Watch Dogs - Graphics Comparison
Compare the Xbox One, PlayStation 4 and PC in this graphics comparison of Watch Dogs.
Honestly, it looks pretty much the same on all 3. Lighting varies, but I suspect that has more to do with the fact that the game has you individually set the brightness than anything else. You can see jagged edges more easily on the Xbox One, but it seems fairly negligible.
Overall, it seems to be a fairly well balanced multi-platform game - It doesn't look like your experience would really suffer in any way regardless of platform.
should include WiiU comparison because they are still trying to sell that for $300.
Im still waiting on best exclusives and "app" support when it comes to XB1 vs PS4
Wow, people are giving their opinions speaking candid about Ubisoft and moderators here seems to be on here dictating and controlling what's being said.
Why do I say that? Because most of every comment that is posted here seems to favor Ubisoft and that doesn't represent the vast majority of people. Those comments that represent the vast majority including my own seems to be gone. Gamespot I am calling you out your a bunch of frauds!
I thought that this game is the new GTA IV from the PC prospective. It is just too demanding at it's release date, and just like GTA IV, this game along with Watch_Dogs is another game if you buy it for PC is a game that will run better after about 2 generations of GPU/CPU life cycles go by. I would wait on buying this game until the bugs are sorted out, and when the new generation of AMD/nVidia GPUs and Intel/AMD CPUs comes out this holiday season, and get the game cheap as a steam winter sale item after making a complete overhaul of current PC gaming hardware.
The consoles right now are the ones that are better, but once the new PC hardware comes out this game just like GTA IV will run smoothly when the new stuff comes out and the PC version will take over. This game just was not ready for prime time on the PC, but that not completely Ubisoft's fault, it's also Intel/nVidia/AMD fault for not getting the new PC hardware out on time for running this game like at E3. I just hope that GTA V does not have this same problem that has made Watch_Dogs and GTA IV both games I like go only as console only games, because of fan backlash and more piracy. This is not what the PC gamers need right now with the consoles selling like hotcakes and the PC finally getting out of it's long dark age after the 360 first came out.
The PC fan base needs to understand that these games are not going to have that 4K 120Hz FPS game right out of the box with current generation PC hardware unless you have gaming rigs valued at over $6500 and running a quad SLI setup with 4 780 Ti GPUs. This game is an investment for future PC upgrades like Crysis 1, GTA IV, and maybe even GTA V when it comes out in November. IF you have this mindset before buying the game then you can live with lower graphics settings and when you get the money to upgrade your rigs then you can crank it up to max while running at 120Hz while running those 8K ultra res texture third party mods. After all this game like GTA IV will run at basic entry level i3 CPU that runs like today's i5 in 2 life cycles and run on mid level GTX 1060/ R11 480x GPUs with 10 GB VRam.
PC wins outright (really wish I got myself a top gaming rig)
But I've played watchdogs on ps4 and Xbox one and there the same, people blowinng smoke to encourage the console war that's all.
If anything, the Xbox One textures are sharper than the PS4's. The PC of course wins, especially in shadows
So what we just learned is that even running with a less powerful machine the Xbox One version looks just as good as the PS4 version. The differences are so minor as to have no effect on the actual enjoyment of the story.
What they showed at E3 2012 vs what was released. Now that's the comparison people should be up in arms with.
To be honest, the textures and characters look smoother on the PS4 than on Xbox One. The difference isn't that big, though.
PC performance on an AMD GPU is horrendous. I will skip this title for now. If I ever get an nVidia card, I might pick this up.
Alright lets go, you know the drill... wip out the digital dongs and have your worth measured by minor discrepancies.
Exclusives/fanboys/girls are what make the sales.
Sooooooooooooo, the PS4 lighting is a bit darker... hmmmmmmmm. let me turn down the brightness on my PC monitor!!! OMG Who knew, they look exactly alike. Oh wait no my PC still looks better.
Aside from the darker lighting (read BETTER) on the Ps4... there is no visible differance in any of these.
Honestly can't tell the difference except it's a little darker on the PS4, which could be changed anyway through the settings menu.
