It's going get a lot better as we move completely into this generation.
Excited for this
The Division is for next gen only I believe so we'll see how that goes. Even though ubisoft had years of experience on last gen and the same thing happened with FC3
@Mark Dygert rant is very true, I never claimed I could do it better just disappointed we don't get THAT version. I love seeing things moving forward especially with the new consoles, so when cuts are made it's annoying
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
I strongly disagree.
Minecraft, for me was extremely immersive when I played it, the graphics are far from realistic and the pop in was terrible. Immersion for me is about the package experience. Game mechanics,variety, ambiance, etc. Graphics just makes things pretty imo. In fact I played the original Tombraider recently and I can tell you I still get immersed when I play that. Its also referred to as "Flow". A game doesn't need to be realistic to have Flow. It doesnt even need to be a 3d world, I get it playing 2d platformers.
still, some people want graphics some want gameplay. I'm the latter, each to their own.
P.s. I have a PC that was Mid range 4 years ago and I think WD looks pretty good even on medium settings. I havent seen it on any console yet so I cant comment on that.
You figured it all out. The developers all got around a table with a single bare light bulb hanging from the ceiling and decided to pull one over on all the gamers in the world. Then they all laughed manically while petting a kitty sitting in their lap.
You figured it all out. The developers all got around a table with a single bare light bulb hanging from the ceiling and decided to pull one over on all the gamers in the world. Then they all laughed manically while petting a kitty sitting in their lap.
You missed the last meeting where they were twirling their mustaches.
You figured it all out. The developers all got around a table with a single bare light bulb hanging from the ceiling and decided to pull one over on all the gamers in the world. Then they all laughed manically while petting a kitty sitting in their lap.
I agree that there some gamers have definitely overreacted in their negative reviews for Watch Dogs - for what it's worth I think it looks impressive for an open world game - but I can't help but think that Ubisoft has brought some of that negativity on themselves.
If you put out a real-time proof of concept as your E3 trailer which is most likely not going to be realistically achievable once you have all of the game's systems in place then you have to expect a backlash from gamers who don't have an understanding of what actually goes into making a title such as this.
I don't think it's a matter of saying to non-devs 'if you can do a better job, go do it then!' I don't imagine that there are many gamers out there who think they could have made a better game, whether they know how complex AAA development is or not.
The issue is more that consumers are complaining that 'you got us excited by what you showed early on and now the finished product is underwhelming because you over-promised'. Of course, then this response gets warped severely by peoples' overreactions on the internet, but the underlying point is still the same: Ubisoft sold them on the idea of one thing and then delivered something else.
Comparison between trailer from 2012 and PC version on Ultra setting. The difference is quite big. Its not by any means small changes. Less particles, ambiance, traffic and what not.
But again as I posted earlier the graphical downgrade has been public since early march. So there is no over promising here. The game looks exactly how they marketed. It doesn't mater how it looked at E3. That was not the promised product. This is really people upset that they can't have the graphics they want.
Comparison between trailer from 2012 and PC version on Ultra setting. The difference is quite big. Its not by any means small changes. Less particles, ambiance, traffic and what not.
Apart from the fact the opening shots are different times of day and weather effects, etc
I would argue that many parts of the PC version are a lot better. Especially the interior of the club. Lighting is much more vibrant and the crowd is more varied and much more energetic. Also, the UI is HEAPS better on the PC release.
Also, I bet driving in the fog at the end would work terribly in an actually gameplay, you wouldn't know where you're going.
anyhoo, think i'm done with this thread... I'm off to enjoy the game.
I don't really mind the marketing... but part of the hype of me liking watch dogs came from the graphical fidelity, lighting and particle effects with the nice depth of field.
game doesn't look bad i don't think. But it lacks that oomph that is achieved through attention to detail like GTA does. I think the next iteration of WD will be something amazing.
I am still quite happy, and i think its a good game overall. I like the look of the game, and for their first installment i think its quite an achievement.
I would argue that many parts of the PC version are a lot better. Especially the interior of the club. Lighting is much more vibrant and the crowd is more varied and much more energetic. Also, the UI is HEAPS better on the PC release.
Also, I bet driving in the fog at the end would work terribly in an actually gameplay, you wouldn't know where you're going.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. I mean, yeah ok I thought the E3 version looked "better" and had a much more realistic atmosphere to it, but things like the club & rainy outside drive scene afterwards - people wouldn't be able to see what the hell they were doing.
If it's not one thing it's another. Either "Boo they lied I no get pretty game", or "Boo this fucking FUCK FUCK RAIN GODDAMNIT SHIT CRAP DIDN'T EVEN SEE THAT GUY!"
Every one just needs to do more work, you'll be so far behind on games that the current release still looks awesome and you'll be plenty patient for when things move more singularly "current gen" (PS4/XBox1).
But again as I posted earlier the graphical downgrade has been public since early march. So there is no over promising here. The game looks exactly how they marketed. It doesn't mater how it looked at E3. That was not the promised product. This is really people upset that they can't have the graphics they want.
It doesn't matter whether the downgrade happened nine months ago or just before release. The initial E3 presentation was a realtime demo designed to get people excited about the game. Expectations were high because of that and there was understandable resentment about the downgrade, back when the new trailer hit and also now that the game has released.
Anyway, we can go back and forth on this forever. I understand that this kind of overpromising is a pitfall that a lot of companies fall into, but I'm also sympathetic to consumers whose expectations are not met when they've been sold on the promise of something extraordinary.
Comparison between trailer from 2012 and PC version on Ultra setting. The difference is quite big. Its not by any means small changes. Less particles, ambiance, traffic and what not.
Up until going into the club the PC version looks worse, in the club and afterward the PC version looks better, unless you like darker, blurrier and harder to play?
I remember when I watched the E3 trailer for the first time I had to shut my blinds and I still had trouble making out details. I remember thinking well its a good thing the guy playing knew where to aim because I didn't see him. Other people I talked to said the same kind of things:
"They'll have to balance out the game play and lighting, players are going crap if they have to play that as is."
