So, a 6 years old PC game looks better than Watch Dogs

  • 60 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by IgGy621985 (4659 posts) -

Yeah, yeah, the title was a bait. Also, yeah, PC still didn't get GTA 5. We know, thanks.

And, yeah, this is a modded version of GTA 4. But, damn, just LOOK at this! And yet you can get this too, completely for free.

From "about" below the video (not my PC):

My PC: i5 2500k, 4gb, GTX 660

Average framerate is usually 30-40

And yet those dumbarses from Ubisoft say how we'll get a complete "next-gen" experience with Watch Dogs. Just hilarious.

#2 Posted by Nengo_Flow (9561 posts) -

yeah we get it already, Ubisoft did the ol' downgrade switch-a-roo

#3 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4516 posts) -

yes i modded a game just last night to enhance the graphics. fxaa injector.

#4 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2563 posts) -

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument. It's kind of sad how it's become the cool thing to hate Watch Dogs. People were freaking out over this title as little as three or four months ago.

#5 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10609 posts) -

Whats hilarious is you actually believed them. I'm not just talking about Ubisoft, Other than graphics, which won't be an impressive difference anyway, what else is there to look foward to this gen.

Same old controller, sameold games with the same old gameplay, from 6th gen no less.

Consoles will have TV and various apps, but games, haven't changed one bit. Thats next gen for ya, fresh out of ideas.

#6 Posted by Spartan070 (16333 posts) -

So modded games can be used as GFX fuel again? Did that mod release 6 years ago?

#7 Posted by AzatiS (7348 posts) -

Lol thats unreal , i tried GTA4 with mods but wasnt like this !! This is like real lol

#8 Posted by IgGy621985 (4659 posts) -

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument. It's kind of sad how it's become the cool thing to hate Watch Dogs. People were freaking out over this title as little as three or four months ago.

Not fair? Well, perhaps, but one would expect that next-gen games would look better than this in the video :-/ Yeah, people were freaking out because Watch Dogs actually looked, um, "next-gen".

#9 Posted by kitty (114616 posts) -

@AzatiS said:

Lol thats unreal , i tried GTA4 with mods but wasnt like this !! This is like real lol

It looks crazy good. Depends on which enb you got though. :P It didn't look that good for me for the longest with an enb that I had, then I found this enb that was like 400MB I installed it and was blown away. It looks exactly like the pictures and videos.

#10 Posted by IgGy621985 (4659 posts) -

So modded games can be used as GFX fuel again? Did that mod release 6 years ago?

I already wrote in the OP that the title was a bait. So, no hard feelings. But since we're talking about current-gen consoles... you know, games should actually look better than modded GTA 4.

#11 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2563 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument. It's kind of sad how it's become the cool thing to hate Watch Dogs. People were freaking out over this title as little as three or four months ago.

Not fair? Well, perhaps, but one would expect that next-gen games would look better than this in the video :-/ Yeah, people were freaking out because Watch Dogs actually looked, um, "next-gen".

At the same time, people with far too much free time have been working on making this game look better for years, and it's all they've had to do. Alongside creating a gorgeous game world, the developers also have to program the rest of the game and missions.

I'm not going to be one to write the game off until I see the final version. All we've seen are these little tidbits of a much bigger game, without actually seeing it in its entirety for ourselves. Evidence in the trailers, Ubisoft's history of offering downgraded games only mean something when the game actually comes out.

Also, this mod for GTA 4 is kind of the exception of the rule when it comes to mods. Yes, there's been ridiculous graphics mods for games like Skyrim and Half Life 2, which somehow gets a new overhaul annually and will never look like a last-gen game, but GTA 4 truly stands above the rest in this regard, and by a large margin.

If developers got six years to work on making stunning graphics for every game, they probably would look like this, but we gamers are impatient and want things faster than that, so that leaves us fighting for a middle-ground.

To re-state my original point, I'm not judging Watch Dogs until it's in retail form, and we're still two months and some change from that.

#12 Posted by evildead6789 (7540 posts) -

@IgGy621985 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument. It's kind of sad how it's become the cool thing to hate Watch Dogs. People were freaking out over this title as little as three or four months ago.

Not fair? Well, perhaps, but one would expect that next-gen games would look better than this in the video :-/ Yeah, people were freaking out because Watch Dogs actually looked, um, "next-gen".

At the same time, people with far too much free time have been working on making this game look better for years, and it's all they've had to do. Alongside creating a gorgeous game world, the developers also have to program the rest of the game and missions.

I'm not going to be one to write the game off until I see the final version. All we've seen are these little tidbits of a much bigger game, without actually seeing it in its entirety for ourselves. Evidence in the trailers, Ubisoft's history of offering downgraded games only mean something when the game actually comes out.

Also, this mod for GTA 4 is kind of the exception of the rule when it comes to mods. Yes, there's been ridiculous graphics mods for games like Skyrim and Half Life 2, which somehow gets a new overhaul annually and will never look like a last-gen game, but GTA 4 truly stands above the rest in this regard, and by a large margin.

If developers got six years to work on making stunning graphics for every game, they probably would look like this, but we gamers are impatient and want things faster than that, so that leaves us fighting for a middle-ground.

To re-state my original point, I'm not judging Watch Dogs until it's in retail form, and we're still two months and some change from that.

This mod doesn't really do that much, just everything is high res textures. High res textures aren't that much extra work but are completely useless if there's no hardware to run them

That's why this gen is such a ripoff. The ps4 is the equivalent of a 5 year old high end pc. My 3 year old mid range cpu beats it by a mile (it's about the same as the tc's pc)

The fast gddr5 ram doesn't do much for a weak system, it's like putting ddr3 in a 10 year old machine, the bottleneck is not there, it's on the cpu and gpu. It's very good for multitasking though but who cares about that in a gaming machine. The multitasking in the x360 and ps3 was already fast enough for me.

As long as the gamers will contribute to their half ass work, we will keep on getting half ass work. I stopped buying games lately that don't make use of the latest hardware or that are not innovative in another way.

I'm sure there are others like me, people lose their jobs in the gaming industry right now because the devs make the wrong decisions. Devs should make games this gen on a platform that's innovative like the pc, steam machine or another strong platform (a new nintendo system maybe) Those will be the devs that have success this gen. Even console gamers have become very aware of the quality in games and the 8 core hoax is something console owners will realize pretty fast. Some of them realize it already, the next gen consoles aren't that much better than the x360/ps3.

The hoax can only last for so long, (look at the wii u), last gen will be known as a golden gen, and maybe there will be another golden gen, but it ain't going to happen this time in the same way. People want something new and the devs will see in their sales. The reason last gen was so successfull is because the x360/ps3 was so strong. Ms could really capitalize on it, playstation a lot less. Sony needed the ps4 to be successfull but this gen just started and for sony & ms this gen is going to end fast.

