I'm curious as to how the development team handled the citizens in this game. It seems like every character is a unique model, but there are supposedly thousands of different citizens. I'd imagine they weren't all modeled by hand, because that would probably be hell. I'm not sure how mass character production is handled in any kind of open world game like this but it is an interesting topic in my opinion.
I'm curious as to how the development team handled the citizens in this game. It seems like every character is a unique model, but there are supposedly thousands of different citizens. I'd imagine they weren't all modeled by hand, because that would probably be hell. I'm not sure how mass character production is handled in any kind of open world game like this but it is an interesting topic in my opinion.
I remember watching a series of 5-6 videos on the old Autodesk AREA site, can't seem to find them anymore. But in the video one of the developers showed how they did the faces for the crowds in one of the Assassin's Creed games (can't remember which one, but probably Brotherhood or the second one) but they basically had 1 fat face and 1 skinny face, then morphed between to get different looks quickly.
and since all the heads were based on the same topologyI could morph it to create a different character head, and still get a perfectly unwrapped skinned result that would look just as good as if it was done by hand, commented Levesque.http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?id=10316291&siteID=123112
I would argue that if it weren't for a signed piece of paper, Ryse could very very easily, and quickly become cross platform and look great on all of them.
If the game is using even a smidge of current technologies in rendering: Nope.
Except that the source for that is a single 4chan post that even people on 4chan are claiming is false. The link you posted also debunks it.
I mean, there's a good opportunity for meta-humor in this particular game being distributed with a virus, but it just isn't happening (at least not on any significant scale).
I'm actually confused at how the game is getting bashed for its gameplay. I finally got it running in offline mode (Uplay is still down) but I really love everything about the game. I was expecting it to look like Doom at the lowest settings but even with everything set to the lowest (only way I can maintain 60 FPS) the game is beautiful at times.
The shooting mechanics are excellent, every gun I have used so far feels unique. The weapon sounds are also very nice, and once you unlock the Focus ability combat starts to feel even more rewarding since you can do bullet time headshots like you would see in a game such as Max Payne.
I was expecting the driving to be awful based on everything I read, but that also seems pretty nicely done. It might not be the most realistic driving simulator out there, but it works well. It feels like an improved implementation of the driving that was available in Sleeping Dogs, it's easy to learn and doesn't screw you over in any way. The map system is also great, I have really bad eye sight and so driving was always a pain in the ass in GTA 4 because you always had to keep an eye on the map to make sure you knew where you were going. The fact that my necessary path is now drawn on the ground in front of me is an incredible feature every open world game should have from now on (I'd imagine this was in other open world games, but I don't play too many games of this genre.)
I'm not too far into the story yet since I keep getting distracted by all the side missions, but I think this game is incredible. It is definitely a high quality game I think everybody should check out, although keep in mind, the PC version does need an incredibly powerful machine.
On a side note, I love stopping crimes that occur around you. Something about getting out of your car, filling a criminal with a magazine of bullets, and driving away just feels so rewarding.
If the game is using even a smidge of current technologies in rendering: Nope.
sorry i should have clarified here, cross platform meaning PS4 + pc + xbone.
of course cutbacks would be needed for the 360/ps3 tech, but that's the thing... you cut back to those hardwares, you don't cut back for the hardware that can handle it and really should be your selling point.
I think a lot of people pirated it and wrote the reviews on release date.
Anyways, if they pirated the game, their opinion is still valid for me. The majority of pirates spent their money in top class hardware, gaming rigs with dual or triple slis.
BTW, the steam forum is full of complaints with huge drops of fps with ultra expensive computers, wtf?. They didn't do a good job, nor with several months of delay, and that's all, but if you still want to see the contrary, you may be blind. Just watch the E3 2012 vs. PC Ultra video several times .
what i know is that they could have "cooked" a good version for the PC platform. Man, you don't need a whole team of 200 people to do a decent port. the perfomance on ps4 and Xbone is PATHETIC, so i blame this new next gen consoles and the devs (mostly the programmers).
Ubisoft lied to us, end of disscusion. They sold us something great... but the final product is... horrible. And sorry, but i'm sick of these strategies to capt pre-orders and sales. The game, with the actual look, should have appeared on the market on 2009 or before, not right now.
