The visuals shown in that trailer is why i was biting my tongue a bit, having several friends on the project and seeing it every couple days. The cry baby insta reaction on some of the comparison vids shown a month or so ago is rediculous. The game looks great, im super happy for the watchdogs team. Almost out, looking forward to playing it after only seeing snippets for the last 2 years!
Games like this make me want to cry. So awesome looking, current PC won't likely be able to max out, but can't justify upgrading at the moment. :poly127:
Honestly not really personally interested in it but it looks fantastic and i hope it will do well just because of it beeing an all new franchise and UBI taking several risks with this one.
In case anybody here plans to pre-order the game on PC, GreenManGaming gave out a 25% off coupon so you can get the game for $45 instead of $60. Keep in mind, it's for a Uplay copy of the game, so it won't work on Steam (which will also require Uplay.)
I haven't made any Uplay purchases before but according to a google search there isn't pre-loading on Uplay, so I'd imagine it would show up on the 27th.
Uplay is evolving pretty fast and now looks great and works like a charm. In my library i have all the steam copies and the uplay ones updated.
I'm no longer buying ubisoft games in Steam (btw, steam has the higher prices compared to other online retailers such as GMG). There's no point of having 2 fucking online drm systems. With Uplay i have enough, and the same with EA games with Origin.
Years ago, watchdogs looked superb, they have done a huge nerf to the game. I will surely pick the game on a cheap sale because i don't like the actual nerfed graphics. Again, PC gaming is fucked up by consoles and i hate that. So i'm not going to support the devs this time on the very first day of launch ( i cancelled my pre-order of the collector's edition at Amazon, that one with the figure).
I hope not to see this with The Division and other "next gen" games. It's pretty sad.
Not sure why anyone would preorder a game that comes out in a week, that hasn't had any reviews released. I hate release day embargo for reviews.
Release day embargo is almost always tied with the fact that the publisher has little confidence in the title from internal tests and realize the review scores will be low and could hurt sales. So they hold the review till the day of release so people don't cancel preorders.
Which I'm honestly not surprised with Watch Dogs, the game has been over hyped for SO long and I feel it will be like Assassins Creed 1. Beautiful/huge world to run around in with some interesting new mechanics but largely the same small handful of boring design missions you do over and over again.
I of course would love to be wrong. I hope I am and the game is awesome
Personally I don't really care about reviews, a lot of the time reviewers end up giving low scores to games I ended up really enjoying, and they gave high scores to games that I didn't really enjoy (Far Cry 3, for example.) The only way to really get a good opinion of what a game is like is to play it. I'd imagine you could easily rent a copy, borrow one from a friend, or even check out leaked gameplay that will no doubt be up some time this week.
Review embargoes are pretty common on big name titles. GTA5 had a review embargo that was lifted the day before it came out and I remember when I got my review copy for The Witcher 2 (they gave out 1000 copies of the game to fans of the franchise with the capability of recording gameplay) you weren't allowed to post your review until release date. I can't think of any real reason an embargo would be in place until release date but if a publisher is dropping millions of dollars on a project, I'd imagine they are quite confident about it.
I can see why one would be cautious about pre-ordering or even purchasing Watch Dogs, but I have faith in the developers. The game may look "downgraded" from the original demo but there are a ton of legitimate reasons for this to happen. I think the game still looks beautiful and the story seems interesting too.
I don't really follow the hype of most games as it will only lead to disappointment but it looks like a lot of fun for $45. Besides, there aren't any games that are out right now that seem interesting or fun to me until The Evil Within in August.
Well the game has now been leaked out on PC/360/PS3 and I'm sure some stores have handed out early copies of the PS4/XB1 version as well. There's plenty of new gameplay on youtube.
Graphically, the game doesn't look as impressive as the original demo (which isn't a big deal in my opinion) but it still looks great! I've been trying to avoid watching most of the videos as I don't want to spoil anything but the game looks interesting. A lot of people are bashing the last-gen console versions though, the controls are supposedly terrible and people keep mentioning that the graphics look bad.
Because of the review embargo, I'm not going to get it until a bit after it's released, because it always makes me feel that the publisher is trying to hide something, and I don't want to get screwed over again, like with X-Rebirth.
