'High' is a setting. It's usually independent from resolution. Have a look at the options menus in most games. You'll notice that the 'quality' presets are seperate from things such as resolution. This news is simply that the consoles are using the 'high' preset at their respective resolutions.clippen05 said:
Watch Dogs on Next-Gen Equal to PC on "High" Settings, Says Director
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
If what I've seen on the console screenshots is high then there's no chance that this game requires an 8-core or 8Gigs of RAM on the PC. In fact, I doubt that it even requires a minimum of 6Gb of RAM. This isn't the first time they lie about requirements. They inflate them because they don't seem to trust their own programmers to optimize the game properly. ACIV "required" a minimum of quad core CPU, yet people with dual cores had no trouble playing it.
This worries me greatly given how shitty the "Next Gen" ports are shaping up to be. Hopefully he just means in terms of texture quality and that "High" setting on PC will also have 1080P / 60fps, and we have to crank it up to ultra to get "fancy" things like Anti aliasing, Anisotropic Filtering, and uncompressed textures.
There's been so much damn talk about the fucking graphics for this game I'm starting to question how good it actually is. Guess I'll wait for the reviews from people I trust, which, when it comes to the PC port at this point is basically just TB.
There's been so much damn talk about the fucking graphics for this game I'm starting to question how good it actually is. Guess I'll wait for the reviews from people I trust, which, when it comes to the PC port at this point is basically just TB.
Glad I will be running it on Ultra.... Oh wait the new consoles can not go that high? And if it still does not look like I want it to then there is always modding. Oh wait can not do that on consoles either? Damn I guess the PC is indeed the better choice. I have a feeling the screenshots the day after it comes out will show how full of shit this statement was...
Where exactly did you get 30fps on PC from. All this is saying is that the console versions will be using settings equivalent to the "High" preset from the PC, but displaying it at their lower resolutions and fps. The PC version is not affected by the limitations of the consoles.erbkaiser said:
Calm down everyone, there's a perfectly logical explanation!
PC version also has "Higher","Pretty High","Very High", "Mega High" and "Ultra" settings!
On a more serious note, is this to supposed be some kind of a consolation for the console people? That the PC version looks as bad?
These press releases are getting worse every day.
Edit. Consolation... Consola... Console. OH MY GAWD.
PC version also has "Higher","Pretty High","Very High", "Mega High" and "Ultra" settings!
On a more serious note, is this to supposed be some kind of a consolation for the console people? That the PC version looks as bad?
These press releases are getting worse every day.
Edit. Consolation... Consola... Console. OH MY GAWD.
Okay guy, if it does turn out that good-looking, then congrats to you guys for utilising next gen the way that you did.
However, something has to have been sacrificed for these settings, and it will most likely be the frame-rate.
In which case, I'd take my PC and play it on lower settings, but at least it'd be 60fps, as in, what should be the standard for next gen.
I like to propose something to devs: can we please cut it out with this "oh it's going to look soooo good on next gen"? Gameplay matters, as does aesthetic.
I personally think that even if Transistor was running at 30fps, it would still be the best looking 'next-gen' title out right now, because of its art style.
Games that look nice will look worse retro-actively, and it is cheaper to instead just go for a strong aesthetic than strong graphics.
Alas, unless a game is an immediate success, publishers will not deviate from the standard formula.
In any case, I feel glad that I have placed my trust in the Indies this year, haven't regretted Transistor nor The Banner Saga.
However, something has to have been sacrificed for these settings, and it will most likely be the frame-rate.
In which case, I'd take my PC and play it on lower settings, but at least it'd be 60fps, as in, what should be the standard for next gen.
I like to propose something to devs: can we please cut it out with this "oh it's going to look soooo good on next gen"? Gameplay matters, as does aesthetic.
I personally think that even if Transistor was running at 30fps, it would still be the best looking 'next-gen' title out right now, because of its art style.
Games that look nice will look worse retro-actively, and it is cheaper to instead just go for a strong aesthetic than strong graphics.
Alas, unless a game is an immediate success, publishers will not deviate from the standard formula.
In any case, I feel glad that I have placed my trust in the Indies this year, haven't regretted Transistor nor The Banner Saga.
Eh, the game should be judged on it's actual merits. I'm holding off on this one since I'm not really interesting in deciding which of the 5 special editions I want to maximize content. It's literally that which has made me wait till there is something like a GOTY edition. That said, the graphics can improve a game, but they can't fix broken mechanics or systems that don't feel like they work together well. Even if it's not great graphics, it will still look pretty good by most people's standards. I feel like I'm staring down the PC version of Dark Souls 2 again. It was the best looking of the versions released, but everyone got hung up on some old play video and did nothing but whine about it. That gets old pretty quick.
Edit: I think it's fucking retarded that an entire article is based off a singular twitter comment. It was easy for people like Abe Lincoln to tell everyone a different story where ever he went. You can't do that today, which is fine. But that does not mean that every passing guarantee of giving people what they want is newsworthy.
Edit: I think it's fucking retarded that an entire article is based off a singular twitter comment. It was easy for people like Abe Lincoln to tell everyone a different story where ever he went. You can't do that today, which is fine. But that does not mean that every passing guarantee of giving people what they want is newsworthy.
Let's put it this way, there's not a shot in hell it will look like it did when it was announced, especially on consoles. Now it seems like it won't look like it should on PC either if the consoles can come close to maxing out the game. After all, there's a huge difference between the common 8 core processors that PCs use and the console versions. There should be a fairly massive gulf in performance between the two. It really depends on how much room the left above "high" or what they consider "high".
High could just mean texture quality pushed to max at 1080p. That's not actually high unless you've got all the trimmings as well and I just don't see console hardware as capable of that.
High could just mean texture quality pushed to max at 1080p. That's not actually high unless you've got all the trimmings as well and I just don't see console hardware as capable of that.
So when Ubi announced a downgrade to how this game would be running on the PS4 and Xbox 1 PC fans spent the entire thread cheering on how crap consoles were.
So now Ubi announces the PC version will run the same way on high settings... do console fans get to come in here and talk shit about PCs now?
I kid I kid, but it's a funny juxtaposition to me.
So now Ubi announces the PC version will run the same way on high settings... do console fans get to come in here and talk shit about PCs now?
I kid I kid, but it's a funny juxtaposition to me.
Wow, i could not be less hyped for the game now. GJ Ubisoft for turning your most highly anticipated game into this.
I'm holding off on getting this game till i see what the consensus is on the PC version. The more i see of this game, the less i am impress, and begin feeling it's all just marketing bullshit.
I'm holding off on getting this game till i see what the consensus is on the PC version. The more i see of this game, the less i am impress, and begin feeling it's all just marketing bullshit.
Sounds like a pretty poor port to me.
It's Ubisoft, so there wasn't even a chance of me buying it, but, I'm really unsurprised to hear they can't get a basic PC port right.
It's Ubisoft, so there wasn't even a chance of me buying it, but, I'm really unsurprised to hear they can't get a basic PC port right.
The same way with lower resolution and half the frame rate.NiPah said:
But keep in mind this is just one idiot's twitter, not an official Ubi press release.
Every new statement from their side contradicts the previous one, best not to get excited about any of them.
Looking back I realize that most of these controversial articles are based on some idiot's twitter.
Remember last year when some random important idiot tweeted that next gen consoles are twice as powerful as a comparable gaming PC and it was a top article here?