It's very irritating to see the past E3 footage/screens and the actual product.
i hope they learn from this huge mistake. If they sell well will be due to the excesive amount of tv spots appearing constantly on TV (at least on my country), and due to all those "paid reviews".
oh man, my brain hurts. Reviews have been good so far and sequels typically get a bigger budget, maybe Watch Dogs 2 will make up for the grave injustice some of you have experienced on this day.
How many pages is this graphics argument going to go on for? Everybody seems to be focusing on the negative points of that video, but what about the positive changes? The scene at the club looks dead in the E3 demo, people are literally just standing there doing nothing, whereas the final version makes the scene much more believable through animation. The demo on the left shows a lot of poor UI choices with the hacking and it shows how much they streamlined the gameplay mechanic.
The only real thing I miss from the E3 demo is the fact that when the shooting starts to happen, you see a lot of the citizens react in much more realistic ways, but I'd imagine something like that would be very complicated to program due to how dynamic the civilians have to be.
I played the game for 10 hours straight today and just now finished the first Act, I have absolutely no complaints about this game at this point. It's fun, the story is great, the voice acting is excellent, the graphics, while "downgraded" are still amazing and don't get in the way of the gameplay, the gameplay mechanics are all very fluid and well made, I can go on and on about how amazing this game is.
I'm sure there are some pirates who do value their games, people who pirate games do it for many reasons. Some people download games to test their PCs before purchasing the game if no demo is available, some crazy people do it to "seek revenge" against a developer/publisher, some people do it because they have no money. If somebody has a high end PC and can run Watch Dogs at max settings and they pirate the game, then their opinion SHOULD hold no weight because they obviously don't see the value in games.
Also, there's no reason to take out your "anger" at the "downgraded" graphics on the programmers. Do you have any idea how difficult their job is? Programming any kind of large project like this would be incredibly difficult. I think about the development hell they must have gone through while witnessing some of the awesome tiny details of the game, such as the NPC drivers who actually stop/move/crash to try and avoid an accident with other NPC drivers and the player. Watch Dogs supposedly started out as a racing game, I'd imagine a ton of code got cut out in an instant once they decided to change the overall project.
I see a lot of artists feel upset when a level they worked on the art for gets cut, but how would you feel if the entire project you worked on got cut, or completely changed to the point where almost all the work you did is useless?
@ wesley - I'm confused why do you say average metacritic rating of 80-90 ? The average user score is 4-6. You cannot trust reviewers as they are usually paid
I get the point you're trying to make (I don't agree with it), but I said that because it's factually accurate. Weird huh?
PC version runs like crap, getting sub 30fps on a GTX690. Then there's the artifacting with the flashing point lights, oh then the crashes.
And that's if you can actually login into Uplay to play the damn thing.
I think it more has to do with Ubisoft execs promising something as real gameplay footage and then failing to deliver what they showed. No one is blaming the engineers or artists -- they don't make these decisions.
Also, I don't think streamlining game behaviors is generally a good thing. The hacking looks super lame now.
I don't really care much for the bandwagon of graphics being the end all be all, but I don't think anyone is taking issue with the people who actually developed the game/the end result graphically. The part that's very dishonest is Ubisoft execs showing something they knew they might not be able to deliver. That is a super shitty tactic and that's the issue here.
It seems a lot of the time that whenever game criticism gets brought up here it instantly clashes swords with the "but the artists worked so hard!" Artists aren't in charge of jack shit when it comes to high level decisions like this, so they are not being blamed in the first place. No one should be defending companies that pull an anti-consumerist move just because you have friends who work there/work there yourself/think that the grunt employees do good work.
So once again, the contentions are not really over the end graphic state. Watch_Dogs obviously still looks quite good for a cross-gen game. It's the dishonesty of showing one thing and delivering another with full knowledge that it may happen. Companies that try to pull this get rightfully called out for it (Aliens: Colonial Marines being another example, but that was much worse).
P.S. I do not think "streamlining gameplay mechanics" is generally a good thing. The hacking looks much more boring now.
I still dont understand what people are complaining about.
As I mentioned earlier, its the same as not getting the burger on the picture.
