-
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
Daffy Duck
Member
The DF face off thread will be a slaughter ground.
and the game may also be boring and repetative like the first AC. either way it's theory at this stage. but looking at all the footage since the reveal, the game has hardly looked exciting. how many times have we seen aiden just mulling around "hacking" phones...i don't see how someone would consider that fun and engaging gameplay. and the combat looks like standard fair for the genre. maybe it will be amazeballs, maybe it'll be terrible. i know one thing...the reviews will show that the hype wasn't as justified as it originally seemed.
Man, that thread is going to be a mess.
Rogue_Ledr
Banned
I am finding it harder and harder to hide my utter disgust at this turn of events.
How the hell were they advertising full 1080P and 60FPS when it wasn;t either of those two features?
Do these people not even try to establish the actual visual fidelity of a game before they make such specious boasts?
How the hell were they advertising full 1080P and 60FPS when it wasn;t either of those two features?
Do these people not even try to establish the actual visual fidelity of a game before they make such specious boasts?
*maybe worth own thread*
Watch_Dogs is now gold after 5 1/2 years in development.
http://blog.ubi.com/watch-dogs-gone-gold/
not long till we see just how downgraded it was.
Still hoping for a fun game though!
Watch_Dogs is now gold after 5 1/2 years in development.
http://blog.ubi.com/watch-dogs-gone-gold/
not long till we see just how downgraded it was.
Still hoping for a fun game though!
blankempathy
Member
Watch dogs went from my game of e3 whatever year it was revealed to absolute no interest buying it launch day. Fucking amazing Ubisoft. Few companies can manage to kill the hype of one of your big AAA games like you can.
CosmicGroinPull
Member
Wow didn't think it's been that long.
I don't mind the downgrade if it still feels as alive and nextgen(not graphically) as the first trailer, but I suspect that's wishful thinking.
IcyRhythms
Member
I understand what you're saying but fun, quality, and what is a good game and what isn't is all subjective. Those things are nothing but opinions. Numbers/facts make the most sense in a debate. They can't be refuted.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Bad framerates ruin my fun. It's why I don't own GTAV yet. I'm hard up for a sandbox game though so I'll probably be playing this on the PC.
Confused Cheeseburger
Member
I had a moment of clarity, cancelled my WD pre-order bought a psn card and then paid the rest to my Destiny pre-order. It's just too much the more I think about it. Huge Delay? Big loss, maybe sometime next year I'll get it? Significant graphics downgrade from E3 2012? Ok, stuff changes things become more complicated, I can roll with that. Fear that this will become yet another Ubisoft open world game of bloated repetition? Maybe I'm wrong, but ugh hard to tell, I'll remain optimistic? Clusterfuck of pre-orders and big publisher miasma? Uh, I don't like where this is going. Not only is resolution not 1080p, but the framerate is 30 fps? Oh, that's underwhelming but as long as it runs well. Multiple sources are claiming the game doesn't run well? No. I will not by this game. Too many things sapping my hype, I don't think I have anything else for it, I'm skipping it.I'm just not excited anymore.
dolabla
Member
Was debating whether to get this or not at launch (already pre-ordered), but I just decided to cancel it. I won't be picking it up until a price drop. Don't think it's gonna be worth $60.
Instead, I'm just gonna wait for Last of Us Remastered (or Evil Within if it comes out before LoU) when it comes out.
Instead, I'm just gonna wait for Last of Us Remastered (or Evil Within if it comes out before LoU) when it comes out.
Liquidsnake
Banned
Very disappointed in current gen consoles.
http://www.joystiq.com/2014/05/15/witcher-dev-says-1080p-vs-720p-is-a-pr-differentiation/
Witcher dev says 1080p vs 720p is 'a PR differentiation'
Witcher dev says 1080p vs 720p is 'a PR differentiation'
boredandlazy
Member
There was a thread about that a couple of days ago.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=817894&highlight=witcher
lifeexpectancy
Member
I think you meant 5 pages... yeah, definitely meant 5 pages. And I'm expecting significantly more pages than that. (Edit: Yup, we're at page 71 and counting... lol).