#13 Posted by turtlethetaffer (16685 posts) -

Can't say I give much of a damn. Game looks really neat with its ideas; I like that you can hack into the world around you, but it also looks like a solid action game by itself.

#14 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2563 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument. It's kind of sad how it's become the cool thing to hate Watch Dogs. People were freaking out over this title as little as three or four months ago.

Not fair? Well, perhaps, but one would expect that next-gen games would look better than this in the video :-/ Yeah, people were freaking out because Watch Dogs actually looked, um, "next-gen".

At the same time, people with far too much free time have been working on making this game look better for years, and it's all they've had to do. Alongside creating a gorgeous game world, the developers also have to program the rest of the game and missions.

I'm not going to be one to write the game off until I see the final version. All we've seen are these little tidbits of a much bigger game, without actually seeing it in its entirety for ourselves. Evidence in the trailers, Ubisoft's history of offering downgraded games only mean something when the game actually comes out.

Also, this mod for GTA 4 is kind of the exception of the rule when it comes to mods. Yes, there's been ridiculous graphics mods for games like Skyrim and Half Life 2, which somehow gets a new overhaul annually and will never look like a last-gen game, but GTA 4 truly stands above the rest in this regard, and by a large margin.

If developers got six years to work on making stunning graphics for every game, they probably would look like this, but we gamers are impatient and want things faster than that, so that leaves us fighting for a middle-ground.

To re-state my original point, I'm not judging Watch Dogs until it's in retail form, and we're still two months and some change from that.

This mod doesn't really do that much, just everything is high res textures. High res textures aren't that much extra work but are completely useless if there's no hardware to run them

That's why this gen is such a ripoff. The ps4 is the equivalent of a 5 year old high end pc. My 3 year old mid range cpu beats it by a mile (it's about the same as the tc's pc)

The fast gddr5 ram doesn't do much for a weak system, it's like putting ddr3 in a 10 year old machine, the bottleneck is not there, it's on the cpu and gpu. It's very good for multitasking though but who cares about that in a gaming machine. The multitasking in the x360 and ps3 was already fast enough for me.

As long as the gamers will contribute to their half ass work, we will keep on getting half ass work. I stopped buying games lately that don't make use of the latest hardware or that are not innovative in another way.

I'm sure there are others like me, people lose their jobs in the gaming industry right now because the devs make the wrong decisions. Devs should make games this gen on a platform that's innovative like the pc, steam machine or another strong platform (a new nintendo system maybe) Those will be the devs that have success this gen. Even console gamers have become very aware of the quality in games and the 8 core hoax is something console owners will realize pretty fast. Some of them realize it already, the next gen consoles aren't that much better than the x360/ps3.

The hoax can only last for so long, (look at the wii u), last gen will be known as a golden gen, and maybe there will be another golden gen, but it ain't going to happen this time in the same way. People want something new and the devs will see in their sales. The reason last gen was so successfull is because the x360/ps3 was so strong. Ms could really capitalize on it, playstation a lot less. Sony needed the ps4 to be successfull but this gen just started and for sony & ms this gen is going to end fast.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. We're only in the first year of this console generation, and we've already seen games advancing past what was offered on the previous generation. Granted we're only talking small advances, mainly in the realm of creating inter-connected worlds that don't shove online play down your throat, but none-the-less, we're seeing some advancements.

As far as graphics go, the new consoles are more than capable of delivering great graphics, and they will. Anything coming out in the first year won't accurately portray what these new consoles are capable of a few years down the road, just look at the graphical improvements in literally every generation of consoles. The last gen wasn't exactly as strong as you're saying. Both consoles had horridly small amounts of RAM and video cards that were only top of the line at release. Watch Dogs won't be an indicator of what we're going to see this console generation.

#15 Posted by Epic-gamerz (196 posts) -

GTA 4 PC no matter how modded it is will always have hints of the ugly shiny muddy art style that came with the game in vanilla. Just like how Resident Evil 4 PC always had baked lighting and ugly textures of the PS2 version no matter how modded it was.

#16 Posted by WallofTruth (1574 posts) -

@IgGy621985 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument. It's kind of sad how it's become the cool thing to hate Watch Dogs. People were freaking out over this title as little as three or four months ago.

Not fair? Well, perhaps, but one would expect that next-gen games would look better than this in the video :-/ Yeah, people were freaking out because Watch Dogs actually looked, um, "next-gen".


If developers got six years to work on making stunning graphics for every game, they probably would look like this, but we gamers are impatient and want things faster than that, so that leaves us fighting for a middle-ground.

Um none of these mods took 6 years to make, it doesn't take long to make a good looking game, it takes long to make a fun and versatile game. Good graphics are super easy to achieve thanks to engines like CryEngine and Unreal Engine.

#17 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

but the games have to work on smart phones too!

if the audio files were not so large in a few years we can all play titanfall on a cell phone!

#18 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2563 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument. It's kind of sad how it's become the cool thing to hate Watch Dogs. People were freaking out over this title as little as three or four months ago.

Not fair? Well, perhaps, but one would expect that next-gen games would look better than this in the video :-/ Yeah, people were freaking out because Watch Dogs actually looked, um, "next-gen".


If developers got six years to work on making stunning graphics for every game, they probably would look like this, but we gamers are impatient and want things faster than that, so that leaves us fighting for a middle-ground.

Um none of these mods took 6 years to make, it doesn't take long to make a good looking game, it takes long to make a fun and versatile game. Good graphics are super easy to achieve thanks to engines like CryEngine and Unreal Engine.

But people have had six years to work on mods. The first set of mods didn't look as good as they do now, it's greater understanding of the game engine that brought on graphics that look that good, so in a way, yes, it took six years to achieve those graphics because every set of mods helped propel the next set of mods.

#19 Posted by kemar7856 (11506 posts) -

mods don't count but I was expecting crysis warhead when i click the link

#20 Edited by Gargus (2147 posts) -

Dragons crown looks better than that does. High powered does not mean better. That's why rayman looks better than gears of war. But of course this is all just opinion, and my opinion is not the same as yours.

Besides, we have enough puissant threads boasting some proprietary mod is better than game X or console X. That sad, pathetic old baiting tactic for threads got old years ago.

#21 Posted by the_bi99man (11047 posts) -

Also, this mod for GTA 4 is kind of the exception of the rule when it comes to mods. Yes, there's been ridiculous graphics mods for games like Skyrim and Half Life 2, which somehow gets a new overhaul annually and will never look like a last-gen game, but GTA 4 truly stands above the rest in this regard, and by a large margin.

