Jimquisition: Watch_Dogs: A Vertical Slice Of Steaming Bullshots

[Jimothy Sterling]

Watch_Dogs: A Vertical Slice Of Steaming Bullshots

Amid concerns that Watch_Dogs has been visually "downgraded" after an overpromising reveal trailer, Jimquisition tackles the wider problem of publishers constantly being lying little bastards.

Watch Video

 

[Barbas]

Should have seen this one coming.

Spoiler

[HEADING=2]"Just because it is, doesn't mean it should be."[/HEADING]​

[small][sub]"There's nothing liiiiike Australiaaaaa..."[/sub][/small]

 

[InsanityRequiem]

Seriously, Microsoft & Sony and nearly all the AAA publishers kept pushing the "Greater graphics is best" crap for almost the entirety of the PS3/360 generation. The fact that they're getting backlash when they're called out on bullshit graphics should show people how failed their marketing and development philosophies have become.

 

[INVALIDUSERNAME]

Amen to E3 being a waste of fucking time.

The only thing I got out of this year's was: sports, sports, sports, 4 seconds of Battlefront III, monochrome FPS.
Watch_dogs was the only game that at least looked good, what with it not running with a fucking blue/brown filter, being open world, and letting you live this hacker/espionage fantasy.

And now it doesn't look any better than, say, GTA IV. Don't get me wrong, GTA IV looks and plays great, and I still love it. It's the fact that they lied, though, that gets me.

The game, if the new trailer is anything to go by, DOES look good. But you're right: in comparison, it looks like miserable ass because the 2012 trailer set such an unrealistically high standard for what the game was going to look like visually.

Oh, but hey! At least we got dat wicked gameplay nobody's tried yet! Yeah, Steam Sale 2016 ahoy.

 

[drizztmainsword]

Considering that the story trailer footage is on the actual PS4 hardware and the E3 reveal from *two years ago* was stated to be running on a very high-end PC before anybody even knew the specs of the new generation of consoles, I have literally no problem with any graphical "downgrade." You know what probably happened? It probably ended up that they were having significant issues getting all of those effects to run on the PS4 and Xbox One. Those consoles aren't the amazing upgrades that Microsoft and Sony are claiming them to be. Not compared to current top-of-the-line or even mid-level hardware.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Yes gameplay is more important graphics, but false advertising is still unacceptable. Also wouldn't they make more money off the game if they didn't waste it making these phony trailers? The AAA industry just baffles me these days.

 

[gigastar]

Jim, youre not approaching this with a rational mind. Rational venting is good, its why i watch this show. However irrational venting makes me nauseous.

Why are people are up in arms over a trailer that was made using probably an alpha build. Nobody expected changes over the past 2 years? The PS4 (which im told is the platform the new trailer footage came from) was most certainly far from having its specs confirmed at the time and it probably came out with less than Ubisoft were hoping for, so they compromised and the extreme graphical fidelity shown in the E3 trailer was the first thing to go.

The E3 footage 2 years ago was what they wanted for it, what we saw last week was what they had to settle for.

 

[Thaluikhain]

One wonders if the amount of disappointed people not going to buy the game might have been less than those persuaded to buy the game by the hype. If so...well...

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

The E3 footage 2 years ago was what they wanted for it, what we saw last week was what they had to settle for.

Except it takes YOU to say that, not Ubisoft. Who is not saying that.

And that is my problem.

 

[Necromancer1991]

Considering that the story trailer footage is on the actual PS4 hardware and the E3 reveal from *two years ago* was stated to be running on a very high-end PC before anybody even knew the specs of the new generation of consoles, I have literally no problem with any graphical "downgrade."

That what I was assuming, it's a common trick for PR to show off the PC versions running on High-end machines with all the settings maxed out rather than the "locked at meh" console versions of the game. If I know a PC version of a game is imminent I tend to just attribute PR footage to that, which as a PC-Gamer tends to leave with a grin on my face cackling when controversy like this arises.

 

[bunnielovekins]

The E3 footage 2 years ago was what they wanted for it, what we saw last week was what they had to settle for.

Except it takes YOU to say that, not Ubisoft. Who is not saying that.

And that is my problem.

It's not their problem though, they already got their precious preorders.

It's always astonishing to me how little there is to say after an episode, since chances are you already said it.

