• 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.

Digital Foundry - Watch Dogs vs. Watch Dogs 2012 Reveal

StuBurns

Banned
You really think so? It seems very comparable.
The PC comparison isn't as horrible, because the console version shows the inside of the club, which is what took a colossal dip in quality. But even that PC looks notably worse, going from modeled light bulbs to a flat texture? Looks so cheap by comparison.
 

Setsuna

Member
All i see from all these comparissons is that if you compare daylight retail to nighttime e3 2012

The difference is almost like night, and day.
 

Brashnir

Member
All i see from all these comparissons is that if you compare daylight retail to nighttime e3 2012

The difference is almost like night, and day.

Except it's not nighttime in the 2012 demo. Look at the sky and the shadows being cast by the environment.
 

lefantome

Member
we need a serious video comparison:

- same time of the day
- pc ultra settings
- both video at 1080p


btw the downgrade seem to be real but not tragic
 
Who is supposed to be eating crow and for what?
Final build isn't on bar with with 2012's yet it doesn't seem horribly off too(at least PC on ultra doesn't). It's really the least dramatic outcome possible. -__-

''
Does Watch Dogs truly deliver on the promise of its initial E3 2012 reveal? The short answer is yes. Cutting away the obviously pre-rendered CG inserts at E3 2012 leaves a slice of gameplay that is indeed a close match for the final game. In fact, the finished game comes out of the comparison very favourably, because that original demo only represented a tiny fraction of the overall offering;''


Digital Foundry seems to disagree and they actually know this stuff.
 

On Demand

Banned
Neither the consoles or PC version matches the 2012 demo. It's on a whole other level. Lighting, the feeling of wind, the wetness on the streets, trees moving, better textures. It just has an overall much higher graphical quality to it.
 

Brashnir

Member
''
Does Watch Dogs truly deliver on the promise of its initial E3 2012 reveal? The short answer is yes. Cutting away the obviously pre-rendered CG inserts at E3 2012 leaves a slice of gameplay that is indeed a close match for the final game. In fact, the finished game comes out of the comparison very favourably, because that original demo only represented a tiny fraction of the overall offering;''


Digital Foundry seems to disagree and they actually know this stuff.

DF is great at picking apart details and analyzing framerates, but have never had a good track record when it comes to analyzing overall image composition. They're missing the forest for the trees on this one.
 

geordiemp

Member
Sounds more like shoddy optimisation on any platform than anything else imo. I mean, the fact that the games resolution just so happens to be the same as the ACIV port before it was patched sounds alarm bells to me. Also, is this game really that much better than Infamous Second Son that it has to run at a lower resolution? BF4 i can get, in MP its explosion central, so much shit going on at the same time and the game looks amazing, but this? Something tells me they could have pushed up the resolution if it was a native 'next gen' game.
[/URL].

I am sort of with you - the game FPS dips with heavy Physics stuff on screen from DF article....

Makes you wonder if they fully utilised the GPU compute as that should be a PS4 strong point, unless they left it to the weak CPU...

I kinda agree that if they had another 6 months they could of optimised and maybe squeezed a bit more.

Second son technically astounds me.
 

MaxiLive

Member
The main thing missing from the 2012 demo is the lighting, the contrast between light and the shadows is much blander in the retail version. Then there is the smaller changes such as less bump mapping on the street path and less material based shaders apart from that it looks fairly comparable!

The lighting is such a drastic change though that it makes everything in the world lose its place compared to the 2012 demo. Everything drastically stands out from the environment and each other which makes the game look well very gamey and a lot less life like where everything blends together.

I bet if ENBseries or something similar can be modded into the game to tweak the TOD and lighting effects the game could get very close to the 2012 demo without the obvious 3 months of additional polish that sequence had :p
 

pixlexic

Banned
the biggest difference i see is geometry. There is a lot more objects and polys in objects int he reveal. like the light bulbs under the theater being replaced by a flat texture.
 

EL CUCO

Member
But to really buckle the frame-rate - the lowest point on record being a constant 24fps - we need to drive through streets littered with car wreckages and armed police officers, accelerating through every object on the pavement. The drop from 30fps is sustained but hard-earned, proving it's the physics engine that drags down most.

Time to update Havok.
 

todahawk

Member
the biggest difference i see is geometry. There is a lot more objects and polys in objects int he reveal. like the light bulbs under the theater being replaced by a flat texture.

in the outside shots by the theatre I agree but the lighting changes inside the club are huge. the later/current version seems flat and boring in comparison.
 
a099e8b62f8a487502459071a6281e00.jpg


ipbtcNwtvp51V.png


yikes
 
I am sort of with you - the game FPS dips with heavy Physics stuff on screen from DF article....