"Hiding stuff in the dark again?"
"Game play could be interesting can't really tell though."
"I like that they are trying to tell a deeper story than, alpha team go kick-ass."
They took out the light bulb meshes, turned the fog down and removed a bunch of particle smoke. They took out some of the subtle fuzzy shadows, probably because of performance issues? The also brightened the scene overall because the lighting in the E3 Trailer looks too dark and dimmer than it should be for that many overhead lights.
If you're watching something (not playing) darker might look better but if you're playing, you need to see things. It looks like they built scene for the dark version and turned the lights up later. That scene is probably one of the first they worked on. Had they gone lighter earlier they probably would have built and balanced things differently, like they did later on.
I actually prefer the PC version from this point on.
I like that I can see the under structure of the elevated platform. If that was in the E3 version they where wasting it. The detail on the light post is great, I like the trashcan too. The buildings across the street are much easier to see and look to be higher quality assets.
The extra light from the windows helps brighten without just cranking up the lighting on the entire area, someone thought to explain the bump in lighting, nice. Instead of blurring into a messy background it helps draw my attention and guide me to where I need to go. E3 guy had to know where to go, I probably wouldn't if you just dropped me down in it.
The E3 version is just a mess of blurry dark shapes, hey look everyone owns a black car, sweet...
...oh wait, they did have colors on the cars but you have to shine a harsh light on them, OOOh so real it hurts.
In the E3 version I don't feel the heat from the fire, in the PC version I certainly do.
The road in the PC version has a lot of interesting shapes and shadows going on. Lots of good detail from the underside of the elevated platform again. I get to see where I'm going and I get pretty things on the side of the road, to look at while I go there. In the E3, its just more dark blurry shapes.
Dodge the bloomy bits as they emerge out of the fog.
Honestly the E3 version looks like someone set off a smoke bomb at a rave and then put on goggles smeared with Vaseline.
How the heck is the E3 version better? How can you tell where you're going? The E3 version looks like Need For Speed, the 3D0 version. The PC version looks way better and much easier to actually play.
If you flip the E3/PC text I bet gamers would still freak out at how the graphics have been downgraded.
It doesn't matter whether the downgrade happened nine months ago or just before release. The initial E3 presentation was a realtime demo designed to get people excited about the game. Expectations were high because of that and there was understandable resentment about the downgrade, back when the new trailer hit and also now that the game has released.
Anyway, we can go back and forth on this forever. I understand that this kind of overpromising is a pitfall that a lot of companies fall into, but I'm also sympathetic to consumers whose expectations are not met when they've been sold on the promise of something extraordinary.
Yes it does. Because one is false advertising and one isn't. No where did ubisoft ever promise Watchdogs will look this good when it releases.
Let me put it to you this way. If there were bugs and glitches in an early demo would you expect that to represent the final product of the game. Of course not. So why assume early demo visuals = the final product. It's just silly.
There are too many complications in game development to give an accurate read of what the final product will look like. There is no malice in presenting a demo of what you want the game to be. It's not like you have to pay for the game and it's not like you weren't informed prior to release what the final product looked like. It is just acting entitled plain and simple.
The biggest thing for me, in that comparison video, is the lack of ambient effects through the world. Wind blowing leaves and what not around. windy trees that felt more alive. better shadows from the trees. the blowing umbrella at the table. Guy leaning on the railing (though that could be a random anim that just wasnt played at that time).
And as I said before, ya, it doesnt look at nice, especially without those effects that just help with the immersion of play, but it won't affect the fun of the game at all, so why get your knickers in a knot?
@Mark Dygert
Some of it is improvment, but I must disagree with you on the brightness being a good thing, because that has been a pet peeve of mine for a while with some games. Lot of the games are just too bright, it's not night, it's just night sky with half day lighting. Just take the last 3 screenshots you posted, I would say they went overboard with lighting, it gotten way too bright, and lost all the 'night', and it lost some of the dark mood. Some of those might be too dark, but I would say that they went too much the other way.
How can you hide in a shadow, if the shadow isn't there?
Mark, I agree with many of your points. I was thinking some of the same things, when watching the comparison. I really like the 'new' way the street/sidewalk are lit up, when he's approaching the theater too.
But on some of your other points, I think you maybe missed what they were pointing out. The gas station explosion was much larger, in the E3 version, and more amazing to watch.
The intersection scene was also more interesting, because it had more cars, and those cars had more corrective actions, than the released version. Additionally, people ran to the rescue of the drivers of those cars, in the E3 version. Everyone just continues as usual, in the released version. I would agree, that the E3 version was too dark in that scene though.
And yes, even though the E3 version was hiding much of that great detail, when driving down the road, I actually prefer the environment of the E3 version. It was raining hard, which creates that mist of water.
Basically, I'd prefer something in between E3 and release. More of the environment/weather, but less of the E3 muddiness. Will any of this stop me from enjoying the game? Nope... still waiting for Best Buy to get my fucking pre-order to my house :poly127:
@Mark Dygert
Some of it is improvment, but I must disagree with you on the brightness being a good thing, because that has been a pet peeve of mine for a while with some games. Lot of the games are just too bright, it's not night, it's just night sky with half day lighting. Just take the last 3 screenshots you posted, I would say they went overboard with lighting, it gotten way too bright, and lost all the 'night', and it lost some of the dark mood. Some of those might be too dark, but I would say that they went too much the other way.
How can you hide in a shadow, if the shadow isn't there?
1) A game played on your TV in a day-lit living room will need to be brighter than a game played on a PC in a dark room. It looks like they decided to balance the game more toward one than the other, probably because of the popularity of console gaming?
I know I can turn down gamma/brightness to make the game darker and harder to see, but turning up a black mess will just make it a gray mess.
