Watch Dogs

calex71

How are they online elements accessed I can't seem to find the training that needs to be done to make those available

naughto

calex71 wrote: »

How are they online elements accessed I can't seem to find the training that needs to be done to make those available

Same as that took me an age to find it,of course its on the phone.don't no where the training is.did a few car races there not great .

Falthyron

All of this 'horrible driving' banter is really confusing me. Any chance people could clarify exactly what they are playing on? I am on PC and using an Xbox 360 controller and I have to say, driving is easy. Feels quite like Burnout Paradise. I have been driving fast cars, pieces of garbage-cars, and motorbikes. In fact, I quite like the driving. It handles well and power-sliding around corners feels great!

Maybe driving is a problem for keyboard and mouse users?

Vinz Mesrine

Kaizersoze81 wrote: »

Hard to enjoy an open world game when the driving is so bad. 50% of the game would be driving.

How have you found the driving? Oh no wait, another person who hasn't played it who can amazingly give an opinion on it.

Vinz Mesrine

Falthyron wrote: »

All of this 'horrible driving' banter is really confusing me. Any chance people could clarify exactly what they are playing on? I am on PC and using an Xbox 360 controller and I have to say, driving is easy. Feels quite like Burnout Paradise. I have been driving fast cars, pieces of garbage-cars, and motorbikes. In fact, I quite like the driving. It handles well and power-sliding around corners feels great!

Maybe driving is a problem for keyboard and mouse users?

It's too unrealistic apparently, most likely posted by people who don't drive IRL.

recyclops

I made pretty much the exact same order but mine arrived last night

.ak

Falthyron wrote: »

All of this 'horrible driving' banter is really confusing me. Any chance people could clarify exactly what they are playing on? I am on PC and using an Xbox 360 controller and I have to say, driving is easy. Feels quite like Burnout Paradise. I have been driving fast cars, pieces of garbage-cars, and motorbikes. In fact, I quite like the driving. It handles well and power-sliding around corners feels great!

Maybe driving is a problem for keyboard and mouse users?

Probably in comparison to GTA.

I haven't played it yet tho.

tok9

It's the style of driving that people are referring to. It's very much an arcade driving style, more so than GTA5.

I'm personally enjoying it.

My main grip with the game so far is the radio music is terrible (soundtrack itself seems good) and like with most free roaming games (and Ubisoft take this to 11) there is a lot of filler.

Other than that I've enjoyed the missions, finding the different approaches very satisfying and so far the online hacking has been fun.

Must get into a few races and decryption.

C14N

Nody wrote: »

It's (yet another) poor PC port of a console game. TB running dual SLI Titan graphic cards can't run it at full resolution at 60fps; that's how poorly it's been ported...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

Wasn't this game made for PC first and then ported? I mean the original 2012 demo was infamously running on a PC which is the alleged reason it looked so good.

Falthyron

C14N wrote: »

Wasn't this game made for PC first and then ported? I mean the original 2012 demo was infamously running on a PC which is the alleged reason it looked so good.

Pretty sure you are right. However, the more important question that should be asked is: why are people still buying SLI configurations!? It really isn't worth it and a lot of games ignore optimising for this setup and rarely take advantage of two graphics cards.

Considering Nvidia can't stop talking about how they have exclusive graphical features in WatchDogs I am surprised a Titan is struggling. I am using an ASUS R9 290 and with max settings I am getting no less than 34fps, but mostly 40-45fps. Hopefully, AMD will bring out more drivers to improve on the 14.6 beta ones.

RasTa

Edge gave this an 8
Jim Sterling 4.5/5.

Must have title so.

Nody

C14N wrote: »

Wasn't this game made for PC first and then ported? I mean the original 2012 demo was infamously running on a PC which is the alleged reason it looked so good.

Apparently the released game looks worse then the demo they showed off so I'd guess they went and changed the game engine/assets along the way to make it console playable.

Falthyron wrote: »

Pretty sure you are right. However, the more important question that should be asked is: why are people still buying SLI configurations!? It really isn't worth it and a lot of games ignore optimising for this setup and rarely take advantage of two graphics cards.