Not in a rush to get it on release day, it would actually be better to get it later, both because the price might go down (steam sales, yay), but also so any issues that might be, can be addressed and patched.
I got Wolfenstein in the mean while, so got something to play inbetween.
I agree with the fact that it doesn't look as good as with the initial E3 reveal - although it still does look great.
I'm hoping the gameplay will be clever, everyone knows you don't need high end graphics for great game design, as everyone sees with independent titles. The gameplay has got to be the winning point, the Order looks amazing, GTA5 / Skyrim are the benchmark for me when it comes down to sandbox + graphics.
game doesnt even look slightly next gen except for wet roads. Lots of maxed out PC videos coming out.
Looks terrible compared to what they showed at e3. I wish they'd stop marketing with fake graphics. It might still be fun but I'm having second thoughts. I'm seeing posts from people playing the leaks and some are claiming it was a neat idea but poorly executed/goes stale fast. The review embargo doesn't help this either, shady. I feel sorry for people who still like to pre order
But it's typical ubisoft, they did the same with FC3
Well, it's not really fake, since it is the game, it's 'just' a unoptimized one (meaning full textures/models) running on 2xSLi PC. :P
I think it's going to be unoptimized either way though, it's ubisoft
Still they should just leave it for PC, I'd rather get exactly what I saw and wanted and have to turn the settings down to play it rather than getting something different.
C'mon guys... You're game developers, you know how those things work. Features get cut, things get shifted around with no time to adjust, or last minute nasty bugs forces you to get rid of the nicest art you've done. Were you really dissatisfied with Far Cry 3? Honestly?
There's a million plausible and understandable reasons why those things happen. This kind of speculation and doesn't add anything to the discussion nor it makes anyone's life better...
Just my 2 cents though
I still cannot understand how's its legal to post fake videos and market them
Because until the disc build is finalised all the videos would be 'fake'?
I don't think there are a bunch of people at Ubi saying, "Let's make this demo really shine and then take all that out!" Because that would be crazy. But honestly, if a graphics 'downgrade' changes a game from a must buy to a "I'll wait until it's cheap" then your issue with the game probably isn't just the visuals...
I look forward to the reviews! Some of the mission stuff looks cool. Some of the other stuff not so much. I dunno.
Honestly what probably happened was they built the game for next gen systems and high end PCs. Then at some point during development the higher ups wanted it on PS3 and 360 as well to get a large user base. It was easier for them to scale a bunch of stuff back for all versions than it was to have two completely different builds at the same time. The biggest difference between the reveal demo and what the current game looks like is the shaders and lighting. It honestly looks like they were using PBR in the original demo and now they are not because they couldn't figure out a way to scale it to the PS3/360. It is a shame, but that is the nature of the beast I suppose.
Still looking forward to playing the game, people can complain about graphics as much as they want but at the end of the day, I know I'll be happy with my purchase.
A lot of big youtubers have started posting gameplay as well and many are saying that the game feels amazing. I'd have to agree with Wesley on this, if graphics are the only thing causing you to cancel a purchase, then chances are it wasn't the right game for you in the first place, and that's perfectly fine.
C'mon guys... You're game developers, you know how those things work. Features get cut, things get shifted around with no time to adjust, or last minute nasty bugs forces you to get rid of the nicest art you've done. Were you really dissatisfied with Far Cry 3? Honestly?
There's a million plausible and understandable reasons why those things happen. This kind of speculation and doesn't add anything to the discussion nor it makes anyone's life better...
Just my 2 cents though
I still cannot understand how's its legal to post fake videos and market them
That would make every single commercial that hsa ever been made, an illegal case.
Obviously you want to make people buy, or at least make them aware, of what you want to sell. Same for toothpaste, clothes, food, video games.
You dont say that it should be illegal to sell burgers that dont look exactly like the picture on the menu, do you?
C'mon guys... You're game developers, you know how those things work.
It's best not to think about it, when you start looking how far the overlap between developers and rabid gamers you start questioning why you work with these people.
It's best not to think about it, when you start looking how far the overlap between developers and rabid gamers you start questioning why you work with these people.
C'mon guys... You're game developers, you know how those things work. Features get cut, things get shifted around with no time to adjust, or last minute nasty bugs forces you to get rid of the nicest art you've done. Were you really dissatisfied with Far Cry 3? Honestly?
