GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.
@Marscaleb It's funny because everyone complained when they started doing this stuff before next gen, but now that it's really relevant because the games for the platforms are on a decently level playing field it's still being complained about.
@MuddVader Truth be told, consoles have always been on the same level as PCs for their first year or two. This is nothing new. It's not practical to make a game that is vastly superior graphically because there just are not enough people who own PCs powerful enough to run it.
Well... FML, I just found out my tv is 720p when I thought it was 1080p, with me getting super into the resolution war. My whole perspective on everything is changed :0
seems like optimization for the PC is seriously lacking, the prime reason i went w/ console this gen. i still have a decent laptop for PC gaming but most multi-plats i will be playing on the PS4. i'm very satisfied w/ the visual quality of watch dogs on the ps4, especially at night. so many little touches, such as the trees and stuff blowing around from the wind.
It has a huge vram requirement, primarily cause the new consoles have 8gb of vram to play with, where as most pcs wont. I did warn you guy 's that the new consoles will effect the pc gaming badly for a while., and no one believed me .for this year at least the ps4 will have the best version of games, unless you can afford a a titan or 290x with an i 7 .
I think most games that come out are usually harder to handle on PCs because Nvidia and amd usually don't have or aren't finished optimizing their drivers until weeks or months after game's launch. COD Ghosts was a major upset I'd read so many people's comments on the pc version with horrible fps on higher end cards for a while after its launch, it seems that now people are able to set up and play the game without troubles like they had in the beginning, likely from driver updates that optimize the graphics processors to do calculations geared toward the games demands. I could be wrong, but it's a nice thought in my mind. ;-/
This comparison is total rubbish. I played this on my friend's Xbox one and it looked awful compared to my PC running on Ultra, and he has a better tv than me as well. The consoles no where near compare to the quality on PC, if you actually have decent hardware. Silly console fanboys.
You Full of crap, what pc you have? cause i know for fact this game runs very badly on pcs cause it has a huge memory requirement which consoles have and most pcs wont ( its video memory that matters). show me a pic of your pc, if its anything lower than a 3gb video card i know you lying. The ultra textures don't even play on pc unless you have 3gb MIN. it actually needs more to play without hitching. You the silly fanboy dude for assuming that the pc had the best version, without testing. Your bS has been exposed.
@amar1234 @rjhelms84 Actually, the problem didn't effect all PC users who played Watchdogs, it effected most though. Raptr's forums on the game are mostly full with people complaining about how shitty its optimization was for PC, while there are quite a few who don't have problems at all. You can always look on Youtube at PC play at Max settings with no issues.
They all look great, I like the shader balance of the XB1 best though.
It often seemed to me that 360 ports ended up looking better than their PS3 counterparts because they had to work harder to hide the inferior graphics of the 360 with great looking dark shaders, and it looks like that tradition may be continuing.
@Ardus the main difference between ps3 and 360 games was that 360 games had more vibrant colors, because few FX were turned off -- technically that isn't a good thing. Same here, it's not a balance you're looking at - it's lower lever detail shader. But, if you like it -- why not?
@mr_nee That's not at all true in my experience. The 360 games that I checked against PS3 were actually much less vibrant looking and darker, in addition to being graphically inferior by turning off a "few FX". The only improvements I could see were the shaders, which really made more with less.
Out of the PS4 and XB1, most of the shots I saw looked better on the XB1. The PC probably has the same graphic limitations since the game was built to the lowest common denominator. That or they didn't really have it maxed out. I guess the 2 options are that the video is compressed for the web, or the PC really isn't outperforming the consoles (haha).
I can tell you right now, game is running obviously maxed out on the consoles, but definitely now on PC! I play it with everything on Ultra and texture at 3 (max) and anti-aliasing at 2x. and its sure looks way WAY better then the PC footage here.
@Wolf-5 A lot of quality is being lost in the streaming video, due to compression artifacts and downsaling of the resolution. This is going to be a major problem with graphical comparisons between this new generation of consoles. You're probably not going to see much of a difference, because the streamed media just can't properly show it.
@sigmact trust me, if you have the right hardware, the PC version on ultra looks far superior to xbox one. I know, as I've played both versions. This comparison is misleading.
its not about hardware at this point. its about developers being able to code and take advantage of the hardware. this is all first gen of the next gen software. must give it time for developers to be able to give the differences we know and want. first gen ps3 was terrible when the games launched, 360 wasn't much better. but after 10yrs...yeah it gets better.
@xMeTHoDiCaL That is irrelevant, graphics comparison is about what looks better. HD video does not give a true reflection of texture detail as it is still blurry, even UHD still cannot, nor does it represent FPS (video is locked at certain frame).
Secondly, it will only look better on PC if the dev's actually make better textures and features for the PC version. Without the dev's actually doing something extra, PC will just run A LOT faster with no jaggies thanks to proper anti-aliasing.
In this case there is a lot that NVIDIA did with Ubisoft on this, but it's more to do with rendering that actual textures and discernable differences that a video can show.
For you to actually see the difference, you need a side by side on two screens, not a video. Or go look at hardocp.com where they use lossless screenshots for varying quality (consoles not included unfortunately).
These videos would only be of benefit if the dev's ACTUALLY did something special due to hardware capability on a specific platform to compare. (Batman AA, AC etc. PhysX for example).
That being said, playing ona 120Hz monitor with over 100 FPS, even without 'special' graphics, makes a HUGE difference.