With regards to the numbers, I'm not surprised. If they're pushing a lot of stuff in an open-world game on new hardware that isn't optimized yet it's not surprising. I mean comparing GTA 5 to stuff in year 1-2 of the 360 and PS3 is like comparing apples and a yeast infection. So totally different it's scary (and a little gross).
Codeblew
Member
Sounds like damage control for 900p PS4 version. To so say 1080p is PR differentiation is complete bullshit.
I laughed way too hard at this.
Katze mit Hut
Member
Better AA, better Textures and Effects? But i´d guess both versions are rather identical. Ubisoft mentioned that there is a lot simulation (e.g. wind, citizens) going on in the background so that makes me think that this is the reason why the game does not run at 1080p on PS4. (well i hope so... dont want subHD to become the norm again only 6 months into the gen)
Fill rate (resolution x FPS) is not the limiting factor for most games.
That's pretty much what I'm curious about. When you set up a game on PC, it's not like you just set the resolution, and then whatever your PC is capable of in frame rate does the rest. You have a 5-20 different settings ranging from Low - High (or Maximum)... My guess is that they sacrificed 1080p, and 60fps for better looking things in different areas.
Truthfully I don't mind it being 900p, sure 1080p would be marginally better.. But anything from 720p-1080p will be irrelevant if what they do with the rest of the graphics aren't good. Fucking Ryse for Xbone looks fantastic graphically, and it's 900p.
I think this many pages of speculation when very few people actually know what the final builds will look like, is a waste of time.
But that's just what we do on here I guess.
Morphine_OD
Banned
I would say that wind simulation looks like something expensive, but citizens? Can you give me a link? I've yet to see anything related to crowd simulations in any of the promotional material.
Rogue_Ledr
Banned
You know, this actually brings up a very valid point. I'd like to see someone here take a stab at this?
Why are current gen consoles so much less powerful over their previous iterations. compared to console generations before. Especially given the incredibly wide gap between these consoles and the last gen.
In previous console generations, newer consoles were substantially more potent than past consoles and time elapsed between console generations was shorter, which makes the discrepancy even more egregious.
I saw something the other day that the PS3 and 360 versions would have less pedestrians and cars.
But the way the article I read made it sound is that the PS4, Xbone, and PC versions would be identical with that.. I tried googling the article, with no luck.
Historically, this happened during the 32/64-bit generation when the market for dedicated video cards was still very young, and in 2005/2006 because those consoles were sold at a loss.
What we're looking at now is more comparable to the PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube: Mostly the same tech as contemporary PCs, but a lower base price and better bang for your buck. These new consoles only look "weak" compared to modern PCs because enthusiast-grade parts have gotten more affordable.
Morphine_OD
Banned
Also even back then the power difference was not that great, it's just in PS2 to PS3 jump we've moved from straight pipeline to a programmed one, which drastically improved the quality of effects and lightning. PS1 to PS2 jump was only "raw power", you can still find some PS2 games that look marginally better than their PS1 counterparts.
Now it's the same thing all over again - PS4 is more powerful than PS3, but the greatest difference lies in SDKs and the simplicity of it. The end-user now will probably see more expansive worlds and a variety of content, because the time that developers laid down struggling with the API now can be spent on the game content.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
- We're seing titles that probably started off as 360/ps3 games
- early 360 games were not that impressive so give it time
- pipelines/engines have matured so the upgrade isn't that drastic. Once we figured out shaders/normal mapping it's all up the art direction to make the games look good.
- any more powerful and you might as well get a pc because that's how much you'll be spending.
StoppedInTracks
Member
This is a very flawed reasoning. If by any chance Uncharted 4 is not 1080p you will still not get it? If by any chance Watch Dogs wins 100 GOTY awards you will still not buy it?
If yes then it must be very hard for you to have enjoyment as a gamer.
I remember when only PC gamers cared about graphics over gameplay.
BuggeryBugz
Member
Really?
So if it was GOTY, you wouldn't get it because it wasn't 1080p?
