I Wanna Be The Guy
U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
The game doesn't look "that much worse" than GTA V on PS3. It looks on par with Saints Row The Third which I thought had pretty good graphics.
Towelie you're high again.
The game doesn't look "that much worse" than GTA V on PS3. It looks on par with Saints Row The Third which I thought had pretty good graphics.
Reasonably close, yes. GTA V simply didn't have a big downgrade.I think the point is that developers shouldn't reveal a game when the reveal is so far out that the final game looks drastically different than what they reveal. For instance, GTAV was revealed.. what, 18 months before release? But the final version looked pretty close to what was shown early on... obviously some drawbacks and scaling down the graphics, but it was still pretty close. Watch_Dogs, on the other hand, has significantly stepped back from the early reveal.
So, it's not about "date," but just... When you reveal something, if it's supposedly in game, let's try to reveal something that looks mostly the same as what you're going to get when the game ships.
some dev pc? Who really cares what an alpha unoptimized build is running on?
That's what I feel will happen as well. Additionally, Ubisoft has been evasive about answering whether the PC version will look like (or at least very close to) the 2012 reveal.Well, we'll see. Logically, I doubt the PC version will be much better. Because based on my experience with Killzone Shadow Fall and Infamous SS, it looks to me like they could have gotten the PS4 version a lot closer to the original reveal than they did. The logical conclusion is the reason they didn't is cross gen developement, closing the gap between the last gen and current gen versions. Using the current gen version as the master build, and then being forced to dumb it down as needed for the last gen ports. If that's what hampered the PS4 version, it's going to hamper the PC version as well. Unless the had a completely separate team developing a completely separate version for PC in tandem, and not doing any porting whatsoever. Very doubtful.
An endless game mode fighting against neon aliens with a 'nerf space invaders' gun where you can use cars and bikes throughout the city can be fun.
Dude, it's entirely CGI. It's just a sequence out of the "Exposed" trailer from E3 2013 used as B-Roll. The trailer screams CGI.Some footage in there is CG. Looks far better than the initial reveal...
"Within reason" is subjective. What if the final PC version stands up to the 2012 reveal? Then what? If that becomes the case then they were actually well within their rights to reveal the game how and when they did. It's not like they ever even said it was ps4 footage or that it was running on the ps4. They couldn't even at the time as no next gen consoles were even announced or had been given final specs at that point.
Which is to say, expect bullshit as the norm.
It's a last gen game with a few current gen bells and whistles bolted on. You can't expect too much from it.Why is it running at 15fps?
The reveal trailer...
Such promise much hope
It's a last gen game with a few current gen bells and whistles. You can't expect too much from it.
Ah, but they weren't clear. There are no automatic disclaimers. If the early presentations are proof of concept, Ubisoft should keep those (mostly) internal where they belong.As long as the devs are clear it's early footage subject to changes it's not bullshit. I really enjoy those early presentations and I take them as gifts for the enthusiasts. Sure they are great marketing tools and like in every advertising there is a part of bullshiting involved because you want your product to look at its best but you can easily ignore the bullshit and just take the good things.
When you are subjected to early footages, don't assume the final game will be the same but think of it like a proof of concept and a great way to show what the developpers have in mind.
Those things are not bullshit and are precious to a lot of gamers.
Just imagine how sad it would be a world when we didn't get to see some footage of The Last Guardian.
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2014/086/3/e/untitled_378_by_dennisk4-d7bufog.gif[/ IMG][/QUOTE]
GTA5 PC/PS4 will completely destroy this.
They sure love GTA V.
Kill the fucking®clowns,Trevoraliens®,® Aiden®.®
Yeah we can expect what was shown to us originally and that was a higher end last gen PC game. It was still nothing that wasn't impossible looking even back then. We all know that big companies like Ubi and EA are all about streamlining the process and collecting them dollars. Why re-model everything and make the game twice when you can just use the original high end textures samples from the ones you downgraded for the PS360 version, wrap those on the low poly last gen model and call it a next gen game.Actually we can...
We can only expect what has been shown to us, and what was shown to us in 2012 was not a game with a few bells and whistles. It looked "next gen". This game they are showing now barely looks current-gen.
Ah, but they weren't clear. There are no automatic disclaimers. If the early presentations are proof of concept, Ubisoft should keep those (mostly) internal where they belong.
GTA5 PC/PS4 will completely destroy this.
Well, good.