2) Cities have a lot of light pollution. The bigger the city the worse the problem. There is a reason cities can be seen at night from the ISS. Chicago is the big bright ball of light in the lower right.
The intersection scene was also more interesting, because it had more cars, and those cars had more corrective actions, than the released version. Additionally, people ran to the rescue of the drivers of those cars, in the E3 version. Everyone just continues as usual, in the released version. I would agree, that the E3 version was too dark in that scene though.
I agree the ambient stuff being taken out really sucks, it does add a lot, especially ambient characters reacting but that is a lot of situational animation that is very specific. They may have wanted to do that level of detail but that's a lot of animation to do and they may have run out of time, budget or tech.
The extra cars did add a level of chaos that looked nice, but if it was taken out for clarity or for performance reasons I understand. Watching someone navigate the cars perfectly in a rehearsed demo isn't the same as being caught on god knows what as you try to find cover.
I'm not going to hang-em-high on stuff like that unless it gets a lot worse and actually destroys game-play in some way. I doubt it will bother me that much though.
But I am tired of internet armchair reviewers seizing on any tiny nugget they stumble on and then harping on it over and over again like someone murdered their sister.
And yes, even though the E3 version was hiding much of that great detail, when driving down the road, I actually prefer the environment of the E3 version. It was raining hard, which creates that mist of water.
I do a lot of driving in the rain and it gets dark here at 4:30 9mo out of the year. That mist of water comes from other cars throwing it up into the air and that only really happens at higher speeds with the cars that are in front of you, it dies down pretty quickly too.
The humid kind of fog they show would be more appropriate for some place hot and swampy like New Orleans, but not some place where people wear thick trench coats... I think they made the right call toning it down.
Again I think the darker trailer is better to watch but would have caused even more of a stir with players if they left it that dark.
Basically, I'd prefer something in between E3 and release. More of the environment/weather, but less of the E3 muddiness. Will any of this stop me from enjoying the game? Nope... still waiting for Best Buy to get my fucking pre-order to my house :poly127:
Same here, I'll probably dim it down once I get around to playing it.
Mark Dygert: Both posts you did cover my main thoughts on some of the stuff I agree
Also trailer are meant to do one thing... Entice! Everything in the video was curated and placed to get the best possible enticement from people. I am sure some stuff or all of it was hand placed events in timed sequence to get the best reaction from the crowd.
Trailers always have these few things showing in them this is the norm.
1. Physics interactions - In this case the umbrella, leaves, and trees, wind was timed perfectly for the physics to work so you get a sense of a real life world.
2. Player path detail- With such a short trailer you want to express what could be possible not what is possible in this world so adding those extra hints of detail that might be just for this trailer is trying to give you a grasp of more of the world and really sell it.
3. Scripted character events - People talking and interacting with other people on the road. Highly scripted event to show possible scripted event systems that will happen in game but will likely not happen in the perfect moment or logical moment as these ones happened in actual gameplay.
4. Player Camera Modifications- making sure while the presenter plays he moves the player driven camera so it is curated to show the best compositions possible instead of having the camera looking down like in normal gameplay mod.
5. Cinematic sequence- A conversation with another character close up detail fully scripted event. Likely higher res textures and specific scripted lighting.
6. Fight sequence - Cars placed in a specific spot to have the most impact in the gun fight.
7. Lighting toned down- lighting to hide areas of obvious game like geo. Also adding a more cinematic quality to the scene.
8. particles - more particle usage to add atmosphere usally toned down in actual game due to alpha blend being so damn expensive. In some controlled areas these can be used. In this case perhaps it was taken out due to art direction change as opposed to optimization. so blame the art director :P
9. Sound - Highly curated for the scene from start to finish.
In general these are the things that a trailer will have. The trailers intention is to first sell the idea of the game. Second to show tech, this usually means all departments putting everything into one sequence. This can not be done for the whole game... for many reasons.... main reason is optimization and second reason lack of time/resources. Getting your bang for your buck type deal you want to place all the great stuff in the events that matter the most. The aftermath is reducing quality in some areas or making it better for actual gameplay which means making things brighter and easier to see.
Trailers only have like 5 mins or less to show and in that time you need to sell it and sell it good. Some games get shown in E3, Pax, or GDC but never are released due to people not getting hyped over it. A good trailer vs and bad trailer is a live or die for companies sometimes... So if companies put a little more effort to show the game in the best of light I do not see it as a lie I see it as smart and hard working people... Not lazy as people would want to think.
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!"
That entire post should be on a shirt because of how truthful it is, but this part in particular is too damn true. I just finished an hour long discussion with some guy about this. He thinks that game publishers are trying to brainwash the world into thinking certain ways with their mind control propaganda. He also thinks that all AAA devs are "stupid sheep" because they just do the bidding of publishers. I can't even imagine how somebody would become that crazy, forget about the desire to create or the fact that many people find game development to be fun, everybody is under Ubisoft's control!
One thing that seems evident on the screenshots that Mark posted above is that overall, the lighting engine has been visibly trimmed (most likely for some production reason, as discussed earlier).
I don't think it is just related to a mere bloom value being tweaked - it looks like there used to be a powerful volumetric lighting engine at play, which, along with what seemed to be some kind of accurate lens simulation, really brought something unique to the way the game used to look.
Without it the game seems to have lost the one thing that used to set it apart. It might be very subtle, but it may very well be the one detail that made it look so groundbreaking back then. As a matter of fact I cannot really think of any recent game with that kind of smooth quality to it, besides maybe The Order 1886 but it is not out yet.
Put differently : based on that comparison video, if the footage on the right (current PC version) had been used for the reveal in 2012, the public reaction might not have been as high. It certainly looks less like "something new". The club scene alone certainly looked amazing to me in the original reveal - thanks to the atmospheric lighting, and probably thanks to the NPC animations too, which were way more subtle and convincing back then.