As long as they havent explicitly said "THIS is how the final product WILL look!" (If they have, I have missed it) then IMO it is the absolute same as the burger or another other promotional video, commercial or ad in the world.
Seems like I quoted you, before you edited.
So they DID promise? If they did, then I understand. If not, then I think people should stop complaining and whining so much. There could be a million and one reasons for things to turn out as it did.
As I mentioned before, the exact same is happening to the AAA (budget, at least...) I am on now
I edited as I felt I needed to condense it more, but I'd still stand by using the word "promise." Showing gameplay on-stage during E3 is supposed to be a direct screening of the product unless stated otherwise. You will be held to all information you release, and that presentation was information.
I would really like to see where Ubisoft promised that E3 demo footage would be the exact same as the final product. I am pretty sure most E3 demos say this is early footage that isn't representative of the final game. Also they have been showing the final product for a few months now. Everyone is well aware of the graphical downgrade so I fail to see the lie in this situation. The E3 demo simply represented what they thought they could get to on next gen systems. They were wrong. Most likely due to the fact that they had to deal with the last gen consoles as well.
I edited as I felt I needed to condense it more, but I'd still stand by using the word "promise." Showing gameplay on-stage during E3 is supposed to be a direct screening of the product unless stated otherwise. You will be held to all information you release, and that presentation was information.
I especially liked the misdirection they did by using a controller and not tell what hardware they were actually using up front.
Lots of good friends worked on that project. I think Watchdogs was one of those titles the Montreal industry is all looking towards for creating more workplace stability here.
Also, I'm pretty shocked at the response towards graphics. Especially with this community. This IS the best looking Open World Sandbox game running on multiple platforms at 1080p. If you want graphics like Ryse, or The Order, You're likely looking at it being on rails, and an exclusive.
Entitled fans are entitled.
Also, since when the hell did an '82' Metacritic score become a disappointment? I'm sure some people wanted it to be higher.
Think of how stupid this sounds:
4.1 STARS OUT OF 5!! WHAT A COMPLETE FAILURE!!!
In terms of a 'FULL' AAA Retail/Non-Sports game, Titanfall, Infamous, and Wolfenstein are the best 3 games on the market, and likely will be for a considerable amount of time.
Its an interesting perspective.
How do you feel it differs from seeing an ad for a shampoo or a picture of a juicy burger?
That's like showing an action movie trailer that has scenes that aren't in the actual movie. What if you wanted to see helicopters blow up and huge firefights, but they weren't there?
And as far as food goes it's put together by minimum wage kids. Games are not.
You could say flavor is the priority with food, not how it looks. You *could* say the same thing about gameplay but then you're turning a blind eye to the influence graphics have on immersion which is a HUGE part of gameplay.
If I can't be immersed in this world the gameplay isn't as great as it could be
Damn forgot how good it actually looked at e3.. crazy
Hard to believe this is the same game
That's because it's not. If you have ever shipped a game you would know that in year the game you work on is completely different. Things get cut/ downgraded all the time due to time and technical restraints. It really isn't that big of a deal.
Also your analogy to an action film is completely false. All of the features they outlined are in the game. The quests they showed are in the game. It would be like if the action film trailer had better looking explosions than the ones in the movie.
Also your analogy to an action film is completely false. All of the features they outlined are in the game. The quests they showed are in the game. It would be like if the action film trailer had better looking explosions than the ones in the movie.
To me they look like completely different scenes. They lost the life-like essence
immersion is a huge part of gameplay and getting into it. I don't like being reminded I'm playing a game with hideously flat shading or pop ins
Than how ever did you survive through all of the shitty graphics in the past generations. Please Skyrim doesn't look that great yet it's one of the most immersive games out there. You are just here to make a big deal out of nothing and there is no reasoning with you.
Than how ever did you survive through all of the shitty graphics in the past generations. Please Skyrim doesn't look that great yet it's one of the most immersive games out there. You are just here to make a big deal out of nothing and there is no reasoning with you.
This difference is they weren't teasing the consumer market back then. I don't recall Skyrim looking 10x better in demos
This difference is they weren't teasing the consumer market back then
Maybe I like seeing exactly what I'm buying, fuck me, right?