If you are a full time dedicated game reviewer for PC gaming it makes sense though; you're right that most can not handle it but that alone is something worth commenting on. The fact a Xbox 360 game runs poorly on a top of the line PC though is damning no matter how you put it. The port is simply not done properly (TB tried three different PCs inc. GTX680 stand alone card which had to drop down to medium/high settings to hit 60 FPS consistently).

AGoodison

Played it last night. Not sure what the complaints about the actual driving is. It's not quite as good as nfs rivals but it's still good.The part of the driving that could have been done better is the damage and collisions.

Branoic

tok9 wrote: »

It's the style of driving that people are referring to. It's very much an arcade driving style, more so than GTA5.

I'm personally enjoying it.

My main grip with the game so far is the radio music is terrible (soundtrack itself seems good) .

Yep, this. I don't understand the problems with the driving. No issue at all.

But yes, the radio tracks are crap. I turn off the radio right away every time I enter a car.

The "Poor Man's GTA" arguement also makes no sense to me. Of course its a Poor Man's GTA. EVERY SINGLE open world game, other than GTA, is a Poor Man's GTA. GTA is pretty much the pinnacle of the genre (whether you're a fan or not). As one of the review sites put it (paraphrasing a bit): "Watch Dogs falls just short of GTA V then. But falling just short of arguablly the game of the generation is still an incredible achievement".

I don't get the customer hatred in some quarters, and its a shame, because they're missing out on a cracking game.

Also, its highlighted again for me the absolute pointlessness of customer reviews on Metacritic. The same people who moan about the professional reviews all being bought then flock in their droves to mark the game down with a "0", showing them to be beacons of measured and honest opinion. Whatever problems they may have with the game (after playing it first hand, naturally), it is certainly not a zero. Of course, then fans of the game feel the need to flood the site with 10s, which is equally disingenuous.

C14N

Falthyron wrote: »

Pretty sure you are right. However, the more important question that should be asked is: why are people still buying SLI configurations!? It really isn't worth it and a lot of games ignore optimising for this setup and rarely take advantage of two graphics cards.

Considering Nvidia can't stop talking about how they have exclusive graphical features in WatchDogs I am surprised a Titan is struggling. I am using an ASUS R9 290 and with max settings I am getting no less than 34fps, but mostly 40-45fps. Hopefully, AMD will bring out more drivers to improve on the 14.6 beta ones.

Personally, as someone who just started using Crossfire this week, it's very good for multi-monitor setups or alternatively for very large displays (such as Ultra HD). Outside of that, you're right, it really does seem to give very diminishing returns. If someone is getting such poor results with over €1500 worth of GPU there is clearly something else at play here.

Nody wrote: »

Apparently the released game looks worse then the demo they showed off so I'd guess they went and changed the game engine/assets along the way to make it console playable.

If you are a full time dedicated game reviewer for PC gaming it makes sense though; you're right that most can not handle it but that alone is something worth commenting on. The fact a Xbox 360 game runs poorly on a top of the line PC though is damning no matter how you put it. The port is simply not done properly (TB tried three different PCs inc. GTX680 stand alone card which had to drop down to medium/high settings to hit 60 FPS consistently).

I'm fairly sure the engine is the same but they did tones down things like lighting, textures and other assets to make it playable. The point is though that it was still PC-first, so it's not really a port, it's just badly optimised, which is surprising considering they're promoting it alongside nVidia cards.

um7y1h83ge06nx

After a good hard think I think I'll give this a miss.

In the past 7 or 8 months I've played GTAV, Assassins Creed Black Flag and Infamous Second Son. And I still need to finish Black Flag.

Running around an open world getting to a side mission marked on your map in the corner of screen can get a little stale. So in many ways it's not Watch Dogs fault I'm not getting this.

Still I wouldn't say no to this on Plus sometime. :-)

Branoic

Nody wrote: »

Apparently the released game looks worse then the demo they showed off so I'd guess they went and changed the game engine/assets along the way to make it console playable.

Not true.

Take a look at the Digital Foundry article Does Watch Dogs Deliver on Its Stunning E3 2012 Reveal?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-watch-dogs-tech-analysis

Short version:

Basically, yes. The reveal played to the engine's strenghts - Night time and wet scenes. Those same night time and wet scenes look pretty much just as good in the final game (PS4). The exact same tech just doesn't look as good in the daytime, and the E3 reveal was clever in not showing that. It doesn't mean that the engine was downgraded in the years after the reveal, it just means that they showed it to us at its best under optimal conditions.

