Support NeoGAF

[LilJoka]

I dont know why people keep posting on here suggesting that others buy a pc. It's only one game and the reason it's poor is because of ubisoft and not either console. This game is a ps360 game at its core for crying out loud. There is no reason it should run so poorly. As a dev, you know your constraints and its your job to work within them.

As someone who games on PC, I would never recommend it to someone unless they were technically adept. The only thing that is organized in the pc gaming world is steam. Everything else is a giant pain in the ass. Using 3rd party software to do everything thing is a giant pain as well. Some games require you to install proprietary software like ubisoft games and EA games. There is also other nonsense to deal with like punkbuster and TeamSpeak. There's even more nonsense like waiting for new drivers when a new game comes out and then updating said drivers. If you're a Nvidia person, it's relatively simple but if you're using amd........

There is this notion that gaming on PC saves you money, this is true to an extent. If you a smart purchaser and purchase only what you'll play, then there is the potential to save quite a bit of money. Unfortunately, most pc gamers fall into the trap of purchasing games that they will never play because of sales, etc. The backlog continues to grow and people continue to fool themselves by justifing useless purchases with the statement, "Look how much money I saved." You will save a lot of money if you purchase games not on because of their price but because it fits into your time budget. If you know game X & Y will take up your time for the foreseeable future, then there is no need to buy game Z that is coming out today. By the time you get around to buying game Z, it will be cheaper thus saving you money. Please note that not all pc gamers spend like this.

There are 2 main reasons why people buy consoles, affordability and simplicity. Just because people have money to purchase a $400 console doesn't mean that they have the money to purchase an $800-$900 pc. Pc's are great and they are powerful but when gaming on PC, you're chasing a moving target. The reason people suggest pc is to get 1080p@60fps. Yea, you will get that on today's games but games next year or the year after will result in a drop in performance. The next comment we often hear is this: "At least it's running better than consoles." True but you didn't spend 800-900 for just that, you spent that money for 1080p@60fps. Then people will tell you that if this is important to you, just turn down the settings. I hope you see where I'm going with this. At this point, you ate now experiencing to concept of tradeoffs which is what devs have to deal with everyday. The question at the end of the day is "was this 800-900 purchase worth it?" That is up to you to decide.

When we refer to pc's on gaf, it is referred to as a singular entity. You often read statements like this, "it will run better on PC" or other variations of the statement. This is clearly false, a particular pc build can run it better but it is not true for all pc's.

Essentially what I'm trying to say is can we stop the nonsense that is going on in this thread. We really do not need a pc defense force in the thread and a console defense force in the thread. The discussion revolves around a particular game which appears to be an anomaly in the library of both consoles. Given ubisoft history, the focus should be on the incompetence of the developers and not on a perceived deficiency in the consoles. There are more demanding games that run better on these consoles like BF4. Watch Dogs is a ps360 game and the devs should be criticized for their work. The game barely looks better than gta 5 on the ps360 so it's clearly a dev problem.

It's not nonsense, spend properly and it's definatly possible. And this PC will play watch dogs 1080p 60fps high to max settings.
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/3JjIC

But I agree Ubisoft haven't optimised this game for sure.

 

[belmonkey]

Was earlier PS4 footage 1080p?

 

[MJLord]

80s and 90s games were 60 fps but you embrace 30 fps games in 2014. Blessed double standards.

80's and 90's games didn't have a fraction of the complexity. It's not the early 2000's anymore guys. DLC and bigger budgets are here to stay.

 

[amstradcpc]

Knowing UBI, it's more like 900p/16fps

According to the last video it perfectly could:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulFeUCAI5xM

 

[GribbleGrunger]

One day I'm going to click on a console thread and there'll be no mention of the PC. It WILL happen, I'm sure of it.

On topic: I was on the fence about buying this game and even then I was going to wait for a price drop, but now I'm not going to bother. I see no reason why this game can't run at 1080p regardless of what Ubisoft say.