Anyways, none of that will fix the bad shoulder rigging of the main character - something that has been bothering me ever since the first video reveal
Yes it does. Because one is false advertising and one isn't. No where did ubisoft ever promise Watchdogs will look this good when it releases.
Let me put it to you this way. If there were bugs and glitches in an early demo would you expect that to represent the final product of the game. Of course not. So why assume early demo visuals = the final product. It's just silly.
There are too many complications in game development to give an accurate read of what the final product will look like. There is no malice in presenting a demo of what you want the game to be. It's not like you have to pay for the game and it's not like you weren't informed prior to release what the final product looked like. It is just acting entitled plain and simple.
I'm not sure that gamers in general are aware that there is an unwritten rule that they shouldn't get too excited by early footage of game, because it's not likely to live up to those expectations once released. As a developer I understand that these things are a reality of the industry, but when your average consumer sees something they are told is legit then that is where their expectations are set from that point on. Maybe gamers' are overreacting in their disappointment at the discrepancies, but I think it's still valid that they are disappointed.
I'm not sure that gamers in general are aware that there is an unwritten rule that they shouldn't get too excited by early footage of game, because it's not likely to live up to those expectations once released. As a developer I understand that these things are a reality of the industry, but when your average consumer sees something they are told is legit then that is where their expectations are set from that point on. Maybe gamers' are overreacting in their disappointment at the discrepancies, but I think it's still valid that they are disappointed.
Really? I see these complaints pop up all of the time. People complained about The Last of Us very similarly for no reason. People complain about seeing a cg cut-scene. People complain about shit for no reason. The only valid complaint I have have seen is with Aleins Colonial Marines. They marketed a completely different game than what they released and didn't give any indication that was the case. This is not one of those instances. Anyone is allowed to be , but people aren't . They are angry and they are blaming the developer which is not ok.
It's similar to the mentality behind the whole Mass Effect 3 thing. The game was great other than a lack luster ending and people held a witch hunt against the developer and demanded their money back. Again without good reason.
I think alot of the problem also stems from gamers have 0 protection now a days, if we buy a game because of marketing and its not what we expected your stuck with it. It is one of the only industries like that.
I'm not sure that gamers in general are aware that there is an unwritten rule that they shouldn't get too excited by early footage of game, because it's not likely to live up to those expectations once released. As a developer I understand that these things are a reality of the industry, but when your average consumer sees something they are told is legit then that is where their expectations are set from that point on. Maybe gamers' are overreacting in their disappointment at the discrepancies, but I think it's still valid that they are disappointed.
I don't think its an over reaction its entirely justified, people should be unhappy with all manner of deception, which is what it is.
watchdogs has just got the most heat for it though, Rome total war 2 did the same dodgy practices but there wasn't nearly as much nerd rage, problem is theres just no truth in advertising, and advertising promotion and hype is part of making games now.
They dress up the games falsely for a promo as they dress up a mcdonalds burger for a advert, and the fact others are doing it, in and outside the gaming industry is no justification at all.
these are some of the most negative aspects to come into the gaming industry since it became such the large business industry it is today, Sales matter, above all, the people that make the game don't matter nor does the people who buy the game, its about economical viability and getting those first day sales in huge numbers.
They dress up the games falsely for a promo as they dress up a mcdonalds burger for a advert, and the fact others are doing it, in and outside the gaming industry is no justification at all.
.
But that is not what happens. When demos are made they are a huge concerted effort to delivery what is supposed to represent the final product. They often look better because it is a small controlled slice of the game. You are allowed more visual fidelity in that instance. When you present a demo you are saying here is a slice of what I want the game to be. No one goes into it thinking this won't be what the game looks like, but it will sell copies.
But all the complaints are based on official videos put out by Ubisoft. It's not like they kept promoting the E3 video as the actual game up until launch. If the first time you found out it didn't look like the E3 demo was on launch day, rather than having 2 whole years to get internet angry about it, sure it would be justified.
If you preordered based on the E3 video but got upset about further videos, why didn't you cancel it? Did they have some sort of no refund clause?
Funny thing is, I wasn't hyped about the E3 demo or the launched game, I have no stake in the game.
The game is a hungry beast if you want to run it smooth. SMAA, HBAO+ on high with Ultra... you`re going to need a BEAST of a machine. 6 series cards with 4GB will not cut it beyond 1080p resolution in some system configs.
The game is a hungry beast if you want to run it smooth. SMAA, HBAO+ on high with Ultra... you`re going to need a BEAST of a machine. 6 series cards with 4GB will not cut it beyond 1080p resolution in some system configs.
Fuck.
Guess this gets added to the list of games I'll get "down the line" when I have enough money and justification to upgrade.
It's fun, but it's... average. There's nothing in it that stands out as well executed or ground breaking, the hacking is only interesting when you're in a chase since you can use it take out vehicles. It just feels shallow.
So far it's damn fun and it has some really awesome game play mechanics to keep things fresh. The gun fights are just fantastic, the bullets hitting the car and changing cover is just a blast, the enemies interact with each other tell each other to do certain things, the hacking is really useful and fun. Little things that happen in the world too are cool, I saw a car accident happen without any traffic light interference or anything, unscripted and dynamic.
Few things for me that aren't as good as I thought or hoped for. The car damage is so weak and just lame imo, it's not bad but not as good as it should/could be, the car physics are off too, if I ram into a large truck it'll slide and roll like it has no weight (note that's even if I hit it with a small two door car).
Looks great and runs great for me and this game is getting too much hate because of the E3 thing. I recommend the game.
If that post is true with anonymous... what a dumb ass if he is a developer I would have swithed it myself that is like 30 min work or less and done I do not need to ask permission for obvious things I just do it. This sounds like not true or someone I do not want to work with.
Beaides that this thread just reached a dangerous levels of stupidity.
You've clearly not worked on a project of reasonable scale - people can't just make changes because;
a) Not everyone is a 3d artist.
b) As he isn't the artist in question, he probably doesn't have the original assets to modify.
c) He probably has other work to do and strict deadlines.
d) Other people may well have been working on those levels and you can't edit them as they are checked out.
e) You can't just do random shit and submit it into the main branch in a large scale project.
