• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Watch Dogs thread (new story trailer and release date announced!)

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
That's a little disappointing, I was hoping it would be massive. Maybe The Division will do that, but I have to say that as much as I want to call Assassin's Creed highly-redundant and boring, Ubisoft seems to be leading the charge for this generation, between Watch Dogs, The Crew, and The Division. They're the only publisher with three games I'd say could be at or near the top of their respective genres (action, racing, shooter).
 
Lil Frier said:
That's a little disappointing, I was hoping it would be massive. Maybe The Division will do that, but I have to say that as much as I want to call Assassin's Creed highly-redundant and boring, Ubisoft seems to be leading the charge for this generation, between Watch Dogs, The Crew, and The Division. They're the only publisher with three games I'd say could be at or near the top of their respective genres (action, racing, shooter).
Click to expand...

I wonder if you can go to all six areas at any time? The game seems big enough, that should not be an issue. I'm interested in all those titles actually, the division looks good despite being an online game.

They really need to do a gameplay stream as release gets closer.
 
Lil Frier said:
That's a little disappointing, I was hoping it would be massive. Maybe The Division will do that, but I have to say that as much as I want to call Assassin's Creed highly-redundant and boring, Ubisoft seems to be leading the charge for this generation, between Watch Dogs, The Crew, and The Division. They're the only publisher with three games I'd say could be at or near the top of their respective genres (action, racing, shooter).
Click to expand...

You forgot Thief. Remember that smash hit? Also, we won't know how good either of those games are. Watchdogs in particular has seen its star decline. Division look gorgeous, but graphics =/= gameplay. Also, lol @ Crew. Next car game looking like a much more promising title.

Much as I'd hate to admit this, EA has stepped it up. Bf4 is getting fixed while Bf3 never was. Titanfall was great. SW: Battlefront probably will be awesome, although too early to tell.
 
Battlefield still has problems. I still am on chapter 2 of thief, not sure if I'll get time to finish it.

If the districts are big enough you won't need a larger area.
 
Mondozei said:
You forgot Thief. Remember that smash hit? Also, we won't know how good either of those games are. Watchdogs in particular has seen its star decline. Division look gorgeous, but graphics =/= gameplay. Also, lol @ Crew. Next car game looking like a much more promising title.

Much as I'd hate to admit this, EA has stepped it up. Bf4 is getting fixed while Bf3 never was. Titanfall was great. SW: Battlefront probably will be awesome, although too early to tell.
Click to expand...

Thief: I never played the franchise, though I picked up the three-pack of games on Steam for $4.74 last week, in case I feel like it later. The new game didn't interest me because I never played the franchise, so I didn't include it.

Watch Dogs: That depends a lot on perspective. I wasn't paying much attention to it, and I'm not a graphics junkie, so the fact I've only been looking to it over the past month or so has left me excited.

The Crew: If I want sim racing, I'll get Forza. However, I enjoy great arcade racing, and The Crew seems to fill that. Next Car Game isn't on consoles, has no official release date, and I abhor the concept of Early Access, so screw that.

EA: Battlefield 4was still a catastrophe. All EA did with Titanfall was publish it and sneak an exclusivity deal in there for extra cash, so they get next-to-no credit there. We'll see on Battlefront, since it's coming from the geniuses who released the bug-riddled and rushed Battlefield 4. All EA is to me is a publisher-only release (Titanfall) and stuff I care nothing for (BF4, SimCity, Madden, NBA LIVE, Dragon Age). Rivals looks good, but I'm going to see what The Crew looks like, and PvZ: Garden Warfare seems OK, but not great.
 
Thief 4 is alright if you didn't play the others. Has some issues but a decent game. It's a game you play when you have the time because it takes a bit of time to get through each area undetected.
 
"Eight core - Intel Core i7-3770"

LOL, that's not the number of cores...

Sorry, but if this thing CAN run on a C2Q, then recommending an Ivy i7 is total B.S. I refuse to believe it gets that much (if anything) out of HyperThreading, and the same goes for saying that a Phenom II can play it, but the highest-end FX-8000 CPU is recommended, because it's basically saying only 3 AMD processors can properly handle it.