Makes you wonder if they fully utilised the GPU compute as that should be a PS4 strong point, unless they left it to the weak CPU...

I kinda agree that if they had another 6 months they could of optimised and maybe squeezed a bit more.

Second son technically astounds me.

Its a multi platform game with focus on last gen consoles, so they should be using old engine with some enhancements to next gen versions as we see no big difference from PC for next gen in details. They need a year or two to use GPU compute in PS4 for next gen only game.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
I don't understand how your eyes don't see the massive difference visually...


...yet you caught that 59fps per 64 frame thing in Mario Kart.
No, I see the differences, but I feel that some don't really understand WHY the 2012 demo looks better. They just claim it does but generally cannot detailed as to why that is.

I definitely prefer the look of the 2012 demo, no doubt, but I think it has more to do with the way that demo was prepared from an artistic point of view. It was completely controlled in a way the final game is not.

Most of the effects and visuals seen in that demo are present in the final game but they never come together in quite the same fashion. I do believe that aiming for a dynamic time of day was a poor choice in that sense.

There are other minor details that have gone missing but I do believe it's really the change in the way lighting is handled that has negatively colored everyone's opinions. I still think the final game looks quite good in its own right.

The lighting is the obvious difference. Much more natural and impressive in the 2012 demo.
Here's the thing, though, after playing the game for a while now I actually DO think the game has very natural lighting. It's not as harsh or fake as some of the videos and screens had lead me to believe.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Has anyone already posted this video from Videogamer.com? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDQem9-ghc4 - "Watch Dogs Comparison - Recreating the E3 2012 Demo on the PS4"

It's depressing to see :(
Again, I feel this is not a completely accurate comparison here. The time of day is wrong in the final footage. Those buildings can and do cast shadows more in line with the original demo. They've simply selected a time of day when the shadows aren't present in the same way.
 

Brashnir

Member
No, I see the differences, but I feel that some don't really understand WHY the 2012 demo looks better. They just claim it does but generally cannot detailed as to why that is.

I definitely prefer the look of the 2012 demo, no doubt, but I think it has more to do with the way that demo was prepared from an artistic point of view. It was completely controlled in a way the final game is not.

Most of the effects and visuals seen in that demo are present in the final game but they never come together in quite the same fashion. I do believe that aiming for a dynamic time of day was a poor choice in that sense.

There are other minor details that have gone missing but I do believe it's really the change in the way lighting is handled that has negatively colored everyone's opinions. I still think the final game looks quite good in its own right.


Here's the thing, though, after playing the game for a while now I actually DO think the game has very natural lighting. It's not as harsh or fake as some of the videos and screens had lead me to believe.

Completely controlled in a way which could never be replicated in the actual game, and then presented in such a way to misrepresent the game and fool people.

Again, I feel this is not a completely accurate comparison here. The time of day is wrong in the final footage. Those buildings can and do cast shadows more in line with the original demo. They've simply selected a time of day when the shadows aren't present in the same way.

Post a video and show us.
 

ethomaz

Banned
I'm disappointed with the PS4 version from the videos but the real question is if the PC version reach the reveal E3 2012 quality?

I guess not.
 
we need a serious video comparison:

- same time of the day
- pc ultra settings
- both video at 1080p


btw the downgrade seem to be real but not tragic

That's my take on it too, but it does mean the game is missing a lot of the touches that set it off from the previous gen. The time of day is the biggest change (and honestly I don't know if the game resets the time of day when you start that mission, like GTA occasionally does, so maybe that too is intentional on Ubisoft's part) but there are others too.

It's little details like the leaves and dust blowing by at the beginning of the first clip, as Aiden walks past the alleyway, or the leaves on the sidewalk that appear to reflect light differently and have a third dimension, as opposed to the flat, muddy texture in the actual game. The trees are clearly different and react less to the wind (though the fact they respond at all is, I think, still an improvement over last-gen). At night, the rain is much more subtle, a drizzle instead of a downpour. Details like the fast drip by Aiden's head that marks an overflowing gutter or overhang are completely missing in the actual game, as is the moving light source from the train passing overhead that casts realistic, moving shadows through the train tracks above you.

