The Division (downgrade)

After playing it on Ultra for PC, I'm going to have to say that the capacity in which this game has been downgraded is severely overblown, it still looks fantastic. Out of all the Ubisoft downgrades, I would say that this game has been affected the least.

Who else has had a chance to play this and see what it looks like for themselves?

RAW IMAGE

RAW IMAGE #2

Yeah.... And how does it look on consoles?

I played the closed beta and I thought it looked fine. It won't blow you away, but the city has a lot of attention to detail.

That's a good question, I saw an Xbox One stream last night and it didn't look bad, it also ran very good.

@nyadc said:

After playing it on Ultra for PC, I'm going to half to say that the capacity in which this game has been downgraded is severely overblown, it still looks fantastic. Out of all the Ubisoft downgrades, I would say that this game has been affected the least.

Who else has had a chance to play this and see what it looks like for themselves?

damn that looks way better than on the consoles, does it really look like that?

Yes, I took the screenshot like 5 minutes ago, I updated the OP with a raw image link.

@nyadc: That chromatic aberration is hurting my eyes.... must.....dis..able.

Consoles are where the downgrade really comes into play. PC was downgraded, but not nearly as heavily.

Looks decent on PC but it's still a downgrade and it looks shit on consoles. I remember when the PS4 version was supposed to look like this....

Thing is... the consoles are shit. So, peasants shouldn't complain that much. Their expectations are just unrealistic. So, it looks like shit on consoles and still runs at 30fps. lol.

Looks absolutely fine, not as good as the original reveal but I'm struggling to understand what all the fuss is about

Performance is good, I'm getting a steady 60fps with everything maxed at 1440p (inc SMAA 1x Ultra and Supersampling for temporal AA) DoF is obviously off. The only thing I'd say is bit disappointing (too strong a word) is that puddles don't splash when you run through them and it's not a true sky reflection in them. Not something that bothers me in a gun fight tbh.

@quadknight: The pic you posted looks light years ahead of the PC version. Massive downgrade from unbisuck.

I aint buying that trash but a lot of people on PC will buy it and then complain about Ubisoft like idiots

Yep still looks better than the PC version too. Ubisoft are full of shit, and they won't be getting my money ever especially after the Watch Dogs downgrade. What a crock of shit that was.

@quadknight said:

Looks decent on PC but it's still a downgrade and it looks shit on consoles. I remember when the PS4 version was supposed to look like this....

This picture is a doctored bullshot, not even their reveal video looked like this, just figured you should know.

E3 loves to have games portrayed as gameplay when in reality its just a guy standing in front of a large screen pretending to play the game while looking at the pre-rendered movie.

Doesn't look bad... but it doesn't look as good as the original reveal either;

Especially the cars are something I remember looking way better in that original reveal. And the smoke and lighting and animations were mindblowing.

The question is: if the game looks good to begin with... why did Ubisoft feel the need again to overblow its graphics ?

@nyadc: I'm surprised.

@nyadc: Bullshot or not original gameplay reveal still looks better than PC version now.....

They feel the need to sell the illusion of next gen. It is no different than when Sony lied to everybody with their fake KillZone 2 and Motorstorm trailers when revealing PS3. Then they came back and said that these were target videos. LOL

@quadknight: The sad thing is there not even trying anymore... especially on consoles. AC: unity eventhough it had framerate issues looked amazing on all platforms. I was really impressed with how the console versions looked considering the NPC counts. Then AC: Syndicate comes out and barely looks better then a PS3 game.

It does, but not by much, and honestly most of what made the reveal look better was the amount of assets on screen, not really any form of lighting or graphical effects.

The lighting and smoke looks better to me in the reveal version though. It's not just the assets.

as long as it still looks good, I'm not going to care too much

You would think that after people called them out for it with Watch Dogs and Far Cry 3 they would have stopped by now.

yeah yeah.....but do you like the gameplay? all these years later yall still only care about the looks...uc4,qb,gears of war 4.....all these game will look close ...

It doesn't blow you away with the graphics on PS4, but it looks good enough.

Yah I have it completely maxed on my computer at 1440p.

It does have some optimization issues with random drops in FPS but if I cap the frame rate it is smooth.

