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

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Considering my PC runs games at a solid 60fps at 1080p with everything maxed, I doubt the PS4 with 900p/30fps can compare. Unless the PC version is downsampled to match the current gen.

Will wait till this is on sale in coming December's Steam Winter sale.

 

[Elfgore]

I give it until tomorrow before they take back what they have said here and reduce it to medium or low. I really can't take anything they say about the game seriously anymore. Fearing they'll just go back on their word again. Anyway, looks like I'm playing this game on high settings then.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

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.

the are too busy throwing mud among themselves, arguing over 720s and 1080s

i mean, just saying i dont think fanboys from any side are better

 

[Risingblade]

Don't PCs also have very high and ultra settings? Or are we just gonna ignore that and bash on consoles some more?

 

[whycantijustdeletemyaccount]

.

 

[Strazdas]

ech, so following a trend we see in the industry nowadays he is spoiting nonesense on twitter so he should get fired? because thats what happened to everyone else i mean.....


yeah, on resolution and framerate so bad even my 6 year old laptop will run it. but thats not a setting i want to game on ever.
Besides, looking like PC "high" with 792p resolution is not really possible. then again, it may just be that PC version looks like arse and all the requirements are because of memory leaks. Wouldnt be the first time Ubisoft pulls that trick either.

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.

Transistor has good arty style. It has bad graphics. the two are not the same thing. And FPS is yet another thing entirely.

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.

consoles arent doing high so i doubt thier texture quality will be that. which mankes me thing "brace yourself, shitty textures coming"

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.

well, you can talk shit how you managed to lure the company so they would make bad PC ports. so yes, you won over a developers that seems to do nothing but shit on PCs.

 

[Extragorey]

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

I know, right? I swear all I hear about nowadays is "will it be capable of running at blah-by-blah resolution at whoop-dey-two frame rates?"

Same goes for most games, really, but Watch Dogs seems even more victim to it.

 

[Rellik San]

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

I know, right? I swear all I hear about nowadays is "will it be capable of running at blah-by-blah resolution at whoop-dey-two frame rates?"

Same goes for most games, really, but Watch Dogs seems even more victim to it.

The reason for that is, if a game usually doesn't meet those standards of frame rate and resolution, it's a sign of a badly optimised and often badly coded game, meaning usually: Severe frame drops, game breaking bugs, hang ups when things get hectic, falling through the world.

Most times not always, but it's worth thinking about because things like that do effect the players enjoyment of the game.
Not to mention the new consoles were sold on 1080p 60fps, hell the Xbox One was basically sold on 4k downscaling, these machines not meeting those requirements is a problem as a lot of people are now wondering why make the leap at all?

 

[Extragorey]

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

I know, right? I swear all I hear about nowadays is "will it be capable of running at blah-by-blah resolution at whoop-dey-two frame rates?"

Same goes for most games, really, but Watch Dogs seems even more victim to it.

The reason for that is, if a game usually doesn't meet those standards of frame rate and resolution, it's a sign of a badly optimised and often badly coded game, meaning usually: Severe frame drops, game breaking bugs, hang ups when things get hectic, falling through the world.

Most times not always, but it's worth thinking about because things like that do effect the players enjoyment of the game.
Not to mention the new consoles were sold on 1080p 60fps, hell the Xbox One was basically sold on 4k downscaling, these machines not meeting those requirements is a problem as a lot of people are now wondering why make the leap at all?

Well, personally I always read a bunch of reviews before buying a game, and those sorts of game-breaking bugs would be revealed there. And I didn't follow the whole next-gen-console-press-release-lead-up very closely, but it seems to me that if a product doesn't deliver on its promises, you take it back and never buy from that manufacturer again.

 

[Rellik San]

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

I know, right? I swear all I hear about nowadays is "will it be capable of running at blah-by-blah resolution at whoop-dey-two frame rates?"

Same goes for most games, really, but Watch Dogs seems even more victim to it.

The reason for that is, if a game usually doesn't meet those standards of frame rate and resolution, it's a sign of a badly optimised and often badly coded game, meaning usually: Severe frame drops, game breaking bugs, hang ups when things get hectic, falling through the world.

Most times not always, but it's worth thinking about because things like that do effect the players enjoyment of the game.
Not to mention the new consoles were sold on 1080p 60fps, hell the Xbox One was basically sold on 4k downscaling, these machines not meeting those requirements is a problem as a lot of people are now wondering why make the leap at all?

Well, personally I always read a bunch of reviews before buying a game, and those sorts of game-breaking bugs would be revealed there. And I didn't follow the whole next-gen-console-press-release-lead-up very closely, but it seems to me that if a product doesn't deliver on its promises, you take it back and never buy from that manufacturer again.

Makes sense to me, but you and I know what consumers are like, they wanted that darned Dead Sec edition and went and placed a ton of pre-orders for it. As for new Hardware, I have a rule: Ten Exclusive Titles, it has to have at least 10 I want before I'll buy it.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I think we're past the point where anything devs say about graphics in Watch_Dogs is going to assure anyone. Find some footage of it playing on your platform and make your decision from that.

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

This game is turning into a more hilarious cock-up every day. It's already pirated on 3/5 platforms almost 5 days before release.

