Watchdogs PC version trailer looks

  • 133 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Posted by m3dude1 (1366 posts) -

@cfisher2833 said:

@donalbane said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@wis3boi said:

@clyde46 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@donalbane said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@lostrib said:

hopefully it's not just a bunch of horribly optimized crap that i'll just turn off

Oh it will be if they're pushing the stupid physx crap.

PhysX added a lot to Borderlands 2.

I haven't played that game in a while but didn't it just add particle effects like blood and the like?

That's what I remember anyway.

The liquid and particle effects were actually pretty cool.

best part about physx in that. In fact I'd say its the only game to date worth turning it on while playing.

Yeah that's true, I'm just referring to the majority of titles that employed it.

Borderlands did feel really flat without it.

It was also used to decent effect in the Batman games. Papers, and in the Catwoman missions, currency, blowing around realistically and in great quantities, added a sense of atmosphere lacking on the console versions.

My personal favorite was the PhysX deformable snow in Arkham Origins. Not only did it look amazing (what with the tessellation and shading), but it also didn't create any noticeable performance drops, even when I deformed the shit out of the snow.

Borderlands had some good PhysX features, but some--like the rock and debris particles that were created during combat--got really ridiculous. It was just annoying to try to find all the dropped loot when there were piles and piles of scrap metal and rocks everywhere on the floor.

the deformable snow is not part of physx, its available on all dx11 gpus. the snow flakes falling from the sky are physx,

#52 Posted by Sharp-Shooter89 (116 posts) -

@m3dude1: HBAO for amd is fine, but HBAO+ is nvidia, the (+) is nvidia only, its slightly more accurate and i think slightly better performance, TXAA is also nvidia only, one of the fastest AA methods, although not sure about quality

#53 Posted by danten81 (129 posts) -

I hope this game doesn't have FXAA as the lowest AA setting without the ability to turn if off. Assassin's Creed 3 and Sleeping Dogs were softer and blurrier than I expected from 1920 x 1080.

#54 Posted by kalipekona (2299 posts) -

@EducatingU_PCMR said:

Looks as good as the E3 2013 PS4 demo.

It's still downgraded from the 2012 demo though.

It definitely looks better than the PS4 footage from 2013. Especially in terms of things like shadow quality and overall image quality.

And as far as the initial E3 2012 demo, I don't understand what some people think looks better about it. Aside from the cinematic BS at the beginning of the video, the actual gameplay looks no better than this PC footage.

Let's look at some screen captures from the 2012 demo and the recent PS4 footage:

(Not to mention that the PC footage looks better than the PS4 footage)

E3 2012
2014 trailer
E3 2012
2014 trailer
E3 2012
2014 trailer
E3 2012
2014 trailer
E3 2012
2014
E3 2012
2014
E3 2012
2014
E3 2012
2014
E3 2012
2014
E3 2012
2014
#55 Posted by m3dude1 (1366 posts) -

@Sharp-Shooter89 said:

@m3dude1: HBAO for amd is fine, but HBAO+ is nvidia, the (+) is nvidia only, its slightly more accurate and i think slightly better performance, TXAA is also nvidia only, one of the fastest AA methods, although not sure about quality

hbao+ works on all vendors gpus. it is not limited to nvidia.

#56 Posted by Cloud_imperium (3712 posts) -

@kalipekona said:

@Cloud_imperium said:

Yep , it looks as good as initial demo .

@lostrib said:

hopefully it's not just a bunch of horribly optimized crap that i'll just turn off

PC is lead platform for Watch Dogs but I understand how you feel after AC3 .

Yeah, I'm not seeing where the initial 2012 E3 demo looked better. I think this actually shows off more impressive tech. Some of those shots of many trees throughout the city blowing in the wind is something I have never quite seen in a game. Or that whole field of grass where every blade seemed to be swaying. We've seen animated foliage before, of course, but nothing on that scale. Also, the specularity and reflection maps on the cars look great and have good LOD--even when a car is far away from the camera it doesn't seem to lose those qualities.

Yep . The only thing which is different is time of day . Initial demo didn't show day time footage and here it is looking awesome . On other hand night time footage is looking like E3 2012 demo , in some cases even better . Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or just hater .

