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

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

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

Watch Dogs on the PS4 and Xbox One should look as good as the second highest PC setting.

What is going on with Watch Dogs? At first, we saw some pretty crazy PC specifications, which were eventually toned down (although they do still require an 8-Core-CPU), then there was that whole 1080p 60FPS on PS4 kerfuffle. But now, Watch Dogs creative director Jonathan Morin is stating that the next-gen versions will look the same as the PC version on "high" settings, despite saying the exact opposite thing just a few months ago.

At this point, I don't know what to tell you. Morin specifically stated in March that PS4 version was "close" to the PC version, but that the game's lighting, rain simulation, depth of field and particle effects would be rendered at a higher resolution on the PC. To be fair, there is an "Ultra" setting for the PC, so while he didn't explicitly mention it, perhaps this is what he was talking about.

We're also expected to believe that while a Core i7 is "recommended" for the PC version of the game, the console versions will be able to perform the same feat on a considerably weaker APU?

If you're planning on picking this one up on PC, it may be worth it to wait and see how others with similar set-ups to yours are able to run it first.

Source: Twitter

Permalink

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.

so are we saying that the port is comparable to the high setting on pc or are they saying that the pc will have graphics comparable to that of consoles

i mean its quite clear that unless you force pc users to use sub par graphics and frame-rate, etc there could be no possible way that a console can possibly match a pc's processing power

Eh, I am getting it for the 360. So this does not apply to me! Wooh.

Besides, graphics hardly matter these days. It is really hard to be ugly. As long as your art style is pretty graphics mean nothing. Of course if that applies..

Well.. Boo.

Okay, so the PC will look like the xbone? Like complete and utter shit? And you expect to ask PC gamers to change to an I7, which is a 300$ upgrade, for worse graphics?

Metro Last Light ran on an I5 and it was the best looking game ever. The same with Crysis 3. Same with every other benchmark game.

Must I bring out the comparison again?

They ask for sky high hardware, and the graphics are nothing to write home about. Modded ENBs look better than the new footage I am seeing.

If they are going to turn around and say game play is better, then they shouldn't be asking for high end hardware for high end graphics. This game runs on 7th gen consoles. Their "gameplay" doesn't need the hardware they are asking.

When you are asking a $300 upgrade. You better bring in $300 worth of cool shit. The wind isn't going to cut it. Not after the likes of Metro came in and raised the bar. Dynamic wind is not enough to justify an i7. If you are going to ask for an I7, you better damn well have way more dynamic mechanics than just the wind.

And let me guess, the wind has no bearing on ballistics. Especially after I see every bullet hit the cross hair perfectly in the leaks. Meaning its a worthless hog of resources thats adds nothing to the gameplay.

Jon Morin's statements have always been bullshit. I am trying to figure out if he is incompetent or just a compulsive liar. I have pointed that out many times in both of my watchdog threads. Whatever he says is denied, contradicted, and super-ceded by what Ubisoft states. He even managed to contradict himself at one point. He hasn't been right before, and he sure as hell isn't now.

I am amazed Jim Sterling isn't making a video on how much bullshit Morin puts on his twitter. Seeing as Jim hates deceptive practices by devs.

But lets face facts here. Watch Dogs will be forced down our throats on a yearly basis next to assassin's creed and COD. Who cares what we think?

Ubisoft has ruined watch dogs for me, and they won't get a cent from me in a steam sale if they can't program for shit.

Ultratwinkie:
Okay, so the PC will look like the xbone? Like complete and utter shit? And you expect to ask PC gamers to change to an I7, which is a 300$ upgrade, for worse graphics?

Metro Last Light ran on an I5 and it was the best looking game ever. The same with Crysis 3.

Must I bring out the comparison again?

They ask for sky high hardware, and the graphics are nothing to write home about. Modded ENBs look better than the new footage I am seeing.

The same happened with Far Cry 3. It didn't look as good as they've demonstrated on ANY system, PC included. I'm surprised that people believed them after that.

Just... Just stop talking about graphical fidelity dudes, just stop it. No one believes anything from you anymore, especially after the "Oh... look at the finally released console videos that look NOTHING like the ones we showed before"

And considering how poorly implemented Ubi games are on PC, I wouldn't be surprised if "As good as High settings on PC" actually means that they won't even bother with the port.

and here we PC gamers were expecting to be spared from SOME of the disappointment this game has brough so far, without even being out

meh i cant run it either way so...

i guess i can consider my self happy for not getting the game anyway. even when my rig can run it. at least crysis 3 runs smoothly on ultra settings so as last light and thats with a i5 as well.

How long ago was this game revealed? It feels like we've been talking about it for years. If they'd saved the reveal we might have been saved a few months of no one knowing what the graphics will actually look like.

I was only mildly interested in this game when it was announced. I called the bullshots back when they were still believed to be the real deal and prevented myself from being hyped through willpower and it was a good choice. Everything about this game would be a disappointment if I was hyped. As it stands, I'll just keep standing at the sidelines making the occasional "meh" sound while I wait for iDOLM@STER: One For All to arrive in the mail next week.

So the console versions will run at 2560x1600 resolution? Seems unlikely really.

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

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 "momparison"

At least I fucking hope so, otherwise this is going to really disappoint.