 

[LilJoka]

According to the last video it perfectly could.

Exactly what I was thinking, 30fps and unmentioned frame dips.

 

[Mohonky]

Thread fuckin delivers the salty tears.

Havent been following watch dogs, but I have been following the mess that is the media hype and subsequent derailment.

If 1080p 60fps is a necessity to you, get a PC. It has been and always will be the only way to ensure you get what you want visually. Otherwise there is no point complaining about it.

 

[JayLee]

Well, I said GPU and a CPU thread. Granted, there could probably be 2 rendering threads, but only one can call the GPU. It doesn't change the fact that game logic and all kinds of simulations are ran separately.

And that's still CPU resources which could be used in many other different ways. Your dedicating a lot of CPU resources to a task which is needed for the concept of the game, which a lot of other games don't need. People act like the CPUs are hardly useful in games, but they're just as important as the GPU.

 

[amstradcpc]

One day I'm going to click on a thread and there'll be no mention of the PC. It WILL happen, I'm sure of it.

I don´t remember PC people being so harsh in the prior gen. I don´t understand why PC versions/games are discussed in threads with OP talking specifically about console versions.

 

[Gen X]

Its hard to discuss with somebody who can only talk sarcastically. Last gen was limited by its tech and specs like this gen. I bought the version that was the best, most titles ran at 720p and steady 30 fps on 360 and that was fine for me and I had fun with those. A cross gen title that has been constantly downgraded for 2 years now while other devs manage to run similar games at 1080p with better performance on PS4 makes wonder what happened with this game. They might patch this after release like AC4 but I doubt it. I know GAF has changed recently but being called out here because I have realistic standards is so absurd that I cant really discuss this topic anymore.

I hear what you're saying, but we're early into this gen. How many years has Ubisoft been working on Watchdogs, 2-3yrs? So let's say the engine was developed first then the game over the top, then two years later they got their first batch of official PS4 and Xbone dev kits. Now they are supposed to shoehorn in 2+ years of work and an engine into relatively new tech.

I say this every gen, don't be too hard on the games in the first year, the goodness will come. Go back to any console and compare launch titles to titles from 3-6yrs later. You gotta crawl before you can learn to walk.

 

[TheCloser]

It's not nonsense, spend properly and it's definatly possible. And this PC will play watch dogs 1080p 60fps high to max settings.
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/3JjIC

But I agree Ubisoft haven't optimised this game for sure.

You might want to add in the cost of shipping there bud because only 2 of those parts have free shipping. Also please explain to me how you plan to play the games without a mouse, keyboard, headphones(assuming you are using a pc monitor) and OS. Try again. I just built my pc with an r9 290 gaming and an i7 4770k not too long ago and it cost me around $1500. If i was only buying it for gaming, i would just stick to a console. I don't need a pc to play games when i already have a console. I needed it for other things as well and even with my pc, i still primarily game on my console. Its less of a pain in the ass.

 

[Corpekata]

I don´t remember PC people being so harsh in the prior gen. I don´t understand why PC versions/games are discussed in threads with OP talking specifically about console versions.

You mean the OP that includes a picture of cancelling his preorder and talks about getting it on PC?

 

[MarkV]

Was earlier PS4 footage 1080p?

No.

 

[MaxiLive]

Essentially what I'm trying to say is can we stop the nonsense that is going on in this thread. We really do not need a pc defense force in the thread and a console defense force in the thread. The discussion revolves around a particular game which appears to be an anomaly in the library of both consoles. Given ubisoft history, the focus should be on the incompetence of the developers and not on a perceived deficiency in the consoles. There are more demanding games that run better on these consoles like BF4. Watch Dogs is a ps360 game and the devs should be criticized for their work. The game barely looks better than gta 5 on the ps360 so it's clearly a dev problem.