Because Watch_Dogs looks fantastic so GTA V on PC should look super-amazeballs.
Gah, we need a date :/
In the meantime, it'll be nice to have Chicago to explore on the PC. It looks more promising, everytime I watch the trailer. I'm most excited to just wander about, hacking into people's lives.
Ah, but they weren't clear. There are no automatic disclaimers. If the early presentations are proof of concept, Ubisoft should keep those (mostly) internal where they belong.
It really boils down to whether the game could look like the reveal (or at least close) on PC, and I say yes. Anything less than that is intentionally downgrading based on an average platform fidelity target.
Yeah, it is crazy that they are promising that every single NPC is unique and can be hacked. We will see.
Yeah, I am sure you are right. That sounds more believable.It's unique in the sense that there's a huge algorithm that compiles a
- first name
- last name
- job or curious fact
- occasional additional hacking options [read text messages, break into conversations and listen/disconnect, hack bank account]
So the chance of running into a person with the exact same name and job twice is almost a statistical anomaly.
The cool [and in my opinion revolutionary] thing about the ability to hack anyone is that you walk down the street, hack some random guy's phone, read his messages and see that he's on his way to kill someone. You can follow him and take him down. It completely shifts the function and purpose of NPCs in traditional open-world sandboxers from "dynamic obstacles" to integral part of the experience.
Yeah we can expect what was shown to us originally and that was a higher end last gen PC game. It was still nothing that wasn't impossible looking even back then. We all know that big companies like Ubi and EA are all about streamlining the process and collecting them dollars. Why re-model everything and make the game twice when you can just use the original high end textures samples from the ones you downgraded for the PS360 version, wrap those on the low poly last gen model and call it a next gen game.
It's unique in the sense that there's a huge algorithm that compiles a
- first name
- last name
- job or curious fact
- occasional additional hacking options [read text messages, break into conversations and listen/disconnect, hack bank account]
So the chance of running into a person with the exact same name and job twice is almost a statistical anomaly.
The cool [and in my opinion revolutionary] thing about the ability to hack anyone is that you walk down the street, hack some random guy's phone, read his messages and see that he's on his way to kill someone. You can follow him and take him down. It completely shifts the function and purpose of NPCs in traditional open-world sandboxers from "dynamic obstacles" to integral part of the experience.
Why would anyone? Whats the point of keeping the same content and making the only difference its graphics?
Its a waste of time and resources if the only difference is better graphics. Not to mention peoples arrogance asking devs to abandon the previous gen to make better looking games, when a lot of people are still using last gen consoles since they don't have the money or want to upgrade yet.
Honestly GAF has shown me how much people prioritize graphics over what the game actually is. Its sad how much hype graphics create, rather than a games hook in terms of gameplay, story,etc.
They said that they have 3000 unique visual parameters, that are mixed and matched to make npcs look distinct and different.
The possible combinations are statistically in the millions.
You say this, but in an open-world game, the fidelity and believability of the world are key to the enjoyment of the game. A lot of the time in game will be spent exploring. Exploring a collection of poorly-textured areas, with no life or atmosphere will get old very fast. When people say 'graphics', it's lazy shorthand for particle effects, realistic lighting, convincing animation, and many things that add texture to the world and make it fun to be inside.
I've never understood why games didn't have more random generation with enemies and NPC's.
For example, how hard would it be to have a game like GTA V use a system to randomly generate the color or cars and clothing. For example, you give the game a color range and it just pulls a color and random. I'm being serious, how hard would that be?
In addition, how hard would it be to scale NPC's randomly? I mean, how hard would it be to have a system that when an enemy or npc is generated it can be a certain size between 2-5 and anything in between.
something i just noticed. you see aiden on a roof. wonder if the game will have verticality, helicopters, parachutes etc.
that stuff was sorely missing in sleepy dogs
Then I play open world games for different reasons. I like them for fun mechanics that allow for a lot of diversity while I play.
And this trailer fully shows that watch dogs is focused on AI and discovery.
Since GAF holds Second Son as the poster child of a next gen sandbox, the enhanced visuals were nice but weren't the reason I really liked the game.
It was the gameplay and sense of movement second son delivered on. It was fun to play.
Watch Dogs looks like a lot of fun, and still looks very interesting. A lack of particle effects and detailed smoke are not going to detract me from liking the game.
The gameplay and story will.
