-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ubisoft: Watch_Dogs will run at 900p on PS4 and 792p on XB1, both at 30fps
- Thread starter nynt9
- Start date
Resolution also becomes more important in open world games, especially as draw distances increase.
Having 4 individual pixles to resolve something very far in the distance is a big deal over 4 pixles repeating the same info and forming one large one.
In a game like BF its the difference between picking an enemy out in the tree line at 300 yards and not seeing him because its a blury bush. In this game it'll be seeing what's coming at you way down the road while traveling fast, or picking out details across the map.
Resolution is very important as draw distances and views increase.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Hmmm golem vs. a ubisoft blog written by a dev?
PC master race?
Pop
Member
Maybe Day 1 patch like Asscreed4
So what happened to the oft repeated axiom that, "the devs know best"? Reading through the various 'The Order 21:9', 'DriveClub 30 fps', 'Titanfall 720p' threads, etc, the common refrain was that gamers should respect the developer's vision and that surely the devs would know what was best for their game.
Well, Ubisoft clearly decided that they wanted to push a few more effects/push the simulation a bit harder and decided that sacrificing a bit of resolution was an acceptable tradeoff. I mean, let's be absolutely clear, there's nothing magical about 1080p in and of itself -- they could have hit that resolution but it would have come at the expense of other features that they clearly felt were more important.
Bottom line, we're dealing with fixed performance budgets and playing a zero sum game -- as games continue to push the envelope, something's going to have to give and increasingly, that something is going to be resolution.
Well, Ubisoft clearly decided that they wanted to push a few more effects/push the simulation a bit harder and decided that sacrificing a bit of resolution was an acceptable tradeoff. I mean, let's be absolutely clear, there's nothing magical about 1080p in and of itself -- they could have hit that resolution but it would have come at the expense of other features that they clearly felt were more important.
Bottom line, we're dealing with fixed performance budgets and playing a zero sum game -- as games continue to push the envelope, something's going to have to give and increasingly, that something is going to be resolution.
BeforeU
Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.
sindbadthesailor
Member
Wasn't just talking about this thread; it's the board as a whole. For example, every time a new game comes out for the Vita, there's always a few who label it as unplayable trash or what have you because it doesn't have a perfect frame rate.
I understand people have different expectations but they seem to be a bit extreme here.
There's no question a higher frame rate is better, but increasing the frame rate from 30 to 60 won't suddenly make a boring game fun.
ReturnOfTheRAT
Member
They're a mess.
JonathanPower
Member
I can't play Infamous on PC.
I reckon a 4770k with 770 will easily hit 60FPS with maybe some reduction to the enthusiast settings like MXAA. Blanketing statements like that is just wrong when it is highly possible.
Haha this comment is gold. Yes lets delay a game that is due to release this month because people counting pixels are upset. This is what happens when a generation of hardcore enthusiasts want better graphics, the systems required need to be beefier which just isn't feasible. That's why consoles are far more popular because they are cheaper, so the tech won't be as great as a PC that the user can throw cash at. If you want the high quality, go PC, simple as that.
Also people keep forgetting this is an open world game, it can be rather demanding to get things looking pretty, hell GTA V used some voodoo magic to get it looking how it is on PS3/X360. Personally gameplay > graphics for me because I'd rather enjoy the actual game than be like "wow this is pretty but terribly boring." Hopefully that is exactly what the delay was about, fixing up the game so it is fun, which from all the trailers and gameplay it looks to be.
Pop
Member
I didn't mean fps just resolution. 30fps is just fine imo
JonathanPower
Member
Again, the bar was raised by games like Infamous: Second Son, so it's normal that people are expecting 1080p to be the standard for PS4.
Don't think we'll have to go that extreme. AC4 ran at 1080/60 on my 2009 rig with some of the more ridiculous settings turned off. This game will obviously be more demanding but I expect medium-end rigs like mine should manage 1080/30 pretty easily and 60 FPS with some cuts. Or maybe major ones. I don't know.
Well it doesn't help when you compare an exclusive title on the PlayStation 4 to one that is cross-gen across six platforms. Also I'd probably argue from what I have seen that Watch Dogs is far more interesting in its open-world sense than InFamous, that didn't really have anything at the end to encourage you to keep playing (besides the free DLC).
Confused Cheeseburger
Member
Has anyone here played the game extensively?
People asking about what Ubi did with extra dev time, maybe polishing?
In truth, the density of the world will speak for itself. If the concession to resolution and
the depth of the world don't match up, then Ubi montreal dropped the ball. Just as well this game looks and sounds very dense, time will tell. At least going forward, people who aren't getting it no longer have to enter WD threads.
People asking about what Ubi did with extra dev time, maybe polishing?
In truth, the density of the world will speak for itself. If the concession to resolution and
the depth of the world don't match up, then Ubi montreal dropped the ball. Just as well this game looks and sounds very dense, time will tell. At least going forward, people who aren't getting it no longer have to enter WD threads.
all large with a drink and a apple pie also
DodgyGeezerFella
Member
Consoles really are becoming more PC like, graphics whores a plenty.
Admiral Woofington
Member
I'm not gonna lie I kinda miss the people posting Microsoft paint renderings of the game. It made me chuckle through the pain.
Pound_lb003
Member
First game of the generation by this team, fret not. I am not saying they'll go 1080p, but the prettiness will be worth it, if they don't next time round.
Insano Jaco
Neo Member
Not buying it.
This game was delayed for months and even after that they couldn't deliver 1080p, and we have inFamous Second Son, a better looking game, running at 1080p @~45fps.
Watchdogs is a cross-generation game, should be running at 1080p and constant 30fps at least on PS4, because the console already proved that can run the thing. If people put their hands down to this lack of commitment from devs in the first 6 months of the new consoles, its better keep expectations low for next games.