Give me a USD 400-500 Budget that can output the graphics fidelity of Killzone Shadow Fall on the PS4 that comes in par with Crysis 3 very high setting that requires a USD 2000 beast with a min GTX 780 or AMD R9 290 to run with average fps of 35-40 without shutters (Infamous Second Son, is another rigid example). The point here that people always compare apple-to-apple; the PS4 architecture with 8GB DDR5 in a unified system is by itself a next gen tech enclosed in a portable very small & silent console that will have a life cycle on average of 7 years; by then a PC owner will upgrade twice at least to match more demanding next gen games with more orientation towards targeting more VRAM as in the case of Watch Dogs (More to Come: The Witcher 3, Division etc..). See Asus and EVGA with the orientation of custom PCB of 6 GB VRAM GTX 780 … Bring the PS4 plug it with a 42 inch HD led TV and enjoy multi / single playing while resting on a couch with utmost laziness J with good optimization, graphic fidelity, and brilliant exclusives. Forget about incompatibility; updating drivers; obsolete technology; heating problems ; blue screens ; RMAs warranties ; parts replacements --- Enjoy! J (Note: I own a High End Gaming PC with an SLI 780 and I Game on 1440p too); I am saying from my personal experience and not a “fan boy” point of view. Please next time when you do a benchmark "Gamepot" mention a minimum FPS.
I've never seen a more pointless graphics comparison in all my life.
The game looks so identical on all platforms it's ridiculous. Why should anyone care anymore?
@tweakgame the first one just came out
@TitanPolaris This is all BS and nonsense. I've played games that looked better and that ran on lesser hardware. It *IS* entirely Ubisoft's fault for completely failing to adapt it to run on PC hardware, which it would do just fine -- or even better -- if they had bothered to port it competently. The parts that AMD/nVidia has out for PC are even higher performance than the parts that AMD put into the XBONE or PS4, it's just that Ubisoft simply failed to take into account the differences between PC and console architecture. Asking for 3GB of VRAM is unheard of, even in the most demanding of games with much better graphics than W_D has. The reason W_D asks for so much VRAM (and performs poorly even when it has it) isn't because it has such higher quality visuals, it's because it was designed poorly. It is making the hardware take 3 times the effort to do 3/4ths as much work.
@TitanPolaris are you sure about all of that, i only say that because the new consoles are as close to pc hardware as they have ever been. it could be driver problems and/or just bunk optimization that makes the game run badly.
the whole point of being a pc gamer is that the games look better and run better, if watch dog runs like sh it i think its the people who made who are at fault. so if its drivers then amd and nvida are at fult if not then...
@jshipley01eb ...and this is gong to happend with all 3rd. party franchises.
@BuzzLiteBeer I don't understand what are these complaints floating around with the game running horribly on the AMD side. I am running 14.4 Catalyst HD 7950 overclocked a little to 1050/1500 core and memory respectively. I have Watch Dogs running ultra with temporal SMAA and im getting 45 to 60 FPS. Are you just trying to prevent other people with AMD systems from buying it or something?
@BuzzLiteBeer You're not getting this game because the graphics are a *little* worse on your graphics card? Dude! You're missing out with that ignorance, even on the AMD GPUs it's still a beautiful game, plus it's more than just pretty, it's entirely new and fresh.
@hubsabubs I made this account just to agree with you, brother. PCMasterRace!
@VenkmanPHD Literally lower the brightness on the PC version (It's a bright game for some reason..) and it would look the same as the PS4 version with very SLIGHTLY sharper everything. The difference is even less than I previously thought though.
@Shivatin No? It is a VERY good looking game on PC/ps4/x1. But no where near Crysis. But what do you expect? The engine behind watch dogs was probably designed to utilize the unified memory of the consoles and not dedicated video or CPU memory. Crysis in the other hand had its roots with the PC. And you can clearly see the devs are PC wizards. Crysis 1,2,3 are not as demanding as you would think. It probably is slightly LESS demanding then Watch Dogs even though there is a big gap graphically.
@Shivatin Game actually looks good. Especially in the rain and at night.
@guru00007 I replace my gaming PC every 6 years. The one I built 6 years ago for about £700 still outperforms the PS4 and Xbox One. PC games tend to be cheaper than console games on release too. I saved over £100 on games in my first year of PC gaming compared to if I'd bought them on a console.
Bottom line is, if you're smart then PC gaming is both cheaper and more rewarding. It's a complete myth that you have to upgrade several times during the lifecycle of a console. You only have to do that if you want to play everything on maximum settings with mods.
@Marscaleb It's funny because everyone complained when they started doing this stuff before next gen, but now that it's really relevant because the games for the platforms are on a decently level playing field it's still being complained about.
@Marscaleb That's why it wasn't pointless. It shows that the PC version isn't as superior as everyone said.
My thing was I wanted to see Ps3 vs Ps4
Nope not in the case of this game. Its almost unplayable on PC.
@suppaphly42 The whole point (and by whole point I mean like 1/4 of the reason) of PC gaming is that you COULDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD run games better if you got the hardware to do so. Which only about 1% of PC owners could run this game at low setting if they are lucky. Really unfair considering all the PC owners im including but just to make some A Holes around here know that people dont upgrade their PCs yearly.
