That's pretty mid range. There have been much more power demanding games released in recent years than Watch Dogs. Easily.Rellik San said:
Watch Dogs Looks Better on Wii U Than PS3, Xbox 360
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
The problem with this is that they said the only way they are utilizing the game pad is just the off screen mode. That to me says they are just lazy ass bastards. Now I"m sure the game will be good. Hell I might pick it up. Might. This however is an example of what happened with the Wii. Sure the Wii was a success but that was due almost exclusively to the first party titles and the casual market. Third party devs didn't give a shit trying to use the new control scheme. To me this shows an extreme lack of imagination and faith in something different on the part of large third party devs. From what I've seen of Watchdogs with the hacking bits and stuff the Wii U could make it a truly unique experience far removed from the PS3 or 360 experience. Lazy. Just lazy. When Nintendo is the only one that tries to take advantage of a toy they released to the entire world it just shows the general lack of imagination and faith at the upper levels of big 3rd party devs.
It had better look better. It has a similar CPU to the 360 but 4 times as much RAM (albeit only 1GB available for gaming).
If it didn't look better, it would be embarrassing.
If it didn't look better, it would be embarrassing.
That's 3rd parties for ya; tell them to think up something imaginative and their brains just stall. It's why Nintendo basically had to hold their hands when the DS and the 3DS came out. And another thing; we've had the DS line for nearly a DECADE and people can't think of ANYTHING for the Wii U's Gamepad? Dear Buddha, are developers just THAT stupid?KazeAizen said:
Except that they already have to make this game for multiple platforms. I'm sure right now there's hundreds of unlucky programmers over at Ubisoft working their asses off trying to finish this thing for the PS3, the 360, the PS4, the Xbone, the PC, and the Wii-U.KazeAizen said:
Whereas Nintendo can focus solely on their own platform, and thus squeeze the most potential out of it.
While I 100% agree with you about this stupid bullshit practice of stripping content out of Wii U versions of third-party games (I was livid when I heard the news about Arkham's multiplayer not coming), in the case of Arkham Origins, Warner Bros at least had the decency to lower the price of the Wii U version. It's $50, as opposed to the $60 of the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions (in the U.S., at least). So, there's that, at least.Kwil said:
http://www.gamestop.com/wii-u/games/batman-arkham-origins/109026
It's still hilarious how publishers can strip content out of Wii U games, then act all surprised when they don't sell as well as their 360/PS3 counterparts. It's an endless cycle.
I would hope it looks better on the next gen console than on the two current gen consoles...If this game gets really good scores and I find it at a discount then I'll probably get the Wii U version but the PS3 and PS4 versions already promise exclusive missions so I'm more than likely just going to wait for either a PS4, GotY (or complete) edition. If there isn't a complete edition I'll probably still get a PS4 copy anyway because by the time I get a PS4 this thing will be a budget title.
edit: Also the sequel's sequel will have likely been announced by the time I get a PS4 copy. This is an Ubisoft game right? So...Sequel's Sequel? Or Sequel's, sequel only not really because it doesn't have the number 3?
edit: Also the sequel's sequel will have likely been announced by the time I get a PS4 copy. This is an Ubisoft game right? So...Sequel's Sequel? Or Sequel's, sequel only not really because it doesn't have the number 3?
I wouldn't be so sure - Bioshock Infinite and Dishonored were both using the somewhat-dated Unreal 3 engine, whereas Watch Dogs is using a brand new engine Ubisoft created for it, called "Disrupt".Charcharo said:I am 100% certain that the System Requirements are bloated by quite a bit. It was the same for Infinite and Dishnored, my PC should have barely ran them... yet it maxed them on 1650x1080. So yeah, it will run Watch Dogs as well, no matter what BS they say
I have a feeling that it will indeed be rather graphically intensive... Especially with the "next-gen" features enabled. Expect at best the performance of AC3, in any case.
The issue isn't so much that fans will want more of it, it's just that it gives them the perfect excuse to milk the franchise long after it's dead.Desert Punk said:
Now you are just making games with the sole intention of being able to wring it of every drop it's worth, as opposed to just making a game that's so good that people want to see more of it.
Well, as far as the graphics requirements are concerned, bear in mind that as consumer electronics become more powerful, developers tend to compensate by becoming lax in their engine optimisations. So just because it doesn't look as graphically impressive as another game, it doesn't mean it won't have higher requirements. Sad, but true.Charcharo said:Well, we shall see. I am betting on the requirements being made much higher on purpose.Extragorey said:I wouldn't be so sure - Bioshock Infinite and Dishonored were both using the somewhat-dated Unreal 3 engine, whereas Watch Dogs is using a brand new engine Ubisoft created for it, called "Disrupt".Charcharo said:I am 100% certain that the System Requirements are bloated by quite a bit. It was the same for Infinite and Dishnored, my PC should have barely ran them... yet it maxed them on 1650x1080
I have a feeling that it will indeed be rather graphically intensive... Especially with the "next-gen" features enabled. Expect at best the performance of AC3, in any case.
Anyways, it makes no sense for it to have such requirements. Compare it to Metro Last Light or Crysis 3 or even good old STALKER (which definitely has much more intensive AI then this)...
I don't think the AI factors much into performance requirements, though.