I'm getting a bad feeling about this game. For a game's build up to release there have been so many conflicting rumours, now the claim the PS4 can run it at 60fps, then that claim withdrawn, the graphics issues, the delays etc. it seems like they have had some major issues and I wonder if we are in for one of the gaming disappointments of the decade!
LOL seriously
because theres confusion over the FPS seriously who F-ING cares obviously its best to get 60FPS but if its 30FPS so what it never stoped us before playing all those great games on PS2+PS3 etc in 30fps
gamers are being seriously whiney this generation and its all about resolution and FPS WTF!!!
its had one major delay last I checked thats better than rushing it out NO?
watchdogs is coming out at the perfect time if it had come out last year it would have been released with all the other games and been lumped into them with so much to play
now watchdogs has space to breath and gamers will lap it up because theres F-all else out ATM I reckon
as for the graphics its a mixed gen game with last gen compatiablity in mind keep things in perspective so it cant be a fully next gen game at all
it will just about reach up to the first vid that was shown at E3 I reckon
now is the game itself any good thats the only Q we need to know and like with everything else we wait till reviews,user reviews and youtube reviews to get a general vibe of the game not based on FPS and resolutions or delays
because theres confusion over the FPS seriously who F-ING cares obviously its best to get 60FPS but if its 30FPS so what it never stoped us before playing all those great games on PS2+PS3 etc in 30fps
gamers are being seriously whiney this generation and its all about resolution and FPS WTF!!!
its had one major delay last I checked thats better than rushing it out NO?
watchdogs is coming out at the perfect time if it had come out last year it would have been released with all the other games and been lumped into them with so much to play
now watchdogs has space to breath and gamers will lap it up because theres F-all else out ATM I reckon
as for the graphics its a mixed gen game with last gen compatiablity in mind keep things in perspective so it cant be a fully next gen game at all
it will just about reach up to the first vid that was shown at E3 I reckon
now is the game itself any good thats the only Q we need to know and like with everything else we wait till reviews,user reviews and youtube reviews to get a general vibe of the game not based on FPS and resolutions or delays
calm down mate lol. All I am saying is that I have a bad feeling this game wont live up to expectations, by a long shot, too much hype, too much confusion. I agree that gamers wine these days and that irritates me as well, but here there are valid reasons for concern. I'm not worried about the graphics, my point is all the mixed info, what's going on with this game? It doesn't look good when this close to release. I agree with a previous post, it will probably be ok but not expecting great things either.
Do you think this game will be poor then? I don't really want to spend £54.99 downloading it on the 27th if it's rubbish lol.
I think read some reviews first, and see if it's your thing. I predict Assassins Creed game with a hacking gimmick. A flawed premise much like the first Assassins Creed, but sequels will improve the formula and be much better.
I've just been reading about this. Its crazy to see people actually cancelling pre orders based on these resolution numbers. Why has resolution become such big thing this gen?I never saw a thread anywhere when black ops was released at 600p and 540p on the Xbox 360 and ps3 for example, yet everywhere i turn in gaming social websites I'm seeing resolution talk.
I'm far more interested in review scores and gameplay impressions than res numbers.I'm sure the game will look great, but at the moment im afraid the game will be boring to play.
^^^ and go back further than the 360 and ps3. Look at any thread about your favourite game ever and you'll see maybe Final Fantasy 7, the first Metal Gear Solid, Super Mario Bros, Goldeneye, Zelda: Ocarina of Time and many others. None of these games had 60fps and 1040p resolution. Yet we all live them and would play them again in a heartbeat.
Yet people are whining because every game cannot run at these specs. People need to cop on and remember what makes great games, it's not frames per second and it's not resolution.
I know technology must advance, and there's a certain standard we expect from games of this era, but people are willing to dismiss a game entirely based on these numbers, it's ridiculous.
They should've sacrificed res for framerate, 30fps just isn't cricket.
PC continues to grow thanks to consoles.
FFS!!!
I should've thought the "next Gen" could at least hit 1080p on these games! It is slightly worrying that these consoles are ALREADY struggling to hit the PC benchmarks!
I was quite annoyed earlier when I dug out COD ghosts on the PC (my laptop) and dropped the settings to pretty much low except resolution only to find it looked exactly the same as my PS4 version.
Methinks this next gen is looking like a bit of a short one. Going to wait until ES 2014 to see what Sony has up its sleeves. If its not great then *may* look at selling up on consoles and keep to pc (and 360).
