Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2014]

[function]

The game is blurry as shit, that is why people couldn't tell the resolution.

And yet despite this, you're insisting that the game should be 1080p. Because.

You don't seem to realise the absurdity of your position.

 

[Jedi2016]

And yet despite this, you're insisting that the game should be 1080p. Because.

Because it should be.

I for one had a 1080p TV before the X360 launched, with the introduction of the supposed "high-definition" era of gaming. After almost nine years, I am sick and tired of not being able to play games at native resolution. IMO, that should be first priority, period. And all that BS about "sacrificing image quality" is just that... BS. No one would even notice the corners you cut. And look at Infamous. It can be done, and still look good. And with an entire damn city, as opposed to just two guys on a single-texture background. And that's not even a PS4/XBO thing, either.. with a game that looks like this, they should have no problem hitting it on both systems.

 

[Wynix]

And yet despite this, you're insisting that the game should be 1080p. Because.
You don't seem to realise the absurdity of your position.

I didn't think it needed to be said, but here we are.
In my personal opinion they should:

• Drop some AA, increase resolution.
• reduce blur filter.

 

[Shortbread]

Was there really a Watch Dogs graphics downgrade

Lighting also takes a hit. Fewer light sources appear to cast shadows, water interaction with the scenery seems more limited and the rain is no longer lit by car headlamps in-game (though it is in cut-scenes). Mist and volumetric fog are key components of the E3 reveal's visual make-up, but they appear to be substantially pared back in the final game - and it's telling that the theatre interior, which used similar tech extensively, sees the effect almost completely removed, with just a small vent billowing smoke into the room in a couple of areas as opposed to blanket coverage before.

By this point, the case for a graphical downgrade is pretty much beyond question: it did happen in some form or other. So why did Ubisoft have to adjust the existing, rather splendid assets? Adjusting lighting and alpha effects is one thing, but a significant remodelling of the city suggests Ubisoft carried out a large amount of work in a timescale that appears to coincide with the approximate arrival of actual next-gen console development hardware

The most obvious conclusion is that Ubisoft - and it is not the only company to do this by any stretch - simply overestimated the raw power it would get from the new consoles. The biggest differences that stand out come from the use of depth of field, volumetric mist, fog and atmospherics - lavish to the extreme in the older version, less so in the final game. It suggests the developers were expecting significantly more graphics bandwidth than actually materialised.

Ambient lighting during daytime is another substantial difference, arguably the biggest of all. Could it be that the global illumination system Ubisoft worked on simply wasn't a good fit for the new consoles? After all, 2012 was the year of Unreal Engine 4's SVOGI real-time global illumination debut - a lighting technique ditched a year later when the engine made its PS4 debut, never to return. Quite why city geometry changed so much is also a mystery. Perhaps Ubisoft had to design around the last-gen versions?

 

[Malo]

From the article

The key question, though, which is a corollary to ones about a graphical downgrade but is often left unspoken, is whether a graphical downgrade was part of a deception - whether Ubisoft put out better-looking demos at E3 2012 and the PS4 reveal because it knew that it would fuel more pre-orders. And for us, the answer to that one is probably no.

Then why do they still have pre-downgrade screenshots on the Steam page of Watch Dogs? They don't care, they just want to sell copies and don't give a shit how many complain about the downgrade.

 

[Davros]

And for us, the answer to that one is probably no

And for me, the answer to that one is absolutely yes...

 

[Deleted member 13524]

Looks like DF is desperately trying to hide the poo with this Watchdogs saga:

May 27th: "Is this the same game they promised in E2 2012? Yes it is because what doesn't look as good is "obviously CG", duh.."

June 8th: "Eeerm ok so there was a visual downgrade (we can't keep disagreeing with the whole internet and obvious videos around youtube because we'll start losing face and precious hits). But we still think Ubisoft is nice because they [strike] are giving us money[/strike] just overestimated the new generation of consoles. And screw you PC users because Gameworks.

 

[joker454]

But we still think Ubisoft is nice because they [strike] are giving us money[/strike] just overestimated the new generation of consoles.

It could be possible I suppose. It's been the case for some years now that consoles would ship at a financial loss to pack in whatever hardware they can so maybe they assumed that would be the case again this time. Maybe it caught them off guard when plans were revealed to launch the new consoles with no money lost on the hardware and hence Ubi's power estimates on console hardware were somewhat over estimated.

 

[taisui]

but I suppose at one point it was running on actual PC (regardless of how crazy power they are) at one point, like 2 years ago?

 

[chris1515]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-battlefield-hardline-beta-performance-analysis

Battlefield hardline beta 900p non stable 60 FPS on PS4

 

[BRiT]

*ahem* Take the morality to a different topic.

 

[function]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-battlefield-hardline-beta-performance-analysis

Battlefield hardline beta 900p ni' stable 60 FPS on PS4

30 ~ 60 fps.

Back in my day, when men where men, and AA batteries weren't too heavy to lift, we would have called that a "30 fps game" and had consistent frame rate and input latency.

This modern trend of uncapping 30 fps games and calling them 60 fps is appalling.

 

[Wynix]

Sucker Punch leaving ISS uncapped comes to mind, I think it never even got close to 60fps.

 

[rokkerkory]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-battlefield-hardline-beta-performance-analysis

Battlefield hardline beta 900p ni' stable 60 FPS on PS4

Didn't they say 1080p on PS4 and X1? Doesn't seem they will reach it then.

 

[zed]

Sucker Punch leaving ISS uncapped comes to mind, I think it never even got close to 60fps.

We spoke to inFamous Second Son’s director recently, and in our interview he explained exactly why Sucker Punch have chosen to make the game run at a frame rate of 30 frames per second with a 1080p resolution, rather than aiming for 60fps.
Instead of asking him why the game was 30fps, we chose to ask exactly what the game would be like, and what it would’ve lost if they had gone for 60fps instead.
“Resolution.” replied Nate,

I believe you're thinking of another game that came out at the same time that was advertised to run at 60fps but ended up often at far less, Titanfall

 

[HTupolev]

Sucker Punch leaving ISS uncapped comes to mind, I think it never even got close to 60fps.

Sure it does, just look at the sky.

 

[London Geezer]

ISS was never advertised as a 60fps game. Ever.

 

[Karamazov]

we should keep in mind that this is a beta, not a demo from a final code. Even demos sometimes are not representative of the final product (remember the early E3 demo of froza3 with 30fps interior view ?)
i'm not saying that they will achieve their goal of 1080p/60fps, but for now let's not jump to conclusions before seeing the final game.

 

[chris1515]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-destiny-alpha-tech-analysis

DF and Destiny alpha

 

[Wynix]

I believe you're thinking of another game that came out at the same time that was advertised to run at 60fps but ended up often at far less, Titanfall

ISS was never advertised as a 60fps game. Ever.

I misread his post, my mistake; But I still think ISS unlocked framerate was a silly decision.