Watch Dogs

I'm still picking it up Tuesday, but I'm tempering my expectations in the graphics department after watching some live streams. The game looks like it's been at least grazed by the ugly stick.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk
 
After playing for a few hours the game is good, but is nothing mind blowing. The graphics are good, but effects are toned done from last year's e3 footage and the environments are kind of bland. Character models (especially hair) is still as bad as AC4.

The hacking is the main difference between this and gta, but it's not always easy to use. Targeting a specific person in a crown can be problematic, and more than once I attempted to hack someone's phone and accidentally murdered them by blowing something up they were standing next to. You start out with a small amount of things you can hacke and unlock others via skill tree.

Shooting feels fine, but you are no bullet sponge , and will die if trying to engage in open combat. The cover button also works pretty well. Driving feels...off. There's nothing obviously wrong with it. It just feels like it could have been tighter.

Overall I like the game. The story seems okay so far. Not really far enough to make a call on it though. Will update later.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk
 
Yea PS4 got skimped real bad and Xbox even more so. With some of the issues we've had on PC I can only imagine the translation trying to make a smooth experience. I would have to play this game on a console to confirm, but on PC I absolutely cannot play at 30fps. The game feels really sluggish at 30fps compared to other non-FPS games that feel fine like Skyrim.
 
I watched TotalBiscuit's first impressions video to get an idea of what the game was like, and he hammered Ubisoft for the performance issus on PC. Even with his massive, insanly expensive rig, he coudln't maintain 60 FPS and constantly ran into popping issues.
 
I don't know what he has, but people have to realize that there are a few issues at play here with PC.

The first being, Ultra textures says 3GB VRAM required for a reason because 1080p with no AA takes up 3GB of VRAM with the rest of the settings maxed.

The second, 8xMSAA says 2GB and I thoroughly think they mean 2GB of VRAM by itself.

Third, this is an Nvidia game so AMD setups are butch from the start. After a while AMD performance will catch up and exceed Nvidia due to higher frame buffer.

And final, shadows set to ultra causes stuttering issues for any setup unless you're one of the lucky few. Also on shadows, shadow flickering is a bug that will need to be patched out. It comes and goes by itself and isn't hardware related. 2 problematic issues not related to performance really and can be patched out later.

So that being said, anybody complaining about 780ti or 780ti SLI issues are probably running higher than 1080p and that is their first mistake. I have 4GB of VRAM running 1200p, I run everything maxed except shadows on high and only 2xMSAA and I run consistently over 3.5GB on my card. With this setup I don't have night time driving stutter and I typically run about 50fps. All the complaining about specs and performance or cries of "unoptimised" like GTA IV are ridiculous. People need to look at their recommendations and take them seriously. One of the forum members bought a 6GB 780 and I'm waiting on his reply of performance vs 670 2GB SLI. I bet his issues are all smoothed out. A friend I know in person has 2 290x cards running 1600p and he runs consistently 50-60fps with the new AMD drivers. It's just a matter of VRAM and people expecting too much from their machine due to all the lame console ports from before. This is a 64bit DX11 only game and it's made to take advantage of high amounts of memory.
 
I don't know what he has, but people have to realize that there are a few issues at play here with PC.

The first being, Ultra textures says 3GB VRAM required for a reason because 1080p with no AA takes up 3GB of VRAM with the rest of the settings maxed.

The second, 8xMSAA says 2GB and I thoroughly think they mean 2GB of VRAM by itself.

Third, this is an Nvidia game so AMD setups are butch from the start. After a while AMD performance will catch up and exceed Nvidia due to higher frame buffer.

And final, shadows set to ultra causes stuttering issues for any setup unless you're one of the lucky few. Also on shadows, shadow flickering is a bug that will need to be patched out. It comes and goes by itself and isn't hardware related. 2 problematic issues not related to performance really and can be patched out later.

So that being said, anybody complaining about 780ti or 780ti SLI issues are probably running higher than 1080p and that is their first mistake. I have 4GB of VRAM running 1200p, I run everything maxed except shadows on high and only 2xMSAA and I run consistently over 3.5GB on my card. With this setup I don't have night time driving stutter and I typically run about 50fps. All the complaining about specs and performance or cries of "unoptimised" like GTA IV are ridiculous. People need to look at their recommendations and take them seriously. One of the forum members bought a 6GB 780 and I'm waiting on his reply of performance vs 670 2GB SLI. I bet his issues are all smoothed out. A friend I know in person has 2 290x cards running 1600p and he runs consistently 50-60fps with the new AMD drivers. It's just a matter of VRAM and people expecting too much from their machine due to all the lame console ports from before. This is a 64bit DX11 only game and it's made to take advantage of high amounts of memory.


Everything you said here...this is why I love console gaming.
 
Back
Top Bottom