#57 Posted by kalipekona (2299 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

@Sharp-Shooter89 said:

@m3dude1: HBAO for amd is fine, but HBAO+ is nvidia, the (+) is nvidia only, its slightly more accurate and i think slightly better performance, TXAA is also nvidia only, one of the fastest AA methods, although not sure about quality

hbao+ works on all vendors gpus. it is not limited to nvidia.

You're right about that. It is better optimized on Nvidia cards, but it works just fine on AMD cards as well.

#58 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16647 posts) -

@Cloud_imperium said:

@R4gn4r0k: AMD or nVIDIA , it doesn't matter . The game is going to look amazing on PC . Some games are more friendly to AMD hardware , others are to nVIDIA .

Lots of SE games seem to be optimized better for AMD

While Ubisoft games (like AC) seem to be optimized better for Nvidia. Now, in this video, all they talked about is how they worked together with Nvidia. I didn't hear them say one thing about optimizing the PC version, all I heard was they optimized for Nvidia.

I'm really skeptical it won't run like total crap on my HD7950...

@kipsta77 said:

Now THAT'S the Watch Dogs I knew and loved! Pre-purchased on Steam!

I don't blame you, but I'm still waiting for the complete edition :P

#59 Edited by SNIPER4321 (10144 posts) -

More i see. less i want to play. there was a time when i was excited for game. now it looks AWFUL.

not only graphic wise but also gameplaywise as it will have assassins creed style casual gameplay.

#60 Edited by Snugenz (11892 posts) -

@kalipekona said:

@clyde46 said:

@lostrib said:

hopefully it's not just a bunch of horribly optimized crap that i'll just turn off

AC4 was riddled with that. I tried to run the game using the recommended setting for 780Ti and it still ran like ass.

What? I ran AC4 on an HD 7950 and maxed it out at vsynced 30fps. It might not be the most well optimized game ever (especially on processor side), but it looks better than the PS4 version and runs at a solid 30fps on a two year old card. Don't blow it out of proportion. It runs even better on my GTX 770. Hardly can be described as running "like ass".

Yes, I would love to max it out and run it at a solid 60fps, but it wasn't nearly as bad as some people make it sound. I hope Watch Dogs will have better utilization of multiple cores. It does seem to have more advanced simulations though so it might still be a little difficult to achieve a solid 60fps or higher with single graphics card setups.

And that's where you lost me, i'm in the same boat as Clyde, on a 780-trying to achieve a solid 60fps with all the bells and whistles was pretty much impossible when my card should be destroying the game. It might have changed since then but i'm very weary of Ubisoft since.

But yeah, while "running like ass" may be slightly hyperbolic, when you consider the hardware it's running on, it's most certainly running alot worse than it should be.

#61 Posted by Mystery_Writer (7939 posts) -

Let's hope it's not CPU bound.

My worry for not being able to run this game maxed out is not from my video card (Titan Black) but rather comes from my old AMD X6 1100T CPU.

#62 Posted by m3dude1 (1366 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

@Cloud_imperium said:

@R4gn4r0k: AMD or nVIDIA , it doesn't matter . The game is going to look amazing on PC . Some games are more friendly to AMD hardware , others are to nVIDIA .

Lots of SE games seem to be optimized better for AMD

While Ubisoft games (like AC) seem to be optimized better for Nvidia. Now, in this video, all they talked about is how they worked together with Nvidia. I didn't hear them say one thing about optimizing the PC version, all I heard was they optimized for Nvidia.

I'm really skeptical it won't run like total crap on my HD7950...

@kipsta77 said:

Now THAT'S the Watch Dogs I knew and loved! Pre-purchased on Steam!

I don't blame you, but I'm still waiting for the complete edition :P

its not going to run well on any currently available single gpus at above console settings.

#63 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16647 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

its not going to run well on any currently available single gpus at above console settings.

That could be very true, Ubisoft are far from the best at optimizing.