There's a million plausible and understandable reasons why those things happen. This kind of speculation and doesn't add anything to the discussion nor it makes anyone's life better...
Just my 2 cents though
The issue is that they're doing it on purpose. It seems to be a part of their marketing to show show 'better' gameplay clips than the final product. This bugs me as PC is capable of handling that quality but they keep backpedaling before release.
I don't think that's what's happening really... It looks more like, some marketing guy asking the studio to show what they have way too early (as revealed by some online articles/interviews about the E3 reveal) at a stage where a lot of cool tech is being tested out but the whole game is not budgeted yet (think - awesome shader tech, advanced animation systems, and so on ; but no memory allocated to open world simulation yet).
And then these marketing guys claim that "this is how it's going to look on next-gen consoles! Wooo Graphics !! Time to place your pre-order !!", thus putting the studio in a tight spot because the devs are well aware that compromises will have to be made ... for a hardware that they probably don't even have access to at that time.
I think Pior has hit the nail on the head. There has to be an awareness at some level that early footage, like Watch Dogs' E3 showing, is more of a visual target render than what the game will actually look like once all the of the game's systems have been implemented.
Showing idealized footage early is a great way of building hype so long as you can deliver on your promises, but you risk destroying consumers' faith in your products if there is a clear discrepancy when the game actually releases. It will be interesting to see how these graphical changes are received and also what kind of effect that has on Watch Dogs' commercial success.
Comparison with GTA details. Some of this doesn't really take away from the experience of playing the game. But it definitely enhances it, and this is GTA4 they are comparing it to. GTA5 is way more crazy with all the details.
There are a few things about this whole WD issue that seem to be quite obvious - at least to me...
Ubisoft did not expect this reaction to the first demo. The lack of info about a lot of things - story, main character, even the actual scope and goals of the game, and possibly even the setting itself - have boosted expectations way above anything they counted on. I imagine this must have resulted in some significant changes, like budget and staff or attention from the upper management.
The game was in a very, very early stage, so the lack of info probably was because those things weren't flashed out enough, maybe in some cases not at all, at the time of the demo. But everything there was not pre-rendered, it was a demo, and they most likely had nothing else at all in place at the time. So they had some rough estimations of what the requirements will end up to be, what trade-offs they'll necessitate, and in many cases they've probably ended up with meeting some serious limitations.
Many of these limitations had to do with the game being cross-gen; if it was PS4/X1 only, I imagine a lot more of the original concept would have remained. But the required changes to the core architecture must have become restricting for the nextgen versions in the end.
Also, the most important lesson is that the game was revealed far too early. Almost every other game I can recall has only seen 1 major E3 on-stage demo, and many are also released within a year (like any COD, or the current AC - and I don't expect to see anything from Halo 5 either). Most other publishers seem to take more care about not to build up expectations that they're not sure to be able to deliver upon.
Why Ubi decided to present such an early version may never be known, but again, they probably never dreamed to become the most interesting E3 2012 reveal.
Also, internet forum people can really be pretty big trolls.
Why Ubi decided to present such an early version may never be known, but again, they probably never dreamed to become the most interesting E3 2012 reveal.
Launching a new AAA franchise is hugely expensive. They probably felt that they had to create buzz early on and build on it if they were to deliver a new IP that would sell enough copies to be sufficiently successful to warrant sequels. Ubisoft have hundreds of people working on their games these days. Ubisoft themselves have said that they hope Watch Dogs sells at least 6 million units which is tough for a new IP to achieve.
I just saw somebody call the game a piece of shit because there isn't a particle system spawned when you shoot at the water.
Thogh the reaction is exagerated, what's so hard about making water sprites? For an open world game set in environnement surrounded by water..that's kind of....
Replies
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgvVPVMhRGQ[/ame]
That invasion mini game looks like something we prototyped and eventually want to develop
I think that a lot of gamers would ... But this is not happening anyways, as these were claims pulled out of thin air :
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/05/12/watch-dogs-on-ps4-confirmed-to-run-at-1080p-60fps
1080 at 60 fps for a game like that on a console would have been quite a landmark. Looks like it's not going to happen any time soon !