Wow, I'm sure the few graphic programmers for Ubisoft and thrilled with comments like this, no doubt some of them spent 14 hours+ in the office on numerous occasions, had to deal with very primitive tools/documentations on the early next-gen consoles as well as very limited hardware resources.

I'm sure the graphics guys and everyone would of wanted to hit 1080p 60fps but like you said when the game is developed for multiple platforms both new and old then the focus can't be for 1080p 60fps it has to be what works and what works is 900p and 782p by the looks of things.

For everyone complaining that it is not hitting their desired p's or framerate then buy a PC, seriously, if image quality is a BIG issue for you then buy a PC. If it is just a bonus and doesn't take anything away from the game then sure stick to consoles, I'm sure the game will looks great and play fine on a PS4 or an Xbox One but if those lack of pixels are a killer for you then just get a reasonable PC for $800 and let it not be a worry for the next 4+ years (2-3 years if you need everything on ultra IE 2-3x better better IQ on PC).

 

[Bold One]

I dont know why people keep posting on here suggesting that others buy a pc. It's only one game and the reason it's poor is because of ubisoft and not either console. This game is a ps360 game at its core for crying out loud. There is no reason it should run so poorly. As a dev, you know your constraints and its your job to work within them.

As someone who games on PC, I would never recommend it to someone unless they were technically adept. The only thing that is organized in the pc gaming world is steam. Everything else is a giant pain in the ass. Using 3rd party software to do everything thing is a giant pain as well. Some games require you to install proprietary software like ubisoft games and EA games. There is also other nonsense to deal with like punkbuster and TeamSpeak. There's even more nonsense like waiting for new drivers when a new game comes out and then updating said drivers. If you're a Nvidia person, it's relatively simple but if you're using amd........

There is this notion that gaming on PC saves you money, this is true to an extent. If you a smart purchaser and purchase only what you'll play, then there is the potential to save quite a bit of money. Unfortunately, most pc gamers fall into the trap of purchasing games that they will never play because of sales, etc. The backlog continues to grow and people continue to fool themselves by justifing useless purchases with the statement, "Look how much money I saved." You will save a lot of money if you purchase games not on because of their price but because it fits into your time budget. If you know game X & Y will take up your time for the foreseeable future, then there is no need to buy game Z that is coming out today. By the time you get around to buying game Z, it will be cheaper thus saving you money. Please note that not all pc gamers spend like this.

There are 2 main reasons why people buy consoles, affordability and simplicity. Just because people have money to purchase a $400 console doesn't mean that they have the money to purchase an $800-$900 pc. Pc's are great and they are powerful but when gaming on PC, you're chasing a moving target. The reason people suggest pc is to get 1080p@60fps. Yea, you will get that on today's games but games next year or the year after will result in a drop in performance. The next comment we often hear is this: "At least it's running better than consoles." True but you didn't spend 800-900 for just that, you spent that money for 1080p@60fps. Then people will tell you that if this is important to you, just turn down the settings. I hope you see where I'm going with this. At this point, you ate now experiencing to concept of tradeoffs which is what devs have to deal with everyday. The question at the end of the day is "was this 800-900 purchase worth it?" That is up to you to decide.

When we refer to pc's on gaf, it is referred to as a singular entity. You often read statements like this, "it will run better on PC" or other variations of the statement. This is clearly false, a particular pc build can run it better but it is not true for all pc's.

Essentially what I'm trying to say is can we stop the nonsense that is going on in this thread. We really do not need a pc defense force in the thread and a console defense force in the thread. The discussion revolves around a particular game which appears to be an anomaly in the library of both consoles. Given ubisoft history, the focus should be on the incompetence of the developers and not on a perceived deficiency in the consoles. There are more demanding games that run better on these consoles like BF4. Watch Dogs is a ps360 game and the devs should be criticized for their work. The game barely looks better than gta 5 on the ps360 so it's clearly a dev problem.

Well said, well bloody said

 

[amstradcpc]

You mean the OP that includes a picture of his PC preorder at the end of his post?