Some PS4 owners have become the new "PC elitists".
-MD-
Member
Lots and lots of games on consoles won't be 1080p so why did you invest in one?
Nothing has changed. When I was a kid, we argued over whether Mode 7 was better than Blast Processing. Now it's just comparing pixel counts.
DrTrouserPlank
Neo Member
I've decided to give this a go on PS4 after finally managing to get a pre-order below £40 yesterday.
Despite being less than thrilled about the downgrade this game has received over the last year or so, and the resolution it is running at (in my mind, not really justified) I still think that the game has potential to be interesting, although I have no doubts that many people will feel it doesn't really do anything new and will be disappointed that it hasn't really delivered on what it initially promised. I go into it with reasonably tempered expectations so I'm sure I'll be happy with it unless it's an absolute disaster.
I'm not too sure I buy into the whole advanced wind simulation and NPC simulation being the reason for why it isn't running in 1080p. Time will tell I guess, but it wouldn't be the first time that much touted features such as these have either failed to materialise, or haven't amounted to anything like what they were claimed to be before release.
Despite being less than thrilled about the downgrade this game has received over the last year or so, and the resolution it is running at (in my mind, not really justified) I still think that the game has potential to be interesting, although I have no doubts that many people will feel it doesn't really do anything new and will be disappointed that it hasn't really delivered on what it initially promised. I go into it with reasonably tempered expectations so I'm sure I'll be happy with it unless it's an absolute disaster.
I'm not too sure I buy into the whole advanced wind simulation and NPC simulation being the reason for why it isn't running in 1080p. Time will tell I guess, but it wouldn't be the first time that much touted features such as these have either failed to materialise, or haven't amounted to anything like what they were claimed to be before release.
People have had a pretty reasonable expectation of PS4 games being 1080p.
Including Watch Dogs being 900p and the rest of the games releasing in May there's only 2 out of roughly 67 PS4 games released in NA that are 900p with the rest being 1080p. The other one of those was a 900p 60fps launch title. That's a huge streak that Ubisoft is breaking. It's completely acceptable that anyone who bought a PS4 up to this point would be surprised by this. Not to mention that at this point Watch Dogs is not a particularly impressive looking game graphics-wise.
This seems more like an optimization problem and a game that's been delayed and gone through development hell more than anything else at least.
It is still perfectly reasonable to expect that PS4 games coming out will continue to be 1080p unless there is a drastic shift in the average resolution in games. 2 out of 67 not being 1080p is not a trend.
Morphine_OD
Banned
^ This
This is being somewhat disingenuous. Out of those 67 games, how many are 2D indie titles or games with (by modern standards) simple graphics?
Also let's stop saying games that merely target 60fps ARE 60fps when they spend most of their time in the 40s or 50s, at least in technical discussions where accuracy is important.
This is surprising when the standard "AAA" console game consists of very cinema influenced experiences and flashy set piece moments. That isn't to say I haven't enjoyed some of these games, but in contrast PC titles in general seem to be more focused on mechanics and depth of gameplay. Perhaps you're referring to a period much further back?
woahh below £40! where did you pre-order it?
About 30ish? So a little less than half. 2 out of 35 or even 30 "big 3D games" not being 1080p is still not a trend. Especially with one being a launch title and the only other one only just coming now.
That post is just me being cheeky. I'm referring to how certain groups of gamers conveniently change their stance on whether graphics matter or not depending on the current situation or discussion.
This. Stop pretending graphic whores suddenly appeared out of nowhere when PS4 was released.
RMS Gigantic
Member
They also messed up the name of the game's setting. Chicago's tallest building isn't the "Barnes Building", and, as I have expounded upon in previous threads, the Barnes Building is majorly different in layout compared to the Willis Tower.
So that's three things they got wrong: the game doesn't take place in Chicago (no more than GTA V takes place in Los Angeles or GTA IV in New York City), the game doesn't render at 1080p, and it doesn't run at 60 frames per second.
Bar81
Member
They are not and have never been mutually exclusive.