@xMeTHoDiCaL Sorry, just to add to the above. They will develop for the slowest machine if it's cross platform. In this case Xbox one, the only reason some difference is visible between x1 and ps4 is due to the fact that the PS4 runs at slightly higher res. (Lower res results in 'muddier' textures even if its the exact same texture)
So if a game comes out on multiple platforms on the same day, most of the time that means all platforms have the same product, it's down to resolution, anti-aliasing and frames per second that makes the difference (non of which a video will show you).
Which in line with you post, comes down squarely on hardware. Yes they will be able to more over time. (also debatable, they learn tricks and shortcuts).
Therefore this video is pointless. Xbox one will always be the slowest, then PS4, then PC being the fastest. With all the platforms being X86 now, apart from some programming differences, any 'tricks' and 'code optimisations' they manage to come up with. Is applicable across the board unless it's a platform specific bug.
If you want to know just how bad 720p is. Crack open your laptop/home pc and set your desktop resolution to 1280X720, that is exactly 720p. By comparison 1920 X 1080 is 1080p
I have this game on max settings and it runs beautifully, but this is not the game that was revealed at E3 2012 and for that I am a bit disappointed. I think a lot of people feel slated because that graphical expectation was not met. Indeed the graphics are not everything, but what was shown at E3 took visuals in games to a new level that we all hoped and maybe once the cross-generational console lag ceases, will be, a new standard. This my friends is why so many people are disappointed with WD even though its still a good game. I am surprised how similar the ps4 and pc versions look...
@anewellz01 Downsample 2560x1440 or 3600x1800 (in my case) and add some SweetFX to that and it looks pretty good. It won't be like the 2012 reveal because of all the other effects they had going but it still looks good.
@anewellz01 I think people need to rewatch that, because it's not that much better than what we finally got. At the time, yeah, it looked great, but by now, it's not the next level to be expected. I think people that are saying this say it before they rewatch the old trailer.
I got this game for the one. It looked ok in the night scenes but pretty weak in the day. When you go to his sisters house it looks so last gen and even screen tears in one room lol. I think the last gta for the 360 looks as good graphically but better style wise. You cant even see your reflection in a mirror in this game lol. It's a step down from the last assassins creed in the graphics thats for sure.
All that would have been no problem if the game was fun but for me it was a bore so I traded while it still had some value.
I am deeply disappointed in the next-gen consoles. There is not a significant difference from last-gen. They rushed the consoles out way too soon. Should have waited another 2 years. I have a great gaming PC but prefer my PS3. I see absolutely no reason to get a PS4 after seeing how Sony lied at E3 2013 about the graphics.
@dpclark Yeah man, these console can't even run 1080p at 60fps, which is pretty much bog standard for gaming in my eyes, so how the heck can they be called "next gen"? It's ridiculous.
Studios are currently developing games for the lowest common denominator (last gen) and it does tend to show. Once they move past that and learn how to capitilize on the current gens abiities, games should start looking more "next gen".
As a long time Xbox 360 user, some of the differences I've noticed while playing Watch Dogs on the PS4 thus far is real time lighting and shadows, a real step up from baking it into the textures. Unfortunately there is too much dynamic range during the daytime. It needs to be compressed so that shadows are deeper, which I'm sure can be patched in. I see real time reflections as well, which means no more cube mapping. I've always hated cube mapping, especially when devs can't be bothered to create one that actually reflected the scene it was for. They'd often blur them too, just to keep the gamer from noticing. While true reflections are an definite improvement, especially when it rains, I've sadly noticed the game only reflects the environment and not the NPC's or cars. Textures are high res now on everything, so that is also a big improvement IMHO. No more trying to read blurry text on things. Lots of AA going on as well, which is great too. No more jaggies and flickering! And that is about it.
What I'd really like to see is a comparison between the last gen and current gen, but Gamespot didn't feel like bothering with that it would seem. Not surprising given the general quality of this video, which makes it pretty much useless for its intended purpose.
Its very clear that Ubisoft hasnt optimized and has downgraded the pc version to make it look like the console versions. This is really really sad. I understand you want the game to look the same on all platforms but you're screwing over the pc gamers in the bargain. Whats even worse is that they wont even let the pc version look their first gameplay reveal at E3. So much for their engine tech trailers in the past. More lies from their advertisements.
Its not about which system wins the graphics battle per game. Its about pushing the limits and making sure the game is tailored to each system. But devs are doing the opposite by limiting the game to the lowest common denominator so that they dont piss off the hardware publishers, but are more than happy letting go of their customers. This whole new next gen gaming has started on a really bad note.
@Sadek if you play this on a pc build that can run ultra settings with a solid framerate, you will realize how much better it looks compared to the consoles
@Sadek Its games like these that make it pointless to own a super gaming pc... Whether the devs do what you are saying or not, this is why some people like console over pc. Also I thought with a pc you can adjust everything???
@skiggy34 @Sadek I make films and other animated videos using my pc, so be default I need a really good pc. I also have a console, but I only use it for exclusives because most games look great and run better on my pc right now.
You're right, I usually use enb mods on games that dont look good on my pc (Dark Souls 2), but Ubisoft's AC Black Flag looks amazing on my pc, and watch dogs does too, but its hampered with bugs and stuttering. Ubisoft can surely have the game work a lot better at launch for pc. Thats all I need.
If you prefer consoles over pc, thats fine. Infact you save a lot of money on hardware. But for us pc gamers we'd like games tailored to our hardware, its just fair. If I'm paying for a copy of a game, it has to run using the best of my hardware's power, just like how it runs to the best of the consoles abilities.