looks awful and nothing like e3 2012. gta 5 as a straight port at 1080p would look better.
Hell no it wouldn't. If it was a straight port it would have horrible textures, flat painted on grass, inferior poly count, inferior shaders, no screen space reflections, no tessellation for water or anything, inferior car models, inferior character models, and would basically look worse in every way except for art direction.
Yeh, I agree, the game looks awful. For a 2014 game, It looks no better than, let´sat, Sleeping Dog. I am also missing small details such as blood from shootings, the cars have no scratches on them after crashing. Not cool. GTAV had more attention to such details. Disapointed. Deeply disapointed.
@m3dude1 said:
looks awful and nothing like e3 2012. gta 5 as a straight port at 1080p would look better.
Hell no it wouldn't. If it was a straight port it would have horrible textures, flat painted on grass, inferior poly count, inferior shaders, no screen space reflections, no tessellation for water or anything, inferior car models, inferior character models, and would basically look worse in every way except for art direction.
Watchdogs on pc looks pretty good. It is also a good example of why console gamers don't invest in a high end pc. The game is catered towards consoles--everything from the design to the polygon models.
...water looks great, imo. Best I've seen in a game since wave race.
...somehow I think that posting Infamous:SS photo shots will be a forum joke down the line and will still be posted 10 years from now.
infamous SecondSon really killed the slow ass pci-e systems graphically, WD ultra settings LMAO what a joke so ugly!
wtf are you talking about?
He just doesn't understand.
It's what happens when you game exclusively on consoles, rots the brain i tell ya!.
In seriousness though, the game looks great, but it's Ubisoft so it's no surprise there was a downgrade, and as for Iglz1337 and co, the game on the PC still looks much better than the PS4/Xbone versions at double the framerate and higher resolutions.
LOL I knew it. All that "E3 2012 built was PC built" talk from hermits was bullshit. We were all played out. It was a pre-rendered video from the start. And I bet The Division will be the next one to be downgraded. I wont ever trust Ubisoft so called "gameplay" videos ever again
There's something off about the look of this game. Really flat.
The daytime lighting is incredibly bland and washed out. It went for realism more so than anything else and realism is boring to look at. Hence why lots of games adopt movie style looks with lens flares and different effects
Even though photomode is 100% representative of the graphics in Infamous SS bar some different camera angles and DOF, let me post some default shots then, because they till utterly shit on Watch Dogs.
Even though photomode is 100% representative of the graphics in Infamous SS bar some different camera angles and DOF, let me post some default shots then, because they till utterly shit on Watch Dogs.
Oh about that draw distance you say.
Infamous is a VERY good looking game but it's helped further by a great art style. Everything is very colourful and pops out at you and makes the scene very vibrant. Watch Dogs went for realism and it's more boring to look at
Even though photomode is 100% representative of the graphics in Infamous SS bar some different camera angles and DOF, let me post some default shots then, because they till utterly shit on Watch Dogs.
Damn the game doesn't look impressive compared to what we saw way earlier. I think its trying to give off a realistic look but it falls flat in comparison to games like Arma 3 that go for that kind of style.
i think what a lot of stupid consolites don't realize is that, You guys are playing Watchdogs at high settings 900p 30 frames per second. Im playing it at 1080p Ultra settings with a fluctuation of 44-70 frames per second( depends how busy the city is when driving)
If you do the math in this example im about to make, simply going from 900p 30 frames to 900p 60 frames is going to require a 100% increase in power . Thats 2 playstation 4 equivalents . You up the resolution and the graphic settings and still getting 60 fps.. thats means you are way over 2x playstation 4's in performance..
The fact of the matter is, Watchdogs is still a good looking game .. To me it seems its CPU bound and not GPU bound.. Lots of people can play this on ultra with mid range cards as long as their cpu is up to snuff. If its not up to snuff then it dont matter how strong your gpu is. I'd really like to see the difference mantel or dx 12 would have made.. Probably would have been huge.
So you're saying that by having a core i7 for instance and a mid-range card u can play it on Ultra but with a Core I3 for instance and a high-end graphics card u can't play on Ultra?
I agree that graphics are awesome for an open-world game tho.
Damn the game doesn't look impressive compared to what we saw way earlier. I think its trying to give off a realistic look but it falls flat in comparison to games like Arma 3 that go for that kind of style.
Arma III is the most photo-realistic game out right now.
im not going to go back and dig up all the comments about how watch dogs on pc is going to destroy infamous. you know exactly what im talking about
Dude seriously you're comparing an exclusive next-gen title with a cross-gen title which have been in development for like 6 years!!! how the hell does that make senses !
i think what a lot of stupid consolites don't realize is that, You guys are playing Watchdogs at high settings 900p 30 frames per second. Im playing it at 1080p Ultra settings with a fluctuation of 44-70 frames per second( depends how busy the city is when driving)
If you do the math in this example im about to make, simply going from 900p 30 frames to 900p 60 frames is going to require a 100% increase in power . Thats 2 playstation 4 equivalents . You up the resolution and the graphic settings and still getting 60 fps.. thats means you are way over 2x playstation 4's in performance..
The fact of the matter is, Watchdogs is still a good looking game .. To me it seems its CPU bound and not GPU bound.. Lots of people can play this on ultra with mid range cards as long as their cpu is up to snuff. If its not up to snuff then it dont matter how strong your gpu is. I'd really like to see the difference mantel or dx 12 would have made.. Probably would have been huge.