You've clearly not worked on a project of reasonable scale - people can't just make changes because;
a) Not everyone is a 3d artist.
b) As he isn't the artist in question, he probably doesn't have the original assets to modify.
c) He probably has other work to do and strict deadlines.
d) Other people may well have been working on those levels and you can't edit them as they are checked out.
e) You can't just do random shit and submit it into the main branch in a large scale project.
Why people don't click on portfolio links below posts ? Clearly didn't work on a 'project with reasonable scale'... only Tomb Raider and Last of Us...
Isn't Watch Dogs problem a marketing problem ? It is a decent and enjoyable game. It was marketed as a our savior Jesus Christ. Isn't it in hands of publishers ? Developers are usually passionate people who just want to make cool game.
I don't work in industry though... I like the game. Nothing ground breaking and unfortunately badly optimised. Marketing was a disaster though.
PS: If you preordered it ... Just don't be a silly silly dude next time.
See where I work I am responsible for what gets in shipped titles if I did a bad job I do not blame it on someone else but me. Leads who are reasonable will let me take care of a problem like this if needs be ill do a weekend this is a non issue where I have worked this would be changed no questions asked.
Edit\\ if I saw this issue I would take it up with who made the asset and the lead involved and than it would be changed. A simple act of getting off my seat and talking to people real people would solve this issue.
I think you're lucky if they'll just let you change things on a whim. I've always worked on projects where you'd have to clear it with production - and in this guys case he's been met with the usual stone wall of 'don't see an issue with it' or 'time is better spent elsewhere'.
PS: If you preordered it ... Just don't be a silly silly dude next time.
I don't see what the issue is here. I, along with many others, pre-ordered the game and I've enjoyed every minute of it. I'm at a little under 20 hours of play time now (gotta love time off!) and I'm about halfway through the game I think.
I really love how the singleplayer blends in with the multiplayer. I was going to a mission location to start the next part of the story and somebody randomly tried hacking into my game, of course they slipped up and accidentally ran past me so it was quite easy to gun them down.
On a side note, one of the final missions in Act 2 has one of the most enjoyable shootouts I've seen in a game, it's right up there with the last level of Max Payne 3 in my book!
On a side note, one of the final missions in Act 2 has one of the most enjoyable shootouts I've seen in a game, it's right up there with the last level of Max Payne 3 in my book!
Are you forced into action and shootouts a lot, up until where you are at? I like hacking, stealth and stuff, but there have been a few of those cut scenes where they shout "There he is!" and then you are forced to gun down 80 people with big explosions and stuff.
Are there more choice of gameplay style further down the road, or are you often forced to do either stealth or action?
Why people don't click on portfolio links below posts ? Clearly didn't work on a 'project with reasonable scale'... only Tomb Raider and Last of Us...
Consider that:
1. On WD there worked about 400 people.
2. That are spread all around the world.
3. Which means all of them work on different hours.
So no. You can't just sit, and fix shit, because you don't know if other people didn't fixed it, you might not have access to original source, or you might not have access to it at all.
And it entirely depends on company. Some smaller ones will give you more responsibility and trust, you will do it right or fix problems as you encounter them.
On others, you will have to consult every change with your superiors. And don't even waste your time on prototyping your idea. You do what we tell you to do, or you are getting fired!
Are you forced into action and shootouts a lot, up until where you are at? I like hacking, stealth and stuff, but there have been a few of those cut scenes where they shout "There he is!" and then you are forced to gun down 80 people with big explosions and stuff.
Are there more choice of gameplay style further down the road, or are you often forced to do either stealth or action?
There are some missions where you can basically go through without killing anybody, but it's much easier to just gun everybody down so that's the route I've been going haha.
For the most part it seems to be "pick stealth or run and gun" though, some missions seem to require one or the other, or both. One of the major missions in Act 2 involves you losing your weapons (you get them back later) but you have to get past a lot of guards without being noticed, and if you knock a guard out to get his gun, it'll end up being an unsilenced weapon that won't really help you until later on in the mission where you have to fight through a ton of guards including several Enforcers (it might actually be possible to sneak past them, but it'd probably be very difficult.)
Other missions, like the shootout I was referring to seem to force a "run and gun" type of playstyle. You basically get surrounded by enemies, you could take them out with stealth also but you would have to have a maxed out combat skill (to perform a takedown on an Enforcer) since there were a bunch of them.
There were a few parts in missions where you weren't allowed to kill anybody, and then there were a few parts where you had to guide NPCs into certain areas by telling them to move to specific zones while watching them on cameras to make sure they weren't spotted.
I'd prefer if there were more ways to go about taking on a situation but the core combat mechanics seem to be very solid so I don't get bored of what is offered.
Replies
The Division is for next gen only I believe so we'll see how that goes. Even though ubisoft had years of experience on last gen and the same thing happened with FC3
@Mark Dygert rant is very true, I never claimed I could do it better just disappointed we don't get THAT version. I love seeing things moving forward especially with the new consoles, so when cuts are made it's annoying
I strongly disagree.
Minecraft, for me was extremely immersive when I played it, the graphics are far from realistic and the pop in was terrible. Immersion for me is about the package experience. Game mechanics,variety, ambiance, etc. Graphics just makes things pretty imo. In fact I played the original Tombraider recently and I can tell you I still get immersed when I play that. Its also referred to as "Flow". A game doesn't need to be realistic to have Flow. It doesnt even need to be a 3d world, I get it playing 2d platformers.
still, some people want graphics some want gameplay. I'm the latter, each to their own.
P.s. I have a PC that was Mid range 4 years ago and I think WD looks pretty good even on medium settings. I havent seen it on any console yet so I cant comment on that.
You missed the last meeting where they were twirling their mustaches.
