Watch Dogs 2 PC benchmarks

[dragosudeki]

10 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

While Zeeee's argument is ridiculous, this game is not well optimized or a good port by how it looks vs what it takes to run. We had similar or better open world games before and the game just isn't pushing any boundaries in looks to be pushing boundaries in hardware.

While I do agree it may not be well optimized, but I will still consider it a good port. To each, their own individual opinion really. Looks like there's enough options for people to fine tune to make it a better experience and optimization is something that can be done over time. 

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, dragosudeki said:

While I do agree it may not be well optimized, but I will still consider it a good port. To each, their own individual opinion really. Looks like there's enough options for people to fine tune to make it a better experience and optimization is something that can be done over time. 

I think that a bad game/port should be declared so strictly on the basis of it's launch state because well, so damn many of the sales happen almost exclusively at launch anyway chances are more people who abandon or skip the game will never revisit it even if it's patched.

 

Sadly patching a game is more of a good faith, damage control measure. Not a tool that leads to sales.

 

[Guest Kloaked]

49 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

While Zeeee's argument is ridiculous, this game is not well optimized or a good port by how it looks vs what it takes to run. We had similar or better open world games before and the game just isn't pushing any boundaries in looks to be pushing boundaries in hardware.

 

It still runs better than the first game while looking better; even though it's clearly a console port, it's still a good one coming from Ubisoft. The problem is everyone thinks they can run the games that they buy completely maxed out without thinking about the cost of each graphic settings, which varies depending on the game. In the case of Watch Dogs, MSAA is absolutely destroying frame rates for some odd reason. That's the only setting that I've seen so far that just tanks performance. I don't know if it has to do with how the objects in the world are optimized or what.

 

What I have noticed is that WD2 has a higher polygon count than GTA 5 just based on what I've seen so far, as the objects look more detailed in shape.

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

It still runs better than the first game while looking better; even though it's clearly a console port, it's still a good one coming from Ubisoft. The problem is everyone thinks they can run the games that they buy completely maxed out without thinking about the cost of each graphic settings, which varies depending on the game. In the case of Watch Dogs, MSAA is absolutely destroying frame rates for some odd reason. That's the only setting that I've seen so far that just tanks performance. I don't know if it has to do with how the objects in the world are optimized or what.

 

What I have noticed is that WD2 has a higher polygon count than GTA 5 just based on what I've seen so far, as the objects look more detailed in shape.

So the problem is that we have better games? Yes that is indeed a problem: Ubisoft games shouldn't be judged only against other Ubisoft games, plenty of other, better running fucking games.

 

So saying that a game is an 8/10 for Ubi is basically normalizing their shit fucking behavior as a publisher. I mean come on, you guys already forgot all the "keep digging Ubi!" jokes already? They're fucking terrible with an abyssal track record saying it's a good game for Ubi standards is meaningless.

[Guest Kloaked]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

So the problem is that we have better games? Yes that is indeed a problem: Ubisoft games shouldn't be judged only against other Ubisoft games, plenty of other, better running fucking games.

 

So saying that a game is an 8/10 for Ubi is basically normalizing their shit fucking behavior as a publisher. I mean come on, you guys already forgot all the "keep digging Ubi!" jokes already? They're fucking terrible with an abyssal track record saying it's a good game for Ubi standards is meaningless.

No, what I'm saying is that you can tell they actually put more work into this title for PC than the previous one. I'm not excusing them from not making it PC first and console second like these massive games should be. I even said in a previous post that it could run better based on how it looks, but I'm still wondering if there's anything they could do since there's a lot on screen at once.

 

As for those Ubisoft memes, I didn't care for them. I'm not a teenager. Ubisoft puts out really great titles despite the PCMR circlejerk saying otherwise. Not saying everything they put out is great, but they do have a lot of great games under their name.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Kloaked said:

No, what I'm saying is that you can tell they actually put more work into this title for PC than the previous one. I'm not excusing them from not making it PC first and console second like these massive games should be. I even said in a previous post that it could run better based on how it looks, but I'm still wondering if there's anything they could do since there's a lot on screen at once.

That's like saying "This game is a 4 I can tell they put twice the efford of their previous 2 game" when everybody else is doing 6 to 8 games.

 

Their "better effort" it's still quite fucking mediocre at best vs the competition.

[MEC-777]

58 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

That's like saying "This game is a 4 I can tell they put twice the efford of their previous 2 game" when everybody else is doing 6 to 8 games.

 

Their "better effort" it's still quite fucking mediocre at best vs the competition.

Yet, despite your opinions of Ubisoft and their games, you (not just you specifically, but people who generally hate on them) keep on buying and playing their games, and on day one... 