But you did see. The graphical downgrade has been known about for months. You are just upset that you didn't get the graphic you wanted not that you were lied to.
That's like showing an action movie trailer that has scenes that aren't in the actual movie. What if you wanted to see helicopters blow up and huge firefights, but they weren't there?
You could say flavor is the priority with food, not how it looks. You *could* say the same thing about gameplay but then you're turning a blind eye to the influence graphics have on immersion which is a HUGE part of gameplay.
If I can't be immersed in this world the gameplay isn't as great as it could be
That kinds happened to me on Avengers, actually In the trailer, that big worm thing was making an awesome sound as it was flying through the building. They completely removed that sound in the cinema. And yes, that was disappointing, but its not like it changes the entire film. This is the same game, although with slightly lower graphics, and people act like their house just burned down or something
Maybe I am just not on the same level of graphic whore as many others here I need the graphics to be passable, sure. As long as it doesnt interfere with immersion, like flicking z depth fighting, or bad collisions and stuff, then its fine. its not like I get MORE immersed in a game, because there suddenly is more particle effects than I had anticipated.
I mean, a game like Crysis 3, which I bought because it looks so incredibly sexy, never got me through to the end. I simply forgot how great the game looked, after I had played the first 30 mins or so, and the (IMO) lacking gameplay made me lose interest.
Now I am just rambling about stuff no one cares to read, sorry
I think I just try to remind people now and then, that they generally complain too much about everything in life ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But you did see. The graphical downgrade has been known about for months. You are just upset that you didn't get the graphic you wanted not that you were lied to.
I agree it's been known and it isn't exactly scamming. But no I didn't see. I didn't really follow the game. I saw it at e3 and wanted it, and fast-forward to a few weeks before release I was disappointed.
But it doesn't depress you? We all want the art side of things to be pushed and move forward especially with next gen. Shouldnt they aim to make it look like the e3 demo consistently? I'd rather them not overpolish it at all
No. I am not depressed. This is the way of game development. I am not upset that they had to cut out higher quality ambient occlusion and better shadow casting to get the game running better. Also what makes you think they didn't aim to get everything to look like the E3 demo. You are accusing them of intentionally downgrading for no reason. They probably could have hit that bar if they didn't have to deal with the past generations.
No. I am not depressed. This is the way of game development. I am not upset that they had to cut out higher quality ambient occlusion and better shadow casting to get the game running better. Also what makes you think they didn't aim to get everything to look like the E3 demo. You are accusing them of intentionally downgrading for no reason. They probably could have hit that bar if they didn't have to deal with the past generations.
Would that have any effect? Are there technical/hardware features or whatever that come with next gen that can't be reduced/disabled easily on past gen?
Why does next gen have to take a bullet for last gen as far as rendering quality goes
Because your game systems and engine have to run on both console generations. It is a very complicated issue. I don't know all of the specifics of it as I am not a programmer, but if you compare all of the cross generation games versus the not you will see a clear pattern. This isn't because developer are lazy. It's because no one has the time or money to spend on making two different games. So the graphic limitations are going to be similar. Look at assassin's creed back flag. Game looked good, but not that much better than the past generation. It's going get a lot better as we move completely into this generation.
I especially liked the misdirection they did by using a controller and not tell what hardware they were actually using up front.
I agree it would have been nice if they prefaced the hardware they where using but gamers should always wait until they get to see actual game play footage before freaking out about the "graphics".
You have to remember this game has been in development for awhile and could easily be made to run on a PS3 or 360, when the PS4 and XBOne are in their twilight years we'll look back on it and marvel at how far we've come. But those games that leverage the full potential, are years away. Just because the consoles show up doesn't mean the games are up to speed, it takes time.
As for using a controller on stage, that is what the game is designed to be played with. If you where demo'ing a product would you choose to use a track pad, maybe a keytar?
They will always choose the best way possible to show a game off. They'll show a wet night scene with a lot of shinny bits and pieces blooming everywhere, with lots of ambiance. And people will always compare it to the most hum-drum part of the game in some bright, detailess, spot of the game.
This isn't a new thing, I can't count the games I've seen previewed with some glitzy crap no one will never play. If you feel cheated and outraged go ahead and express it just be smart and polite about it. You will actually stand out and be noticed above all of the other crap being flung.