Which is especially funny, since GTA4 is much more difficult to mod than HL2 or Skyrim, both of which were designed with mods in mind, and the developers released official mod tools and encouraged modding, while Rockstar has actually been combative with modders, discouraged it, and actively fought it, deliberately breaking mods with patches, and making sure modders have nowhere near as much access to the code as they do in other games. Shows that all GTA4 needed in order to be a next gen game (graphically, at least) was some new textures and models and lighting tweaks. That, and running at a decent resolution with some AA.

#22 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10609 posts) -

@ Gargus

I like your Oppinion. And its a good one considering Gears of War only consists of 3 colours. Grey, Brown and MUZZLE FLASH ! :p

#23 Edited by Wasdie (49655 posts) -

It being modded to hell and back with people who have nothing but time on their hands doesn't really count. Especially since they've had 6 years to make and perfect the mods.

That's generally why we don't include modded games when we're comparing graphics. Modders really only enhance the work done by devs. The vast majority of the work is done for them.

#24 Posted by f50p90 (3754 posts) -

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument.

I agree. What chance does a small community of modders stand against a dev studio of 100+ with tens of millions in budget

#25 Edited by evildead6789 (7540 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@evildead6789 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument. It's kind of sad how it's become the cool thing to hate Watch Dogs. People were freaking out over this title as little as three or four months ago.

Not fair? Well, perhaps, but one would expect that next-gen games would look better than this in the video :-/ Yeah, people were freaking out because Watch Dogs actually looked, um, "next-gen".

At the same time, people with far too much free time have been working on making this game look better for years, and it's all they've had to do. Alongside creating a gorgeous game world, the developers also have to program the rest of the game and missions.

I'm not going to be one to write the game off until I see the final version. All we've seen are these little tidbits of a much bigger game, without actually seeing it in its entirety for ourselves. Evidence in the trailers, Ubisoft's history of offering downgraded games only mean something when the game actually comes out.

Also, this mod for GTA 4 is kind of the exception of the rule when it comes to mods. Yes, there's been ridiculous graphics mods for games like Skyrim and Half Life 2, which somehow gets a new overhaul annually and will never look like a last-gen game, but GTA 4 truly stands above the rest in this regard, and by a large margin.

If developers got six years to work on making stunning graphics for every game, they probably would look like this, but we gamers are impatient and want things faster than that, so that leaves us fighting for a middle-ground.

To re-state my original point, I'm not judging Watch Dogs until it's in retail form, and we're still two months and some change from that.

This mod doesn't really do that much, just everything is high res textures. High res textures aren't that much extra work but are completely useless if there's no hardware to run them

That's why this gen is such a ripoff. The ps4 is the equivalent of a 5 year old high end pc. My 3 year old mid range cpu beats it by a mile (it's about the same as the tc's pc)

The fast gddr5 ram doesn't do much for a weak system, it's like putting ddr3 in a 10 year old machine, the bottleneck is not there, it's on the cpu and gpu. It's very good for multitasking though but who cares about that in a gaming machine. The multitasking in the x360 and ps3 was already fast enough for me.

As long as the gamers will contribute to their half ass work, we will keep on getting half ass work. I stopped buying games lately that don't make use of the latest hardware or that are not innovative in another way.

I'm sure there are others like me, people lose their jobs in the gaming industry right now because the devs make the wrong decisions. Devs should make games this gen on a platform that's innovative like the pc, steam machine or another strong platform (a new nintendo system maybe) Those will be the devs that have success this gen. Even console gamers have become very aware of the quality in games and the 8 core hoax is something console owners will realize pretty fast. Some of them realize it already, the next gen consoles aren't that much better than the x360/ps3.

The hoax can only last for so long, (look at the wii u), last gen will be known as a golden gen, and maybe there will be another golden gen, but it ain't going to happen this time in the same way. People want something new and the devs will see in their sales. The reason last gen was so successfull is because the x360/ps3 was so strong. Ms could really capitalize on it, playstation a lot less. Sony needed the ps4 to be successfull but this gen just started and for sony & ms this gen is going to end fast.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. We're only in the first year of this console generation, and we've already seen games advancing past what was offered on the previous generation. Granted we're only talking small advances, mainly in the realm of creating inter-connected worlds that don't shove online play down your throat, but none-the-less, we're seeing some advancements.

As far as graphics go, the new consoles are more than capable of delivering great graphics, and they will. Anything coming out in the first year won't accurately portray what these new consoles are capable of a few years down the road, just look at the graphical improvements in literally every generation of consoles. The last gen wasn't exactly as strong as you're saying. Both consoles had horridly small amounts of RAM and video cards that were only top of the line at release. Watch Dogs won't be an indicator of what we're going to see this console generation.

I don't know what you mean with interconnected worlds but multiplayer and co-op exists a lot longer than today, having apps like skype, prerecorded games are not really an advancement in gaming but in platform, and that's hardly a reason to release a new console.

As for games quality, previous gen we had fear ,king kong and condemned at release and 5 months later oblivion. All these crushed most pc system specs and fear and oblivion were revolutionary. Now we're 6 months in this gen and we have seen nothing but killzone, titanfall and multiplats that most pc's run in better quality and it brings nothing new to the table, most pc ports are better than what we're seeing on the new consoles, and these pc's have been around for some time.

When you say :'Both consoles had horridly small amounts of RAM and video cards that were only top of the line at release' then you must realize that they can't put any better hardware in it that exists at that point, they don't have time machines. The cpu's were top of the line too, ps3's were bought to make supercomputers. When you wanted to buy the same parts in a computer , you had pay 1500$. As for the ram, I don't think it would have made much difference besides decreased loading times. They wouldn't use such expensive hardware and then fall for an obvious bottleneck like not enough memory.

Because you got so much tech for your money the x360/ps3 sold extremely well, you could still do all your internet and other pc stuff on your old single core pc, which even today you still can. The consoles also released games pretty fast that made use of that power and that's why so many people jumped on the console wagon.

The tech race did go on though and in 2007 you already had a gpu that doubled the performance of the x360's & ps3 gpu, the 8800 gtx. Crysis was also released that year but by that time the consoles (especially the x360) already funded their base and it was much bigger than the pc market with less risks of piracy.

This 'coup' came at a price though. The hd twins sold their consoles with a loss (especially the ps3) and the ps3 didn't do all to well in the beginning. Because of the difficulty to develop for the ps3 it couldn't show the extra power it had, and it costed more, they didn't have that much experience as ms had with networks either and they had to invest a lot of money.

Microsoft capitalized on this (xbox live costs money) and this gen it went to their heads with the kinect but they do remember how hard it was for sony to sell a 600$ console, so because of the kinect they kept the hardware low. Sony rememberd the chokehold when last gen started and didn't make a super system like last time but they got lucky because of the megalomania of microsoft and their kinect, even with a system that matches a 5 year old pc, they still got the superior system.