And then there are the NPCs, which are a clear downgrade. The couple that hug each other at the beginning, with the woman looking back and saying "I'll be waiting for your call!" is gone. The TV reporter and cameraperson outside the theatre and the crowd waiting to get in are also gone. In both cases, they've been replaced with the same, largely mindless NPCs you've seen in every other open-world game. It's an obvious place to cut detail, since most people won't really notice and the animations are probably relatively expensive for a one-time effect, but the cuts are there nonetheless.

Anyways, still excited, even if it's not the 2012 E3 build.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Completely controlled in a way which could never be replicated in the actual game, and then presented in such a way to misrepresent the game and fool people.
Yes, that was their intention all along. They were only concerned with fooling people.

It wasn't because the game was still very much in development. It wasn't due to the fact that they were still targeting unknown platforms. It wasn't the fact that building a limited, polished demo is much easier than building an entire game with the same level of detail.

No, they only wanted to FOOL people. They were intentionally lying about it. They knew they wouldn't be able to reach that demo.

Fuck that, I don't buy it. I truly do not believe that these developers create demos like this with the intention of lying to people. I'm amazed that people really think their intentions were that malicious. They could have handled things better but I do not believe for a second that they designed that original demo to fool people. It was what they could produce at that point in time. Nothing more.
 
Geometry, particles, etc I cannot say because I didn't look that hard, but what I can say is that to me the 2012 demo has better lightning, fog and maybe shadows, especially in that comparison video. The scene in the club is one example, to me the retail one is too vibrant, and I'm saying this as someone who has an OLED Vita and likes it more than the LCD one.
 

Brashnir

Member
Yes, that was their intention all along. They were only concerned with fooling people.

It wasn't because the game was still very much in development. It wasn't due to the fact that they were still targeting unknown platforms. It wasn't the fact that building a limited, polished demo is much easier than building an entire game with the same level of detail.

No, they only wanted to FOOL people. They were intentionally lying about it. They knew they wouldn't be able to reach that demo.

Fuck that, I don't buy it. I truly do not believe that these developers create demos like this with the intention of lying to people. I'm amazed that people really think their intentions were that malicious. They could have handled things better but I do not believe for a second that they designed that original demo to fool people. It was what they could produce at that point in time. Nothing more.

I'd have half a mind to agree with you if I hadn't been down this same exact road about a thousand times already.

Publishers have been feeding us bullshit in reveal trailers for decades.
 

jett

D-Member
Wat? They didn't really do any comparisons to the 2012 reveal. And how can the say it compares favorably to it? It's missing effects from footage from 2013.
 
So I watched both the PS4 and PC comparisons to the 2012 E3 preview, and I'm more convinced that the time of day in the actual game is set for you, but I'm still not totally sure:


(sorry they're not the same size, this was quick and dirty and I didn't modify the PC video to be the same size as the YouTube PS4 one)

I don't think this is conclusive because while the time of day seems to be similar in both shots, it's possible the PS4 version has a bunch of cloud cover to explain why it looks more overcast, so it's hard to say if Ubisoft is resetting the time of day/weather conditions before you start that mission or not.
 

Kssio_Aug

Member
"Does Watch Dogs truly deliver on the promise of its initial E3 2012 reveal? The short answer is yes."

I would probably agree with that statement in terms of gameplay. But visually, hell no.
 

shandy706

Member
The game looks good to me.

I need to know how it runs on the X1.

It is either Gamefly it there or wait for a sale on the PC. Repetition in Ubisoft open world games absolutely drives me nuts (so I'm being cautious), so how long I wait depends on the PC price vs X1 performance.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
I'd have half a mind to agree with you if I hadn't been down this same exact road about a thousand times already.

Publishers have been feeding us bullshit in reveal trailers for decades.
You can't lump them in all together.

Something like those CG trailers from Sony's PS3 reveal? Those were obvious attempts at bullshitting people and weren't even created by the companies working on the games.

Something like Watch Dogs is a very different situation. They didn't simply render out a CG trailer and call it a day. That's where they were at that point. We don't know how far along they were in the development nor we don't know what kind of problems they ran into along the way but I sincerely believe that they had no intention of actually LYING to consumers. As far I know, they weren't even ready to show it yet but their hands were forced by management.

Have you played it yet? Despite its issues with development it's turned out to be very solid. Even with the lower resolution on PS4, it looks very nice in motion and operates at a very consistent 30 fps 99% of the time. Look back at the previous generation of sandbox games and it becomes clear how big of an improvement that alone is.

so it's hard to say if Ubisoft is resetting the time of day/weather conditions before you start that mission or not.
They're not resetting the time of day and weather conditions when you start a mission.
 
