Watch Dogs on Next-Gen Equal to PC on "High" Settings, Says Director

[Steven Bogos]

Watch Dogs on Next-Gen Equal to PC on "High" Settings, Says Director

Watch Dogs on the PS4 and Xbox One should look as good as the second highest PC setting.

What is going on with Watch Dogs? At first, we saw some pretty exact opposite thing [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/128484-Watch-Dogs-Revised-PC-Specs-Are-Even-More-Demanding] just a few months ago.

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/Design_Cave/status/469127341692973056]

At this point, I don't know what to tell you. Morin specifically stated in March that PS4 version was "close" to the PC version, but that the game's lighting, rain simulation, depth of field and particle effects would be rendered at a higher resolution on the PC. To be fair, there is an "Ultra" setting for the PC, so while he didn't explicitly mention it, perhaps this is what he was talking about.

We're also expected to believe that while a Core i7 is "recommended" for the PC version of the game, the console versions will be able to perform the same feat on a considerably weaker APU?

If you're planning on picking this one up on PC, it may be worth it to wait and see how others with similar set-ups to yours are able to run it first.

Source: Twitter [https://twitter.com/Design_Cave]

Permalink

 

[mirage202]

So, poor port also locked to 30fps?

I'm not quite sure what else I'm supposed to take away from this given the recent news that on PS4 it'll only run at 900p 30fps. If that is all PC will manage on high settings then something stinks.

 

[Riotguards]

so are we saying that the port is comparable to the high setting on pc or are they saying that the pc will have graphics comparable to that of consoles

i mean its quite clear that unless you force pc users to use sub par graphics and frame-rate, etc there could be no possible way that a console can possibly match a pc's processing power

 

[Roofstone]

Eh, I am getting it for the 360. So this does not apply to me! Wooh.

Besides, graphics hardly matter these days. It is really hard to be ugly. As long as your art style is pretty graphics mean nothing. Of course if that applies..

Well.. Boo.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Okay, so the PC will look like the xbone? Like complete and utter shit? And you expect to ask PC gamers to change to an I7, which is a 300$ upgrade, for worse graphics?

Metro Last Light ran on an I5 and it was the best looking game ever. The same with Crysis 3.

Must I bring out the comparison again?

Spoiler: leaked comparison shots

They ask for sky high hardware, and the graphics are nothing to write home about. Modded ENBs look better than the new footage I am seeing.

The same happened with Far Cry 3. It didn't look as good as they've demonstrated on ANY system, PC included. I'm surprised that people believed them after that.

 

[Grabehn]

Just... Just stop talking about graphical fidelity dudes, just stop it. No one believes anything from you anymore, especially after the "Oh... look at the finally released console videos that look NOTHING like the ones we showed before"

And considering how poorly implemented Ubi games are on PC, I wouldn't be surprised if "As good as High settings on PC" actually means that they won't even bother with the port.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

and here we PC gamers were expecting to be spared from SOME of the disappointment this game has brough so far, without even being out


meh i cant run it either way so...

 

[Metalrocks]

i guess i can consider my self happy for not getting the game anyway. even when my rig can run it. at least crysis 3 runs smoothly on ultra settings so as last light and thats with a i5 as well.

 

[QuadFish]

How long ago was this game revealed? It feels like we've been talking about it for years. If they'd saved the reveal we might have been saved a few months of no one knowing what the graphics will actually look like.

 

[VanQ]

I was only mildly interested in this game when it was announced. I called the bullshots back when they were still believed to be the real deal and prevented myself from being hyped through willpower and it was a good choice. Everything about this game would be a disappointment if I was hyped. As it stands, I'll just keep standing at the sidelines making the occasional "meh" sound while I wait for iDOLM@STER: One For All to arrive in the mail next week.

 

[Kahani]

So the console versions will run at 2560x1600 resolution? Seems unlikely really.

 

[nevarran]

Graphics, resolutions, frame-rate... Does this game offer anything else?

 

[Olas]

I have to assume this is just them trying not to say anything negative about consoles, because they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

I believe this is what Critical Miss termed a "[a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comicsandcosplay/comics/critical-miss/11241-Xbox-Ones-Frame-Rate-Kid-Rejected-Mother-Approved"]momparison[/a]"

At least I fucking hope so, otherwise this is going to really disappoint.

 

[Under_your_bed]

What is going on with Watch Dogs? At first, we saw some pretty toned down [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/128484-Watch-Dogs-Revised-PC-Specs-Are-Even-More-Demanding] (although they do still require an 8-Core-CPU)

require an 8-Core-CPU

require

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Mothhive]

So the console versions will be running the equivalent to the PC's high settings. Really not sure why people are getting upset or confused about this. Unless you're gonna run it at 792p or 900p and 30fps on your PC, the game will look much better than the console versions, especially if you use the Ultra settings or use a higher resolution than 1080p.

 

[ghalleon0915]

The last month has been interesting with regards to Watchdogs; I am looking forward to next week not because I am purchasing it, but to see how the final version ends up ( and to a lesser how the multiple collector's edition worked out for those who bought them), and put an end to all of their contradictory statements. Maybe it will be positively received as Wolfenstein has been ( from what I've read).

 

[TheComfyChair]

they obviously just mean that the base settings (e.g. texture quality, lighting ect.) will be similar to high on PC. That makes sense, since there's an 'ultra' settings, and watch dogs on console runs at lower resolutions than PC standards. What has this got to do with resolution and framerate at all? I can see why it's worth mentioning, but why are people thinking that framerate or resolution has any bearing on this? Do we have a lot of brand new PC gamers around or something? haha

Ubisoft, whilst capable of providing a shoddy port on occasion (AC2 looked and ran rather badly), very rarely screw up the basics (DRM aside). So I really don't see what's going on here.

This is the summary:

The consoles will run watch dogs at 'PC high' settings at whatever resolutions they can maintain a relatively constant 30fps. PCs will run watchdogs at whatever the PC in question can manage at whatever resolution and framerate it can manage.

 

[clippen05]

I fail to possibly see how 792p could ever be equal to high on PC considering the majority of people run at 1080p or higher these days on PC. I know resolution is separate from graphics settings, but still, the simple difference in pixels is enough to make them 'not equal.'