The news is not about PC. OP could have posted a pic of its Wiiu preorder and that wouldn´t make more sense to discuss that version in the topic that is to remind people every three posts that some will run this at 4k AND 90FPS with its intel 8 cores cpu and mega twin GPUs with a mega PSU of 2000 Watts.
After this post surely could come one with the corresponding budget of a 600 $/Eur PC. Abstain please...

 

[KingSnake]

I don´t remember PC people being so harsh in the prior gen. I don´t understand why PC versions/games are discussed in threads with OP talking specifically about console versions.

I think you need to check the "watch_dogs on PS4 is 1080p 60 fps" thread and that thread with the confusion between PS4 and PC footage to understand why. And generally the whole discussion around here was that the PS4 version would look great (enough) and who needs the PC version anyhow. So now it's the reverse. It's normal on a forum where console wars are fought every day.

 

[Always-honest]

So that last trailer from yesterday... was that mixed footage?
PC and PS4?

 

[LightofRohan]

Thread fuckin delivers the salty tears.

Havent been following watch dogs, but I have been following the mess that is the media hype and subsequent derailment.

If 1080p 60fps is a necessity to you, get a PC. It has been and always will be the only way to ensure you get what you want visually. Otherwise there is no point complaining about it.

Yea.. It always baffeled me when I hear, "console version isnt 60fps/1080p?! Not getting it". I feel if you value higher resolution and framerate so highly, then it seems like playing on PC with slightly lower settings at 4k 120fps is what you should be doing in the first place.

 

[TheCloser]

Wow, I'm sure the few graphic programmers for Ubisoft and thrilled with comments like this, no doubt some of them spent 14 hours+ in the office on numerous occasions, had to deal with very primitive tools/documentations on the early next-gen consoles as well as very limited hardware resources.

I'm sure the graphics guys and everyone would of wanted to hit 1080p 60fps but like you said when the game is developed for multiple platforms both new and old then the focus can't be for 1080p 60fps it has to be what works and what works is 900p and 782p by the looks of things.

For everyone complaining that it is not hitting their desired p's or framerate then buy a PC, seriously, if image quality is a BIG issue for you then buy a PC. If it is just a bonus and doesn't take anything away from the game then sure stick to consoles, I'm sure the game will looks great and play fine on a PS4 or an Xbox One but if those lack of pixels are a killer for you then just get a reasonable PC for $800 and let it not be a worry for the next 4+ years (2-3 years if you need everything on ultra IE 2-3x better better IQ on PC).

I'm not expecting them to be thrilled but they are not the only ones who spent time crunching. Other devs did it as well and passed with flying colors so it shows you that they are at the bottom of the pile. All devs are not equal, just because you spend 14+ hours doesn't mean you deserve my sympathy. A dev who is more skilled might have spent 8 hours on the same problem. As someone who spends time programming, i myself have spent 42 straight hours working to resolve a set of issues. If i were presented with that problem today, it would take me less time to resolve because the expectation is that you get better with practice and experience. The amount of hours spent is irrelevant to me especially when their game isn't doing anything special.

 

[amstradcpc]

I think you need to check the "watch_dogs on PS4 is 1080p 60 fps" thread and that thread with the confusion between PS4 and PC footage to understand why. And generally the whole discussion around here was that the PS4 version would look great (enough) and who needs the PC version anyhow. So now it's the reverse. It's normal on a forum where console wars are fought every day.

Yeah, yeah, one of the three of four first posts of that PS4 and PC footage was talking about melting PS4s...

 

[LilJoka]

You might want to add in the cost of shipping there bud because only 2 of those parts have free shipping. Also please explain to me how you plan to play the games without a mouse, keyboard, headphones(assuming you are using a pc monitor) and OS. Try again. I just built my pc with an r9 290 gaming and an i7 4770k not too long ago and it cost me around $1500. If i was only buying it for gaming, i would just stick to a console. I don't need a pc to play games when i already have a console. I needed it for other things as well and even with my pc, i still primarily game on my console. Its less of a pain in the ass.