@nyadc: Not by much, are you serious now?

For people who are maxing out the game at 1440p, what's your specs?

Played it on PS4 today and though it looked good.

Thinking whether to get it for PS4 or PC.

I have a gtx 980 in my rig, but I think more people will be online on the PS4.

PC version is stunning, consoles, not so much

Were people even knocking the PC version? I figure it'd just be consoles.

I just played some of the beta (not maxed) and thought it was a looker. The gameplay is balls though. I don't like these RPG shooters, makes the guns feel insanely weak.

I dabbled for a half hour on the xbox one, def not the prettiest but expected since the scope of the game is pretty grand. My big concern is how varied are the environments? Will there be open spaces? Granted i played a short amount but just seems like a never ending corridor shooter. Concern is not much with the downgrade in graphics but will base game at launch be dull until DLC fleshes it out with more varied environments.

@BassMan: So Ubisoft shows images and leads everyone to believe that the final game is going to look like that on consoles and "stupid peasants expect too much"?

Get the **** out.

Those saying they are playing the game maxed at 1440p and 60fps are full of shit.

That is all.

I don't think anyone is denying that the reveal trailer was graphically better than any version but Ultra on PC is not travesty levels away from what was shown. There is a far bigger difference between the consoles and PC than PC and the reveal trailer.

The problem isn't graphics, it's that this is essentially another Destiny without the sci fi theme. Just another bro-op online multiplayer game alleging to be an RPG when in reality it is just a loot-based grindfest online-only multiplayer game.

The game looks absolutely fantastic during sunrise.

It should also be noted that the open beta actually looks better than the closed beta, so there is a chance that the release version will have some final tweaks in place.

Not really, I get about 35 - 40 FPS and my Crossfire isn't even functioning, there's no in game support for it yet, I'll no doubt be over 60 when the support is added.

Yes.

Yeah it looks amazing , ppl like to blow stuff outta proportion.

i didn't believe that E3 footage , atleast on consoles it was obvious that they can't implement it.

What does it exactly? i mean i didn't notice that much of a difference.

So it looks good. Good to know.

Bc I feel ppl will get pissy if I don't say it....yes, the PC version look better.

@nyadc: Check the NeoGaf forum or YouTube if you don't believe me. Maybe I will post some pics too. I'm getting mid 40s-50s with shadow quality and AA turned down at 1440p with a 5960X at 4.2 and 2 Titan Blacks. (I know SLI isn't working right). Over at Gaf people with a 980Ti and X99 CPUs are hitting very similar frames as me. Using the games recommended settings I get almost the same performance. There is no fairytale hardware out there hitting a steady 60 at 1440p maxed. It doesn't exist and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. There is no evidence anywhere that supports that.

@mr_huggles_dog: They should know better. Don't believe the lies. E3 demos have been bullshit for years. They are always super polished experiences with extra attention to detail and everything is staged and controlled. They are usually running on PC too. Expecting that level of fidelity from an open world game on console is silly. If a game does have good graphics on console, it usually runs at 30fps or lower, which is sad. The consoles are shit. They launched with outdated hardware and the gap between consoles and PCs is only growing.

Publishers need to stop lying and show things in their current states. If it is not in a good state running on a specific platform, then don't show it for that platform. Do like Bethesda does and show the game when it is close to completion. In the meantime, console peasants should keep their expectations in check and not get their hopes up whenever they see a flashy E3 demo.

Yeah, give me about 30 minutes, I'm going to destroy you.

@mjorh: So it's console gamers fault for Ubisoft lying and console gamers fault for just having hope?

i don't even see any console gamers bitching. Bassman is acting like a child.

Well my night just got more interesting.



Edit:

From the 1st Beta. Everything ACTUALLY maxed at 1440p dips into the 30's while spending most of his time in the 40s

@BassMan: So publisher lies....insult gamers.

Way to keep that angst aimed at the right place.

Would turn on your fellow peaceful protesters and start throwing rocks at them at the sight of cops in riot gear, too?

No, obviously it's Ubisoft's fault and i don't support this move. Wanted to point out that one shouldn't believe E3 footage and i guess @BassMan was trying to do the same ...but in SW way :))))))))))))