But at least you can upgrade your hardware in a few years and get these amazing graphics for reasonably priced hardware, and you don't need to buy another version of Watch_dogs like with TLOU, amirite ? :p

#64 Posted by Consternated (496 posts) -

Does anyone have a link? I can't see anything in the OP.

#65 Posted by m3dude1 (1366 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

@m3dude1 said:

its not going to run well on any currently available single gpus at above console settings.

That could be very true, Ubisoft are far from the best at optimizing.

But at least you can upgrade your hardware in a few years and get these amazing graphics for reasonably priced hardware, and you don't need to buy another version of Watch_dogs like with TLOU, amirite ? :p

in a couple years the graphics wont be anything resembling the word amazing.

#66 Posted by aroxx_ab (10091 posts) -

I bet Ps4 version will look and run better than most PC gamers will be able to play this game in

#67 Edited by Consternated (496 posts) -
@aroxx_ab said:

I bet Ps4 version will look and run better than most PC gamers will be able to play this game in

Probably, but the millions who have a more capable system will be able to play a game that's in a different league to the PS4 version visually. An almost certainly CPU intensive game like this wouldn't look to bad on "weaker" systems, either, as even a low-midrange PC has more CPU power than the quad/bone.

Looking forward to playing with rendered at 4K with my GTX780!

#68 Edited by naz99 (1401 posts) -

Just pre orderd the digital deluxe edition of this last night from Origin India for 1,699 rupees (£16.50) ($25) I saved nearly £30!!!

It is £44.99 from Origin UK.

Also it is region free so will work around the world

Amazing.

#69 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10839 posts) -

I've got an AMD card, the HD 7970, so I guess I won't be reaping these benefits! Fuark!!

Anyhow, will my PC be able to max this game out at 1920 x 1080 with good performance? Here are my specs:

1. Asus P6T SE Motherboard

2. Intel Core i7-920 Quad Core CPU @ 3.5 GHz

3. 3 x 2GB OCZ GOLD DDR3 1600 SDRAM

4. AMD HD 7970 3GB GDDR5

#70 Edited by naz99 (1401 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef: of course you will...you only miss out on Txaa and you can use your own alternative.

#71 Posted by NFJSupreme (5379 posts) -

Only thing nvidia exclusive I saw was txaa guys. Team Red should be fine. Consolites will be in for a long generation of jelly. Games on pc already look substantially better now. Imagine in two years.

#72 Posted by jhonMalcovich (4824 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

I've got an AMD card, the HD 7970, so I guess I won't be reaping these benefits! Fuark!!

Anyhow, will my PC be able to max this game out at 1920 x 1080 with good performance? Here are my specs:

1. Asus P6T SE Motherboard

2. Intel Core i7-920 Quad Core CPU @ 3.5 GHz

3. 3 x 2GB OCZ GOLD DDR3 1600 SDRAM

4. AMD HD 7970 3GB GDDR5

Of course. You must easily get 45fps at 1080p and high-to-ultra settings.

#73 Posted by kalipekona (2299 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

@R4gn4r0k said:

@Cloud_imperium said:

@R4gn4r0k: AMD or nVIDIA , it doesn't matter . The game is going to look amazing on PC . Some games are more friendly to AMD hardware , others are to nVIDIA .

Lots of SE games seem to be optimized better for AMD

While Ubisoft games (like AC) seem to be optimized better for Nvidia. Now, in this video, all they talked about is how they worked together with Nvidia. I didn't hear them say one thing about optimizing the PC version, all I heard was they optimized for Nvidia.

I'm really skeptical it won't run like total crap on my HD7950...

@kipsta77 said:

Now THAT'S the Watch Dogs I knew and loved! Pre-purchased on Steam!

I don't blame you, but I'm still waiting for the complete edition :P

its not going to run well on any currently available single gpus at above console settings.

You don't know that. In fact, what you're saying is very unlikely to be true. AC4 can run maxed out on anything at the HD 7950 level or higher, and it looks better than the PS4 version and runs at higher framerates.

Assuming Watch Dogs is more demanding than AC4 it will be likely that anything at the GTX 770/R9 280X level or higher should be able to max out the game with better than console quality and framerate. Actually, even cards below that level should still be able to surpass the console versions, even if they can't completely max out the PC settings. There are millions of graphics cards out there that will likely be able to run this game at higher than console settings.