And this is why we ended up with these so called next gen consoles who are vastly underpowered. They have the same architecture as pc's, and pc users do know the limitations of these systems, pc games already reached this limitations with games that were also released on consoles last gen. There will be an improvement of course but don't expect anything innovative, groundbreaking or revolutionary.

#26 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2563 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@evildead6789 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument. It's kind of sad how it's become the cool thing to hate Watch Dogs. People were freaking out over this title as little as three or four months ago.

Not fair? Well, perhaps, but one would expect that next-gen games would look better than this in the video :-/ Yeah, people were freaking out because Watch Dogs actually looked, um, "next-gen".

At the same time, people with far too much free time have been working on making this game look better for years, and it's all they've had to do. Alongside creating a gorgeous game world, the developers also have to program the rest of the game and missions.

I'm not going to be one to write the game off until I see the final version. All we've seen are these little tidbits of a much bigger game, without actually seeing it in its entirety for ourselves. Evidence in the trailers, Ubisoft's history of offering downgraded games only mean something when the game actually comes out.

Also, this mod for GTA 4 is kind of the exception of the rule when it comes to mods. Yes, there's been ridiculous graphics mods for games like Skyrim and Half Life 2, which somehow gets a new overhaul annually and will never look like a last-gen game, but GTA 4 truly stands above the rest in this regard, and by a large margin.

If developers got six years to work on making stunning graphics for every game, they probably would look like this, but we gamers are impatient and want things faster than that, so that leaves us fighting for a middle-ground.

To re-state my original point, I'm not judging Watch Dogs until it's in retail form, and we're still two months and some change from that.

This mod doesn't really do that much, just everything is high res textures. High res textures aren't that much extra work but are completely useless if there's no hardware to run them

That's why this gen is such a ripoff. The ps4 is the equivalent of a 5 year old high end pc. My 3 year old mid range cpu beats it by a mile (it's about the same as the tc's pc)

The fast gddr5 ram doesn't do much for a weak system, it's like putting ddr3 in a 10 year old machine, the bottleneck is not there, it's on the cpu and gpu. It's very good for multitasking though but who cares about that in a gaming machine. The multitasking in the x360 and ps3 was already fast enough for me.

As long as the gamers will contribute to their half ass work, we will keep on getting half ass work. I stopped buying games lately that don't make use of the latest hardware or that are not innovative in another way.

I'm sure there are others like me, people lose their jobs in the gaming industry right now because the devs make the wrong decisions. Devs should make games this gen on a platform that's innovative like the pc, steam machine or another strong platform (a new nintendo system maybe) Those will be the devs that have success this gen. Even console gamers have become very aware of the quality in games and the 8 core hoax is something console owners will realize pretty fast. Some of them realize it already, the next gen consoles aren't that much better than the x360/ps3.

The hoax can only last for so long, (look at the wii u), last gen will be known as a golden gen, and maybe there will be another golden gen, but it ain't going to happen this time in the same way. People want something new and the devs will see in their sales. The reason last gen was so successfull is because the x360/ps3 was so strong. Ms could really capitalize on it, playstation a lot less. Sony needed the ps4 to be successfull but this gen just started and for sony & ms this gen is going to end fast.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. We're only in the first year of this console generation, and we've already seen games advancing past what was offered on the previous generation. Granted we're only talking small advances, mainly in the realm of creating inter-connected worlds that don't shove online play down your throat, but none-the-less, we're seeing some advancements.

As far as graphics go, the new consoles are more than capable of delivering great graphics, and they will. Anything coming out in the first year won't accurately portray what these new consoles are capable of a few years down the road, just look at the graphical improvements in literally every generation of consoles. The last gen wasn't exactly as strong as you're saying. Both consoles had horridly small amounts of RAM and video cards that were only top of the line at release. Watch Dogs won't be an indicator of what we're going to see this console generation.

I don't know what you mean with interconnected worlds but multiplayer and co-op exists a lot longer than today, having apps like skype, prerecorded games are not really an advancement in gaming but in platform, and that's hardly a reason to release a new console.

As for games quality, previous gen we had fear ,king kong and condemned at release and 5 months later oblivion. All these crushed most pc system specs and fear and oblivion were revolutionary. Now we're 6 months in this gen and we have seen nothing but killzone, titanfall and multiplats that most pc's run in better quality and it brings nothing new to the table, most pc ports are better than what we're seeing on the new consoles, and these pc's have been around for some time.

When you say :'Both consoles had horridly small amounts of RAM and video cards that were only top of the line at release' then you must realize that they can't put any better hardware in it that exists at that point, they don't have time machines. The cpu's were top of the line too, ps3's were bought to make supercomputers. When you wanted to buy the same parts in a computer , you had pay 1500$. To match the ps3's horsepower even more , but the ps3 was also released a year later. As for the ram, I don't think it would have made much difference besides decreased loading times. They wouldn't use such expensive hardware and then fall for an obvious bottleneck like not enough memory.

Because you got so much tech for your money the x360/ps3 sold extremely well, why invest in a 1500$ pc when you can have the horsepower for a third of the price and you could do all your internet and other pc stuff on your old single core pc, which even today you still can. They also released games pretty fast that made use of that power and that's why so many people jumped on the console wagon.

The tech race did go on though and in 2007 you already had a gpu that doubled the performance of the x360's & ps3 gpu, the 8800 gtx. Crysis was also released that year but by that time the consoles (especially the x360) already funded their base and it was much bigger than the pc market with less risks of piracy. The hd twins sold their consoles with a loss (especially the ps3) and the ps3 didn't do all to well in the beginning. Because of the difficulty to develop for the ps3 it couldn't show the extra power it had, and it costed more, they didn't have that much experience as ms had with networks either and they had to invest a lot of money.

Microsoft capitalized on all of this and it was making money of it (xbox live costs money). Because microsoft did so well it went to their heads with the kinect but they do remember how hard it was for sony to sell a 600$ console, so because of the kinect they kept the hardware low. Sony rememberd the chokehold when last gen started and didn't make a super system like last time but they got lucky because of the megalomania of microsoft and their kinect, even with a system that matches a 5 year old pc, they still got the superior system.

And this is why we ended up with these so called next gen consoles who are vastly underpowered. They have the same architecture as pc's, and pc users do know the limitations of these systems, pc games already reached this limitations with games that are also released on consoles last gen. There will be an improvement of course but don't expect anything innovative, groundbreaking or revolutionary.

You also have to look at the market and how streamlined technology's become. When Crysis released, it was a hardware-crushing PC exclusive, the likes of which we simply don't see anymore.