From the DF article conclusion:

Does Watch Dogs truly deliver on the promise of its initial E3 2012 reveal? The short answer is yes. Cutting away the obviously pre-rendered CG inserts at E3 2012 leaves a slice of gameplay that is indeed a close match for the final game. In fact, the finished game comes out of the comparison very favourably, because that original demo only represented a tiny fraction of the overall offering; Watch Dogs as it ships is an ambitious project with a massive cityscape to explore and a vast array of tasks to carry out.

DARK-KNIGHT

Having played this the game is surprisingly good

Nody

Sorry but quite a few people would disagree that it delivers on what was shown; have a look at this side by side comparison. You can't seriously claim that they are the same quality level as shown in the demo (look at for example the shadows of leaves from the trees) with what's actually playable in game on the same street.

rolexeagle1

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but quite a few people would disagree that it delivers on what was shown; have a look at this side by side comparison. You can't seriously claim that they are the same quality level as shown in the demo (look at for example the shadows of leaves from the trees) with what's actually playable in game on the same street.

I cant stand the brown tindge to everything on consoles these days!

Anyone know what price this is in Tesco at the moment, still want to get it!

TinCool

Will be picking up my PS4/Watch Dog pack after work today. That's the evening's entertainment sorted.

Potatoeman

At least the PC release came out at the same time. I hope it nabs GTAs sales.

Falthyron

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but quite a few people would disagree that it delivers on what was shown; have a look at this side by side comparison. You can't seriously claim that they are the same quality level as shown in the demo (look at for example the shadows of leaves from the trees) with what's actually playable in game on the same street.

That is a comparison with the PS4. When WatchDogs was shown at E3 2012 they never said what platform it was being demonstrated on. Turns out, it was a PC. So, they are comparing a PC with PS4 in that video... Console owners can't complain about the downgrade since it is a result of hardware limitations.

Sephiroth_dude

My copy arrived today from amazon \0/

rolexeagle1

I think I will pick this up on PS4, I have a PC with a 280x and FX 8320 in build process at the moment but I dunno if I would run it as nicely as I would like. A pre owned PS4 copy will have to do. If AMD get their stuff together and fix the issues I may purchase it at a later date on PC

Potatoeman

Falthyron wrote: »

That is a comparison with the PS4. When WatchDogs was shown at E3 2012 they never said what platform it was being demonstrated on. Turns out, it was a PC. So, they are comparing a PC with PS4 in that video... Console owners can't complain about the downgrade since it is a result of hardware limitations.

The demo they showed is better looking than the end game. They had graphical limitations and people are pissed that the demo looks better than even the PC game. People are not happy they sold it on graphics they failed to deliver.

DARK-KNIGHT

Potatoeman wrote: »

The demo they showed is better looking than the end game. They had graphical limitations and people are pissed that the demo looks better than even the PC game. People are not happy they sold it on graphics they failed to deliver.

The graphics are excellent... you have a non argument.

I was very anti this game yesterday but its very crisp an excellent game to fill a big summer gaming gap

Falthyron

Potatoeman wrote: »

The demo they showed is better looking than the end game. They had graphical limitations and people are pissed that the demo looks better than even the PC game. People are not happy they sold it on graphics they failed to deliver.

I agree, but I am playing it on PC with maximum settings and I have tweaked the .xml file to turn on the extra eye-candy, and I can safely say it is not as bad a downgrade as I once feared. Yes, it doesn't look as rich and as vibrant as the E3 demo, but it looks better than any GTAV video I have ever seen, and in many ways the lighting and water effects are the best I have seen in any game. Many parts of the engine are 'next-gen', but you can see the parts that were stripped back for whatever reasons.

If we are to assume 'Watch_Dogs' of E3 2012 = Watch_Dogs 1.0, then this game would be Watch_Dogs 0.85. Missing some bells and whistles, but still a beautiful looking game on many occasions.

gizmo

If you're really interested in the differences between the E3 reveal footage and the retail PC footage then check this out.

Falthyron sums it up quite well above.

calex71

There are things to me that are very nice looking in the game , like the explosions and the water on roads after it's rained.

Also for a game of it's type I haven't noticed all that much pop in at all, which is something if bad I would notice. XBox One version.