The big question is how optimized the game will be for multi-core processors. Even if it is more demanding of CPU performance it won't matter if the engine is properly multithreaded and efficiently scales with core count.

At the end of the day, though, I don't think people really care about how many other people can run it at the same quality as them. All they care about is how it looks and runs on their system. People always have a choice on PC to get the performance level they desire.

#74 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10839 posts) -

@jhonMalcovich:

Thanks. I was actually a bit worried, because PC advances so quickly and my graphics card was released two years ago. How many more years do you think my PC will remain a high end machine? I fear that the clock is ticking, with DDR4 and GDDR6 around the corner.

#75 Edited by jhonMalcovich (4824 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

@jhonMalcovich:

Thanks. I was actually a bit worried, because PC advances so quickly and my graphics card was released two years ago. How many more years do you think my PC will remain a high end machine? I fear that the clock is ticking, with DDR4 and GDDR6 around the corner.

I think you will be ok for a year and a half. There are currently only two demanding games in development right now: Witcher 3 and Star Citizen. You should upgrade when you really must. When you find a game that you want to play but it doesn't run on your PC, then you upgrade.

#76 Posted by o0squishy0o (2764 posts) -

This gives me hope that they won't destroy "The Division". Personally I never found watch dogs to look that amazing, however after seeing the downgrade I was rather worried about The Division, still not out of the woods but it looks like they may hopefully not screw it up too much.

#77 Edited by m3dude1 (1366 posts) -

@Consternated said:
@aroxx_ab said:

I bet Ps4 version will look and run better than most PC gamers will be able to play this game in

Probably, but the millions who have a more capable system will be able to play a game that's in a different league to the PS4 version visually. An almost certainly CPU intensive game like this wouldn't look to bad on "weaker" systems, either, as even a low-midrange PC has more CPU power than the quad/bone.

Looking forward to playing with rendered at 4K with my GTX780!

adding AA and hbao+ doesnt put the game in a different league. and have fun playing a slideshow at 4k.

@kalipekona

ac4 runs between 15 and 25 fps on a 7950 maxed out w/4xaa. you have no idea what you are talking aboutt

#78 Posted by lostrib (37708 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

@Consternated said:
@aroxx_ab said:

I bet Ps4 version will look and run better than most PC gamers will be able to play this game in

Probably, but the millions who have a more capable system will be able to play a game that's in a different league to the PS4 version visually. An almost certainly CPU intensive game like this wouldn't look to bad on "weaker" systems, either, as even a low-midrange PC has more CPU power than the quad/bone.

Looking forward to playing with rendered at 4K with my GTX780!

adding AA and hbao+ doesnt put the game in a different league. and have fun playing a slideshow at 4k.

Well that depends who outlined the league regulations. If one of the differentiating factor between leagues is AA and AO, then the PC version would be in another league

#79 Edited by lglz1337 (3855 posts) -

amd or nvidia GFX card which one will gives me a better future proof, which one will survive the next 5 years?

didn't keep up with pc gfx cards

price/quality plz

was a nvidia guy back in the 8800gtx days, but with mantle and exclusive gfx card features i can't decide.

#80 Posted by PinkiePirate (2087 posts) -

@jhonMalcovich said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

I've got an AMD card, the HD 7970, so I guess I won't be reaping these benefits! Fuark!!

Anyhow, will my PC be able to max this game out at 1920 x 1080 with good performance? Here are my specs:

1. Asus P6T SE Motherboard

2. Intel Core i7-920 Quad Core CPU @ 3.5 GHz

3. 3 x 2GB OCZ GOLD DDR3 1600 SDRAM

4. AMD HD 7970 3GB GDDR5

Of course. You must easily get 45fps at 1080p and high-to-ultra settings.

Awesome. That means it will be no problem for my GTX 680 and i7 4770k.