It's much easier to update graphics than it is to come up with brand new gameplay ideas, especially if you have brand new hardware. The game is supossedley already doing something revolutionary and never done before, so what more could they do to the PS4 and XB1 versions but make the graphics better? I'm only gonna play one version so why should I care that the PS360 version has the exact same "revolutionary gameplay" as the PS4, XB1 and PC? I and everyone else does notice when the textures and polycount is no different from the last gen versions though and that's why it is so important. Also graphics do make a difference in the game. They make the game more immersive which many often think makes a game of this type more fun. Nobody ever complained that a game's graphics are too good.Why would anyone? Whats the point of keeping the same content and making the only difference its graphics?
Its a waste of time and resources if the only difference is better graphics. Not to mention peoples arrogance asking devs to abandon the previous gen to make better looking games, when a lot of people are still using last gen consoles since they don't have the money or want to upgrade yet.
Honestly GAF has shown me how much people prioritize graphics over what the game actually is. Its sad how much hype graphics create, rather than a games hook in terms of gameplay, story,etc.
No controllable planes/helicopters in this game, sir.
The gameplay and story will.
That's funny because I think that's where Ubisoft's open world games are lacking. Add to that bad mission structure in the last few AC games and you have a good portion of things that are problematic.
The fact they had to send Watch_Dogs back to the drawing board for derivative, boring missions is quite telling to me.
Source?
TOO REPETITIVE
What was it that made all of those developers, all of those executives decide that the game wasn't ready? Speaking to nearly half a dozen people on the team, the answer was typically "polish." The game needed a lot of fine-tuning; there were a lot of little things that needed work, lots of details that needed to be added. But ultimately, all of those little things added up to one big thing: The game could become repetitive over time.
It explains why the team took so long to realize they were going to need more time to work on the game. We didn't notice any issues with Watch Dogs when we played it at Gamescom last year.
It was, as we wrote, game that was shaping up to be "a culmination of lessons learned by Ubisoft in the open-world genre."
But Danny Belanger, lead game designer, pointed out it wasn't the sort of thing you would typically pick up on right away.
"It's when you put everything together," he said. "In a big production at the end of the project, everything merges. There are some things you don't know. You don't have final data for AI, all of the narrative."
For instance, he said, when hacking AI-controlled characters, there originally wasn't a lot of variety.
"So it started to feel repetitive," he said. "The fantasy doesn't make the AI feel alive. We knew some things needed to be upgraded, improved and polished; we weren't happy with that."
You say this, but in an open-world game, the fidelity and believability of the world are key to the enjoyment of the game. A lot of the time in game will be spent exploring. Exploring a collection of poorly-textured areas, with no life or atmosphere will get old very fast. When people say 'graphics', it's lazy shorthand for particle effects, realistic lighting, convincing animation, and many things that add texture to the world and make it fun to be inside.
Watch Dogs looks like a lot of fun, and still looks very interesting. A lack of particle effects and detailed smoke are not going to detract me from liking the game.
The gameplay and story will.
So they had that insight and did something about it.That's funny because I think that's where Ubisoft's open world games are lacking. Add to that bad mission structure in the last few AC games and you have a good portion of things that are problematic.
The fact they had to send Watch_Dogs back to the drawing board for derivative, boring missions is quite telling to me.
It's unique in the sense that there's a huge algorithm that compiles a
- first name
- last name
- job or curious fact
- occasional additional hacking options [read text messages, break into conversations and listen/disconnect, hack bank account]
So the chance of running into a person with the exact same name and job twice is almost a statistical anomaly.
The cool [and in my opinion revolutionary] thing about the ability to hack anyone is that you walk down the street, hack some random guy's phone, read his messages and see that he's on his way to kill someone. You can follow him and take him down. It completely shifts the function and purpose of NPCs in traditional open-world sandboxers from "dynamic obstacles" to integral part of the experience.
That makes it sound incredibly meaningless... People will do it a few times, maybe get the inevitable achievement/trophy connected to the events and then get bored of the repetitive nature. Of course it's all according to the Ubisoft school of game design.
Why? It could offer lots of different little sidemissions.That makes it sound incredibly meaningless... People will do it a few times, maybe get the inevitable achievement/trophy connected to the events and then get bored of the repetitive nature. Of course it's all according to the Ubisoft school of game design.
Can't find "derivative, boring missions" anywhere in that part. "Repetitive" in that context refers to the way the AI reacted to events, as clearly indicated by the last line.
The game could become repetitive over time.