Go into that rant knowing that developers have way more invested in the game than you ever will. Maybe sit on your outrage and wait until morning to post after you've re-read it. Know that you'll be carrying on about some other overhyped launch in the next few weeks and they'll be left wandering through the shattered remains of their game, as if someone had car bombed their studio.
The developers may be just as disappointed as some of the fans (if not more) that they had to turn things down. I know quite a few people have lamented (on this board and many like it where devs hang out) that their assets have looked sub-par because of performance compromises that had to be made. It sucks but it has been happening for a long time.
Would you rather they trim out content make the levels smaller, remove ambient stuff so the city is deserted? Strip out driving? Make you walk not run everywhere?
Trust them that they did their best to balance the game as best as they could with the hardware they had to deal with.
<<Warning, incoming rant about arrogant overacting gamers>>
A lot of gamers have this attitude that they know EXACTLY how to make games and that they are always entitled to more than what they get.
If they see a trailer they expect games to be exactly like it, even if it has a disclaimer "may not represent actual gameplay footage".
If there is DLC they expect it should have been included.
If there isn't any DLC they lament that the game went stale too fast and needs more content later on.
If the PC version looks better, they demand a refund for their console version.
If the PC version is a direct console port, they opine that it's not exponentially superior.
If the game doesn't match the hype they've projected onto the game (repeating: 'this-is-gunna-be-great' to themselves for 2 years) they demand someone Spackle over the gap with ice cream.
And on and on and on they go listing their grievances, like it will somehow cause someone to give a crap about their shitty life if they complain about it just a wee-bit more.
They arrogantly assume they would make "all of the right calls" if they where in charge and somehow be able to deliver a superior product. They see conspiracies in everything and think all decisions are "the man" that somehow has a person vendetta against them. HE is out there trying screw them out of their hard earned money. "They could have given us a great game but 'teh man' wasn't going to let that happen, he kept the awesome version all for himself!"
It's like these chuckle heads just sit and wait for that one thing to pop up, so they can parrot-bitch and moan endlessly about how their future happiness was ripped out of their hands like a mother futilely trying to hold onto a baby in a tornado... "Oh the good times I could have had. But YOU, you made me this way so now you're going to feel my wrath!"
Most of the time on the inside the reasons are very benign, uncontroversial and gamers are way off, there have been a few articles (that I can't find) on well respected sites like Gamasutra that have gone over this.
To the arrogant overacting gamers, I say:
If it's so easy, get off your asses and make a better game.
If you think you can crank out WatchDogs at higher quality do it. I'm not talking about moding the finished product. Make it from scratch in the same time frame. Go, make the magic happen hot shot.
Don't be surprised when some dipshit gamers thinks he knows you and calls you "a heartless bastard that is robbing him of his bestest future memories evar." Its going to happen, even if you embed yourself in the community and cram a 24-7 webcam up your ass, they'll still say it.
I get you feel cheated and lied to and that sucks, but now that your gamer hyman has been broken maybe it won't hurt so much next time? Yea yea I'm being a dick and the douchebags have spent way too many pages on way too many boards whinning and opining.
Replies
And what's wrong with those people's opinions?
Watch_Dogs Torrent secretly installing a Bitcoin miner on thousands of computers
I remember watching a series of 5-6 videos on the old Autodesk AREA site, can't seem to find them anymore. But in the video one of the developers showed how they did the faces for the crowds in one of the Assassin's Creed games (can't remember which one, but probably Brotherhood or the second one) but they basically had 1 fat face and 1 skinny face, then morphed between to get different looks quickly.
and since all the heads were based on the same topologyI could morph it to create a different character head, and still get a perfectly unwrapped skinned result that would look just as good as if it was done by hand, commented Levesque. http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?id=10316291&siteID=123112
No Time To Explain released a Pirate version on torrent websites before release where every character would have a pirate hat on.
Not a good idea - people who pirated your game will still go online and complain about how buggy your game is.
If the game is using even a smidge of current technologies in rendering: Nope.
I mean, there's a good opportunity for meta-humor in this particular game being distributed with a virus, but it just isn't happening (at least not on any significant scale).