^^^ and go back further than the 360 and ps3. Look at any thread about your favourite game ever and you'll see maybe Final Fantasy 7, the first Metal Gear Solid, Super Mario Bros, Goldeneye, Zelda: Ocarina of Time and many others. None of these games had 60fps and 1040p resolution. Yet we all live them and would play them again in a heartbeat.
Yet people are whining because every game cannot run at these specs. People need to cop on and remember what makes great games, it's not frames per second and it's not resolution.
I know technology must advance, and there's a certain standard we expect from games of this era, but people are willing to dismiss a game entirely based on these numbers, it's ridiculous.
I agree, it is crazy. The first E3 trailers did suggest it would look pretty great but it's not like you look at it now and say those graphics suck. It's all about the gameplay.
^^^ and go back further than the 360 and ps3. Look at any thread about your favourite game ever and you'll see maybe Final Fantasy 7, the first Metal Gear Solid, Super Mario Bros, Goldeneye, Zelda: Ocarina of Time and many others. None of these games had 60fps and 1040p resolution. Yet we all live them and would play them again in a heartbeat.
Yet people are whining because every game cannot run at these specs. People need to cop on and remember what makes great games, it's not frames per second and it's not resolution.
I know technology must advance, and there's a certain standard we expect from games of this era, but people are willing to dismiss a game entirely based on these numbers, it's ridiculous.
What makes games great is gameplay, but poor fps can hamper the experience. How many old games had terrible fps? The only time I encountered poor fps in the PSOne days was when I would create about 100 mammoth tanks in Red Alert and it would tank the game!
The reaction is because of the things Ubisoft have been saying. To all platforms they have been making promises (see my link), and it looks like none of them have been kept (even after all the delays), hence the subsequent reaction. If they kept quiet and released this info, the reaction would have probably been much smaller. The whole saga of Watch_Dogs development perfectly illustrates why Valve keeps their mouth shut.
I should've thought the "next Gen" could at least hit 1080p on these games! It is slightly worrying that these consoles are ALREADY struggling to hit the PC benchmarks!
I was quite annoyed earlier when I dug out COD ghosts on the PC (my laptop) and dropped the settings to pretty much low except resolution only to find it looked exactly the same as my PS4 version.
Methinks this next gen is looking like a bit of a short one. Going to wait until ES 2014 to see what Sony has up its sleeves. If its not great then *may* look at selling up on consoles and keep to pc (and 360).
Ubisoft think optimization is overrated and prefer brute force, all their games will be better played on PC. I don't think other multiplat AAA devs think the same way as them and consoles should see that 60fps/1080p....At some point.
its the frame rate that bothers me. its a personal thing but I notice a big difference between 30 and 60 fps, that's one reason i prefer PC gaming. the games are more playable and fluid. if consoles could hit that performance mark i'd be converted. id rather that than bells and whistles graphics, nothing is more important than smooth game play imo.
Just go and spend three grand on a gaming pc and then you'll have everything you want.
Ha ha ha
Yeah 3 grand if your building skynet......... ;-)
No offence mate but my PC build would cost about 1k and thats money I spent by changing my config over time rather than an out and out spend initially.
It's quite funny this sigma that a decent PC for gaming costs alot of cash. It's total nonsense in my experience. The only issue(s) I have with PC gaming and the main reason I still have consoles is that sometimes PC games don't run properly from the word go. There's often driver issues etc that cause major problems which make the console simplicity of insert disk and play more attractive.
I am quite disappointed that major releases like Watch Dogs or even Titanfall can't hit the magic 1080p 60fps. Anyone who says you can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps has no idea what they are on about. Try games like GTAIV on consoles at 30fps or below then try it on PC at 60fps or even Far Cry 3, Crysis 2/3 or ACIV and then say you can't tell the difference as to how smooth it is.
I'm still hoping for a PS4 or PC announcement for GTAV as playing it at a solid 30fps or above would make one heck of a difference as to how it plays.
Ah I know jokerz. I intentionally went overboard with the price. Although is 120fps possible? I know technically it is, just shove more frames into a second timestamp, but would it be rendered pointless?