#81 Posted by clyde46 (46634 posts) -

@lglz1337 said:

amd or nvidia GFX card which one will gives me a better future proof, which one will survive the next 5 years?

didn't keep up with pc gfx cards

price/quality plz

was a nvidia guy back in the 8800gtx days, but with mantle and exclusive gfx card features i can't decide.

5 years? A 780Ti might last about 3.

#82 Posted by lostrib (37708 posts) -

@clyde46 said:

@lglz1337 said:

amd or nvidia GFX card which one will gives me a better future proof, which one will survive the next 5 years?

didn't keep up with pc gfx cards

price/quality plz

was a nvidia guy back in the 8800gtx days, but with mantle and exclusive gfx card features i can't decide.

5 years? A 780Ti might last about 3.

Depends what he means by "survive"

A 780ti will be able to play games for 5 years, but probably not max them for 5 years (especially if you're looking at resolutions above 1080)

#83 Posted by m3dude1 (1366 posts) -

theres games today a 780ti cant max at 1080p, even overclocked to 1.2 ghz.

#84 Posted by 04dcarraher (19676 posts) -

@lglz1337 said:

amd or nvidia GFX card which one will gives me a better future proof, which one will survive the next 5 years?

didn't keep up with pc gfx cards

price/quality plz

was a nvidia guy back in the 8800gtx days, but with mantle and exclusive gfx card features i can't decide.

Mantle will die and fade away within a year or so. The fact that Nvidia is able to optimize their drivers( new 337 drivers) that allow massive gains without having to rely on a proprietary API still using direct x and to the fact that MS is releasing Direct x 12 that basically does the same thing as mantle at its core will cause developers to say whats the point in having to spend time and money code their game for both direct x and mantle when dx 12 can give you the same type of results and it works with all vendors. Unless AMD promotes and spend money on certain games to use mantle almost all developers will not work with mantle but use the main API everyone uses aka direct x.

Also Mantle does not give major gains if your not cpu bound, which is why you see intel based systems with AMD gpu's see little to no improvement in general. Its only when your using AMD based cpu's or severely downclocked intel cpus where you see mantle doing its job in lowering the cpu workload communicating with the gpu saving cpu cycles for other jobs that need to be done.

You cant really go wrong with AMD or Nvidia but your choice should be based on the facts and what kind of budget your on. AMD's mantle has so much PR hype that AMD's claims will not be reached unless your cpu bound.

#85 Posted by CroidX (1138 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

@Consternated said:
@aroxx_ab said:

I bet Ps4 version will look and run better than most PC gamers will be able to play this game in

Probably, but the millions who have a more capable system will be able to play a game that's in a different league to the PS4 version visually. An almost certainly CPU intensive game like this wouldn't look to bad on "weaker" systems, either, as even a low-midrange PC has more CPU power than the quad/bone.

Looking forward to playing with rendered at 4K with my GTX780!

adding AA and hbao+ doesnt put the game in a different league. and have fun playing a slideshow at 4k.

@kalipekona

ac4 runs between 15 and 25 fps on a 7950 maxed out w/4xaa. you have no idea what you are talking aboutt

so can you provide evidence of that

#86 Edited by Opus_Rea-333 (987 posts) -

The weay it was meant to be played.

#87 Posted by m3dude1 (1366 posts) -

@CroidX said:

@m3dude1 said:

@Consternated said:
@aroxx_ab said:

I bet Ps4 version will look and run better than most PC gamers will be able to play this game in

Probably, but the millions who have a more capable system will be able to play a game that's in a different league to the PS4 version visually. An almost certainly CPU intensive game like this wouldn't look to bad on "weaker" systems, either, as even a low-midrange PC has more CPU power than the quad/bone.

Looking forward to playing with rendered at 4K with my GTX780!

adding AA and hbao+ doesnt put the game in a different league. and have fun playing a slideshow at 4k.

@kalipekona

ac4 runs between 15 and 25 fps on a 7950 maxed out w/4xaa. you have no idea what you are talking aboutt

so can you provide evidence of that

yes i can.

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassin-s-creed-4-black-flag-test-gpu.html

they provide a video of their benchmark sequence and having played thru AC4, its one of the least demanding non ocean areas in the game, and a 7950 still averages only 23 fps with a minimum of 20. looking at the range of non ocean areas in the game, your going to be playing anywhere between 15 and 25 fps.