Ok you are right, I always forget delivery as I order all my parts from scan today only for cheapest deals and I get free next day shipping as I have 25 posts at hexus forums.

Most people already own a PC and have a mouse, keyboard and headphones aren't needed if you use your TV. Secondly you can get windows from reddit softwareswap for $10. Lastly you can connect this to your TV via HDMI and play with your old 360/DS3 pads.

Of course there is no point in buying a PC for one game, same thing for a console.

My post was aimed at people considering buying a console in the near future, not current owners.

 

[Shinjica]

Yea.. It always baffeled me when I hear, "console version isnt 60fps/1080p?! Not getting it". I feel if you value higher resolution and framerate so highly, then it seems like playing on PC with slightly lower settings at 4k 120fps is what you should be doing in the first place.

It Was UbiLOL who post the image who said Watch Dogs would run at 1080p on ps4

 

[Kinyou]

I don´t remember PC people being so harsh in the prior gen. I don´t understand why PC versions/games are discussed in threads with OP talking specifically about console versions.

I think it comes kind of naturally. When people care so much about resolution that they cancel their pre-orders maybe they should start thinking about getting a PC. On a console you'll always have the devs deciding the resolution for you.

 

[MJLord]

I'm not expecting them to be thrilled but they are not the only ones who spent time crunching. Other devs did it as well and passed with flying colors so it shows you that they are at the bottom of the pile. All devs are not equal, just because you spend 14+ hours doesn't mean you deserve my sympathy. A dev who is more skilled might have spent 8 hours on the same problem. As someone who spends time programming, i myself have spent 42 straight hours working to resolve a set of issues. If i were presented with that problem today, it would take me less time to resolve because the expectation is that you get better with practice and experience. The amount of hours spent is irrelevant to me especially when their game isn't doing anything special.

If you were a programmer I think you'd appreciate the fact that simple things can often trip you up and complex tasks might be easy as pie.

I think you need to stop coming out with these baseless attacks on people you don't even know and go sulk somewhere else. If it's nothing else it's unprofessional.

 

[benny_a]

It Was UbiLOL who post the image who said Watch Dogs would run at 1080p on ps4

It was Sony via the Watch Dogs product page that said that text. Whether or not that page can be edited by Ubisoft marketing isn't known.

Ubisoft said that it was 1080p60 at the Berlin hands-on Watch Dogs demo.

 

[Ysiadmihi]

So we've gone from lazy to devs to great value for $400 to convenience. Now we just need to find a way to fit PS+ in here and we can end the thread.

 

[SuicidalSteve]

I just want to play and enjoy the game....

 

[figadapaura]

I dont know why people keep posting on here suggesting that others buy a pc. It's only one game and the reason it's poor is because of ubisoft and not either console. This game is a ps360 game at its core for crying out loud. There is no reason it should run so poorly. As a dev, you know your constraints and its your job to work within them.

As someone who games on PC, I would never recommend it to someone unless they were technically adept. The only thing that is organized in the pc gaming world is steam. Everything else is a giant pain in the ass. Using 3rd party software to do everything thing is a giant pain as well. Some games require you to install proprietary software like ubisoft games and EA games. There is also other nonsense to deal with like punkbuster and TeamSpeak. There's even more nonsense like waiting for new drivers when a new game comes out and then updating said drivers. If you're a Nvidia person, it's relatively simple but if you're using amd........

There is this notion that gaming on PC saves you money, this is true to an extent. If you a smart purchaser and purchase only what you'll play, then there is the potential to save quite a bit of money. Unfortunately, most pc gamers fall into the trap of purchasing games that they will never play because of sales, etc. The backlog continues to grow and people continue to fool themselves by justifing useless purchases with the statement, "Look how much money I saved." You will save a lot of money if you purchase games not on because of their price but because it fits into your time budget. If you know game X & Y will take up your time for the foreseeable future, then there is no need to buy game Z that is coming out today. By the time you get around to buying game Z, it will be cheaper thus saving you money. Please note that not all pc gamers spend like this.