I had Oblivion and FEAR when they came out, and I ran those on a modest PC build with no issues whatsoever. Every generation's a little different, but we also tend to exaggerate how good or bad they were "back in the good old days."

Also, Microsoft has yet to make money off the Xbox brand. Their 360 launch was an absolute disaster, seeing that over half of their consoles were breaking. With the initial investment of the Xbox research and the red ring debacle, Microsoft is still over a billion dollars in the red on the Xbox brand, so even when they were selling like hotcakes, they weren't exactly sailing in steady water.

As for prices of consoles and PC's, it's not exactly fair to compare the price difference at the launch of the last generation because it's gotten increasingly less expensive to build a competent gaming PC, and playing the market, I built an i7, 8GB RAM, 7970 card PC for under 800$. That kind of thing -- talking in relevant specs for the time -- wouldn't have been possible in the 05-06 console launch of the last generation.

In terms of how increases in tech specs from generation to generation, I don't see there being anything to worry about with the ps4 or even the Xbox One. Graphically, they'll be fine.

#27 Edited by Cloud_imperium (2688 posts) -

That is number 1 reason for me to be a PC owner forever . I started as a console gamer and back then console gaming used to be cool and had its own titles and market , just like Nintendo games . From 2005 , due to their simple control schemes ; developers have been dumbing down PC games for them . I wish console gaming could go back to its roots . I entered PC gaming in 2001 , back in Max Payne days but always had at least one console till 2005 . Since then I only game on PC .

#28 Edited by handssss (1827 posts) -

@f50p90 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument.

I agree. What chance does a small community of modders stand against a dev studio of 100+ with tens of millions in budget

devs building a game from scratch and on a deadline vs people with unlimited time post-release playing around with everything already set forth by the developers.

#29 Posted by Mozelleple112 (6637 posts) -

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument. It's kind of sad how it's become the cool thing to hate Watch Dogs. People were freaking out over this title as little as three or four months ago.

Three months ago it had mind blowing graphics that resembled reality, providing a proper next gen experience that made us believe it would not only dethrone Rockstar * as the king of open world games but also still the graphics king crown from Crysis 3. Now it has been revealed to look like a game from 2007, something even the Nintendo Wii could run basically.

Obvious exaggeration but it is still pretty mediocre-looking since its on PC and next-gen consoles (PS4, XO) yet it looks like a last gen game like GTA V, running on 2005 hardware (PS3,360)

#30 Posted by GhoX (4814 posts) -

Modded Watch Dogs will most likely look a lot better than modded GTA 4.

#32 Edited by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2563 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument. It's kind of sad how it's become the cool thing to hate Watch Dogs. People were freaking out over this title as little as three or four months ago.

Three months ago it had mind blowing graphics that resembled reality, providing a proper next gen experience that made us believe it would not only dethrone Rockstar * as the king of open world games but also still the graphics king crown from Crysis 3. Now it has been revealed to look like a game from 2007, something even the Nintendo Wii could run basically.

Obvious exaggeration but it is still pretty mediocre-looking since its on PC and next-gen consoles (PS4, XO) yet it looks like a last gen game like GTA V, running on 2005 hardware (PS3,360)

I'm going to sing it from the rooftops -- wait until it releases. We've gotten stellar video after stellar video, not just a single reveal, but a pattern of great looking trailers, and more importantly, gameplay demonstrations.

And worst case scenario, if it did get a slight downgrade, I thought most people were excited about playing around a fully interactive Chicago. Either way, I'm more concerned about an engaging experience. Graphics are always an added bonus, but I'll take a great game every day of the week.

#33 Posted by happyduds77 (1451 posts) -

Modded GTA 4 looks like GTA V with better car models and worse lighting.

#34 Edited by evildead6789 (7540 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@evildead6789 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@evildead6789 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument. It's kind of sad how it's become the cool thing to hate Watch Dogs. People were freaking out over this title as little as three or four months ago.

Not fair? Well, perhaps, but one would expect that next-gen games would look better than this in the video :-/ Yeah, people were freaking out because Watch Dogs actually looked, um, "next-gen".

At the same time, people with far too much free time have been working on making this game look better for years, and it's all they've had to do. Alongside creating a gorgeous game world, the developers also have to program the rest of the game and missions.

I'm not going to be one to write the game off until I see the final version. All we've seen are these little tidbits of a much bigger game, without actually seeing it in its entirety for ourselves. Evidence in the trailers, Ubisoft's history of offering downgraded games only mean something when the game actually comes out.

Also, this mod for GTA 4 is kind of the exception of the rule when it comes to mods. Yes, there's been ridiculous graphics mods for games like Skyrim and Half Life 2, which somehow gets a new overhaul annually and will never look like a last-gen game, but GTA 4 truly stands above the rest in this regard, and by a large margin.

If developers got six years to work on making stunning graphics for every game, they probably would look like this, but we gamers are impatient and want things faster than that, so that leaves us fighting for a middle-ground.

To re-state my original point, I'm not judging Watch Dogs until it's in retail form, and we're still two months and some change from that.

This mod doesn't really do that much, just everything is high res textures. High res textures aren't that much extra work but are completely useless if there's no hardware to run them

That's why this gen is such a ripoff. The ps4 is the equivalent of a 5 year old high end pc. My 3 year old mid range cpu beats it by a mile (it's about the same as the tc's pc)

The fast gddr5 ram doesn't do much for a weak system, it's like putting ddr3 in a 10 year old machine, the bottleneck is not there, it's on the cpu and gpu. It's very good for multitasking though but who cares about that in a gaming machine. The multitasking in the x360 and ps3 was already fast enough for me.

As long as the gamers will contribute to their half ass work, we will keep on getting half ass work. I stopped buying games lately that don't make use of the latest hardware or that are not innovative in another way.

I'm sure there are others like me, people lose their jobs in the gaming industry right now because the devs make the wrong decisions. Devs should make games this gen on a platform that's innovative like the pc, steam machine or another strong platform (a new nintendo system maybe) Those will be the devs that have success this gen. Even console gamers have become very aware of the quality in games and the 8 core hoax is something console owners will realize pretty fast. Some of them realize it already, the next gen consoles aren't that much better than the x360/ps3.

The hoax can only last for so long, (look at the wii u), last gen will be known as a golden gen, and maybe there will be another golden gen, but it ain't going to happen this time in the same way. People want something new and the devs will see in their sales. The reason last gen was so successfull is because the x360/ps3 was so strong. Ms could really capitalize on it, playstation a lot less. Sony needed the ps4 to be successfull but this gen just started and for sony & ms this gen is going to end fast.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. We're only in the first year of this console generation, and we've already seen games advancing past what was offered on the previous generation. Granted we're only talking small advances, mainly in the realm of creating inter-connected worlds that don't shove online play down your throat, but none-the-less, we're seeing some advancements.