Is this game really supposed to be so massive/populated that it needs an awesome CPU, but a rather ho-hum GPU? I mean, a 7850 isn't an impressive card, yet that's the RECOMMENDED card? Oh, and what's this about NEEDING 6 GB of RAM? I fail to believe it needs that.

Like was said above, specs are becoming overly-inflated on boxes, I think, like with Ghosts. I suppose that's a benefit of consoles, you don't have to worry about if you have the hardware...
 
Lil Frier said:
"Eight core - Intel Core i7-3770"

LOL, that's not the number of cores...

Sorry, but if this thing CAN run on a C2Q, then recommending an Ivy i7 is total B.S. I refuse to believe it gets that much (if anything) out of HyperThreading, and the same goes for saying that a Phenom II can play it, but the highest-end FX-8000 CPU is recommended, because it's basically saying only 3 AMD processors can properly handle it.

Is this game really supposed to be so massive/populated that it needs an awesome CPU, but a rather ho-hum GPU? I mean, a 7850 isn't an impressive card, yet that's the RECOMMENDED card?
Click to expand...

Damage control, brother. Brand new engine, thousands of hardware combos, they are thinking better safe than sorry. If they had tightened the minimum specs than I would actually buy into it.
 
Lil Frier said:
"Eight core - Intel Core i7-3770"

LOL, that's not the number of cores...

Sorry, but if this thing CAN run on a C2Q, then recommending an Ivy i7 is total B.S. I refuse to believe it gets that much (if anything) out of HyperThreading, and the same goes for saying that a Phenom II can play it, but the highest-end FX-8000 CPU is recommended, because it's basically saying only 3 AMD processors can properly handle it.

Is this game really supposed to be so massive/populated that it needs an awesome CPU, but a rather ho-hum GPU? I mean, a 7850 isn't an impressive card, yet that's the RECOMMENDED card? Oh, and what's this about NEEDING 6 GB of RAM? I fail to believe it needs that.

Like was said above, specs are becoming overly-inflated on boxes, I think, like with Ghosts. I suppose that's a benefit of consoles, you don't have to worry about if you have the hardware...
Click to expand...
I guess you have never actually tested any game before. A game may can get by on a crappy setup using low settings and get over 30 fps but might need really high end hardware thrown at it for higher settings. That is just common sense if you have spent anytime benchmarking. sometimes ONE setting can cut the framerates in half and that setting may be cpu or gpu dependent.
 
Last edited:
Lil Frier said:
Is this game really supposed to be so massive/populated that it needs an awesome CPU, but a rather ho-hum GPU? I mean, a 7850 isn't an impressive card, yet that's the RECOMMENDED card? Oh, and what's this about NEEDING 6 GB of RAM? I fail to believe it needs that.
Click to expand...

I don't know, from what I've seen so far, this game seems to have very impressive scale, A.I and density, with a lot of real time simulation. That explains the high CPU and RAM requirements..

Of course, many ignorant Neogaffers are going berserk with talk about how Watch Dogs will be un-optimized, since it won't run on their 8 year old PCs... That kind of mentality is rife among PC gamers it seems.

There's no reason to believe that the game will be un-optimized, as it uses a brand new engine with a multithreaded renderer. I think this is Ubisoft's first attempt at a multithreaded rendering engine, so it should theoretically perform much better than their previous engines, all of which used a single thread for rendering...
 
4770 non K with 16GB RAM on a 500GB EVO SSD here. 780 Ti GHz for the graphical grunt. I will be pleasantly surprised if this really is well threaded - say i5 and i7 difference is like 10 FPS+, and that is purely down to the the thread differences. That NeoGAF thread is hilarious, they are stuck in 2005 when dual cores were it. Time to move on and set the minimum bar way higher, no more Core 2 antiques with a 8800GT.
 
toyota said:
I guess you have never actually tested any game before. A game may can get by on a crappy setup using low settings and get over 30 fps but might need really high end hardware thrown at it for higher settings. That is just common sense if you have spent anytime benchmarking. sometimes ONE setting can cut the framerates in half and that setting may be cpu or gpu dependent.
Click to expand...

