History of Ubisoft graphics downgrades (good read, 56k no)

It's not a matter of opinion that Far Cry 3, even at max settings on a beast PC, doesn't look as good as the original, alleged gameplay demos. This is fact, and if you don't see it, you're blind. At some point, Ubisoft even admitted it. The lighting system is downgraded, there's about half as much foliage/trees, the draw distance is cut down, the textures are lower resolution, the explosion and fire effects are completely different. It's night and day. I'm starting to think that you're trolling.

Also, get down off your "graphics don't matter" high horse. Obviously, a good game is defined by the gameplay, but that doesn't mean graphics are pointless. Graphics create a game's atmosphere, and are key to immersion. There's a reason that both software and hardware companies invest billions in constantly trying to push better graphics. It matters. And the reason people are so pissed at Ubisoft is NOT that their games look bad. It's that they constantly show these alleged demos that look great, and then severely downgrade the final product, even though a good PC could easily run the games looking the way they did in the demos, and Ubisoft could just as easily have let them run it like that, with an "ultra" graphic setting or something.

Seriously **** those guys.

Nobody's saying FC3 looks bad on PC. It looks quite nice. The "problem" is that it looked much, much better in the original demos, and they downgraded it for no reason at all, considering that a decent PC could have run it just fine the way it originally looked. In fact, a decent PC did run it just fine, looking like that, when they used a PC to run the E3 demo in the first place. Then the final product got graphically shafted, so that people with high end PCs got a game that looked worse, and didn't even push their hardware. While Ubisoft could just as easily have set the console versions at lower settings, to maintain performance, and left the original visuals intact, as a super high graphic settings, for those with the hardware to handle it.

@JangoWuzHere said:

@XboxStache said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

Double Agent pre-release screen shots.

Retail product

That may have been the retail version for the PS2; but the 360 version looked amazing.

The PS2 version of Double Agent didn't even have that level. It was a completely different game altogether from the 360 one.

I own chaos theory on pc,

and even that game doesn't even look as bad as that,

there is a complete lack of lighting and it has shadow maps,

it has to be ps2

I played Far Cry 3 for three hours and hated it. It would definitely prefer a linear, generic, military shooter with a four-six hour campaign instead of that. And yeah, it was definitely an ugly game. I thought with the budget it'd be one of the better looking ones out there, but it was wholly underwhelming. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim looked way better than it despite it being way bigger and a year younger, but I am aware of the larger budget.

@killatwill15 said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

@XboxStache said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

Double Agent pre-release screen shots.

Retail product

That may have been the retail version for the PS2; but the 360 version looked amazing.

The PS2 version of Double Agent didn't even have that level. It was a completely different game altogether from the 360 one.

I own chaos theory on pc,

and even that game doesn't even look as bad as that,

there is a complete lack of lighting and it has shadow maps,

it has to be ps2

Well you are wrong, simple as that.

The last gen versions have different levels which mostly take place inside at night time.

Getting a little off topic -- I've admitted above, it's been awhile since I've actually played the game -- but one thing for sure is that Far Cry 3 certainly pushed my hardware. i7 processor, 8GB of RAM, brand new 7970 3GB DDR5 card, and damn my computer was running its ass off. Pushed to the limit? I doubt it, but it was giving off some heat running Far Cry 3 at max settings and 1080 resolution.

far cry 3 graphics on the 360 was awful.

@ the_bi99man

You Better check yo self before you accuse me of trolling. I'm not the one Exagerating Watch Dog's downgrade. Nor Am I the one who singled this game out amoung many others whos graphics never look like they did in demos.

Is that what trolling is now ? Not being part of the witch hunts and hate mobs and graphics whores ?

As for the point of Graphics, in this context, they don't matter. Usually I'l get specific about these things only If I know I'm not wasting my time talking to some moron who's like "Teh Graphics King" at everything.

and Theres that Exegrating and Singling out again. As I said, just about every game does it and in Ubisoft's case it wasn't "Severely". Or does that word mean something different to you ? How would you describe something that actually is severe if you keep using it to describe things that change moderately ?

Why am I even defending a company I haven't played any of its games since 2011 ? I didn't even like the AC sequels.

Oh well. Gotta finnish what I started.

Lol. Better check myself? Okay Mr. Internet Tough Guy. For one, nobody is exaggerating Watch Dog's downgrade. It's huge. Two, nobody is singling out this one game. In fact, the entire point of this thread is to illustrate several games which were downgraded. It just so happens that they're all from Ubisoft, but that's because, in actuality, they have been worse about it than anyone else. Three, I explained quite clearly why graphics actually do matter, even if not as much, and in a different way than actual gameplay elements. That's not being a graphics whore. That's recognizing the impact that good graphics can have, and being disappointed when developers go out of their way to deny those graphics, even to the people who have the hardware to manage it. And Four, if you are actually trying to act like this...

is not a severe downgrade, then yeah, I'm gonna accuse you of trolling. Either that or blind. Take your pick.