Scanned my computer earlier, completely borked :poly124:. (this is a joke btw...... I only pirate Origin games :poly136: (Also a joke)).
The shooting mechanics are excellent, every gun I have used so far feels unique. The weapon sounds are also very nice, and once you unlock the Focus ability combat starts to feel even more rewarding since you can do bullet time headshots like you would see in a game such as Max Payne.
I was expecting the driving to be awful based on everything I read, but that also seems pretty nicely done. It might not be the most realistic driving simulator out there, but it works well. It feels like an improved implementation of the driving that was available in Sleeping Dogs, it's easy to learn and doesn't screw you over in any way. The map system is also great, I have really bad eye sight and so driving was always a pain in the ass in GTA 4 because you always had to keep an eye on the map to make sure you knew where you were going. The fact that my necessary path is now drawn on the ground in front of me is an incredible feature every open world game should have from now on (I'd imagine this was in other open world games, but I don't play too many games of this genre.)
I'm not too far into the story yet since I keep getting distracted by all the side missions, but I think this game is incredible. It is definitely a high quality game I think everybody should check out, although keep in mind, the PC version does need an incredibly powerful machine.
On a side note, I love stopping crimes that occur around you. Something about getting out of your car, filling a criminal with a magazine of bullets, and driving away just feels so rewarding.
Oh, Americans.
sorry i should have clarified here, cross platform meaning PS4 + pc + xbone.
of course cutbacks would be needed for the 360/ps3 tech, but that's the thing... you cut back to those hardwares, you don't cut back for the hardware that can handle it and really should be your selling point.
Oh, ambershee
[ame="
wow that's pretty f'd up, the whole things in French now.
Anyways, if they pirated the game, their opinion is still valid for me. The majority of pirates spent their money in top class hardware, gaming rigs with dual or triple slis.
BTW, the steam forum is full of complaints with huge drops of fps with ultra expensive computers, wtf?. They didn't do a good job, nor with several months of delay, and that's all, but if you still want to see the contrary, you may be blind. Just watch the E3 2012 vs. PC Ultra video several times
what i know is that they could have "cooked" a good version for the PC platform. Man, you don't need a whole team of 200 people to do a decent port. the perfomance on ps4 and Xbone is PATHETIC, so i blame this new next gen consoles and the devs (mostly the programmers).
Ubisoft lied to us, end of disscusion. They sold us something great... but the final product is... horrible. And sorry, but i'm sick of these strategies to capt pre-orders and sales. The game, with the actual look, should have appeared on the market on 2009 or before, not right now.
It's very irritating to see the past E3 footage/screens and the actual product.
i hope they learn from this huge mistake. If they sell well will be due to the excesive amount of tv spots appearing constantly on TV (at least on my country), and due to all those "paid reviews".
I have had absolutely no problems at all.
The only real thing I miss from the E3 demo is the fact that when the shooting starts to happen, you see a lot of the citizens react in much more realistic ways, but I'd imagine something like that would be very complicated to program due to how dynamic the civilians have to be.
I played the game for 10 hours straight today and just now finished the first Act, I have absolutely no complaints about this game at this point. It's fun, the story is great, the voice acting is excellent, the graphics, while "downgraded" are still amazing and don't get in the way of the gameplay, the gameplay mechanics are all very fluid and well made, I can go on and on about how amazing this game is.
I'm sure there are some pirates who do value their games, people who pirate games do it for many reasons. Some people download games to test their PCs before purchasing the game if no demo is available, some crazy people do it to "seek revenge" against a developer/publisher, some people do it because they have no money. If somebody has a high end PC and can run Watch Dogs at max settings and they pirate the game, then their opinion SHOULD hold no weight because they obviously don't see the value in games.
Also, there's no reason to take out your "anger" at the "downgraded" graphics on the programmers. Do you have any idea how difficult their job is? Programming any kind of large project like this would be incredibly difficult. I think about the development hell they must have gone through while witnessing some of the awesome tiny details of the game, such as the NPC drivers who actually stop/move/crash to try and avoid an accident with other NPC drivers and the player. Watch Dogs supposedly started out as a racing game, I'd imagine a ton of code got cut out in an instant once they decided to change the overall project.