There are 2 main reasons why people buy consoles, affordability and simplicity. Just because people have money to purchase a $400 console doesn't mean that they have the money to purchase an $800-$900 pc. Pc's are great and they are powerful but when gaming on PC, you're chasing a moving target. The reason people suggest pc is to get 1080p@60fps. Yea, you will get that on today's games but games next year or the year after will result in a drop in performance. The next comment we often hear is this: "At least it's running better than consoles." True but you didn't spend 800-900 for just that, you spent that money for 1080p@60fps. Then people will tell you that if this is important to you, just turn down the settings. I hope you see where I'm going with this. At this point, you ate now experiencing to concept of tradeoffs which is what devs have to deal with everyday. The question at the end of the day is "was this 800-900 purchase worth it?" That is up to you to decide.

When we refer to pc's on gaf, it is referred to as a singular entity. You often read statements like this, "it will run better on PC" or other variations of the statement. This is clearly false, a particular pc build can run it better but it is not true for all pc's.

Essentially what I'm trying to say is can we stop the nonsense that is going on in this thread. We really do not need a pc defense force in the thread and a console defense force in the thread. The discussion revolves around a particular game which appears to be an anomaly in the library of both consoles. Given ubisoft history, the focus should be on the incompetence of the developers and not on a perceived deficiency in the consoles. There are more demanding games that run better on these consoles like BF4. Watch Dogs is a ps360 game and the devs should be criticized for their work. The game barely looks better than gta 5 on the ps360 so it's clearly a dev problem.

Thank you.

This game has clearly been through the shithouse in development. People need to stop acting like it's the end of consoles.

 

[amstradcpc]

I think it comes kind of naturally. When people care so much about resolution that they cancel their pre-orders they maybe should start thinking about getting a PC. On a console you'll always have the devs deciding the resolution for you.

This is Sony and MS´s fault. John Carmack already said that the improvement in GPUs would be mainly eaten by resolution. Sony and MS´s would do well in not talking for next gen about 4K or graphics with PS5 and XB2 will be worse than this gen.

With the GPUs PS4 and XB1 have, people should understand clearly that Samaritan level graphics only would be possible at 720p30fps. More resolution worse graphics, easy. PC has not this limitation. When Maxwell big chip launches the same will happen to the Kepler owners...

 

[Admiral Woofington]

So we've gone from lazy to devs to great value for $400 to convenience. Now we just need to find a way to fit PS+ in here and we can end the thread.

How about the gold edition being the only 1080p version?

 

[TheCloser]

If you were a programmer I think you'd appreciate the fact that simple things can often trip you up and complex tasks might be easy as pie.

I think you need to stop coming out with these baseless attacks on people you don't even know and go sulk somewhere else. If it's nothing else it's unprofessional.

Yea, thankfully there is version control. Revert back to an older version and approach the problem from a different angle. My attacks are not baseless, they are based on the fact that Ubisoft lied and this game got 6+ months of EXTRA development time and it significantly worse than last year's e3 showing. Instead of spending the 6 months on polish, they spent it on adding content. A serious misplacement of priorities. Several people who have played/seen the game on the forums reported that at certain points, the framerate dropped into the teens. This is simply unacceptable. Some journalist have already hinted at the fact that the game is bad but continue to ignore it.

Finally, i'm not attacking the devs, i'm simply calling it like it is. Looking at the situation, we can all see where the blame clearly lies.

 

[JustinJ004]

It's not nonsense, spend properly and it's definatly possible. And this PC will play watch dogs 1080p 60fps high to max settings.
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/3JjIC

But I agree Ubisoft haven't optimised this game for sure.