So what they;'re saying is that the PC version is limited to what consoles are capable of...

Steven Bogos:

What is going on with Watch Dogs? At first, we saw some pretty crazy PC specifications, which were eventually toned down (although they do still require an 8-Core-CPU)

Steven Bogos:

require an 8-Core-CPU

Steven Bogos:

require

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

So the console versions will be running the equivalent to the PC's high settings. Really not sure why people are getting upset or confused about this. Unless you're gonna run it at 792p or 900p and 30fps on your PC, the game will look much better than the console versions, especially if you use the Ultra settings or use a higher resolution than 1080p.

The last month has been interesting with regards to Watchdogs; I am looking forward to next week not because I am purchasing it, but to see how the final version ends up ( and to a lesser how the multiple collector's edition worked out for those who bought them), and put an end to all of their contradictory statements. Maybe it will be positively received as Wolfenstein has been ( from what I've read).

they obviously just mean that the base settings (e.g. texture quality, lighting ect.) will be similar to high on PC. That makes sense, since there's an 'ultra' settings, and watch dogs on console runs at lower resolutions than PC standards. What has this got to do with resolution and framerate at all? I can see why it's worth mentioning, but why are people thinking that framerate or resolution has any bearing on this? o.O Do we have a lot of brand new PC gamers around or something? haha :D

Ubisoft, whilst capable of providing a shoddy port on occasion (AC2 looked and ran rather badly), very rarely screw up the basics (DRM aside). So I really don't see what's going on here.

This is the summary:

The consoles will run watch dogs at 'PC high' settings at whatever resolutions they can maintain a relatively constant 30fps. PCs will run watchdogs at whatever the PC in question can manage at whatever resolution and framerate it can manage.

I fail to possibly see how 792p could ever be equal to high on PC considering the majority of people run at 1080p or higher these days on PC. I know resolution is separate from graphics settings, but still, the simple difference in pixels is enough to make them 'not equal.'

clippen05:
I fail to possibly see how 792p could ever be equal to high on PC considering the majority of people run at 1080p or higher these days on PC. I know resolution is separate from graphics settings, but still, the simple difference in pixels is enough to make them 'not equal.'

'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.

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.

I don't know who to blame for this anymore.

Ubisoft or consoles.

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.

So either the PC will be locked to 1080p on 30FPS, or this guy is talking out of his arse.
Guess we'll find out soon.

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...

We've yet to see much reliable footage from the console versions of the game after the live-streaming debacle that broke this whole mess open. The footage we see in trailers could still be from their "Aspirational" phase or at the very least prettied up PC footage with all the bells and whistles cranked up.

There are multiple scenarios here, many of them bad. Ubisoft needs to realize that gamers aren't stupid, we know a considerable amount more about rendering power than they give us credit for with these scraps of meager details. The less information they give and the more contradiction information they give the more it looks like they are hiding as much as they can from consumers.

Here are the scenarios as i see them;

EVERYTHING IS FINE; The console version of the game runs a bit poorly and looks a little muddy but is ultimately a good game, a lot of that fancy lighting is there just at reduced resolution and framerate. The PC version is a good port that maximizes all those features, finally having a version of the game that looks close to that target footage. The system specs were written by someone who is incompetent and the game isn't a poorly optimized turd.

OH GOD WHY MY EYES! The console version looks disappointing even at the reduced levels and the game seems limited and a bit flat. The fancy lighting system and all the bells and whistles aren't there and the footage and screens were simply best case scenario for some imaginary version. The PC version isn't much better looking than this disappointing level and is a poor port to boot, needing resources far and above what it should do to add a few extras tacked onto a poor looking console port. Texture resolution issues, FOV issues, Mouse issues abound.

YOU GOT CONSOLE IN MY PC: The console version of the game runs a bit poorly and looks a little muddy but is ultimately a good game, a lot of that fancy lighting is there just at reduced resolution and framerate. The PC version looks exactly the same but at a higher resolution. The game isn't a complete mess but the PC seems to be just a like for like port. There is little adaption to the platform but overall the versions aren't too different.

LOL NO. WE'RE A PC DEV NOW: The console version looks compromised and messy but Ubisoft defend this by pointing to a vastly superior PC version. Sony and Microsoft are not happy with this outcome as Ubisoft has made a poor port to their platforms in favor of a single 'master' version of the game they could show off. They manage to live up to some of their promises on one system but many gamers get a vastly inferior game than what they were promised.

Any of these situations still has the game REQUIRE U-Play, have day one DLC and a season pass, which means that unless the game, with all the content included, is less than 10 at some point or the core game is udner 5 I'm never buying the thing.

erbkaiser:
So either the PC will be locked to 1080p on 30FPS, or this guy is talking out of his arse.
Guess we'll find out soon.

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.

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.

Wow, whoever gave them that shovel really has a lot to account for because they just won't stop digging.
It almost feels like this was designed to piss PC players off. Console gamers won't really give a shit about it.

So, this means that I won't need anything stronger than my GeForce 460 to max it out, right? Otherwise it would just mean it's not properly optimized.

So nice of Ubi to inform everyone before hand that the game will look like congealed arse on the PC.

You don't get that service from many other publishers.

well at least they arent hiding the fact they cant do good pc ports

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.

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.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here