I see a lot of artists feel upset when a level they worked on the art for gets cut, but how would you feel if the entire project you worked on got cut, or completely changed to the point where almost all the work you did is useless?
[ame="
I get the point you're trying to make (I don't agree with it), but I said that because it's factually accurate. Weird huh?
And that's if you can actually login into Uplay to play the damn thing.
I think it more has to do with Ubisoft execs promising something as real gameplay footage and then failing to deliver what they showed. No one is blaming the engineers or artists -- they don't make these decisions.
Also, I don't think streamlining game behaviors is generally a good thing. The hacking looks super lame now.
I still dont understand what people are complaining about.
As I mentioned earlier, its the same as not getting the burger on the picture.
As long as they havent explicitly said "THIS is how the final product WILL look!" (If they have, I have missed it) then IMO it is the absolute same as the burger or another other promotional video, commercial or ad in the world.
So they DID promise? If they did, then I understand. If not, then I think people should stop complaining and whining so much. There could be a million and one reasons for things to turn out as it did.
As I mentioned before, the exact same is happening to the AAA (budget, at least...) I am on now
How do you feel it differs from seeing an ad for a shampoo or a picture of a juicy burger?
there's a reason good restaurants don't have pictures of their food all over the place.
I especially liked the misdirection they did by using a controller and not tell what hardware they were actually using up front.
Also, I'm pretty shocked at the response towards graphics. Especially with this community. This IS the best looking Open World Sandbox game running on multiple platforms at 1080p. If you want graphics like Ryse, or The Order, You're likely looking at it being on rails, and an exclusive.
Entitled fans are entitled.
Also, since when the hell did an '82' Metacritic score become a disappointment? I'm sure some people wanted it to be higher.
Think of how stupid this sounds:
4.1 STARS OUT OF 5!! WHAT A COMPLETE FAILURE!!!
In terms of a 'FULL' AAA Retail/Non-Sports game, Titanfall, Infamous, and Wolfenstein are the best 3 games on the market, and likely will be for a considerable amount of time.
Damn forgot how good it actually looked at e3.. crazy
Hard to believe this is the same game
That's like showing an action movie trailer that has scenes that aren't in the actual movie. What if you wanted to see helicopters blow up and huge firefights, but they weren't there?
And as far as food goes it's put together by minimum wage kids. Games are not.
You could say flavor is the priority with food, not how it looks. You *could* say the same thing about gameplay but then you're turning a blind eye to the influence graphics have on immersion which is a HUGE part of gameplay.
If I can't be immersed in this world the gameplay isn't as great as it could be
That's because it's not. If you have ever shipped a game you would know that in year the game you work on is completely different. Things get cut/ downgraded all the time due to time and technical restraints. It really isn't that big of a deal.
Also your analogy to an action film is completely false. All of the features they outlined are in the game. The quests they showed are in the game. It would be like if the action film trailer had better looking explosions than the ones in the movie.
immersion is a huge part of gameplay and getting into it. I don't like being reminded I'm playing a game with hideously flat shading or pop ins
To me they look like completely different scenes. They lost the life-like essence
This just scares me, especially for the Division
Than how ever did you survive through all of the shitty graphics in the past generations. Please Skyrim doesn't look that great yet it's one of the most immersive games out there. You are just here to make a big deal out of nothing and there is no reasoning with you.
But you did see. The graphical downgrade has been known about for months. You are just upset that you didn't get the graphic you wanted not that you were lied to.
Source from march in case you feel like arguing some more :
http://kotaku.com/a-video-to-help-you-decide-if-watch-dogs-got-uglier-thi-1539981858?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow
That kinds happened to me on Avengers, actually
Maybe I am just not on the same level of graphic whore as many others here
I mean, a game like Crysis 3, which I bought because it looks so incredibly sexy, never got me through to the end. I simply forgot how great the game looked, after I had played the first 30 mins or so, and the (IMO) lacking gameplay made me lose interest.
Now I am just rambling about stuff no one cares to read, sorry
I think I just try to remind people now and then, that they generally complain too much about everything in life ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I agree it's been known and it isn't exactly scamming. But no I didn't see. I didn't really follow the game. I saw it at e3 and wanted it, and fast-forward to a few weeks before release I was disappointed.
