This isn't really a topic for Watch Dogs, or how good/bad you think the game is, but rather a topic on Ubisoft basically crippling their own PC release for whatever reason (most likely as to prevent the PC version from outshining the 'next-gen console' version).
Remember how stunning Watch Dogs looked when Ubisoft unveiled it two years ago? When the game came out last month, many players said that the visuals for the open-world game didn't live up to that original teaser. But now an intrepid modder has found hidden files that improve the way the game looks, right there in Watch Dogs' PC version.
The discovery was announced on Guru3D (and spread after posted on NeoGAF), the various files tweak shaders, NPC density, camera angles and other elements. Mod creator TheWorse also claims that the files he's unpacked improve the game's performance, too:
Quote:
I'm a very obsessed person, with many things mainly graphics . Also i'm a fan of using sweetfx on every game I can use it. I like to make my own presets always.
After release and this stupid stuttering problems I started searching for fixes etc.
Then I saw many threads talking about the engine when I realized it was based on dunia 2 so I tried to unpack the files which obviously not worked.. so after searching so much for the unpacker I found it, started playing with it and after a long time of testing I ended up getting the E3 Bloom from 2012 working.
After studying how bin hex worked and downloading many tools to convert files etc, I was able to integrate and enable many effects.
The results are remarkable and are sure to give new life to arguments that Ubisoft hobbled Watch Dogs to make it viable as a release for both last-gen and new-gen consoles, as well as PC.
After downloading and installing the mod, Kotaku has found that all the improvements listed in the mod are present. (The shots above this paragraph are from Kotaku's own capture.) We've reached out to Ubisoft for comment and will update this post if and when they respond.
Sorry that the source is Kotaku, they just provided images. There are plenty of other news posts about it if you search though.
if i had a pc that could handle the beauty i would so play it QQ
EDIT: when i say handle, i mean play & stream
With the absolute terrible optimization the pc port has gotten, you'd need a beast to play it. A reviewer who's video I watched about the game has an amazing pc with 2... TWO freaking titan video cards and it still ran like ***on maxed settings at a lower reso. So I very seriously doubt very many people have a good enough computer to play this game like it should be played.
if i had a pc that could handle the beauty i would so play it QQ
EDIT: when i say handle, i mean play & stream
With the absolute terrible optimization the pc port has gotten, you'd need a beast to play it. A reviewer who's video I watched about the game has an amazing pc with 2... TWO freaking titan video cards and it still ran like ***on maxed settings at a lower reso. So I very seriously doubt very many people have a good enough computer to play this game like it should be played.
The settings fix the performance issues. It looks better and plays better, that's what the controversy is about.
if i had a pc that could handle the beauty i would so play it QQ
EDIT: when i say handle, i mean play & stream
With the absolute terrible optimization the pc port has gotten, you'd need a beast to play it. A reviewer who's video I watched about the game has an amazing pc with 2... TWO freaking titan video cards and it still ran like ***on maxed settings at a lower reso. So I very seriously doubt very many people have a good enough computer to play this game like it should be played.
Have got a couple of 780s (nearly identical to titans, few less cuda cores but higher clocks to compensate) and can barely max out the game at 1440p with an acceptable framerate. Meanwhile, I can max out Witcher 2 and Crysis 3 with little difficulty. Forget trying to stream unless you've got like a dual CPU motherboard or some ***.
if i had a pc that could handle the beauty i would so play it QQ
EDIT: when i say handle, i mean play & stream
With the absolute terrible optimization the pc port has gotten, you'd need a beast to play it. A reviewer who's video I watched about the game has an amazing pc with 2... TWO freaking titan video cards and it still ran like ***on maxed settings at a lower reso. So I very seriously doubt very many people have a good enough computer to play this game like it should be played.
The settings fix the performance issues. It looks better and plays better, that's what the controversy is about.
Yeah just noting the default game's status. You really shouldn't have to mod a game just to remove intentionally implemented performance decreases... I just can't logically think of a good reason to rape your own game like that. I don't feel like "making the console version a better choice" is a very good reason for sales.
For once, the PC gaming 'master race' can actually cite a true example of "Held back for consoles." This is 100% a hotfix (Hotbreak?) to make the PC port equal to or arguably inferior to the PS4/XB1 versions.
Technical incompetence is kind of an innocent style of stupidity (Looking at you Dark Souls) but what Ubisoft did here is just malice.
Ubisoft has never given a *** about their PC audience. The only game I can think of in any sort of recent memory that was even remotely well optimized for PC was Far Cry 3. Don't even get me started on Assassin's Creed IV, the mother *** didn't even include Windowed or Borderless Windowed options.
I don't think I'd be so pissed off if these Graphics options didn't also seemingly stabilize the game, I'm of the mind that graphics are one of the least important aspects of a game... That said there's literally no justification for it, even if you ignore Ubisofts dubious history on the PC.