As far as graphics go, the new consoles are more than capable of delivering great graphics, and they will. Anything coming out in the first year won't accurately portray what these new consoles are capable of a few years down the road, just look at the graphical improvements in literally every generation of consoles. The last gen wasn't exactly as strong as you're saying. Both consoles had horridly small amounts of RAM and video cards that were only top of the line at release. Watch Dogs won't be an indicator of what we're going to see this console generation.

I don't know what you mean with interconnected worlds but multiplayer and co-op exists a lot longer than today, having apps like skype, prerecorded games are not really an advancement in gaming but in platform, and that's hardly a reason to release a new console.

As for games quality, previous gen we had fear ,king kong and condemned at release and 5 months later oblivion. All these crushed most pc system specs and fear and oblivion were revolutionary. Now we're 6 months in this gen and we have seen nothing but killzone, titanfall and multiplats that most pc's run in better quality and it brings nothing new to the table, most pc ports are better than what we're seeing on the new consoles, and these pc's have been around for some time.

When you say :'Both consoles had horridly small amounts of RAM and video cards that were only top of the line at release' then you must realize that they can't put any better hardware in it that exists at that point, they don't have time machines. The cpu's were top of the line too, ps3's were bought to make supercomputers. When you wanted to buy the same parts in a computer , you had pay 1500$. To match the ps3's horsepower even more , but the ps3 was also released a year later. As for the ram, I don't think it would have made much difference besides decreased loading times. They wouldn't use such expensive hardware and then fall for an obvious bottleneck like not enough memory.

Because you got so much tech for your money the x360/ps3 sold extremely well, why invest in a 1500$ pc when you can have the horsepower for a third of the price and you could do all your internet and other pc stuff on your old single core pc, which even today you still can. They also released games pretty fast that made use of that power and that's why so many people jumped on the console wagon.

The tech race did go on though and in 2007 you already had a gpu that doubled the performance of the x360's & ps3 gpu, the 8800 gtx. Crysis was also released that year but by that time the consoles (especially the x360) already funded their base and it was much bigger than the pc market with less risks of piracy. The hd twins sold their consoles with a loss (especially the ps3) and the ps3 didn't do all to well in the beginning. Because of the difficulty to develop for the ps3 it couldn't show the extra power it had, and it costed more, they didn't have that much experience as ms had with networks either and they had to invest a lot of money.

Microsoft capitalized on all of this and it was making money of it (xbox live costs money). Because microsoft did so well it went to their heads with the kinect but they do remember how hard it was for sony to sell a 600$ console, so because of the kinect they kept the hardware low. Sony rememberd the chokehold when last gen started and didn't make a super system like last time but they got lucky because of the megalomania of microsoft and their kinect, even with a system that matches a 5 year old pc, they still got the superior system.

And this is why we ended up with these so called next gen consoles who are vastly underpowered. They have the same architecture as pc's, and pc users do know the limitations of these systems, pc games already reached this limitations with games that are also released on consoles last gen. There will be an improvement of course but don't expect anything innovative, groundbreaking or revolutionary.

You also have to look at the market and how streamlined technology's become. When Crysis released, it was a hardware-crushing PC exclusive, the likes of which we simply don't see anymore.

I had Oblivion and FEAR when they came out, and I ran those on a modest PC build with no issues whatsoever. Every generation's a little different, but we also tend to exaggerate how good or bad they were "back in the good old days."

Also, Microsoft has yet to make money off the Xbox brand. Their 360 launch was an absolute disaster, seeing that over half of their consoles were breaking. With the initial investment of the Xbox research and the red ring debacle, Microsoft is still over a billion dollars in the red on the Xbox brand, so even when they were selling like hotcakes, they weren't exactly sailing in steady water.

As for prices of consoles and PC's, it's not exactly fair to compare the price difference at the launch of the last generation because it's gotten increasingly less expensive to build a competent gaming PC, and playing the market, I built an i7, 8GB RAM, 7970 card PC for under 800$. That kind of thing -- talking in relevant specs for the time -- wouldn't have been possible in the 05-06 console launch of the last generation.

In terms of how increases in tech specs from generation to generation, I don't see there being anything to worry about with the ps4 or even the Xbox One. Graphically, they'll be fine.

I think we will see the likes of crysis 1 again, allthough it will be server authenticated, crysis 1 biggest problem was piracy on a platform that lost a lot of users to one of the hd twins.

I can understand you can ran oblivion and fear when they came out but I doubt you could run them on the same quality settings as the x360, with the same framerates. The x360's gpu isvery similar as the x1800 series and it had extra's like an extra chip for AA and it had unified shader architecture, something that became a standard on later videocards.

Either way, at that time the x1800 series card was a 500$ card, I'm not talking about motherboard, ram, cpu, harddrive (which you didn't need on the x360), dvd drive. In 2006's money , that's hardly a modest pc.

And yes , it has become cheaper to buy a gaming pc, because devs don't push the hardware anymore like they used to and this is because of the duopoly of sony and microsoft, why push the limits if you can make tons of money with much less work anyway. The fact that it is cheaper to build a gaming pc today makes it even worse when you look at the specs of the ps4 and xbox1. Those are low end systems, I know the super high end of 2005-2006 consoles weren't called for at this time, but they could at least been a bit stronger.

It's like they're mocking us, a 500$ gpu in 2005-2006 and a 150$ gpu in 2014, the consoles are cheaper yes but if you count inflation they did just the opposite of what they did in 2005-2006, then they made the strongest system possible, now it's like they made weakest system possible. Not to mention the weakness of the cpu, 1 core of my 3 year old i5-2500, is as fast as four on the next gen consoles.

I do worry about the graphical capabilities of the x1 and ps4, if they set the standard like last gen, we're going in for a very low standard. On the other hand, this is an open goal for the pc market and nintendo if they can keep piracy at a minimum and that's possible with server authentication , or games that run (completely on partially) on servers. Yes, I said nintendo, they know the wii u is failing, and rumoured specs about a new console look promising, that and vr will save this generation but the ps4 & xbox1 show little promise, to me anyway and I hope for a lot of others too.

#35 Posted by getyeryayasout (7218 posts) -

Watch Dogs is interesting. At first I didn't understand the hype, now I don't understand the hate.

#36 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2563 posts) -

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@evildead6789 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@evildead6789 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

@IgGy621985 said:

@IMAHAPYHIPPO said:

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument. It's kind of sad how it's become the cool thing to hate Watch Dogs. People were freaking out over this title as little as three or four months ago.