But it doesn't depress you? We all want the art side of things to be pushed and move forward especially with next gen. Shouldnt they aim to make it look like the e3 demo consistently? I'd rather them not overpolish it at all
Why does next gen have to take a bullet for last gen as far as rendering quality goes
You have to remember this game has been in development for awhile and could easily be made to run on a PS3 or 360, when the PS4 and XBOne are in their twilight years we'll look back on it and marvel at how far we've come. But those games that leverage the full potential, are years away. Just because the consoles show up doesn't mean the games are up to speed, it takes time.
As for using a controller on stage, that is what the game is designed to be played with. If you where demo'ing a product would you choose to use a track pad, maybe a keytar?
They will always choose the best way possible to show a game off. They'll show a wet night scene with a lot of shinny bits and pieces blooming everywhere, with lots of ambiance. And people will always compare it to the most hum-drum part of the game in some bright, detailess, spot of the game.
This isn't a new thing, I can't count the games I've seen previewed with some glitzy crap no one will never play. If you feel cheated and outraged go ahead and express it just be smart and polite about it. You will actually stand out and be noticed above all of the other crap being flung.
Go into that rant knowing that developers have way more invested in the game than you ever will. Maybe sit on your outrage and wait until morning to post after you've re-read it. Know that you'll be carrying on about some other overhyped launch in the next few weeks and they'll be left wandering through the shattered remains of their game, as if someone had car bombed their studio.
The developers may be just as disappointed as some of the fans (if not more) that they had to turn things down. I know quite a few people have lamented (on this board and many like it where devs hang out) that their assets have looked sub-par because of performance compromises that had to be made. It sucks but it has been happening for a long time.
Would you rather they trim out content make the levels smaller, remove ambient stuff so the city is deserted? Strip out driving? Make you walk not run everywhere?
Trust them that they did their best to balance the game as best as they could with the hardware they had to deal with.
<<Warning, incoming rant about arrogant overacting gamers>>
If they see a trailer they expect games to be exactly like it, even if it has a disclaimer "may not represent actual gameplay footage".
If there is DLC they expect it should have been included.
If there isn't any DLC they lament that the game went stale too fast and needs more content later on.
If the PC version looks better, they demand a refund for their console version.
If the PC version is a direct console port, they opine that it's not exponentially superior.
If the game doesn't match the hype they've projected onto the game (repeating: 'this-is-gunna-be-great' to themselves for 2 years) they demand someone Spackle over the gap with ice cream.
And on and on and on they go listing their grievances, like it will somehow cause someone to give a crap about their shitty life if they complain about it just a wee-bit more.
They arrogantly assume they would make "all of the right calls" if they where in charge and somehow be able to deliver a superior product. They see conspiracies in everything and think all decisions are "the man" that somehow has a person vendetta against them. HE is out there trying screw them out of their hard earned money. "They could have given us a great game but 'teh man' wasn't going to let that happen, he kept the awesome version all for himself!"
It's like these chuckle heads just sit and wait for that one thing to pop up, so they can parrot-bitch and moan endlessly about how their future happiness was ripped out of their hands like a mother futilely trying to hold onto a baby in a tornado...
"Oh the good times I could have had. But YOU, you made me this way so now you're going to feel my wrath!"
Most of the time on the inside the reasons are very benign, uncontroversial and gamers are way off, there have been a few articles (that I can't find) on well respected sites like Gamasutra that have gone over this.
To the arrogant overacting gamers, I say:
If it's so easy, get off your asses and make a better game.
If you think you can crank out WatchDogs at higher quality do it. I'm not talking about moding the finished product. Make it from scratch in the same time frame. Go, make the magic happen hot shot.
Don't be surprised when some dipshit gamers thinks he knows you and calls you "a heartless bastard that is robbing him of his bestest future memories evar." Its going to happen, even if you embed yourself in the community and cram a 24-7 webcam up your ass, they'll still say it.
I get you feel cheated and lied to and that sucks, but now that your gamer hyman has been broken maybe it won't hurt so much next time? Yea yea I'm being a dick and the douchebags have spent way too many pages on way too many boards whinning and opining.