#88 Edited by CroidX (1138 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

@CroidX said:

@m3dude1 said:

@Consternated said:
@aroxx_ab said:

I bet Ps4 version will look and run better than most PC gamers will be able to play this game in

Probably, but the millions who have a more capable system will be able to play a game that's in a different league to the PS4 version visually. An almost certainly CPU intensive game like this wouldn't look to bad on "weaker" systems, either, as even a low-midrange PC has more CPU power than the quad/bone.

Looking forward to playing with rendered at 4K with my GTX780!

adding AA and hbao+ doesnt put the game in a different league. and have fun playing a slideshow at 4k.

@kalipekona

ac4 runs between 15 and 25 fps on a 7950 maxed out w/4xaa. you have no idea what you are talking aboutt

so can you provide evidence of that

yes i can.

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassin-s-creed-4-black-flag-test-gpu.html

they provide a video of their benchmark sequence and having played thru AC4, its one of the least demanding non ocean areas in the game, and a 7950 still averages only 23 fps with a minimum of 20. looking at the range of non ocean areas in the game, your going to be playing anywhere between 15 and 25 fps.

this is in russian? lol

#89 Posted by m3dude1 (1366 posts) -

so? you can run it through google translate, but benchmarks are a universal language. that site is fantastic btw. they do a better job than pretty much anyone.

#90 Edited by CroidX (1138 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

so? you can run it through google translate, but benchmarks are a universal language. that site is fantastic btw. they do a better job than pretty much anyone.

never used google translator

I'll just scroll down to see where they are

#91 Edited by m3dude1 (1366 posts) -

the 1080p w/ 4x aa one.

here

#92 Edited by melonfarmerz (1189 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

adding AA and hbao+ doesnt put the game in a different league. and have fun playing a slideshow at 4k.

@kalipekona

ac4 runs between 15 and 25 fps on a 7950 maxed out w/4xaa. you have no idea what you are talking aboutt

As someone with a GTX 760, which is less powerful than the 7950, I can promise you you have no idea what you're talking about. 30-40fps with a 7950 is more like it... I can run it at high 20s low 30s with a 760...

You have a history of PC bashing and out of the thousands of english benchmark sites, you chose a Russian one that noones ever heard of. I don't know what you're doing but it seems like some very fishy cherry picking going on.

#93 Edited by m3dude1 (1366 posts) -

benchmarks prove you wrong. try again clown. or feel free to show us a video of your playable high 20s/low 30s framerate in ac4 maxed 1080p. just make sure you show us your settings.

#94 Posted by kalipekona (2299 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

@Consternated said:
@aroxx_ab said:

I bet Ps4 version will look and run better than most PC gamers will be able to play this game in

Probably, but the millions who have a more capable system will be able to play a game that's in a different league to the PS4 version visually. An almost certainly CPU intensive game like this wouldn't look to bad on "weaker" systems, either, as even a low-midrange PC has more CPU power than the quad/bone.

Looking forward to playing with rendered at 4K with my GTX780!

adding AA and hbao+ doesnt put the game in a different league. and have fun playing a slideshow at 4k.

@kalipekona

ac4 runs between 15 and 25 fps on a 7950 maxed out w/4xaa. you have no idea what you are talking aboutt

Coming from one of the most clueless idiots on system wars it doesn't surprise me you would say something so stupid. I own an HD 7950 and you are talking out your ass.

I never said that I was using 4X MSAA. Anti-aliasing is not usually considered when talking about maxing out a game. Most people wouldn't be able to say they have maxed out any demanding game if the requirement was to max out anti-aliasing. I mean, you talk about 4X MSAA but why end there? Why not 8X EQAA or, better yet, 8X SSAA?

The fact is, the HD 7950 does max out Assassin's Creed 4. I have mine overclocked at 1000MHz, which is an easy overclock for a card that can hit 1130MHz, and using SMAA and all other settings maxed I see between about 60% and 80% GPU core utilization at a solid 30fps. In most areas I can use a combination of 2X Adaptive MSAA and SMAA through RadeonPro, but there are points where it will drop a bit below 30fps, so I usually use SMAA (or a combination of regular 2X MSAA and SMAA) in order to maintain a solid 30fps.