If you put out a real-time proof of concept as your E3 trailer which is most likely not going to be realistically achievable once you have all of the game's systems in place then you have to expect a backlash from gamers who don't have an understanding of what actually goes into making a title such as this.
I don't think it's a matter of saying to non-devs 'if you can do a better job, go do it then!' I don't imagine that there are many gamers out there who think they could have made a better game, whether they know how complex AAA development is or not.
The issue is more that consumers are complaining that 'you got us excited by what you showed early on and now the finished product is underwhelming because you over-promised'. Of course, then this response gets warped severely by peoples' overreactions on the internet, but the underlying point is still the same: Ubisoft sold them on the idea of one thing and then delivered something else.
Comparison between trailer from 2012 and PC version on Ultra setting. The difference is quite big. Its not by any means small changes. Less particles, ambiance, traffic and what not.
Apart from the fact the opening shots are different times of day and weather effects, etc
I would argue that many parts of the PC version are a lot better. Especially the interior of the club. Lighting is much more vibrant and the crowd is more varied and much more energetic. Also, the UI is HEAPS better on the PC release.
Also, I bet driving in the fog at the end would work terribly in an actually gameplay, you wouldn't know where you're going.
anyhoo, think i'm done with this thread... I'm off to enjoy the game.
game doesn't look bad i don't think. But it lacks that oomph that is achieved through attention to detail like GTA does. I think the next iteration of WD will be something amazing.
I am still quite happy, and i think its a good game overall. I like the look of the game, and for their first installment i think its quite an achievement.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. I mean, yeah ok I thought the E3 version looked "better" and had a much more realistic atmosphere to it, but things like the club & rainy outside drive scene afterwards - people wouldn't be able to see what the hell they were doing.
If it's not one thing it's another. Either "Boo they lied I no get pretty game", or "Boo this fucking FUCK FUCK RAIN GODDAMNIT SHIT CRAP DIDN'T EVEN SEE THAT GUY!"
Every one just needs to do more work, you'll be so far behind on games that the current release still looks awesome and you'll be plenty patient for when things move more singularly "current gen" (PS4/XBox1).
It doesn't matter whether the downgrade happened nine months ago or just before release. The initial E3 presentation was a realtime demo designed to get people excited about the game. Expectations were high because of that and there was understandable resentment about the downgrade, back when the new trailer hit and also now that the game has released.
Anyway, we can go back and forth on this forever. I understand that this kind of overpromising is a pitfall that a lot of companies fall into, but I'm also sympathetic to consumers whose expectations are not met when they've been sold on the promise of something extraordinary.
I remember when I watched the E3 trailer for the first time I had to shut my blinds and I still had trouble making out details. I remember thinking well its a good thing the guy playing knew where to aim because I didn't see him. Other people I talked to said the same kind of things:
"They'll have to balance out the game play and lighting, players are going crap if they have to play that as is."
"Hiding stuff in the dark again?"
"Game play could be interesting can't really tell though."
"I like that they are trying to tell a deeper story than, alpha team go kick-ass."
They took out the light bulb meshes, turned the fog down and removed a bunch of particle smoke. They took out some of the subtle fuzzy shadows, probably because of performance issues? The also brightened the scene overall because the lighting in the E3 Trailer looks too dark and dimmer than it should be for that many overhead lights.
If you're watching something (not playing) darker might look better but if you're playing, you need to see things. It looks like they built scene for the dark version and turned the lights up later. That scene is probably one of the first they worked on. Had they gone lighter earlier they probably would have built and balanced things differently, like they did later on.
I actually prefer the PC version from this point on.
I like that I can see the under structure of the elevated platform. If that was in the E3 version they where wasting it. The detail on the light post is great, I like the trashcan too. The buildings across the street are much easier to see and look to be higher quality assets.
The extra light from the windows helps brighten without just cranking up the lighting on the entire area, someone thought to explain the bump in lighting, nice. Instead of blurring into a messy background it helps draw my attention and guide me to where I need to go. E3 guy had to know where to go, I probably wouldn't if you just dropped me down in it.
The E3 version is just a mess of blurry dark shapes, hey look everyone owns a black car, sweet...
...oh wait, they did have colors on the cars but you have to shine a harsh light on them, OOOh so real it hurts.
In the E3 version I don't feel the heat from the fire, in the PC version I certainly do.
The road in the PC version has a lot of interesting shapes and shadows going on. Lots of good detail from the underside of the elevated platform again. I get to see where I'm going and I get pretty things on the side of the road, to look at while I go there. In the E3, its just more dark blurry shapes.
Dodge the bloomy bits as they emerge out of the fog.
Honestly the E3 version looks like someone set off a smoke bomb at a rave and then put on goggles smeared with Vaseline.
How the heck is the E3 version better? How can you tell where you're going? The E3 version looks like Need For Speed, the 3D0 version. The PC version looks way better and much easier to actually play.
If you flip the E3/PC text I bet gamers would still freak out at how the graphics have been downgraded.
Yes it does. Because one is false advertising and one isn't. No where did ubisoft ever promise Watchdogs will look this good when it releases.
Let me put it to you this way. If there were bugs and glitches in an early demo would you expect that to represent the final product of the game. Of course not. So why assume early demo visuals = the final product. It's just silly.
There are too many complications in game development to give an accurate read of what the final product will look like. There is no malice in presenting a demo of what you want the game to be. It's not like you have to pay for the game and it's not like you weren't informed prior to release what the final product looked like. It is just acting entitled plain and simple.
And as I said before, ya, it doesnt look at nice, especially without those effects that just help with the immersion of play, but it won't affect the fun of the game at all, so why get your knickers in a knot?
Some of it is improvment, but I must disagree with you on the brightness being a good thing, because that has been a pet peeve of mine for a while with some games. Lot of the games are just too bright, it's not night, it's just night sky with half day lighting. Just take the last 3 screenshots you posted, I would say they went overboard with lighting, it gotten way too bright, and lost all the 'night', and it lost some of the dark mood. Some of those might be too dark, but I would say that they went too much the other way.
