It appears Sony really did jump the gun a bit when it published a product page for Watch_Dogs claiming it would run at 1080p at 60 FPS. However Ubisoft has now confirmed the actual specifications the game will run at on next gen with the PS4 version running at 900p while the Xbox One version will be 792p, with Watch_Dogs being 30FPS on both consoles. Jonathan Morin explained the whole thing on the Ubisoft blog.
“Resolution is a number, just like framerate is a number. All those numbers are valid aspects of making games. But you make choices about the experience you want to deliver. In our case, dynamism is everything. Exploration and expression are everything. You want to have a steady framerate, but you want to have dynamism at the core of the experience. The same goes with resolution.
People tend to look at corridor shooters, for example, where there’s a corridor and all the effects are on and it’s unbelievable, and they forget that if you apply those same global effects to an open city with people around and potential car crashes and guys in multiplayer showing up without warning, the same effect is applied to a lot of dynamic elements that are happening in every frame. So it becomes magnified in cost.”
He goes onto explain just how player choice will really matter in the game, saying that everything a player does will have an appropriate reaction. For example you may hack one thing in the world that will cut off a different route to navigate the world, or stop a chase. Morin also confirmed that last gen versions of Watch_Dogs will be practically similar in terms of single player, with just fewer NPCs around, though you won’t be able to play the Decryption multiplayer mode, nor will there be option for free roam with multiple players.
Source: Ubisoft
maccas09
Bit embarrassing…
camdaz
As long as it looks good and plays smoothly that’ll do for me.
gazzagb
Pre-ordered the PC version this evening, was thinking about getting a PS4 bundle with the game, but I think this is just more evidence that it’s too early for me to justify jumping into the new-gen. I think it’s a mixture between the last gen holding things back, and the unfamiliarity of developers with these new consoles.
ron_mcphatty
Are you worried about not having much to play on the PS4 when you finally do get it? I’m holding off games like Watch Dogs and NFS Rivals instead of getting the PS3 versions, but then I’m also missing out right now, hmm.
gazzagb
Kinda, but I really want Watch Dogs, and deciding ciding between £21 or 400 quid for an inferior version wasn’t a hard choice!
Maybe in 6 months I’ll get one as the Q4 line up is looking tastey, plus I’ll have started my job which will make the money easier to justify.
I’ll upgrade Ghosts and probably get Black Flag and The Last of Us as I haven’t played those yet when I do get a PS4 though, so there will be something for me to play, just not a lot haha
gazzagb
No idea how ‘ciding’ got in there, bloody autocorrect!
cc_star
Resolution is a number, just like framerate is a number
Resolution is. Quality of textures themselves, lighting and many other things can matter far more than just a number of pixels, but to lump framerate in as just a number is a complete lie
Despite not hitting ‘full hd’ and the stresses that can put on the various pipelines in a computing system, Ubisoft have only got it running at half speed, something that sadly became the norm last gen.
Half speed, which gives the console twice as long to render each frame… something that;s usually put to good use in boosting resolution or other graphical effects, but this twice as long to render each frame doubles the controllers response time.
Not just embarrassing, but extremely disappointing that even despite the half a year delay they’ve only hit last-gen levels of performance
colmshan1990
It’s not like 30fps is in any way slow for controlling a game.
I prefer 30fps anyway- it’s closer to the cinematic experience. The only thing I hate is when the framerate shifts in a noticeable way. Developers should pick a number and keep the framerate locked there.
Kennykazey
Closer to the cinematic experience of 24 frames per second?
colmshan1990
Yes.
Things like motion blur don’t bother people for 24fps action movies, shouldn’t bother people in 30fps action games either.
Just make the textures look pretty please.
Kennykazey
Motion blur in films is not even close to the same as judder caused by a low framerate. In a film everything mid-motion gets motion-blurred, giving the effect that it’s smoother than it is.
To effectively replicate this effect you’d need to render at multiple times the framerate and blend the images together…
And then you need to keep in mind that an action movie is something you watch idle, a game requires input and an active user. This makes our minds take more notice of framerate.
I have heard of some games running surprisingly smooth on some good TVs at 24fps. But this probably wouldn’t work for the majority of people.
I’m not opposed to 30FPS, but calling it cinematic is just wrong.
beeje13
Agreed, it certainly wouldn’t be just ‘a number’ if they’d have been 1080p60, they wouldn’t shut up about how great it is.
Foxhound_Solid
After the delays and hype it’s not quite there.
Come on Ubi, drop a patch update and make it so on the 4!
boeboe
Disappointing given they said it’d be 1080p. I guess they meant upscaled, must have been my fault. Apologies Ubisoft. Arses.
Kennykazey
Hah! Same resolution as Titanfall on Xbox One!
I think Microsoft is trying to create a new standard.
(900p is decent, but those frames better be Nintendo-stable)
quinkill
Very disappointing. I guess i’m not getting a ps4 this year then.
Voolar
I think this is Sony’s first mistake of the Gen. I hope it’s their last…
psychobudgie
What has it got to do with Sony? It’s a Ubisoft game which has consistently shown since it’s initial reveal running at 60fps and 1080p with astoundingly good visuals. It would appear that Ubisoft may have misrepresented the final product on more than one occasion. It’s only recently that the true visual level of the finished product has come to light.
Essentially they promised the moon and will deliver Cleethorpes.
Voolar
Sorry I didn’t make that very clear at all – I was referring to the advert that Sony ran this week claiming that Watch Dogs would be 1080p/60fps on the PS4…
psychobudgie
I don’t believe that Sony are guilty of anything other than running with what Ubisoft falsely promised with regards to engine performance on the PS4. If anyone should be apologising it would be Ubisoft who appear to be releasing a game which has been presented as something that it clearly wasn’t/isn’t. They must have known this many months ago but chose not to share this until the last couple of weeks, which is pretty poor. 1080p @ 60fps is light years from 900p @ 30fps and there is no way that wouldn’t have known this very early on.
double-o-dave
Well I didn’t see that coming & I certainly won’t be buying a 4k TV anytime soon if this is the way it’s going.
After this much of a delay, and only reaching 900p on the PS4, this should in theory be a visual masterpiece but I have a horrible feeling it won’t be. I hope Ubisoft prove me wrong.
I was going to pre-order this but I think I’m going to wait ’til I see the game running on a PS4 with my own eyes.
bunimomike
Bloody hell, Dave. :-) Hold those horses. 4K is way, WAY off! Don’t go throwing money at anything other than Full HD right now.
Thing is, fella, if you think about it… Watch Dogs might look utterly glorious in many other ways. For example, I’m playing The Elder Scrolls Online and it looks lovely. I’ve linked to screenshots I’ve taken before. However, if you see the mouths moving on the NPCs (when they’re talking to you) it’s hilariously bad (think: ventriloquist dummy). Now, if Watch Dogs, as an open world game has rectified such a thing by simply not optimising as much but addressing the immersion of such things like face/mouth animation they have my respect. Sure, TESO is running at 1920 x 1200 pixels on my PC with a frame-rate through the roof but I’d far prefer to downgrade a bit of that and have facial animation like that of The Last of Us. Sure, too ambitious but a halfway house would be nice.
Sorry, fella! Went off on one there. :-)
double-o-dave
That probably explains why Aiden seems to always be wearing a mask. :)
You’re right, the character & environment movement/animation can seem to make the visuals in games look better even with lower textures due to the realism.
bunimomike
If you think about it, even with The Last of Us we still don’t have something that resembles real actors in a DVD (for example) acting out a film we love. We’re getting near (with The Last of Us) but most other games aren’t even near. Industry priorities are all to cock for realism.