You think a 760 is going to max/high this at 1080/60? lol

 

[LilJoka]

You think a 760 is going to max/high this at 1080/60? lol

I'm sure if you turn AA to x2, probably turn down the AO and run some setting like shadows at high rather than max it'll hit 1080p60. Whatever settings it may need it'll still look and play better than a console.

 

[MJLord]

Yea, thankfully there is version control. Revert back to an older version and approach the problem from a different angle. My attacks are not baseless, they are based on the fact that Ubisoft lied and this game got 6+ months of EXTRA development time and it significantly worse than last year's e3 showing. Instead of spending the 6 months on polish, they spent it on adding content. A serious misplacement of priorities. Several people who have played/seen the game on the forums reported that at certain points, the framerate dropped into the teens. This is simply unacceptable. Some journalist have already hinted at the fact that the game is bad but continue to ignore it.

Finally, i'm not attacking the devs, i'm simply calling it like it is. Looking at the situation, we can all see where the blame clearly lies.

And god bless Version control. It doesn't stop a 2 hour task potentially taking a day. You know as well as I do that 90% of the devs who work on the game day to day have no say in the direction.

Given ubisoft history, the focus should be on the incompetence of the developers and not on a perceived deficiency in the consoles.

.

I'm not going to argue with you any longer. Just keep in mind what you're actually slamming is someone's work. You can still criticise; Shit like that above is really in bad taste.

 

[Morphine_OD]

And that's still CPU resources which could be used in many other different ways. Your dedicating a lot of CPU resources to a task which is needed for the concept of the game, which a lot of other games don't need. People act like the CPUs are hardly useful in games, but they're just as important as the GPU.

So you imply that there are some tasks that are needed for the concept of Watch_Dogs, need a whole dedicated thread apart from all the other logic and are unique to it? In fact these things are also not worth putting a marketing spin on it, because I haven't heard about such unique things yet.

Tell me what do you mean. Or is it pure conjecture?

 

[LilJoka]

And god bless Version control. It doesn't stop a 2 hour task potentially taking a day. You know as well as I do that 90% of the devs who work on the game day to day have no say in the direction.

.

I'm not going to argue with you any longer. Just keep in mind what you're actually slamming is someone's work. You can still criticise; Shit like that above is really in bad taste.

If you hired a builder to build you a wall and paid him good money for a wall that didn't meet normal standards such as being straight, you would not slam that builder for being crap because he put many hours of hard labour in?

 

[wildfire]

It's not nonsense, spend properly and it's definatly possible. And this PC will play watch dogs 1080p 60fps high to max settings.
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/3JjIC

He wasn't saying it's not possible. He said it's possible now but with PC performance being a moving target with each year the ability to maintain 1080p and 60FPS for all games drops.

There was a lot more to his post than what you were arguing against.

 

[TheCloser]

And god bless Version control. It doesn't stop a 2 hour task potentially taking a day. You know as well as I do that 90% of the devs who work on the game day to day have no say in the direction.

.

I'm not going to argue with you any longer. Just keep in mind what you're actually slamming is someone's work. You can still criticise; Shit like that above is really in bad taste.

Well i definitely see where you're coming from and your point has been noted. I will avoid doing so in the future. I generally abstain from making such comments except i deem it necessary and in this case, it was necessary. If i worked on this game, i would be embarrassed. One should be embarrassed especially if they feel that it is not an accurate representation of their ability. My issues is that they seem to be proud of their accomplishment and this game is nothing to be proud about from a technical standpoint. What we have seen gameplay wise reeks of assassins creed and farcry. It is seriously lacking in the innovation department. It doesn't break any barriers and the plot sounds weak as well. It is not necessary for you to innovate to have a good game. You can just be the game that does everything well. Watch Dogs doesn't innovate and isn't the type of game that does everything well. The only thing it has accomplished is being recognized as a "game".

 

[MJLord]

If you hired a builder to build you a wall and paid him good money for a wall that didn't meet normal standards such as being straight, you would not slam that builder for being crap because he put many hours of hard labour in?