How can you hide in a shadow, if the shadow isn't there?
But on some of your other points, I think you maybe missed what they were pointing out. The gas station explosion was much larger, in the E3 version, and more amazing to watch.
The intersection scene was also more interesting, because it had more cars, and those cars had more corrective actions, than the released version. Additionally, people ran to the rescue of the drivers of those cars, in the E3 version. Everyone just continues as usual, in the released version. I would agree, that the E3 version was too dark in that scene though.
And yes, even though the E3 version was hiding much of that great detail, when driving down the road, I actually prefer the environment of the E3 version. It was raining hard, which creates that mist of water.
Basically, I'd prefer something in between E3 and release. More of the environment/weather, but less of the E3 muddiness. Will any of this stop me from enjoying the game? Nope... still waiting for Best Buy to get my fucking pre-order to my house :poly127:
I know I can turn down gamma/brightness to make the game darker and harder to see, but turning up a black mess will just make it a gray mess.
2) Cities have a lot of light pollution. The bigger the city the worse the problem. There is a reason cities can be seen at night from the ISS. Chicago is the big bright ball of light in the lower right.
It looks like this on the street at night.
The extra cars did add a level of chaos that looked nice, but if it was taken out for clarity or for performance reasons I understand. Watching someone navigate the cars perfectly in a rehearsed demo isn't the same as being caught on god knows what as you try to find cover.
I'm not going to hang-em-high on stuff like that unless it gets a lot worse and actually destroys game-play in some way. I doubt it will bother me that much though.
But I am tired of internet armchair reviewers seizing on any tiny nugget they stumble on and then harping on it over and over again like someone murdered their sister.
I do a lot of driving in the rain and it gets dark here at 4:30 9mo out of the year. That mist of water comes from other cars throwing it up into the air and that only really happens at higher speeds with the cars that are in front of you, it dies down pretty quickly too.
The humid kind of fog they show would be more appropriate for some place hot and swampy like New Orleans, but not some place where people wear thick trench coats... I think they made the right call toning it down.
Again I think the darker trailer is better to watch but would have caused even more of a stir with players if they left it that dark.
Same here, I'll probably dim it down once I get around to playing it.
Also trailer are meant to do one thing... Entice! Everything in the video was curated and placed to get the best possible enticement from people. I am sure some stuff or all of it was hand placed events in timed sequence to get the best reaction from the crowd.
Trailers always have these few things showing in them this is the norm.
1. Physics interactions - In this case the umbrella, leaves, and trees, wind was timed perfectly for the physics to work so you get a sense of a real life world.
2. Player path detail- With such a short trailer you want to express what could be possible not what is possible in this world so adding those extra hints of detail that might be just for this trailer is trying to give you a grasp of more of the world and really sell it.
3. Scripted character events - People talking and interacting with other people on the road. Highly scripted event to show possible scripted event systems that will happen in game but will likely not happen in the perfect moment or logical moment as these ones happened in actual gameplay.
4. Player Camera Modifications- making sure while the presenter plays he moves the player driven camera so it is curated to show the best compositions possible instead of having the camera looking down like in normal gameplay mod.
5. Cinematic sequence- A conversation with another character close up detail fully scripted event. Likely higher res textures and specific scripted lighting.
6. Fight sequence - Cars placed in a specific spot to have the most impact in the gun fight.
7. Lighting toned down- lighting to hide areas of obvious game like geo. Also adding a more cinematic quality to the scene.
8. particles - more particle usage to add atmosphere usally toned down in actual game due to alpha blend being so damn expensive. In some controlled areas these can be used. In this case perhaps it was taken out due to art direction change as opposed to optimization. so blame the art director :P
9. Sound - Highly curated for the scene from start to finish.
In general these are the things that a trailer will have. The trailers intention is to first sell the idea of the game. Second to show tech, this usually means all departments putting everything into one sequence. This can not be done for the whole game... for many reasons.... main reason is optimization and second reason lack of time/resources. Getting your bang for your buck type deal you want to place all the great stuff in the events that matter the most. The aftermath is reducing quality in some areas or making it better for actual gameplay which means making things brighter and easier to see.
Trailers only have like 5 mins or less to show and in that time you need to sell it and sell it good. Some games get shown in E3, Pax, or GDC but never are released due to people not getting hyped over it. A good trailer vs and bad trailer is a live or die for companies sometimes... So if companies put a little more effort to show the game in the best of light I do not see it as a lie I see it as smart and hard working people... Not lazy as people would want to think.
I don't think it is just related to a mere bloom value being tweaked - it looks like there used to be a powerful volumetric lighting engine at play, which, along with what seemed to be some kind of accurate lens simulation, really brought something unique to the way the game used to look.
Without it the game seems to have lost the one thing that used to set it apart. It might be very subtle, but it may very well be the one detail that made it look so groundbreaking back then. As a matter of fact I cannot really think of any recent game with that kind of smooth quality to it, besides maybe The Order 1886 but it is not out yet.
Put differently : based on that comparison video, if the footage on the right (current PC version) had been used for the reveal in 2012, the public reaction might not have been as high. It certainly looks less like "something new". The club scene alone certainly looked amazing to me in the original reveal - thanks to the atmospheric lighting, and probably thanks to the NPC animations too, which were way more subtle and convincing back then.
Anyways, none of that will fix the bad shoulder rigging of the main character - something that has been bothering me ever since the first video reveal
Ubisoft announced today that Watch Dogs is the fastest-selling game in its history, selling more copies in the first 24 hours than any other title from the company.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/28/watch-dogs-becomes-fastest-selling-game-in-ubisoft-history
I'm not sure that gamers in general are aware that there is an unwritten rule that they shouldn't get too excited by early footage of game, because it's not likely to live up to those expectations once released. As a developer I understand that these things are a reality of the industry, but when your average consumer sees something they are told is legit then that is where their expectations are set from that point on. Maybe gamers' are overreacting in their disappointment at the discrepancies, but I think it's still valid that they are disappointed.