These mini games look awesome, it's great to see that the game is not taking itself too seriously.
http://www.joystiq.com/2014/05/13/ubisoft-reveals-900p-resolution-for-watch-dogs-on-ps4-no-for/
not that i'm bothered. I'll be soaking up the PC version
Here's an extra coupon code: 108OD4-QSAI1K-1UVM0D
Here's a link to GMG.
I just purchased a copy, can't wait to play!
I'm no longer buying ubisoft games in Steam (btw, steam has the higher prices compared to other online retailers such as GMG). There's no point of having 2 fucking online drm systems. With Uplay i have enough, and the same with EA games with Origin.
Years ago, watchdogs looked superb, they have done a huge nerf to the game. I will surely pick the game on a cheap sale because i don't like the actual nerfed graphics. Again, PC gaming is fucked up by consoles and i hate that. So i'm not going to support the devs this time on the very first day of launch ( i cancelled my pre-order of the collector's edition at Amazon, that one with the figure).
I hope not to see this with The Division and other "next gen" games. It's pretty sad.
next gen...? meh, the paleolitic.
Release day embargo is almost always tied with the fact that the publisher has little confidence in the title from internal tests and realize the review scores will be low and could hurt sales. So they hold the review till the day of release so people don't cancel preorders.
Which I'm honestly not surprised with Watch Dogs, the game has been over hyped for SO long and I feel it will be like Assassins Creed 1. Beautiful/huge world to run around in with some interesting new mechanics but largely the same small handful of boring design missions you do over and over again.
I of course would love to be wrong. I hope I am and the game is awesome
Review embargoes are pretty common on big name titles. GTA5 had a review embargo that was lifted the day before it came out and I remember when I got my review copy for The Witcher 2 (they gave out 1000 copies of the game to fans of the franchise with the capability of recording gameplay) you weren't allowed to post your review until release date. I can't think of any real reason an embargo would be in place until release date but if a publisher is dropping millions of dollars on a project, I'd imagine they are quite confident about it.
I can see why one would be cautious about pre-ordering or even purchasing Watch Dogs, but I have faith in the developers. The game may look "downgraded" from the original demo but there are a ton of legitimate reasons for this to happen. I think the game still looks beautiful and the story seems interesting too.
I don't really follow the hype of most games as it will only lead to disappointment but it looks like a lot of fun for $45. Besides, there aren't any games that are out right now that seem interesting or fun to me until The Evil Within in August.
How am I supposed to have faith in a product if the publisher doesn't have faith in it enough to pass muster at review?
Graphically, the game doesn't look as impressive as the original demo (which isn't a big deal in my opinion) but it still looks great! I've been trying to avoid watching most of the videos as I don't want to spoil anything but the game looks interesting. A lot of people are bashing the last-gen console versions though, the controls are supposedly terrible and people keep mentioning that the graphics look bad.
I'll keep my pre-order, only three more days!
Not in a rush to get it on release day, it would actually be better to get it later, both because the price might go down (steam sales, yay), but also so any issues that might be, can be addressed and patched.
I got Wolfenstein in the mean while, so got something to play inbetween.
The game looks fun though, and it's still a decent looking game.
I'm hoping the gameplay will be clever, everyone knows you don't need high end graphics for great game design, as everyone sees with independent titles. The gameplay has got to be the winning point, the Order looks amazing, GTA5 / Skyrim are the benchmark for me when it comes down to sandbox + graphics.
Here's hoping it will be good.
Looks terrible compared to what they showed at e3. I wish they'd stop marketing with fake graphics. It might still be fun but I'm having second thoughts. I'm seeing posts from people playing the leaks and some are claiming it was a neat idea but poorly executed/goes stale fast. The review embargo doesn't help this either, shady. I feel sorry for people who still like to pre order
But it's typical ubisoft, they did the same with FC3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqnAbRpyqfI
It's safe to assume they'll do it for the Division too. Whatever.
oh freakin' hell I hope not.
Still they should just leave it for PC, I'd rather get exactly what I saw and wanted and have to turn the settings down to play it rather than getting something different.
There's a million plausible and understandable reasons why those things happen. This kind of speculation and doesn't add anything to the discussion nor it makes anyone's life better...
Just my 2 cents though
Because until the disc build is finalised all the videos would be 'fake'?