Oh well, I'd say I'm sorry for them but I can't seem to summon any sympathy for Ubisoft anymore.

 

[GladChimer93]

I think at this point, Jonathan Morin will just say things to try and convince players that the game will look very good on next-gen consoles after the overall negative response to the newer trailers, and the fact that expectations keep getting lower and lower.

I would say PC gamers don't have to worry about a thing, this is most likely just a statement to calm us idiots (who decided to spent $400 on a console that couldn't possibly run a newer game at anything above the equivalent medium-range PC settings) down and make us feel better.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see anyway, but I already feel a little disappointed, as irrational as that may be.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The graphics monster has finally come home hungry, and has nothing to sup on but its own tail.
I'm wondering how interesting/bland the actual gameplay is, but first, I guess I'll have to endure more controversy about Demo Doctoring and disappointing fidelity.

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

PC didn't get nerfs? My thread shows it did. Every PC gamer subreddit is in a flame war and wants Ubisoft's head.

They're asking for an I7 and 3 GB of VRAM for "ultra" which looks worse than next gen consoles. PC gamers have to fix it themselves because Ubisoft didn't care.

PC gamers are just as furious as console gamers are, and they have more of a reason to because Ubisoft wants you to spend $1,000+ for a 400$ experience.

and if you want that 1,000$, you gotta fix the files yourself and then still have to deal with crappy performance.

Some threads of people who got to play it say the requirements are bullshit and meant to scare players into buying better hardware. Which is even worse because its fear mongering. Making people spend money on false pretenses.

Their complete and total lack of regard for players have gone too far. Toying with their wallets as if everyone has money to spend on a multiple upgrades just for their game alone.

Requirements are sadly not bullshit.

i5 3570k + HD6870 + 8gb DDR3( I had to disable one GPU, game won't start with crossfire) gets 10-30 FPS on High with High textures and is literally unplayable on Ultra settings with Ultra textures, took me 5 minutes just to get out of the appartment with 1-3 FPS, AA doesn't matter as long it's not higher than temporal SMAA.

As for the graphics,

Ultra textures+Ultra settings+Temporal SMAA

High textures+High settings, no AA

Monitoring the performance, RAM is stuck steady on 7Gb, one CPU core is used a lot and other 3 are bouncing about 50%, GPU usage is all over the place, mostly between 40 and 70%.

 

[GladChimer93]

PC didn't get nerfs? My thread shows it did. Every PC gamer subreddit is in a flame war and wants Ubisoft's head.

They're asking for an I7 and 3 GB of VRAM for "ultra" which looks worse than next gen consoles. PC gamers have to fix it themselves because Ubisoft didn't care.

PC gamers are just as furious as console gamers are, and they have more of a reason to because Ubisoft wants you to spend $1,000+ for a 400$ experience.

and if you want that 1,000$, you gotta fix the files yourself and then still have to deal with crappy performance.

Some threads of people who got to play it say the requirements are bullshit and meant to scare players into buying better hardware. Which is even worse because its fear mongering. Making people spend money on false pretenses.

Their complete and total lack of regard for players have gone too far. Toying with their wallets as if everyone has money to spend on a multiple upgrades just for their game alone.

Wow, I haven't actually been keeping up with the PC-side of things. That's insane! Sorry for making the wrong assumption there.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm just gonna preface my comments by saying I don't care that much about the graphics. The leaked shots look mostly fine to me. I can totally live with it if the game's good.

However, Ubisoft has been promoting an awesome visual experience and it just isn't up to the claims. Unless there's a major improvement in the release version (assuming the leaked versions aren't), it won't live up to the hype. And it seems like they're just trying for....More hype.

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.

It's sounded like something surrounding WD has been stinking for a while. This seems like more proof of that.

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.

I'd believe that, if only we hadn't seen so many things leading us to believe that it really wasn't all that better. And considering the hardware they're asking us to run it on, I'd expect a lot more.

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

Yeah, right there in the article, they list the minimum, and it only "requires" a quad core. It's only "recommended" that states 8 core.

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

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

However, Ubisoft has been promoting an awesome visual experience and it just isn't up to the claims. Unless there's a major improvement in the release version (assuming the leaked versions aren't), it won't live up to the hype. And it seems like they're just trying for....More hype.

Just to clarify, the "leaked" version is the retail disc version of the game, unless they plan to add graphical options via download at release the graphics are staying.

The game looks good, REALLY good. But it's still NOTHING compared to what they advertised.

There are a few better looking games out there and they all run much, much better than Watch Doge.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

However, Ubisoft has been promoting an awesome visual experience and it just isn't up to the claims. Unless there's a major improvement in the release version (assuming the leaked versions aren't), it won't live up to the hype. And it seems like they're just trying for....More hype.

Just to clarify, the "leaked" version is the retail disc version of the game, unless they plan to add graphical options via download at release the graphics are staying.

The game looks good, REALLY good. But it's still NOTHING compared to what they advertised.

There are a few better looking games out there and they all run much, much better than Watch Doge.

Yeah, based on the footage I've seen and those "Ultra" quality screens a little further up, it looks like it's in the same ballpark as Sleeping Dogs, visually, which runs like a dream on my fuckin' GTX 550Ti.