So you're saying that by having a core i7 for instance and a mid-range card u can play it on Ultra but with a Core I3 for instance and a high-end graphics card u can't play on Ultra?
I agree that graphics are awesome for an open-world game tho.
A graphics card can only work as fast as the CPU feeding it information. If the CPU can't keep up then the a powerful GPU is moot.
i think what a lot of stupid consolites don't realize is that, You guys are playing Watchdogs at high settings 900p 30 frames per second. Im playing it at 1080p Ultra settings with a fluctuation of 44-70 frames per second( depends how busy the city is when driving)
If you do the math in this example im about to make, simply going from 900p 30 frames to 900p 60 frames is going to require a 100% increase in power . Thats 2 playstation 4 equivalents . You up the resolution and the graphic settings and still getting 60 fps.. thats means you are way over 2x playstation 4's in performance..
The fact of the matter is, Watchdogs is still a good looking game .. To me it seems its CPU bound and not GPU bound.. Lots of people can play this on ultra with mid range cards as long as their cpu is up to snuff. If its not up to snuff then it dont matter how strong your gpu is. I'd really like to see the difference mantel or dx 12 would have made.. Probably would have been huge.
So you're saying that by having a core i7 for instance and a mid-range card u can play it on Ultra but with a Core I3 for instance and a high-end graphics card u can't play on Ultra?
I agree that graphics are awesome for an open-world game tho.
A graphics card can only work as fast as the CPU feeding it information. If the CPU can't keep up then the a powerful GPU is moot.
The thing is i don't think Core I7 would make a huge difference in comparison to Core I5 u know it's not like that the game is using all the power of a Core I7 4770K ...
im not going to go back and dig up all the comments about how watch dogs on pc is going to destroy infamous. you know exactly what im talking about
Dude seriously you're comparing an exclusive next-gen title with a cross-gen title which have been in development for like 6 years!!! how the hell does that make senses !
why are you directing that statement at me? it was lostrib and co who were saying "just wait for watch dogs" everytime infamous was brought up
Damn the game doesn't look impressive compared to what we saw way earlier. I think its trying to give off a realistic look but it falls flat in comparison to games like Arma 3 that go for that kind of style.
Arma III is the most photo-realistic game out right now.
i think what a lot of stupid consolites don't realize is that, You guys are playing Watchdogs at high settings 900p 30 frames per second. Im playing it at 1080p Ultra settings with a fluctuation of 44-70 frames per second( depends how busy the city is when driving)
If you do the math in this example im about to make, simply going from 900p 30 frames to 900p 60 frames is going to require a 100% increase in power . Thats 2 playstation 4 equivalents . You up the resolution and the graphic settings and still getting 60 fps.. thats means you are way over 2x playstation 4's in performance..
The fact of the matter is, Watchdogs is still a good looking game .. To me it seems its CPU bound and not GPU bound.. Lots of people can play this on ultra with mid range cards as long as their cpu is up to snuff. If its not up to snuff then it dont matter how strong your gpu is. I'd really like to see the difference mantel or dx 12 would have made.. Probably would have been huge.
So you're saying that by having a core i7 for instance and a mid-range card u can play it on Ultra but with a Core I3 for instance and a high-end graphics card u can't play on Ultra?
I agree that graphics are awesome for an open-world game tho.
A graphics card can only work as fast as the CPU feeding it information. If the CPU can't keep up then the a powerful GPU is moot.
The thing is i don't think Core I7 would make a huge difference in comparison to Core I5 u know it's not like that the game is using all the power of a Core I7 4770K ...
If you turn off the hyperthreading then it becomes an i5. I can't say for sure as I don't have a copy of Watchdogs to test but if it doesn't make use of those extra virtual cores then you will be find with an i5.
@TheFadeForever: Yes Arma 3 looks incredible with its' vastness, it also pulls of an extreme draw distance together with very good lod distance, something that's very rare this days, especially on consoles. With it's great graphics, massive scale and unmatched draw distance and lod distance, its easily one of the most technically impressive games around. Maybe because it's a pc exclusive, so no consideration to weaker hardware had to be taken during development.
@mjorh: I don't believe for gaming there is an FPS difference worth spending the extra money on. If you are looking to do more than your PC other than just playing games then an i7 is worth it. If you are looking for a pure gaming machine then an i5 is more than enough.
@mjorh: I don't believe for gaming there is an FPS difference worth spending the extra money on. If you are looking to do more than your PC other than just playing games then an i7 is worth it. If you are looking for a pure gaming machine then an i5 is more than enough.
Can't agree more, i have an i3 currently and it has worked very well so far ...
@TheFadeForever: Yes Arma 3 looks incredible with its' vastness, it also pulls of an extreme draw distance together with very good lod distance, something that's very rare this days, especially on consoles. With it's great graphics, massive scale and unmatched draw distance and lod distance, its easily one of the most technically impressive games around. Maybe because it's a pc exclusive, so no consideration to weaker hardware had to be taken during development.
Arma III is a good example of why these last gen ports on PC matters. Yes no consideration for consoles allowed them to go all out with stuff. But it is said that GPGPU on PS4 could create some great possibilities for exclusive titles in the future. It's all good in gaming right now.
I have no doubt things will improve a lot in the future. And I'm looking forward see to what Naughty Dog is cooking. They made great work with both the ps3 and ps2, I remember being wowed by Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy about twelve years ago. That game was really fun to play, had great graphics and enormous environments for it's time. I would love a new ND 3d platform game but I know that it's highly unlikely to happen.
Log in to comment