@ the_bi99man

I'm not even sure where you got those, which platform they were captured on or many other factors that could render an already petty obsession even worse.

As for graphics, Immersion and Atmosphere and all that jazz you think is so important entirely depends on the type of game the developers want to make. But in the majority of games today, its overated.

And just about every game at E3, espevciall multiplats from Big Publishers gets this supposed "severe downgrade" thats got you and every other "Immersionist" in such a fit. In this scenario, in this game, it really doesn't matter. But neither does common sense, so screw it. Hit me with another insult. After all, its not like you're capable of anything else.

yea I don't get this either, why downgrade PC version...let people who have the high end card sweat it.

Red Steel (Wii)...see what they showed before...then after lol..

@JangoWuzHere said:

@killatwill15 said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

@XboxStache said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

Double Agent pre-release screen shots.

Retail product

That may have been the retail version for the PS2; but the 360 version looked amazing.

The PS2 version of Double Agent didn't even have that level. It was a completely different game altogether from the 360 one.

I own chaos theory on pc,

and even that game doesn't even look as bad as that,

there is a complete lack of lighting and it has shadow maps,

it has to be ps2

Well you are wrong, simple as that.

The last gen versions have different levels which mostly take place inside at night time.

They could've just youtubed it. The game really looks like that.

Edit:

Not the bottom picture, which is ps2 ;)

@Lulu_Lulu: no they dont. Everyone gets shafted with game downgrades.

True. But its not news or an isolated endeavour. Happens all the time.

The first gif is from the original reveal at E3 2012, and the second one is a comparison between E3 2013, and what was just shown like last week as the latest build, on PS4. And no, graphics actually do matter for immersion, especially in a game like this. You clearly have no intention of having a real discussion about this, but would rather just continually deny that graphics matter, and act like the downgrade we've seen with Watch Dogs isn't any worse than most games get (is absolutely is). Which is why I think you're trolling. I already explained in perfectly clear, rational terms what I'm talking about, and why people are disappointed. You seem to be the only one who doesn't get it. I'm done talking to a brick wall. You're either trolling or stupid, and I don't care which. Have a good day.

All those gifs are from PS4 version actually, top gif is from September 2013 PS4 gameplay video, that good lookin' rainy night time gif is from E3 2013, and the ugly gif is latest.There has been no downgrade, the ugly gif is just taken from a bad moment. You can't directly compare the rainy gif and ugly gif either because wet rainy road makes a big difference to the looks and it's not raining in ugly gif and the car is different too. Ubisoft already confirmed E3 2012 was High end PC so no chance of consoles version looking exactly like that but ubisoft did say PS4 version will look like E3 2013 which was slightly downgraded from E3 2012. Totally expected.

@ the_bi99man

Who knows what type of shenanigans goes on at E3, if those games were actually running on the PS4, the exact same PS4 we have now. Couldve been a prototype model that Sony provided and changed, meaning Ubisoft had to change with it. And If you can't immerse yourself in Watch Dogs then thats on you, regardless of how important graphics is, thats the part of the game they can't sell to you. Its up you to commit to the games universe if you wana immerse yourelf in it. Some can't do it with out graphics, some can't do it without playing dress up and with props to boot. It really is pointless discussing immersion if your gona blame Ubisoft for your in ability to connect a game because you can't stand next gen jaggies. Why you wana immerse yourself in this game anyway, thats not why Ubisoft made it ? Is it ?

I don't know, guess its the type of thing you would, being the all mighty king of graphics and immersion. And you know what, I did have a nice day.

@JangoWuzHere: Give it up. That's the PS2 or Wii version. Your not fooling anyone.

what irks me is when they downgrade the PC version. That to me is unacceptable.

I still think Ubi is a pretty solid middle tier dev. They make some solid games and some flukes here and there (I'm looking at you conviction and AC1) But nonetheless they do make some solid stuff such as Conviction, Black Flag and Farcry 3

and that means we should just accept it?

Here's a good Jimquisition video on the whole bullshotted trailers debacle for everyone to watch. Good stuff in it

Gamers have become so used to this stuff now that they just roll over and take it. Bullshotting needs to stop, it's trying to win you over with shiny things and then delivering something different. It's like being shown a succulent steak dinner with chips and then actually getting a piece of shitty meat slapped on a plate with a few strips of potato

..... Are you fucking serious? That last gif shows a massive downgrade. That's not a "bad moment". It's the same fucking moment as the first half of the gif, and it shows lower quality models, textures, lighting, effects, the works. (Edit: Oh, and I'm fully aware that it's a different car, and also not raining in the second half of the gif. That doesn't change anything. There's still obviously a downgrade, either that or the game is wildly inconsistent, which would actually be even worse than being consistently sub-par) I can't be the only one who sees this. It's a night and day difference. If I hadn't been told, I wouldn't have even thought they were the same game (except that the minimap gives it away). Doesn't even look like the same engine. Am I the only person who's not blind? Are you guys not seeing the same gif that I am? Is there something wrong with the site, and it's showing a different image than the one I actually posted?

