Exactly why did Watch_Dogs have to be downgraded?

[Diablo1099_v1legacy]

While I am disappointed it isn't basically GTA 5 level of graphics, so long as the gameplay and hacking are up to par and enjoyable, it's something I could live with.
Besides, the last few Saints Row games weren't exactly winning any awards for graphics, but by god does the gameplay more then make up for it.

And if the indie scene has taught us anything: Gameplay > Graphics
Was it a dick move by Ubisoft? Yes and I hope the game makes up for it.

 

[kilenem]

Honestly, what was initially shown was likely the PC version. That's it. That's all there is to it. Because let's be honest here, the "next gen" consoles are kinda underwhelming in the hardware department. So they showcased it on a badarse PC with all the bells and whistles they could put into the game. However, there was no chance in hell they'd get it to run on console hardware, especially this early in a console's lifecycle when devs simply haven't had the time to get used to the hardware and how to optimize for it. So they dialed it down to something manageable.

I thought at beginning of the PS3 and 360 they were on Par with PC because both Microsoft and Sony put tech really expensive tech in them. I believe the PS3's real price was 900 and the 360's was 715

 

[putowtin]

Because it's already been delayed twice, there's been a lot of bad press surrounding it and some folks naming no names) are complaining about it/ already writing it off, as such I think Ubisoft are pushing to get it out of May instead of delaying it again to polish the next gen graphics

 

[Jandau]

I thought at beginning of the PS3 and 360 they were on Par with PC because both Microsoft and Sony put tech really expensive tech in them. I believe the PS3's real price was 900 and the 360's was 715

Nope. Not even a little on par. Sorry. MS put crap in the 360, while Sony put some alien tech into the PS3 that nobody was using and it pretty much required devs to jump through massive hoops to port games to it. All the while, PC outperformed them all by pretty much a generation.

 

[verdant monkai]

I'm sceptical as to whether it ever looked that good. E3 is a time for lies and deceit so its unsurprising the final product looks nothing like their trailer version, which they played on a $20'000 pc and spent months editing to show at E3.

Trailers are rarely a truthful representation of the final product.

But fuck Ubisoft they are not my favourite publisher right now.

 

[kazann]

$20'000 pc and spent months editing to show at E3.

lol, yea okay.

I dont understand how this is difficult to figure out.

E3 trailer was running on PC - the game DOES look like that, ubisoft technically didn't lie - but only on PC.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

I remember reading somewhere that Watch Dogs from that first reveal at E3 was running on one 680 GTX or was it two? Something like that.

Regardless, it is quite obvious that the PC version will be the best because nothing can top it in terms of graphical fidelity. That is why I don't understand some sites that make the "comparisons videos" and pit consoles against PC's..it's very redundant because PC will always win in that category.

 

[snekadid]

God, so many people don't know anything and then they come out and complain about it. I don't even care about the game so i don't even want to defend it but no one was paying attention apparently.

They said at E3 that the demo was from the PC version. No one had bothered to properly ship them dev boxes at the time that they were preparing the presentation.

Also, every single one of you were TOLD MONTHS AGO, the new consoles are under-powered gaming PCs. You will not achieve that level of graphics with those things for awhile because devs will need awhile to figure out how to push the limited power to its limits, just like EVERY console generation. Honestly though, graphics aren't nearly as important as game play.

So TLR: You people need to pay attention, every gripe I've seen in this thread is pathetically oblivious to even basic facts. Is it possible that the demo was faked? Sure, but you're citing incorrect things as evidence.

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

Optimization. Just because there are new consoles out doesn't mean this doesn't happen anymore. The more optimized a game is, the more resources there will be available to the hardware to perform other tasks. I'm abit of an optimization freak myself and more often then not I don't see much reason not to turn some things one could live without off.

So unless you want a pretty game that causes your console of choice to chug until it explodes, this is the best it is going to get for the time being.

That aside, do people still remember what the game is about? Did people just forget?

 

[Mr C]

I've been playing Killzone: Shadow Fall and that game's graphical quality astounds me at every turn. I'm not sold on the 'because next gen consoles can't handle graphics like we saw at the demo' any time soon.

My guess, simply rushing to meet deadlines. They've got a lot of money (and credibility) sunk into this game selling well at launch.

Yep, Killzone looks amazing, especially for a launch title. Levels 2 and 4 had me giggling like a schoolgirl because of how pretty they were. Would the open world nature of the game make Watch Dogs have a lower graphical quality than Killzone?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

God, so many people don't know anything and then they come out and complain about it. I don't even care about the game so i don't even want to defend it but no one was paying attention apparently.

They said at E3 that the demo was from the PC version. No one had bothered to properly ship them dev boxes at the time that they were preparing the presentation.

Also, every single one of you were TOLD MONTHS AGO, the new consoles are under-powered gaming PCs. You will not achieve that level of graphics with those things for awhile because devs will need awhile to figure out how to push the limited power to its limits, just like EVERY console generation. Honestly though, graphics aren't nearly as important as game play.

So TLR: You people need to pay attention, every gripe I've seen in this thread is pathetically oblivious to even basic facts. Is it possible that the demo was faked? Sure, but you're citing incorrect things as evidence.

Exactly this. When Watch Dogs was revealed, we had PS3s, 360s, and PCs. Furthermore, developers didn't have PS4/Xbone dev kits. The reveal was obviously not PS3 or 360 footage nor PS4/Xbone footage; therefore, it was the PC version.

And the reveal could very well be better looking than the final game because there's no way the full game was running, they only had the sections required for the mission for the reveal, which means those sections could look better than the final game as the whole city was not finished.

People have blown this way out of proportion, even Jim Sterling. Games' graphics change quite often during development especially an open world game where you don't build the whole city all at once.

Would the open world nature of the game make Watch Dogs have a lower graphical quality than Killzone?

Most definitely YES. That's why Far Cry 3 doesn't as good as a linear FPS and why GTA doesn't look as good as say Uncharted. When you have less objects on screen at once, each object can then have more detail.

 

[Mr C]

Would the open world nature of the game make Watch Dogs have a lower graphical quality than Killzone?

Most definitely YES. That's why Far Cry 3 doesn't as good as a linear FPS and why GTA doesn't look as good as say Uncharted. When you have less objects on screen at once, each object can then have more detail.

You may have been sarcastic but thanks for answering in a helpful and understandable way.