Not fair? Well, perhaps, but one would expect that next-gen games would look better than this in the video :-/ Yeah, people were freaking out because Watch Dogs actually looked, um, "next-gen".

At the same time, people with far too much free time have been working on making this game look better for years, and it's all they've had to do. Alongside creating a gorgeous game world, the developers also have to program the rest of the game and missions.

I'm not going to be one to write the game off until I see the final version. All we've seen are these little tidbits of a much bigger game, without actually seeing it in its entirety for ourselves. Evidence in the trailers, Ubisoft's history of offering downgraded games only mean something when the game actually comes out.

Also, this mod for GTA 4 is kind of the exception of the rule when it comes to mods. Yes, there's been ridiculous graphics mods for games like Skyrim and Half Life 2, which somehow gets a new overhaul annually and will never look like a last-gen game, but GTA 4 truly stands above the rest in this regard, and by a large margin.

If developers got six years to work on making stunning graphics for every game, they probably would look like this, but we gamers are impatient and want things faster than that, so that leaves us fighting for a middle-ground.

To re-state my original point, I'm not judging Watch Dogs until it's in retail form, and we're still two months and some change from that.

This mod doesn't really do that much, just everything is high res textures. High res textures aren't that much extra work but are completely useless if there's no hardware to run them

That's why this gen is such a ripoff. The ps4 is the equivalent of a 5 year old high end pc. My 3 year old mid range cpu beats it by a mile (it's about the same as the tc's pc)

The fast gddr5 ram doesn't do much for a weak system, it's like putting ddr3 in a 10 year old machine, the bottleneck is not there, it's on the cpu and gpu. It's very good for multitasking though but who cares about that in a gaming machine. The multitasking in the x360 and ps3 was already fast enough for me.

As long as the gamers will contribute to their half ass work, we will keep on getting half ass work. I stopped buying games lately that don't make use of the latest hardware or that are not innovative in another way.

I'm sure there are others like me, people lose their jobs in the gaming industry right now because the devs make the wrong decisions. Devs should make games this gen on a platform that's innovative like the pc, steam machine or another strong platform (a new nintendo system maybe) Those will be the devs that have success this gen. Even console gamers have become very aware of the quality in games and the 8 core hoax is something console owners will realize pretty fast. Some of them realize it already, the next gen consoles aren't that much better than the x360/ps3.

The hoax can only last for so long, (look at the wii u), last gen will be known as a golden gen, and maybe there will be another golden gen, but it ain't going to happen this time in the same way. People want something new and the devs will see in their sales. The reason last gen was so successfull is because the x360/ps3 was so strong. Ms could really capitalize on it, playstation a lot less. Sony needed the ps4 to be successfull but this gen just started and for sony & ms this gen is going to end fast.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. We're only in the first year of this console generation, and we've already seen games advancing past what was offered on the previous generation. Granted we're only talking small advances, mainly in the realm of creating inter-connected worlds that don't shove online play down your throat, but none-the-less, we're seeing some advancements.

As far as graphics go, the new consoles are more than capable of delivering great graphics, and they will. Anything coming out in the first year won't accurately portray what these new consoles are capable of a few years down the road, just look at the graphical improvements in literally every generation of consoles. The last gen wasn't exactly as strong as you're saying. Both consoles had horridly small amounts of RAM and video cards that were only top of the line at release. Watch Dogs won't be an indicator of what we're going to see this console generation.

I don't know what you mean with interconnected worlds but multiplayer and co-op exists a lot longer than today, having apps like skype, prerecorded games are not really an advancement in gaming but in platform, and that's hardly a reason to release a new console.

As for games quality, previous gen we had fear ,king kong and condemned at release and 5 months later oblivion. All these crushed most pc system specs and fear and oblivion were revolutionary. Now we're 6 months in this gen and we have seen nothing but killzone, titanfall and multiplats that most pc's run in better quality and it brings nothing new to the table, most pc ports are better than what we're seeing on the new consoles, and these pc's have been around for some time.

When you say :'Both consoles had horridly small amounts of RAM and video cards that were only top of the line at release' then you must realize that they can't put any better hardware in it that exists at that point, they don't have time machines. The cpu's were top of the line too, ps3's were bought to make supercomputers. When you wanted to buy the same parts in a computer , you had pay 1500$. To match the ps3's horsepower even more , but the ps3 was also released a year later. As for the ram, I don't think it would have made much difference besides decreased loading times. They wouldn't use such expensive hardware and then fall for an obvious bottleneck like not enough memory.

Because you got so much tech for your money the x360/ps3 sold extremely well, why invest in a 1500$ pc when you can have the horsepower for a third of the price and you could do all your internet and other pc stuff on your old single core pc, which even today you still can. They also released games pretty fast that made use of that power and that's why so many people jumped on the console wagon.

The tech race did go on though and in 2007 you already had a gpu that doubled the performance of the x360's & ps3 gpu, the 8800 gtx. Crysis was also released that year but by that time the consoles (especially the x360) already funded their base and it was much bigger than the pc market with less risks of piracy. The hd twins sold their consoles with a loss (especially the ps3) and the ps3 didn't do all to well in the beginning. Because of the difficulty to develop for the ps3 it couldn't show the extra power it had, and it costed more, they didn't have that much experience as ms had with networks either and they had to invest a lot of money.

Microsoft capitalized on all of this and it was making money of it (xbox live costs money). Because microsoft did so well it went to their heads with the kinect but they do remember how hard it was for sony to sell a 600$ console, so because of the kinect they kept the hardware low. Sony rememberd the chokehold when last gen started and didn't make a super system like last time but they got lucky because of the megalomania of microsoft and their kinect, even with a system that matches a 5 year old pc, they still got the superior system.

And this is why we ended up with these so called next gen consoles who are vastly underpowered. They have the same architecture as pc's, and pc users do know the limitations of these systems, pc games already reached this limitations with games that are also released on consoles last gen. There will be an improvement of course but don't expect anything innovative, groundbreaking or revolutionary.

You also have to look at the market and how streamlined technology's become. When Crysis released, it was a hardware-crushing PC exclusive, the likes of which we simply don't see anymore.

I had Oblivion and FEAR when they came out, and I ran those on a modest PC build with no issues whatsoever. Every generation's a little different, but we also tend to exaggerate how good or bad they were "back in the good old days."

Also, Microsoft has yet to make money off the Xbox brand. Their 360 launch was an absolute disaster, seeing that over half of their consoles were breaking. With the initial investment of the Xbox research and the red ring debacle, Microsoft is still over a billion dollars in the red on the Xbox brand, so even when they were selling like hotcakes, they weren't exactly sailing in steady water.

