading it all horizontally, the only vertical movement being between lines.

That was a rhetorical question, my point was that all of that doesn't matter as long as you don't have monitor so huge when it would matter. The 3 monitors16:3 set up that offers 1080 heigh obviously doesn't max the comfortable heigh.

 

[villain of the story]

Dear gawd, you are truly a moron. Obviously, our eyes being more suited to horizontal movement and thus peripheral vision being also horizontally oriented is beyond your grasp, as is the matter of image integrity between the two. All that matters is height. If height changes, integrity and your perception is also altered, eg. scale changes, proportions change.

But whatever, by all means, there is nothing stopping you from buying a large widescreen monitor that you can swivel and use vertically all the time. Plenty of them around and both Windows and ATI/nVidia drivers have native support.

 

[Kraszu]

Dear gawd, you are truly a moron. Obviously, our eyes being more suited to horizontal movement and thus peripheral vision being also horizontally oriented is beyond your grasp,

You fail to show how that matters before you have monitor big enough that would max your field of view. I had never said that you can see as much up-down as sideways just that it is irrelevant before we will have monitors that max fov both side ways, and top down, what matters up to that point is what is more useful more heigh space or even more space side ways then letterbox offers.

After you reach fov adding more width would be better for the reason that you mention, but somehow you find it self evident that if it would be better for such big monitors, then it must be better for all monitor sizes.

as is the matter of image integrity between the two. All that matters is height. If height changes, integrity and your perception is also altered, eg. scale changes, proportions change.

You claim 1600:900 image have broken proportions on 1600:1200 screen when I select 1600:900 resolution, and I a moron for disagreeing with that.

The image is exactly of the same heigh, and width as it would be on smaller widescreen.

But whatever, by all means, there is nothing stopping you from buying a large widescreen monitor that you can swivel and use vertically all the time. Plenty of them around and both Windows and ATI/nVidia drivers have native support.

Liking proportions that give me more width then heigh (4:3) suggest that I only care about having more heigh? Nice straw man.

 

[J_C]

Widescreen monitors are better, offer more visible space and more comfortable for the eye than the 4:3 monitors. It is obvious, if someone doesn't understand this, he is a moron.
Throw out those old 4:3s, WS monitors are dirt cheap nowadays.

 

[villain of the story]

You claim 1600:900 image have broken proportions on 1600:1200 screen when I select 1600:900 resolution, and I a moron for disagreeing with that.

Not "broken" but yeah, dude, whatever. It's no use explaining that to someone who has no idea what any of this means. Goddamn potato person.

Liking proportions that give me more width then heigh (4:3) suggest that I only care about having more heigh? Nice straw man.

That was an honest suggestion, that is currently in use and is supported, since you asked for more vertical space earlier, but go on, play the rebel without a cause. World is against you.

edit: Here's a comparison of using a widescreen resolution on a letterbox screen and using a letterbox resolution on a widescreen, frames resized from 1600x1200, 1600x1000 and 1920x1200, 1600x1200, taken straight from TW1:

Notice how you actually get a smaller image in the first.

 

[Kraszu]

edit: Here's a comparison of using a widescreen resolution on a letterbox screen and using a letterbox resolution on a widescreen, frames resized from 1600x1200, 1600x1000 and 1920x1200, 1600x1200, taken straight from TW1:.

otice how you actually get a smaller image in the first.

That is because it is done incorrectly you should see less vertical wise in 16: 9 but more width wise, nothing to do with aspect ratio just with how TW1 had implemented it. 1600:900 image has the same proportions on 4:3, and 16: 9 it is just smaller or require bigger monitor on 4:3.

4:3 being incorrectly applied =/= 4:3 being inherently worse.

 

[villain of the story]

Seeing vertically less is how it should be? That's plain crazy talk.

 

[Phelot]

What happens to DOSBOX games with the widescreen format? Does it properly stretch or what? Also, what about old 95/98 games?

 

[AlaCarcuss]

I play most games @ 5900x1080 (5760 with bevel correction) with nVidia surround on 3x 23" 16:9 monitors. It's fucking glorious, best thing I've ever done to enhance my gaming experience. It'll be a while before I can play TW2 at that res on high though.

And you didn't reach the point when you could use more heigh then width? I have more heigh then you, and I see a use for more. How having ~the same amount of pixels in 4:3 would be worse?

btw. bevels fucking suck.

Bevels suck? So you've tried it? This is a very common misconception that people that have never tried a triple screen setup have (I did as well). The fact is, bevels don't suck, because you don't even notice them after a while. Your view is still focused on the center screen, the side screens simply provide extended periphery view. This is exactly the same reason that widescreen is better for gaming - human beings have a much wider horizontal peripheral view than we have vertical peripheral view.

Look, I agree, for some things (usually business apps and tablets) 4:3 may be preferable, but certainly not for gaming and movies.

That all depends on what format they develop it for. I don't see how more balanced view isn't better for top down games. In other games it would vary in racing game you don't have much use for heigh but in say portal you do.

So now you wan't different monitors for top down games? That's fair enough I guess, as I said, I keep an old 4:3 for dosbox games (or any game that doesn't support widescreen).

BTW, I can rotate my triple screens and play games like portal in triple wide portrait mode (3240x1920), which is much closer to 4:3.

That's not the point though, 4:3 is a dead format - hell I preferred Beta to VHS too, but what can you do?

I am not saying that it isn't just that it is better. I didn't even lost by choosing 4:3 when they were still popular as they prices hold much better so I am butthurt about the change of aspect ratio not about having 4:3 myself so far I prefer it over 16:10, and definitely over 16: 9 but 16:10 will be obsolete as well.

You'd have a point if 4:3 was actually better, but unless you play games lying down or have fundamentally different eyesight that most homo-sapiens, 4:3 is not better for the majority of modern games, because of the peripherals I mentioned above.

Think about it, if it was, the all these triple screen setups would be vertical - one on top of the other - wouldn't they?

Something I will say though - I'm disappointed with is the imminent death of 16:10 (1920x1200) in favor of 16:9 (1920x1080). Now that's worthy of complaint - not the death of 4:3 - good riddance I say.

 

[Kraszu]

Seeing vertically less is how it should be? That's plain crazy talk.

Seeing vertical as much as you do now on 16: 9, but more in 16:12. It is all just depend on how they would do that is not inherent property of 16: 9 to show more then 16:12 you can add those extra 33% of pixels vertically, and have it the other way around. If 4:3 would stay as standard then you would see more are in never games as well because that should be adopted to your monitor size not to aspect ratio, it is just the proportions on where you see more would be changed less would be added in width, but on other hand some heigh would be added.

 

[Kraszu]

Bevels suck? So you've tried it? This is a very common misconception that people that have never tried a triple screen setup have (I did as well). The fact is, bevels don't suck, because you don't even notice them after a while. Your view is still focused on the center screen, the side screens simply provide extended periphery view. This is exactly the same reason that widescreen is better for gaming - human beings have a much wider horizontal peripheral view than we have vertical peripheral view.

Ok I had not it just seem so from screen-shots maybe it is different when you use it, and see it in its real size. Sure but you vertical peripheral view is not maximized with your setting so how it is better before you get to the size when it does? The most important reason for me to not even try is the cost of PC that would generate such resolutions anyway.

Something I will say though - I'm disappointed with is the imminent death of 16:10 (1920x1200) in favor of 16:9 (1920x1080). Now that's worthy of complaint - not the death of 4:3 - good riddance I say.

Actually if you would have set up of 3x4:3 monitors then it would be closer to human field of view then 3x16: 9 monitors, and fov seem to be your argument.