Don't get me wrong, it looks gorgeous. I'm definitely not a hater, I mean, people calling it the best RPG ever, or even in years months ago when even reviewers hadn't played more than small demos, was way over-the-top. Keep in mind that the infamous Sonic the Hedgehog from 2006 had an amazing demo. I'm not putting it in the same class, but it's something to keep in mind. As screenshots and trailers keep coming out, I get more and more confused by people claiming that this game is so graphically astounding.
I'm a fan of the series. I've never loved the combat, but everything else about is is just glorious, even in the weakest first game. But that's not the point of this. A lot of the hype centers around just how graphically intense it is, which is a terrible reason to think a game will be great, but that's besides the point. What I don't get is, what the huge deal is as far as the graphics. I recently played The Witcher 2 with max settings and I don't think Wild Hunt looks much better. I have a few screenshots here to back me up.
Again, don't get me wrong, the game looks great. I just don't see it as the absurd graphical leap that's truly next gen comparatively that it's hyped up to be. Also, Geralt's hair looks kind of like the plastic piece glued onto 80's wrestling figures that was supposed to be hair in the new one. Keep in mind that The Witcher 2 came out four years and two days before The Witcher 3, and it looks like it takes place in the same generation of games. It looks better, but it's really not otherworldly if we could have The Witcher 2 with much lower required specs and lesser technology in 2011.