1. No, I'm not a game tester.
2. You don't need to have ever tested a game, or even PLAYED a game to know that higher settings = stronger requirements.

My real issue is that I hate the idea of "minimum" and "recommended." "Minimum" I guess makes sense, you could theorize that it's the lowest setting at the lowest acceptable frame rate, 30 FPS. Still, that doesn't indicate which resolution they're talking about for that, could be 720p or 1080p. The "Recommended" is what really gets me.

If you use the "Recommended" hardware, what are you settings supposed to end up like? If that all high settings on 1080p? Is it max at dual-1080p? I wish they'd give better indications of what they're expecting you to need that i7 for, and why an i5 wouldn't handle it just as well.

More-importantly, I'm really curious to see what we get in this world that you need go much RAM and CPU power, when the graphical requirements aren't in-line with the processor/memory ones. However, I'll probably end up getting this on the One, since that's where I might be able to play with friends. I guess I need to start making PC friends so I have reasons to play these games on PC...
 
escrow4 said:
That NeoGAF thread is hilarious, they are stuck in 2005 when dual cores were it. Time to move on and set the minimum bar way higher, no more Core 2 antiques with a 8800GT.
Click to expand...

Yep, as games become bigger and more complex, the CPU is becoming more important, as is the amount of memory that we have in our machines.. When I first built my x79 rig, I thought that 16GB was preposterous and that it would never be even halfway utilized as it's primarily a gaming machine.. But with these massive 64 bit only games coming out, I don't think 16GB is preposterous anymore.
 
Minimum requirements just let you get the game playable. It won't look very good or pleasing but it will get playable frames.

My pc drops from 45-30 fps when playing the witcher 2 with ubersampling turned on at 1080p and ultra quality settings for everything else. It's playable but you can tell it's chugging and kind of slow.

Turning off ubersampling and leaving everything else on ultra I can get 80fps no problem, much smoother.

So it depends what type of options the pc game will have. How well it will be optimized and so on. I would be interested to see people with a similar setup as mine, how well they can play it.

I've been quite spoiled being able to throw a game on high and ultra and crank everything up with this card so if I won't be able to get decent fps and the visuals I want, then I'm better off getting it on the ps4.
 
Last edited:
But the thing is, which PC settings will the PS4's visuals compare to? It's a question we certainly won't ever get the answer to. So, while the PS4 might hold its frame rate well, turning your PC down to match those frames might mean sub-ultra, but still better than the PS4. OF course, you're likely to need to get the games side-by-side to really tell, especially since you'll probably re right on top of your monitor but several feet from your TV.
 
Lil Frier said:
But the thing is, which PC settings will the PS4's visuals compare to? It's a question we certainly won't ever get the answer to. So, while the PS4 might hold its frame rate well, turning your PC down to match those frames might mean sub-ultra, but still better than the PS4. OF course, you're likely to need to get the games side-by-side to really tell, especially since you'll probably re right on top of your monitor but several feet from your TV.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what it would be compared to. They say the weather video that was taken down was ps4 footage. Then the welcome to Chicago trailer also has been said to be ps4. So I'm not sure what exactly the pc maxed out version will be. I'll be surprised if it's like the demo they showed in 2012 or so. Probably so if those requirements hold true.
 
Lil Frier said:
But the thing is, which PC settings will the PS4's visuals compare to? It's a question we certainly won't ever get the answer to. So, while the PS4 might hold its frame rate well, turning your PC down to match those frames might mean sub-ultra, but still better than the PS4. OF course, you're likely to need to get the games side-by-side to really tell, especially since you'll probably re right on top of your monitor but several feet from your TV.
Click to expand...

Medium at best. Think of all the DX 11 features you can stuff into a PC version - tessellation, parallax mapping, DOF, sun shafts, hard contact shadows, plus high res textures, plus up the AI/NPC/draw distance, plus PhysX. Consoles simply can't hack it. This assumes that all that hasn't been removed and the game hasn't been ultra gimped. With those specs maybe it hasn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top