Comments
LOL seriously
because theres confusion over the FPS seriously who F-ING cares obviously its best to get 60FPS but if its 30FPS so what it never stoped us before playing all those great games on PS2+PS3 etc in 30fps
gamers are being seriously whiney this generation and its all about resolution and FPS WTF!!!
its had one major delay last I checked thats better than rushing it out NO?
watchdogs is coming out at the perfect time if it had come out last year it would have been released with all the other games and been lumped into them with so much to play
now watchdogs has space to breath and gamers will lap it up because theres F-all else out ATM I reckon
as for the graphics its a mixed gen game with last gen compatiablity in mind keep things in perspective so it cant be a fully next gen game at all
it will just about reach up to the first vid that was shown at E3 I reckon
now is the game itself any good thats the only Q we need to know and like with everything else we wait till reviews,user reviews and youtube reviews to get a general vibe of the game not based on FPS and resolutions or delays
calm down mate lol. All I am saying is that I have a bad feeling this game wont live up to expectations, by a long shot, too much hype, too much confusion. I agree that gamers wine these days and that irritates me as well, but here there are valid reasons for concern. I'm not worried about the graphics, my point is all the mixed info, what's going on with this game? It doesn't look good when this close to release. I agree with a previous post, it will probably be ok but not expecting great things either.
900p, 30 frames per second on PlayStation 4 and 792p, 30 frames per second on Xbox One.
http://blog.ubi.com/watch-dogs-next-gen-game-resolution-dynamism/
Definitely waiting for the reviews and first hand experience on this one.
I think read some reviews first, and see if it's your thing. I predict Assassins Creed game with a hacking gimmick. A flawed premise much like the first Assassins Creed, but sequels will improve the formula and be much better.
I hope so as I love both those games
http://i.imgur.com/ZdkIoQf.png
They should've sacrificed res for framerate, 30fps just isn't cricket.
PC continues to grow thanks to consoles.
I'm far more interested in review scores and gameplay impressions than res numbers.I'm sure the game will look great, but at the moment im afraid the game will be boring to play.
Yet people are whining because every game cannot run at these specs. People need to cop on and remember what makes great games, it's not frames per second and it's not resolution.
I know technology must advance, and there's a certain standard we expect from games of this era, but people are willing to dismiss a game entirely based on these numbers, it's ridiculous.
FFS!!!
I should've thought the "next Gen" could at least hit 1080p on these games! It is slightly worrying that these consoles are ALREADY struggling to hit the PC benchmarks!
I was quite annoyed earlier when I dug out COD ghosts on the PC (my laptop) and dropped the settings to pretty much low except resolution only to find it looked exactly the same as my PS4 version.
Methinks this next gen is looking like a bit of a short one. Going to wait until ES 2014 to see what Sony has up its sleeves. If its not great then *may* look at selling up on consoles and keep to pc (and 360).
I agree, it is crazy. The first E3 trailers did suggest it would look pretty great but it's not like you look at it now and say those graphics suck. It's all about the gameplay.
What makes games great is gameplay, but poor fps can hamper the experience. How many old games had terrible fps? The only time I encountered poor fps in the PSOne days was when I would create about 100 mammoth tanks in Red Alert and it would tank the game!
The reaction is because of the things Ubisoft have been saying. To all platforms they have been making promises (see my link), and it looks like none of them have been kept (even after all the delays), hence the subsequent reaction. If they kept quiet and released this info, the reaction would have probably been much smaller. The whole saga of Watch_Dogs development perfectly illustrates why Valve keeps their mouth shut.
Ubisoft think optimization is overrated and prefer brute force, all their games will be better played on PC. I don't think other multiplat AAA devs think the same way as them and consoles should see that 60fps/1080p....At some point.
Noooo.
Just go and spend three grand on a gaming pc and then you'll have everything you want.
I guess its to be expected at the start of this gen until they get used to the new platforms.
Ha ha ha
Yeah 3 grand if your building skynet......... ;-)
No offence mate but my PC build would cost about 1k and thats money I spent by changing my config over time rather than an out and out spend initially.
It's quite funny this sigma that a decent PC for gaming costs alot of cash. It's total nonsense in my experience. The only issue(s) I have with PC gaming and the main reason I still have consoles is that sometimes PC games don't run properly from the word go. There's often driver issues etc that cause major problems which make the console simplicity of insert disk and play more attractive.
I am quite disappointed that major releases like Watch Dogs or even Titanfall can't hit the magic 1080p 60fps. Anyone who says you can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps has no idea what they are on about. Try games like GTAIV on consoles at 30fps or below then try it on PC at 60fps or even Far Cry 3, Crysis 2/3 or ACIV and then say you can't tell the difference as to how smooth it is.
I'm still hoping for a PS4 or PC announcement for GTAV as playing it at a solid 30fps or above would make one heck of a difference as to how it plays.