 

[varmintx]

In defense of Killzone 2, the difference between the target and the actual game is not as severe:
http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/k6zkxe/killzone-2-target-render-vs--real-time-comparison

That doesn't excuse not being upfront that it's a CGI trailer.

 

[gigastar]

The E3 footage 2 years ago was what they wanted for it, what we saw last week was what they had to settle for.

Except it takes YOU to say that, not Ubisoft. Who is not saying that.

And that is my problem.

If thats the problem then how did the majority of the video come out as ranting over the same subjects that were covered by pretty much everyone of note with the Colonial Marines hype crash?

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

Jim, youre not approaching this with a rational mind. Rational venting is good, its why i watch this show. However irrational venting makes me nauseous.

Why are people are up in arms over a trailer that was made using probably an alpha build. Nobody expected changes over the past 2 years? The PS4 (which im told is the platform the new trailer footage came from) was most certainly far from having its specs confirmed at the time and it probably came out with less than Ubisoft were hoping for, so they compromised and the extreme graphical fidelity shown in the E3 trailer was the first thing to go.

The E3 footage 2 years ago was what they wanted for it, what we saw last week was what they had to settle for.

You answered your own question there, and reaffirmed Jim's point. In a vacuum the decision is solid enough to compromise graphics, but this isn't something that just Ubisoft has to settle for. Now, the majority of people that were stoked for the game suddenly feel like they have to 'settle for' it too. I'm sure that they'll have those graphical options on the PC, but the majority of buyers will be on console, and they don't see as big a reason to get it now, especially since GTA V is still going strong on last gen. It is also one of the only few AAA games announced for Spring release on next gen, so that adds even more disappointment. As said Watch_Dogs will still be good, but since it was being trumpeted as the herald of next gen HD graphics and lighting that it no longer is, it has lost its punch.

I'd say this is a completely rational response.

 

[josh4president]

The E3 footage 2 years ago was what they wanted for it, what we saw last week was what they had to settle for.

Except it takes YOU to say that, not Ubisoft. Who is not saying that.

And that is my problem.

So how many quid you willing to bet that a certain dark fantasy game showcased for next gen that was billed as being 'all in-game footage guys! No seriously it truly is! No cutscenes with a fake UI to be found here!' turns out to have been one long bull-shot launched straight into the consumers' upturned faces?

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I think one of the most glaring problems with the story trailer isn't even how poor the graphical quality was, but how poorly they seem to be using what graphics they do have. As you and Extra Credits have said, aesthetics can be great even when graphics aren't, but they don't even seem to have a decent aesthetic.

The other major issue I have with graphical downgrade is something that has been mentioned a few times, namely that graphics are the entire fucking point of a new console generation. If, as you say, it looks like a standard current gen game, then something is very fucking wrong.

Good stuff, Jim. The "Graphics don't matter!" shit needs to stop. Games are a visual medium and they should look good.

 

[WildFire15]

I didn't look into this when it first started doing the rounds, thinking this new trailer was for a current gen version of the game rather then the next-gen version. Now... bloody hell, what happened?
I've largely stopped pre-ordering things now anyway, unless the company developing it is trust worthy. That list is depressingly short.

 

[MoonWhispers]

The E3 footage 2 years ago was what they wanted for it, what we saw last week was what they had to settle for.

Except it takes YOU to say that, not Ubisoft. Who is not saying that.

And that is my problem.

Yea, I've worked on a number of titles that started out looking great, but as systems, gameplay, etc, were implemented they had to scale back graphics, put in roadblocks to slow streaming, whatever, to keep the framerate from falling into the toilet. So, I would have been more surprised if the graphics on Watch Dogs hadn't been scaled back on some level, and I suspect the need to alter things may have been part of why the game was delayed.

That said, the execs at Ubi don't want to admit the overreach, for whatever reason, and that's pretty damn lame. I think they were really hoping we wouldn't notice. But at least it came out like this now, well ahead of release, rather than us not finding out till the game shipped like Colonial Marines. That's a step in the right direction at least (albeit a small step).

 

[Falterfire]

Question: Your opening was a bit ambiguous to me, so I would like clarification: Are we getting a double dose of heavenly Jimquisition goodness this week or is this replacing the Jimquisition you had otherwise recorded?