Also, obviously the original demos were running on a high-end PC. I don't give two shits if that's the PS4 version. If the console versions need to be downgraded, so be it. Whatever maintains performance. What irks me, and many others (and rightly so), is that, if Ubisoft's history is any indication (and it surely is), the PC version will also be graphically crippled, even though there's absolutely no reason that it should be, as high end PCs could quite easily run the game looking the way it did in the first place (as evidenced by the fact that high end PCs already did run the game like that, when Ubisoft demo'd it to begin with).

Oh, and @Lulu_Lulu: I have no intention of immersing myself in Watch Dogs, regardless of the graphics. Doesn't look like a very good game anyway, and it's apparently going through development hell, which is rarely a good thing. Only reason I'm even having this conversation is because it boggles my mind that people like you don't seem to notice or care, and scream "graphics whore" at anyone who does. It really amazes me how difficult it is for you to wrap your head around the idea that someone can appreciate and expect good graphics without being a graphics whore who doesn't care about gameplay. Just because you don't have the mental capacity to appreciate multiple aspects of a game at the same time, doesn't mean the rest of us are similarly crippled.

And before you go and call me a graphics whore again, and claim that I'm saying I can't be immersed in something without awesome graphics, I'll just mention that the most immersed I've been in a game recently was playing To The Moon. That was incredible. But I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that Watch Dogs will have anywhere near as well-written or engrossing of a story as To The Moon had. Plus, To The Moon could have been even more immersive with modern graphics, assuming the story and basic gameplay elements weren't changed.

And on a side note, Gamespot's spell check doesn't seem to think that "immersive" is a word. Oh GS...

Allright . Alil confession. I didn't see those GIFs untill just now. And I would like express My deepest apologies, because anyone who believes in this supposed downgrade from these GIFs is in dire need of a Mental Compitence test.

Seriously This is Bullshit ! I gues its just easier to believe if you already have it in for Ubisoft. I'm looking you mr. So called Bi99 Man.

Good Lord this place is fucking toxic. And they call me a troll.

@the_bi99man:

Too much effort for nothing man. If people can't see the obvious, then so be it.

People still compare PC footage with PS4 one? wow

It seems like the only culprit is Watch Dogs. Far Cry 3 may have been downgraded from E3, but only a little bit. On maximum settings PC, it is still a beautiful game with stunning visuals. Not Crysis 3 level, but still great graphics.

The differences are subtle at best. (though they shouldn't be there at all!)

And the Assassin's Creed 1 video is a TRAILER it doesn't show gameplay but a cut-scene...

Besides everyone uses bullshots, if anything Epic games should be punished for their Gears of War bullshots.

Anyone remember when lems used to think Gears 2 ran in 1080p with 16xAA and had tessellation?

I guess you have to build the hype up and sadly that has a real knock on effect. The list of games that have done this is probably a lot larger than most people would realise. Infact I would not be surprised if the ratio to developers producing better looking trailers etc than what is actually going to be put out is higher than those who give a "more honest" reveal.

We all know about the infamous Killzone 2 CGI trailer. Crysis as well was rather underwhelming compared to what it was hyped to be. Still great looking games but not on the same level as what was hinted.

I hope the division looks as good as the trailer makes out. It does look REALLY good which sort of puts doubt in your mind because as much as its possible to do it on PC, there may still be some limited things that the new gen consoles inflict.

And it's not just Ubisoft.

Remember this infamous NFL 06 "gameplay" trailer that was supposed to show the next-gen power of Xbox 360?

Sure, today it looks like utter shit, but back then it looked like, HOLY ****!

And yet companies REPEAT this kind of shit, EVEN TODAY!

Also, this comic Penny Arcade did when Dan Hsu interviewed Peter Moore perfectly describes the state of gaming "journalism".

It's not the same moment, if you look at the mini map it's a different location all together. All versions were running just fine on PS4 so why would they downgrade?. The only real difference is the lighting which makes a HUGE difference in this game and this is why you can't build your opinion with this single gif. If PS4 version can look this good then you shouldn't be worried about PC.

best start out a trong and downgradr till it runs good.

vs

building garbge and upgrading till it runs smooth

if I was ubi I would troll the gaming world with the next ac by making a trailer look worse as a ps1 game

@IgGy621985 said:

So I stumbled upon this interesting article which compares Ubisoft games announced vs Ubisoft games released, graphics-wise.

Far Cry 3:

Loading Video...

Ass Creed 1 reveal trailer:

Loading Video...

And of course...

So I guess, it's natural to believe that the next Ubisoft title to be butchered is

Loading Video...

What do you think System Wars?

I can add another one to the list, assassins creed pirates actually had a graphics downgrade with the last update, thats an actual released game receiving a graphics downgrade, they added more content but sacrificed graphics, i looks considerably worse after the last update,lol