@ishsgames The game does play better on Nvidia hardware because it was built on Nvidia hardware have't you watched the news about AMD making accusations towards Nvidia about this games performance on AMD hardware it's been performing worse than Nvidia GPUs
@hirohamster2 It runs poorly maxed out on AMD cards that should be able to max it. It's not that interesting of a game story-wise anyway.
GTA V is coming and from Max Payne 3, it's proven Rockstar at least can optimize for PC well, even if the game sucked.
@xenogdestroyer @hubsabubs PCMaster Race got wiped out in 2005 when PC gaming exclusives died b/c of 360/PS3 being so popular and powerful enough to compete against PC gaming. But its ok people forget all that stuff and just focus on short term memories. Remember when Sony had the weakest console PS2 vs Xbox vs Dreamcast. But still managed to offer the best games?
@glynnc12 Console period sounds like a Goddamn bloody mess.
I'll drink to that. Night time rain is when this game looks the best. I put on my 1920's gangster outfit, and just smoothly walk the streets.
@jellyman68 I'm a PC gamer myself and there are certainy pros and cons to PC vs. consoles. I will say that if you're sole purpose is to game, consoles are a more economical/efficient choice.
I stick with PC because I do everything on my PC and prefer not to have too many devices. Another big reason for my choice in PC is that I prefer mouse and keyboard over controllers in most situations.
@MuddVader Truth be told, consoles have always been on the same level as PCs for their first year or two. This is nothing new.
It's not practical to make a game that is vastly superior graphically because there just are not enough people who own PCs powerful enough to run it.
Get a good graphics card and a faster processor or more ram. I have about 5 PCs that won't play skyrim on any setting above lowest, so once I built a decent gaming rig and updated my drivers to run good evga 660s in 2x SLI on an i5 3570k with 8 gigs ddr3, I was astonished at the improvements not only in graphics but in the game play as well. Threw in a samsung evo SSD, and getting almost zero load time. Running hi res texture pack and ENB. Astonishing, especially compared to the ps3. But that's skyrim, and with watch dogs' next Gen build, I'll be happy if I can play on my machine anything above medium settings. Can't wait to save up and get this game.
is that right , well prove it. Show us your rig and the game running on ultra at 1080 at the least at 60 fps with no pauses. If you cant then don't tell me im talking bullshit as i have played it on the pc and consoles , the pc version cant even be played beyond 1080p without serious hitching, that makes the ps4 version better in my regards.as it actually works. Anyway show me your rig and the game running at 60 fps then we talk.
YOu wont be able to play this game . Not unless its patched by the time you buy it. I seen people with 3 way titans and i 7 unable to play in ultra. They forced to play in medium. The game dont have much choice in the in game settings. You can either play this game or you cant. My system meets the min requirements and i can play it but teh constant -pausing, makes the game unplayable.
That is happening because this game needs ridiculous amounts of video memory, not ram memory. The look of the game dont justify the requirement its badly made. The problem is it uses console code which can use up to 8gb of video memory ( at the expense of its ram), what PC video card you know has 8gb?none. you need like a 3g bare minimum card to play this game without pausing in the lowest settings. Im not buying anew gpu just to play this game /facepalm. Are you?
@amar1234 @DigiRave @melroyvandenberg you know what, quit your whining about "on ultra" like a little btch. You didn't say on ultra, so quit you lying..... next thing you will want us to prove that it has unicorns that sh$t gold. You really need people to tell you AGAIN what you said?? Well here it is:
"That is happening because this game needs ridiculous amounts of video memory, not ram memory..... you need like a 3g bare minimum card to play this game without pausing in the lowest settings....." - amar1234
Notice thats that say "like a 3g minimum" "without pausing" and "in the LOWEST SETTINGS"....... or are you too stupid to read too - it would be ironic: you wrote it.
Yeah, so like I said: Quit your lying, it only makes you look like a little punk who's trying to come up with more excuses after he got called out.
@amar1234 @the_ecks Game does not support SLI/Crossfire yet. That is why there are performance issues. Disable these and things get a lot better.
@amar1234 ...No.... lol im sure that nvidia will eventually patch. Ive seen a couple people on steam have sunk 20-30 hours into the game... so it cant be THAT bad on medium settings if thats what its taken to suffice, but like COD Ghosts got so many reviews that were simular at first about horrible graphics hit.... I believe driver updates have been able to circumvent the problem, just keeping my fingers crossed on hopes that by the time it's on sale (probably the winter or next summer) I will be reading more positve things about it's PC playability. It was obviously developed for next-gen consoles, but if there's no possible way to see ultra settings on a 780 ti 3gb, i'm pretty sure they wouldn't have released it for the PC at all- so patches and driver updates are VERY much expected at this point.