I'd agree that I don't feel graphics are everything. I don't feel that any amount of graphics can make up for bad gameplay but when you make a game that claims to be nextgen graphics and you have a presentation at E3 that displays it, you'd better deliver.
What gets me is that the ***is in there... It was developed, it was obviously working and they disabled it. And not only did they intentionally *** it up but by doing so broke the game's stability. Just mind blowing.
I don't think I'd be so pissed off if these Graphics options didn't also seemingly stabilize the game, I'm of the mind that graphics are one of the least important aspects of a game... That said there's literally no justification for it, even if you ignore Ubisofts dubious history on the PC.
The "mod" runs better on nVidia cards but causes performance issues with AMD cards.
People can cry conspiracy all they want but the game does not look that much better with these features turned on(the DOF is actually worse, imo) and with the marketing budget for this game they probably decided to cut their losses and tone it down rather than spend more time making it work.
Ubisoft has always had a questionable track record with PC releases so I don't know why people are acting like this one game is proof that Sony/Microsoft are paying off publishers to make PC gaming worse.
No one in their right mind believes that console players would go out and build a new PC if they knew Watch Dogs looked better on PC. Crysis, Skyrim, Tomb Raider, etc.(the list goes on and on and on...) are all games that people know look better on PC. That didn't hurt the console sales.
The AMD V. Nvidia thing is a whole different beast. Ubisoft refused to release code to AMD to optimize their cards for Watch_Dogs, Nvidia on the other hand was given access to the code they needed.
This is really weird especially because X1 and PS4 run AMD GPUs.
LOL this game can look pretty, since me and my friends are all running GeForce 780Ti (one dual sli 2 other pc with them) we ran a trip sli with the cards and ran this game. funny thing to note is that their buffered frames is terrible. we had massive problems in max settings until we took the buffered frames off, then ran it with a computer with 1 780ti. in all cases trip dual sli and single card we had less visual tearing with 0-1 buffered frames. Annother friend ran his 790 radeon and found it did not care at all.
Though i think this weekend we will try this patch and see what it does.
Ubisoft went from being a publisher that I respected to just being in the dirt with EA in one year. That crap about no female avatars in AC:Unity because it was too hard, what bs.
No more passes, their games ALL run like ***, their online servers are garbage, and they are constantly 1 step behind other studios in terms of gameplay and innovation. They can create all these NPCs that do nothing, but they can't fix enemy AI? Really? Just no to Ubisoft.
One last chance with the Division, they *** it up I'm done with them forever, they have zero franchises I need.
I'd agree that I don't feel graphics are everything. I don't feel that any amount of graphics can make up for bad gameplay but when you make a game that claims to be nextgen graphics and you have a presentation at E3 that displays it, you'd better deliver.
What gets me is that the ***is in there... It was developed, it was obviously working and they disabled it. And not only did they intentionally *** it up but by doing so broke the game's stability. Just mind blowing.
this 100%. I can't wait to see TotalBiscuit's inevitable video about this, it's going to be *** glorious.
Totalbiscuit's a bit of a ***. Every time he says "I look at games objectively" I want to reach in and strangle the tophat from underneath him.
I love his WTF is format, and I always enjoy having contesting perspectives shown (For example, I'm a huge lore-atmosphere loving gamer, where he's all about mechanics) but all that said, his PC Gaming Master Race *** is tiresome to the extreme. (Not to mention ripped off from an infinitely more entertaining critic and then misappropriated entirely)
Recently for example, he was going on some diatribe about "Next Gen means nothing to the PC gamer" when literally three days before he had talked about "Next Gen of PC gaming" in regards to the next version of DirectX... So yeah. Kind of a dipshit at times.
He could go about things better, but it doesn't mean he's not right about most things. The "next gen" of consoles really doesn't mean anything to someone who owns a modern gaming PC; outside of console exclusive titles (or really badly optimized ones, like Watch Dogs) the PS4 and Xbone were DoA in terms of raw oomph. Graphical fidelity itself really only matters when you're on the bleeding edge, and I'd contest anyone who says that if they see a game like TW2 or Crysis 3 that the fact they look so god damn great isn't one of the reasons to get immersed in them, but FPS, microstuttering, basic resolution and windowing options, FoV sliders, etc. are all extremely important.
When a game doesn't have these things implemented properly, all it tells me is that the devs didn't give a ***. There's no reason not to include or optimize the core features of the game before or right after it goes out to market. It's a show of disrespect to the consumer, and one could argue it is also insulting.
I'm not willing to say "PC Gamers are the master race!" because it's *** stupid, but still, it's impossible to argue that PC is not the optimal platform for games, especially now that it's becoming more accessible than ever. Devs need to wake up and realize that.
I like his material, I don't agree with everything he says but that's the point. He provides the facts, and then he gives his opinion, it's not meant for you to agree with him, just to educate the viewer on what something is about or what he's discussing.
Recently he put out a video on Cloudbuilt. He hates platforming games with an extreme passion, but he wanted to put a video out on the game because he respects it. He thought the game deserved to be discovered by a wider audience, even though it's not his type of game.