As for prices of consoles and PC's, it's not exactly fair to compare the price difference at the launch of the last generation because it's gotten increasingly less expensive to build a competent gaming PC, and playing the market, I built an i7, 8GB RAM, 7970 card PC for under 800$. That kind of thing -- talking in relevant specs for the time -- wouldn't have been possible in the 05-06 console launch of the last generation.

In terms of how increases in tech specs from generation to generation, I don't see there being anything to worry about with the ps4 or even the Xbox One. Graphically, they'll be fine.

I think we will see the likes of crysis 1 again, allthough it will be server authenticated, crysis 1 biggest problem was piracy on a platform that lost a lot of users to one of the hd twins.

I can understand you can ran oblivion and fear when they came out but I doubt you could run them on the same quality settings as the x360, with the same framerates. The x360's gpu isvery similar as the x1800 series and it had extra's like an extra chip for AA and it had unified shader architecture, something that became a standard on later videocards.

Either way, at that time the x1800 series card was a 500$ card, I'm not talking about motherboard, ram, cpu, harddrive (which you didn't need on the x360), dvd drive. In 2006's money , that's hardly a modest pc.

And yes , it has become cheaper to buy a gaming pc, because devs don't push the hardware anymore like they used to and this is because of the duopoly of sony and microsoft, why push the limits if you can make tons of money with much less work anyway. The fact that it is cheaper to build a gaming pc today makes it even worse when you look at the specs of the ps4 and xbox1. Those are low end systems, I know the super high end of 2005-2006 consoles weren't called for at this time, but they could at least been a bit stronger.

It's like they're mocking us, a 500$ gpu in 2005-2006 and a 150$ gpu in 2014, the consoles are cheaper yes but if you count inflation they did just the opposite of what they did in 2005-2006, then they made the strongest system possible, now it's like they made weakest system possible. Not to mention the weakness of the cpu, 1 core of my 3 year old i5-2500, is as fast as four on the next gen consoles.

I do worry about the graphical capabilities of the x1 and ps4, if they set the standard like last gen, we're going in for a very low standard. On the other hand, this is an open goal for the pc market and nintendo if they can keep piracy at a minimum and that's possible with server authentication , or games that run (completely on partially) on servers. Yes, I said nintendo, they know the wii u is failing, and rumoured specs about a new console look promising, that and vr will save this generation but the ps4 & xbox1 show little promise, to me anyway and I hope for a lot of others too.

Who's not pushing hardware anymore? I've seen graphics steadily increasing year after year, with no signs of stopping.

#37 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2563 posts) -

@evildead6789: Alongside that, it's also good to remember that the previous console generation was extended years past its expiration date due to MS and Sony losing so much money on their hardware and wanting to make some of it back. Traditionally, the last generation would have ended at least two years ago, and we would have already been years into the ps4 and Xbox One by now.

#38 Posted by Zaraxius (205 posts) -

How come when console gamers point out that the consoles all have AAAA games but PC doesn't in all the time it's been around, they say that no one game matters and that it's the collective library of the PC that puts console games to shame. Yet you probably can't name any other six year old PC game that looks better than Watch Dogs.

By the way, I don't care about Watch Dogs, but I do care about the inconsistency of PC gamers.

#39 Posted by IgGy621985 (4659 posts) -

At the same time, people with far too much free time have been working on making this game look better for years, and it's all they've had to do. Alongside creating a gorgeous game world, the developers also have to program the rest of the game and missions.

I somewhat agree, but is that really an excuse for an AAA title?

#40 Posted by gameofthering (10152 posts) -

I hope GTA V gets a PC release soon.

#41 Posted by WallofTruth (1574 posts) -

@zaraxius said:

How come when console gamers point out that the consoles all have AAAA games but PC doesn't in all the time it's been around, they say that no one game matters and that it's the collective library of the PC that puts console games to shame. Yet you probably can't name any other six year old PC game that looks better than Watch Dogs.

By the way, I don't care about Watch Dogs, but I do care about the inconsistency of PC gamers.

Crysis, though you're right, Crysis is already 7 years old.

#42 Posted by Heil68 (43603 posts) -

Graphics come 2nd to gameplay to me. I have a gaming PC when graphics mean that much to me and really ever since Crysis in 2007, not many games try to push the envelope compared to games that dont.

#43 Posted by Vatusus (4508 posts) -

If you want a proper next-gen looking open world game look no further than InFamous SS. Putting Watch Dogs to shame in the visual department

#44 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10609 posts) -

@ Vatusus

and falling behind Watch Dogs in every other department ?

#45 Posted by always_explicit (2743 posts) -

Whats hilarious is you actually believed them. I'm not just talking about Ubisoft, Other than graphics, which won't be an impressive difference anyway, what else is there to look foward to this gen.

Same old controller, sameold games with the same old gameplay, from 6th gen no less.

Consoles will have TV and various apps, but games, haven't changed one bit. Thats next gen for ya, fresh out of ideas.

Its been "next gen" for 4/5 months, its hardly fair to criticize it yet. Its like saying a long distance runner its rubbish when they have only ran 1/10 laps.

The first few laps are always slow but then things speed up, get faster and faster until a climactic finish. That IMO is the only downside to console gaming... we wont see our best looking games until 5/6/7/8 years time.

#46 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16340 posts) -

I thought this would be about Sleeping Dogs, but that isn't 6 years old :p

I don't think comparing a modded game to a standard retail release is a fair argument. It's kind of sad how it's become the cool thing to hate Watch Dogs. People were freaking out over this title as little as three or four months ago.

Ok, let's compare a standard retail game to Watch Dogs then:

#47 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16340 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

If you want a proper next-gen looking open world game look no further than InFamous SS. Putting Watch Dogs to shame in the visual department

The funny thing is, Infamous 1&2 were never the best looking open world games. But Sucker Punch really went all out in the new one, making it the best looking open world game.

#48 Edited by GarGx1 (2537 posts) -

Modded GTA IV looks better than most console games so there's no surprise there. What would surprise me however would be moddded GTA IV looking better that Watchdogs PC version on Ultra settings (or even high).

#49 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10609 posts) -

@ always_explicit

Doesn't matter, they spent some money on power output and the rest on non-game related crap. Just what exactly are we suppose to expect from consoles that, fundementally speaking, have not changed other than performance. 5 years from now, all your going to get is better looking versions of what we've been getting 5 years before. And you know what ? Thats just how everybody likes it. Anytime they try something innovative people scream "Its Gimmick, fuck that sh!t" and they just give up on the whole Idea. And you know what 9th Gen is gona be like ? Just like 8th gen only with more power and more whatever non-gaming trends will be happening then. And you can take that to the Bank !

#50 Posted by Shottayouth13- (6767 posts) -

PS2 games look better than Watch Dogs.