I'm kind of stunned at how nice this article is. To my eyes the difference between that 2012 reveal and the final product on PS4 is massive. The 2012 version looks like a massive next gen leap. The game we got in 2014 looks worse than GTA5 in some ways, and better in others.

I would have bought that 2012 reveal game just for the pure eye candy and effects alone. Just to marvel at it all. Having watched an hour of PS4 gameplay this weekend I have absolutely no interest in buying this game.
 

Brashnir

Member
You can't lump them in all together.

Something like those CG trailers from Sony's PS3 reveal? Those were obvious attempts at bullshitting people and weren't even created by the companies working on the games.

Something like Watch Dogs is a very different situation. They didn't simply render out a CG trailer and call it a day. That's where they were at that point. We don't know how far along they were in the development nor we don't know what kind of problems they ran into along the way but I sincerely believe that they had no intention of actually LYING to consumers. As far I know, they weren't even ready to show it yet but their hands were forced by management.

Have you played it yet? Despite its issues with development it's turned out to be very solid. Even with the lower resolution on PS4, it looks very nice in motion and operates at a very consistent 30 fps 99% of the time. Look back at the previous generation of sandbox games and it becomes clear how big of an improvement that alone is.

Are you suggesting that Ubisoft's noses are clean in the bullshot business? Fucking LOL - they're practically the grandmasters.

You can say all you want about how well they've done within the limitations they had and blah blah blah, but at the end of the day, they released a product that doesn't look to be in the same ballpark as the initial reveal.

On top of that, you went out of your way to state the opposite unequivocally in your article, and now it sounds like you're running damage control for them in the last paragraph of your post here. It doesn't matter how it stands up to open world games from the last generation. It matters how it (doesn't) stand up to the footage they released themselves.

Maybe it was malicious, maybe it wasn't - we'll have to agree to disagree on that one - but it was certainly a load of shit from a company in a position to benefit from feeding people a load of shit.
 

Kinyou

Member
It really is hard for people to admit that they were somewhat wrong. Human mind is really a beautiful thing. Well I guess it's now gone from technical to artistic downgrade lol.
When you think that they removed that fine smoke filter from the club out of pure artistic reasons, sure
 
"Does Watch Dogs truly deliver on the promise of its initial E3 2012 reveal? The short answer is yes. Cutting away the obviously pre-rendered CG inserts at E3 2012 leaves a slice of gameplay that is indeed a close match for the final game."

"... on a technical level we do not feel duped by the original reveal."


Thanks for sharing. Glad to hear this is the case, interesting read and ultimately DF indicates that the gameplay elements shown in the initial reveal are representative of what the final game now looks like. This is very good news especially in light of the doubters. Will be firing up my copy tonight (although on Xbox One instead of PS4, so quality will be close but not exact I know I know).
 

Van Owen

Banned
Framerate looks pretty solid. If they're able to patch in 1080p I'll definitely pick it up over the PC version down the line.
 
I'm disappointed with the PS4 version from the videos but the real question is if the PC version reach the reveal E3 2012 quality?

I guess not.
Nope, it doesn't. I've got a pretty beefy PC (3770K, 780 Ti, 16GB RAM) and the E3 video from 2 years ago looks noticeably better.

I think people are doing a bit of turd polishing with the PS4 version too, given that it's 900p, the framerate dips down to 24 FPS at times, and it has screen-tearing, but that's suddenly acceptable to some people all of a sudden. I'm sure the Xbox One version will be even worse too.
 
Really DF? There is a huuuuge difference between the e3 2012 trailer and the final version, everything casts a shadow, there is volumetric dynamic fog, the lighting is much more advanced, better use of DOF.

I couldn't find a good high res image of the e3 2012 trailer, but even with the massive compression you can see the difference. The way I see it, ubisoft uses a prerendered gameplay section the same way bungie did with the halo 3 2007 e3 trailer, the retail game was never going to look as good, the trailer was merely used to build hype.

Retail PC
2exoeJr.png

e3 2012 trailer
Kspd3Rp.jpg
 

maneil99

Member
Digital Foundry conclusion isn't that the visuals met e3 2012, its that the gameplay does. Can people not serious tell what they are saying or see the graphical difference with their own eyes? Get you head out of the dirt and face the truth, it was downgraded.
 
Top Bottom