I don't think there are a bunch of people at Ubi saying, "Let's make this demo really shine and then take all that out!" Because that would be crazy. But honestly, if a graphics 'downgrade' changes a game from a must buy to a "I'll wait until it's cheap" then your issue with the game probably isn't just the visuals...
I look forward to the reviews! Some of the mission stuff looks cool. Some of the other stuff not so much. I dunno.
We have to echo-repeat-shout-retweet this sentence until all of gaming-journalism is re-defined, re-shaped...
Am I too naive?
A lot of big youtubers have started posting gameplay as well and many are saying that the game feels amazing. I'd have to agree with Wesley on this, if graphics are the only thing causing you to cancel a purchase, then chances are it wasn't the right game for you in the first place, and that's perfectly fine.
this.
That would make every single commercial that hsa ever been made, an illegal case.
Obviously you want to make people buy, or at least make them aware, of what you want to sell. Same for toothpaste, clothes, food, video games.
You dont say that it should be illegal to sell burgers that dont look exactly like the picture on the menu, do you?
It's best not to think about it, when you start looking how far the overlap between developers and rabid gamers you start questioning why you work with these people.
How do you mean, exactly?
The issue is that they're doing it on purpose. It seems to be a part of their marketing to show show 'better' gameplay clips than the final product. This bugs me as PC is capable of handling that quality but they keep backpedaling before release.
And then these marketing guys claim that "this is how it's going to look on next-gen consoles! Wooo Graphics !! Time to place your pre-order !!", thus putting the studio in a tight spot because the devs are well aware that compromises will have to be made ... for a hardware that they probably don't even have access to at that time.
Showing idealized footage early is a great way of building hype so long as you can deliver on your promises, but you risk destroying consumers' faith in your products if there is a clear discrepancy when the game actually releases. It will be interesting to see how these graphical changes are received and also what kind of effect that has on Watch Dogs' commercial success.
Comparison with GTA details. Some of this doesn't really take away from the experience of playing the game. But it definitely enhances it, and this is GTA4 they are comparing it to. GTA5 is way more crazy with all the details.
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/watch-dogs-graphics-performance-and-tweaking-guide#config-file-tweaking-and-advanced-options
Also, NVidia PC guide. All kind of cool stuff for PC build.
There are a few things about this whole WD issue that seem to be quite obvious - at least to me...
Ubisoft did not expect this reaction to the first demo. The lack of info about a lot of things - story, main character, even the actual scope and goals of the game, and possibly even the setting itself - have boosted expectations way above anything they counted on. I imagine this must have resulted in some significant changes, like budget and staff or attention from the upper management.
The game was in a very, very early stage, so the lack of info probably was because those things weren't flashed out enough, maybe in some cases not at all, at the time of the demo. But everything there was not pre-rendered, it was a demo, and they most likely had nothing else at all in place at the time. So they had some rough estimations of what the requirements will end up to be, what trade-offs they'll necessitate, and in many cases they've probably ended up with meeting some serious limitations.
Many of these limitations had to do with the game being cross-gen; if it was PS4/X1 only, I imagine a lot more of the original concept would have remained. But the required changes to the core architecture must have become restricting for the nextgen versions in the end.
Also, the most important lesson is that the game was revealed far too early. Almost every other game I can recall has only seen 1 major E3 on-stage demo, and many are also released within a year (like any COD, or the current AC - and I don't expect to see anything from Halo 5 either). Most other publishers seem to take more care about not to build up expectations that they're not sure to be able to deliver upon.
Why Ubi decided to present such an early version may never be known, but again, they probably never dreamed to become the most interesting E3 2012 reveal.
Also, internet forum people can really be pretty big trolls.
Launching a new AAA franchise is hugely expensive. They probably felt that they had to create buzz early on and build on it if they were to deliver a new IP that would sell enough copies to be sufficiently successful to warrant sequels. Ubisoft have hundreds of people working on their games these days. Ubisoft themselves have said that they hope Watch Dogs sells at least 6 million units which is tough for a new IP to achieve.
Thogh the reaction is exagerated, what's so hard about making water sprites? For an open world game set in environnement surrounded by water..that's kind of....
But the game is not ugly, that's for certain. It just did not live up to expectations.