Even with 4X MSAA it still maintains 30fps most of the time and only drops to around 25fps in more demanding areas. Your "15 to 25fps" comment is pure BS.

#95 Edited by m3dude1 (1366 posts) -

provide a video or STFU. ive already linked to benchmarks done by a very reputable site thats been around for years showing performance in one of the lesser demanding non ocean areas of the game. Eeen without msaa, performance still only averages 30 with drops below. Oh and maxed out is ALWAYS the highest settings you can apply in game. if AA is included in those settings so be it. i just gave u the benefit of the doubt by limiting it to 4xaa as there are no benches showing 8xaa performance. Maybe you should learn what the phrase "maxed out" actually means dumb shit.

#96 Edited by BattleSpectre (6235 posts) -

Getting it on my PS4, I don't see myself spending an extra $400-$500AU for a graphics card upgrade just to play a prettier looking multi-plat, I don't mod my games either. I know the PC version is the best, but I don't have that kind of money to be throwing around right now.

#97 Edited by m3dude1 (1366 posts) -

the pc version is only noticeably better on an nvidia card fast enough to enable TXAA. TXAA removes a solid 90 to 95% of the temporal aliasing and noise, its a game changer. it rly does make a huge difference. all the other enhancements are extremely minor. More games should support TXAA, going back to regular MSAA sucks. trssaa is far too performance intensive in alpha heavy games and you need to be able to use the 8x level to match txaas level of shimmering reduction.

#98 Posted by kipsta77 (1016 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

its not going to run well on any currently available single gpus at above console settings.

A mid range PC will run it better than consoles.

#99 Edited by m3dude1 (1366 posts) -

its a cross gen game its not going to run well on any system in relation to its visual quality.

#100 Edited by kalipekona (2299 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

provide a video or STFU. ive already linked to benchmarks done by a very reputable site thats been around for years showing performance in one of the lesser demanding non ocean areas of the game. Eeen without msaa, performance still only averages 30 with drops below. Oh and maxed out is ALWAYS the highest settings you can apply in game. if AA is included in those settings so be it. i just gave u the benefit of the doubt by limiting it to 4xaa as there are no benches showing 8xaa performance. Maybe you should learn what the phrase "maxed out" actually means dumb shit.

Like I'm going to waste my time making a video just because some idiot Sony fanboy on the internet wants me to. Even if I did prove it with a video you would just come up with some other bullshit excuse.

I honestly don't really care what you or your cherry-picked benchmark says. I actually own the game and the card in question and know exactly what performance I get in the game. There are too many variables with benchmarks: what drivers are they on?.. has the game been updated?.. what other components are they using?.. are they using the same driver level settings I am?

I am getting a solid 30fps at 1920 x 1080 with all settings maxed and using SMAA. Anybody with the same card can test it and verify for themselves.

Just for the fun of it, though, here is another benchmark showing results very similar to mine: http://www.hardwareluxx.com/index.php/reviews/hardware/vgacards/29094-test-asus-geforce-gtx-780-ti-directcu-ii.html?start=17

Assassins Creed IV: Black Flag - 1920x1080 4xMSAA 16xAF

As far as your claim that maxing out a game always means maxing out anti-aliasing, I call bullshit on that. I've been PC gaming for a long time and there has never been an accepted definition of exactly what maxing out a game means. There have been threads on the subject and lots of different opinions, but definitely no universally agreed upon meaning. Here is one of those threads, have a read: http://www.gamespot.com/forums/pc-mac-discussion-1000004/what-does-maxing-a-game-out-actually-mean-27154809/

I think that things like resolution, framerate and anti-aliasing are generally considered to be separate from the consideration of whether a person has "maxed out a game". That's why people often say things like "I can max out the game at 1080p, 60fps and 4xMSAA". Nobody expects that a person should have to max out the framerate at 240fps along with 4K resolution and 8X SSAA in order to say they maxed out the game.