It's stuff like that, that I really respect. He doesn't try to conform his opinion to the mainstream audience, he says what he wants to say, and makes videos on what he wants to cover. He isn't forced to review something he hates, and even with games like Cloudbuilt if he respects the game for what it is, even if he's bad at it and would never play it himself, if he thinks it deserves attention he'll do his part to make it known to all his viewers and followers.
Admittedly PC gaming has it's own host of issues given that everyone under the sun has varying hardware/software combos which can be a living nightmare. But I still like it more.
I enjoy TB's stuff. I mean I'm willing to listen to him review games in a 30min to hour long format... I've got to give him credit for that at least. I can't say I agree with everything he says and I think it's better if you go in knowing his biases but things I have learned from his videos have influenced purchases.
yeah, building a game for PC is harder thats for sure. hardware developers have been working to make it a lot easier though, and are often there to help devs optimize their games further via drivers if they're willing to cooperate. honestly though, there is 0 reason not to include basic features like resolution options being available, FoV sliders, and windowed mode. PC configuration doesn't affect any of those, lacking them is just laziness or blatant disregard for the consumer. blatantly ignoring an entire major hardware developer for watch dogs was just *** ridiculous, too.
yeah, building a game for PC is harder thats for sure. hardware developers have been working to make it a lot easier though, and are often there to help devs optimize their games further via drivers if they're willing to cooperate. honestly though, there is 0 reason not to include basic features like resolution options being available, FoV sliders, and windowed mode. PC configuration doesn't affect any of those, lacking them is just laziness or blatant disregard for the consumer. blatantly ignoring an entire major hardware developer for watch dogs was just *** ridiculous, too.
Or customizable controller set ups... Not much love for controller using pc gamers!
yeah, building a game for PC is harder thats for sure. hardware developers have been working to make it a lot easier though, and are often there to help devs optimize their games further via drivers if they're willing to cooperate. honestly though, there is 0 reason not to include basic features like resolution options being available, FoV sliders, and windowed mode. PC configuration doesn't affect any of those, lacking them is just laziness or blatant disregard for the consumer. blatantly ignoring an entire major hardware developer for watch dogs was just *** ridiculous, too.
Or customizable controller set ups... Not much love for controller using pc gamers!
XI won't recognize my PS3 controller's R2/L2 keys for config. ><;
PC games will never sell as much as consoles, cuz "computers are for nerds".
Then the fact that a very large majority of "gamers" are completely computer illiterate and will just blame the PC when the game (and the PC itself) runs like ***.
The whole new generation of "I'm a gamer, I play Call of Duty & *insert sports game here*" doesn't help either. Too many *** twits who think they are on the cutting edge of technology because they got themselves an Xbone that responds to their voice commands (omgwtfbbq, so kewl). Yet these same people wouldn't have a clue as to how to do something as simple as properly setup the settings for the same game on a PC. (Resolution, video/graphics options, audio settings, etc.)
Then they will proceed to say the game looks like ***on PC, largely due to their own incompetence/ignorance.
Yes, I'm salty lol.
(Not saying if you own those consoles you are automatically one of those types of people, you all know the type of people I'm talking about.)
This isn't really a topic for Watch Dogs, or how good/bad you think the game is, but rather a topic on Ubisoft basically crippling their own PC release for whatever reason (most likely as to prevent the PC version from outshining the 'next-gen console' version).
Remember how stunning Watch Dogs looked when Ubisoft unveiled it two years ago? When the game came out last month, many players said that the visuals for the open-world game didn't live up to that original teaser. But now an intrepid modder has found hidden files that improve the way the game looks, right there in Watch Dogs' PC version.
The discovery was announced on Guru3D (and spread after posted on NeoGAF), the various files tweak shaders, NPC density, camera angles and other elements. Mod creator TheWorse also claims that the files he's unpacked improve the game's performance, too:
Quote:
I'm a very obsessed person, with many things mainly graphics . Also i'm a fan of using sweetfx on every game I can use it. I like to make my own presets always.
After release and this stupid stuttering problems I started searching for fixes etc.
Then I saw many threads talking about the engine when I realized it was based on dunia 2 so I tried to unpack the files which obviously not worked.. so after searching so much for the unpacker I found it, started playing with it and after a long time of testing I ended up getting the E3 Bloom from 2012 working.
After studying how bin hex worked and downloading many tools to convert files etc, I was able to integrate and enable many effects.
The results are remarkable and are sure to give new life to arguments that Ubisoft hobbled Watch Dogs to make it viable as a release for both last-gen and new-gen consoles, as well as PC.
After downloading and installing the mod, Kotaku has found that all the improvements listed in the mod are present. (The shots above this paragraph are from Kotaku's own capture.) We've reached out to Ubisoft for comment and will update this post if and when they respond.
Sorry that the source is Kotaku, they just provided images. There are plenty of other news posts about it if you search though.