That's the problem with EA: they delivered a incomplete game like BF4, full of bugs, with DLC dated before caring about fix the game. People paid for BF4, and EA next game was even more incomplete: Titanfall.
Konami releases a prologue at inflated prices.
Now Ubisoft published a periodic table detailing the different editions of WatchDogs and you notice that you have to pay 150$ to have the real full game, the 60$ is a mutilated version with a lot of content removed. All this for a cross-gen game that is not even running at the same resolution of another better looking games.
The truth is people dictate how things should work, all that Microsoft 180º happened because people stood up. Sony changed Driveclub Plus version because people stood up. Watchdogs selling loads of copies on PS4 will show to Ubisoft that is OK to release the next Titanfall with even less content, the next prologue at full-price tag...
This game was delayed for months and even after that they couldn't deliver 1080p, and we have inFamous Second Son, a better looking game, running at 1080p @~45fps.
Watchdogs is a cross-generation game, should be running at 1080p and constant 30fps at least on PS4, because the console already proved that can run the thing. If people put their hands down to this lack of commitment from devs in the first 6 months of the new consoles, its better keep expectations low for next games.
That's the problem with EA: they delivered a incomplete game like BF4, full of bugs, with DLC dated before caring about fix the game. People paid for BF4, and EA next game was even more incomplete: Titanfall.
Konami releases a prologue at inflated prices.
Now Ubisoft published a periodic table detailing the different editions of WatchDogs and you notice that you have to pay 150$ to have the real full game, the 60$ is a mutilated version with a lot of content removed. All this for a cross-gen game that is not even running at the same resolution of another better looking games.
The truth is people dictate how things should work, all that Microsoft 180º happened because people stood up. Sony changed Driveclub Plus version because people stood up. Watchdogs selling loads of copies on PS4 will show to Ubisoft that is OK to release the next Titanfall with even less content, the next prologue at full-price tag...
Well 1080p isn't supposed to be the high quality.
Rogue_Ledr
Banned
Yeah! Why the hell can they do 1080p with 30FPS in this? The system is certainly capable of it!!!
If 60 FPS was too intensive with 1080p then surely 30 was feasible.
rob305
Member
THIS! Finally people are making sense in this thread
Yeah, yeah, PC would be nice, but I would need a new PC for the specs required. And will happen the same with Far Cry 4. Better stick with this 900p version, and hope a very unlikely patch.
I like this post.
HerpDerpstreit
Member
This. Vote with your wallet. Wait for Steam, PSN, or XBL sale if you truly feel compelled to play it and give the dev some money to keep an IP going but this unfinished product and content behind additional paywalls to "unlock" more game content is bullshit.
A last gen game running at 1080p 60fps wouldn't be all that amazing
clutch.as.it.gets.
Member
I agree.
Of course i want all by PS4 games with 1080p, because it looks the best on my native 1080p plasma panel, but i could live with 900p when i can see the trade off. But with Watch Dogs i just don`t see it - the game looks highly average to me.
PeregrinSe7en
Member
what a mess this game is becoming
the 10 different editions
the visual downgrades
now this
Ubisoft aint getting any of my money
the 10 different editions
the visual downgrades
now this
Ubisoft aint getting any of my money
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
792p just makes me laugh. Out of all the resolutions, it was exactly 792p that was the best tradeoff between performance and quality.
NullPointer
Member
I might understand the 900/792p thing if this was a current gen game pushing the craziness, but as a cross-gen title aren't these up-ports of a last gen game? Shouldn't it be 1080p/30fps easy?
Whats missing here? Do the last gen versions scale down big time on interactivity or crowd size? If not and they all have gameplay parity, what is the big hit on the current consoles?
Tomb Raider DE had physX/hair tech and was in the launch window, what is the technical trade-off being made here? I'm sure there are trade-offs being made, and this could very well represent the best compromises, but why?
Whats missing here? Do the last gen versions scale down big time on interactivity or crowd size? If not and they all have gameplay parity, what is the big hit on the current consoles?
Tomb Raider DE had physX/hair tech and was in the launch window, what is the technical trade-off being made here? I'm sure there are trade-offs being made, and this could very well represent the best compromises, but why?
deranged_666
Member
I honestly wasn't expecting 1080p/60 on the PS4 for an open world multiple platform title.
I was expecting 1080p/30 though.
I didn't have it pre-ordered, so I'll just wait until user impressions and if the game is any good.
I was expecting 1080p/30 though.
I didn't have it pre-ordered, so I'll just wait until user impressions and if the game is any good.
GTA 5 looks pretty damm good when compared to WatchDogs imo.
BeforeU
Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.
Wellbin that case Watchdog is also releasing on PS3 and Xbox 360. So in a way it could have been port?
Alternately, he doesn't "settle for less" so much as he doesn't obsess over minutia. See, it can be an insult both ways.
Cross-gen/Last-gen same thing.
But that's more through good design than tech. I'm fairly certain that watchdogs has more polygons, better textures etc. etc
Depends on if its just a straight port or a remastered version with new effects etc.
And I would hope that Watch_Dogs doesn't routinely dip to 20fps as often as GTA V does. GTA V was quite the looker on last gen consoles, but it ran like absolute shiiiiiiiiiiiiiit. Better than GTA IV, but that's saying literally nothing.
You have no proof of that. I'm not saying it does or doesn't, but Watch Dogs could be doing a lot more behind/in front of the scenes. Don't make judgements before you've played the game. Watch Dogs could very well suck, but 900p will not be the reason.
Depends on what it looks like, GTAV was amazing for a PS360 title. I can't wait to see what R*s next gen engine looks like.
jordan0386
Member
Ambition vs Reality.
Reality won.
Reality won.