Really? I see these complaints pop up all of the time. People complained about The Last of Us very similarly for no reason. People complain about seeing a cg cut-scene. People complain about shit for no reason. The only valid complaint I have have seen is with Aleins Colonial Marines. They marketed a completely different game than what they released and didn't give any indication that was the case. This is not one of those instances. Anyone is allowed to be
It's similar to the mentality behind the whole Mass Effect 3 thing. The game was great other than a lack luster ending and people held a witch hunt against the developer and demanded their money back. Again without good reason.
watchdogs has just got the most heat for it though, Rome total war 2 did the same dodgy practices but there wasn't nearly as much nerd rage, problem is theres just no truth in advertising, and advertising promotion and hype is part of making games now.
They dress up the games falsely for a promo as they dress up a mcdonalds burger for a advert, and the fact others are doing it, in and outside the gaming industry is no justification at all.
these are some of the most negative aspects to come into the gaming industry since it became such the large business industry it is today, Sales matter, above all, the people that make the game don't matter nor does the people who buy the game, its about economical viability and getting those first day sales in huge numbers.
But that is not what happens. When demos are made they are a huge concerted effort to delivery what is supposed to represent the final product. They often look better because it is a small controlled slice of the game. You are allowed more visual fidelity in that instance. When you present a demo you are saying here is a slice of what I want the game to be. No one goes into it thinking this won't be what the game looks like, but it will sell copies.
If you preordered based on the E3 video but got upset about further videos, why didn't you cancel it? Did they have some sort of no refund clause?
Funny thing is, I wasn't hyped about the E3 demo or the launched game, I have no stake in the game.
On a side note, some stores in the UK make you put a non-refundable deposit down, which is a really shitty move.
Fuck.
Guess this gets added to the list of games I'll get "down the line" when I have enough money and justification to upgrade.
i've stopped a lot of crimes and i feel good.
So far it's damn fun and it has some really awesome game play mechanics to keep things fresh. The gun fights are just fantastic, the bullets hitting the car and changing cover is just a blast, the enemies interact with each other tell each other to do certain things, the hacking is really useful and fun. Little things that happen in the world too are cool, I saw a car accident happen without any traffic light interference or anything, unscripted and dynamic.
Few things for me that aren't as good as I thought or hoped for. The car damage is so weak and just lame imo, it's not bad but not as good as it should/could be, the car physics are off too, if I ram into a large truck it'll slide and roll like it has no weight (note that's even if I hit it with a small two door car).
Looks great and runs great for me and this game is getting too much hate because of the E3 thing. I recommend the game.
Beaides that this thread just reached a dangerous levels of stupidity.
a) Not everyone is a 3d artist.
b) As he isn't the artist in question, he probably doesn't have the original assets to modify.
c) He probably has other work to do and strict deadlines.
d) Other people may well have been working on those levels and you can't edit them as they are checked out.
e) You can't just do random shit and submit it into the main branch in a large scale project.
Lol
Isn't Watch Dogs problem a marketing problem ? It is a decent and enjoyable game. It was marketed as a our savior Jesus Christ. Isn't it in hands of publishers ? Developers are usually passionate people who just want to make cool game.
I don't work in industry though... I like the game. Nothing ground breaking and unfortunately badly optimised. Marketing was a disaster though.
PS: If you preordered it ... Just don't be a silly silly dude next time.
Edit\\ if I saw this issue I would take it up with who made the asset and the lead involved and than it would be changed. A simple act of getting off my seat and talking to people real people would solve this issue.
Maybe I am lucky or maybe I am just pro active.
I really love how the singleplayer blends in with the multiplayer. I was going to a mission location to start the next part of the story and somebody randomly tried hacking into my game, of course they slipped up and accidentally ran past me so it was quite easy to gun them down.
On a side note, one of the final missions in Act 2 has one of the most enjoyable shootouts I've seen in a game, it's right up there with the last level of Max Payne 3 in my book!
Are you forced into action and shootouts a lot, up until where you are at? I like hacking, stealth and stuff, but there have been a few of those cut scenes where they shout "There he is!" and then you are forced to gun down 80 people with big explosions and stuff.
Are there more choice of gameplay style further down the road, or are you often forced to do either stealth or action?
Consider that:
1. On WD there worked about 400 people.
2. That are spread all around the world.
3. Which means all of them work on different hours.
So no. You can't just sit, and fix shit, because you don't know if other people didn't fixed it, you might not have access to original source, or you might not have access to it at all.
And it entirely depends on company. Some smaller ones will give you more responsibility and trust, you will do it right or fix problems as you encounter them.
On others, you will have to consult every change with your superiors. And don't even waste your time on prototyping your idea. You do what we tell you to do, or you are getting fired!
For the most part it seems to be "pick stealth or run and gun" though, some missions seem to require one or the other, or both. One of the major missions in Act 2 involves you losing your weapons (you get them back later) but you have to get past a lot of guards without being noticed, and if you knock a guard out to get his gun, it'll end up being an unsilenced weapon that won't really help you until later on in the mission where you have to fight through a ton of guards including several Enforcers (it might actually be possible to sneak past them, but it'd probably be very difficult.)
Other missions, like the shootout I was referring to seem to force a "run and gun" type of playstyle. You basically get surrounded by enemies, you could take them out with stealth also but you would have to have a maxed out combat skill (to perform a takedown on an Enforcer) since there were a bunch of them.
There were a few parts in missions where you weren't allowed to kill anybody, and then there were a few parts where you had to guide NPCs into certain areas by telling them to move to specific zones while watching them on cameras to make sure they weren't spotted.
I'd prefer if there were more ways to go about taking on a situation but the core combat mechanics seem to be very solid so I don't get bored of what is offered.