Who's paying the builder here. Me or the publisher? It's not your place or my place as consumers to criticise developers for their work ethic.

You're more than welcome to criticise the end result though. You can choose to wait until the building company pulls the tarp off the wall and releases it. Get a good look at the wall and judge if you want to pay the building company money for it.

 

[KJRS_1993]

If you hired a builder to build you a wall and paid him good money for a wall that didn't meet normal standards such as being straight, you would not slam that builder for being crap because he put many hours of hard labour in?

It doesn't work like that.
The huge majority of people who worked on the game don't get a say in this. They have to do as they're asked, as instructed from the higher ups.

Also. If you don't like it then simply don't buy it. Easy enough to do. And then save me from having to witness a million pages of everyone moaning about the most pedantic shite every time something this meaningless pops up.

 

[Chev]

If you hired a builder to build you a wall and paid him good money for a wall that didn't meet normal standards such as being straight, you would not slam that builder for being crap because he put many hours of hard labour in?

Thing is, here you're just misunderstanding what the normal standard is. People expect 1080p because of Infamous but Infamous does tons of really cutting edge stuff to reach that result. You aren't expecting straight walls but the Sistine chapel painted on each of them as the standard just because Leonardo did it.

To be fair, both console makers and publishers are to blame for spreading the notion 1080p/60fps would be common this gen.

 

[MarkMclovin]

Holy shit this thread is great!

I just want to play and enjoy the game....

Why can't you?

 

[Morphine_OD]

Thing is, here you're just misunderstanding what the normal standard is. People expect 1080p because of Infamous but Infamous does tons of really cutting edge stuff to reach that result. You aren't expecting straight walls but the Sistine chapel painted on each of them as the standard just because Leonardo did it.

To be fair, both console makers and publishers are to blame for spreading the notion 1080p/60fps would be common this gen.

Fair statement, but to be honest, I haven't heard about any console maker promoting 1080x60. I've always wondered who started this mess.

 

[Gen X]

If you hired a builder to build you a wall and paid him good money for a wall that didn't meet normal standards such as being straight, you would not slam that builder for being crap because he put many hours of hard labour in?

Ahhhh, but if you tell the builder he has 3 weeks to build that wall and the builder responds by requesting 4 weeks or some quality will have to sacrificed........

 

[ryanofcall]

“Resolution is a number, just like framerate is a number. All those numbers are valid aspects of making games,”

Spoiler

First of all: Don't cut quotes in half guys...

Also, I think what Ubisoft says is true. These numbers are not the main reason games are good or bad.

-> Ocarina of Time, N64
-> Resident Evil 4, NGC
-> Okami, PS2
-> Xenoblade Chronicles, Wii

none of them was 1080p/60fps (on their original platform) but they're still better than many 1080p/60fps games coming out.
I don't know if you heard, but videogames are not only about resolution and framerate. And the one's who are, won't matter anymore in 5-10 years, since they will be outdated by then.
For me 1080p/60fps is really just a nice bonus, but not a must-have to be a 10/10.

 

[Klarax]

had this pre ordered. then about 2 months ago cancelled it. its just felling so meh right now. and thats not even resolution related. just feels like its not going to be all that good. I will wait for Watch Dogs 2. Cos lets face it. Creed 2 was much better than one

 

[SneakyStephan]

Ubisoft in that quote: resolution ain't nothing but a number

Sales are just a number too ^^

 

[TheSlySoul]

So that last trailer from yesterday... was that mixed footage?
PC and PS4?

I honestly thought it was PS3 and PS4.

The development cycle is 5 years. This preview made me laugh.

 

[LilJoka]

Ahhhh, but if you tell the builder he has 3 weeks to build that wall and the builder responds by requesting 4 weeks or some quality will have to sacrificed........

But the game was delayed lol
To the other replies, the builder was the publisher and they should take responsibility for their workers work.