 

*scratches head*

[IAEInferno]

Who has the game?

[IAEInferno]

2 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

Yet, despite your opinions of Ubisoft and their games, you (not just you specifically, but people who generally hate on them) keep on buying and playing their games, and on day one... 

 

*scratches head*

 

The last Ubisoft game I bought was AC IV Black Flag, it was fun and then I instantly refunded AC Unity and vowed to never buy anything from ubisoft if they keep up with the demanding games.

[Bouzoo]

1 hour ago, Kloaked said:

As for those Ubisoft memes, I didn't care for them. I'm not a teenager. Ubisoft puts out really great titles despite the PCMR circlejerk saying otherwise. Not saying everything they put out is great, but they do have a lot of great games under their name.

That is actually on the point and people are forgetting it.

Sure, they had WD, AC:U, you could argue even The Division, but they had AC & AC2 (trilogy), FC 3 & 4, South Park: TSoT, Splinter Cell Blacklist. PoP and so on. All of those are excellent games. Maybe their bosses are jerks who only care about money, I can't say, but their devs, when it comes to ideas and putting those ideas in the game are in a class of its own.  

[Misanthrope]

14 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

Yet, despite your opinions of Ubisoft and their games, you (not just you specifically, but people who generally hate on them) keep on buying and playing their games, and on day one... 

 

*scratches head*

 

To give Ubi credit, they had released decent games in the past so there's enough notoriety for them.

 

To not give Ubi credit however, goes back to my coments on Apple: Marketing trumps quality. As long as the game is functional and somewhat entertaining, spending millions and millions on marketing and a few ks on, shall we say, lobbying professional reviewers, they'll make their investment back and then some.

[Morgan MLGman]

On 29.11.2016 at 7:58 PM, Kloaked said:

I know what cap means, but you're basically being redundant when you mention it. Anyways though..

 

I've seen people who didn't experience any issues with their 970 show that even though Dying Light and other games pushed the 970 past 3.5GB, their FPS did not suffer anything significant like a minority of users were reporting with their horror stories.

 

Shadow of Mordor has a ultra texture pack that they recommend 6GB of VRAM for. I ran it on my 980 and it ran fine, but what issue I had was random stuttering at some times that I didn't have before. Aside from that, everything was fine. This was at 1080p.

If a game says it uses "past 3.5GB" doesn't necessarily mean it actually does that. As said before, it stores some assets in the VRAM, but can do it just as well in the regular RAM as it's fast enough for it. It usually needs to use more (ex. 5-6GB) to actually fill that 4GB buffer with stuff that's necessary for the game to run properly, then you'd really notice an issue. I had a 970, was exactly like that when tested. (Tested with games like Shadow of Mordor @1920x1200)

[DarkBlade2117]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

That's like saying "This game is a 4 I can tell they put twice the efford of their previous 2 game" when everybody else is doing 6 to 8 games.

 

Their "better effort" it's still quite fucking mediocre at best vs the competition.

 

1 hour ago, Kloaked said:

No, what I'm saying is that you can tell they actually put more work into this title for PC than the previous one. I'm not excusing them from not making it PC first and console second like these massive games should be. I even said in a previous post that it could run better based on how it looks, but I'm still wondering if there's anything they could do since there's a lot on screen at once.

 

As for those Ubisoft memes, I didn't care for them. I'm not a teenager. Ubisoft puts out really great titles despite the PCMR circlejerk saying otherwise. Not saying everything they put out is great, but they do have a lot of great games under their name.

Have to agree with @Misanthrope here. The game is a shit port, do not just look at what the Ubisoft has done with their previous games. If you just ignore every other company does and focus on a singular component, what the fuck is the point in competition? I can also agree with you on this is a "good" port for Ubisoft, but compared to many other ports we've gotten, it is purely shit. 

Yes games are going to get "more and more" demanding but not at this rate. A GPU just doesn't go from being able to maintain a certain FPS in games like the 980Ti to barely being able to manage 60FPS. Oh and yes, I went and watched some videos again, The game does not look as good as previous games like GTA V, Witcher 3 ect but "blah blah engine blah blah does not count". That just shows it is even more of a shit port. Who cares if they put MORE effort into it? They did not put ENOUGH effort into it, and yes Ubisoft does have some good games, and those are the games that actually deserve attention like the Far Cry series, the beginning of the Assassin's Creed series (though imo after Black Flag I have not bought one because the game started falling short to me), The South Park Stick of Truth a ton of good reviews. But look at a good portion of their "bigger" titles, The Crew, Tom Clancy's The Divison, Watch Dogs, the reviews were mediocre at best.

[Bouzoo]

I think Ubisoft just did something much, much worse than making the game run as it is running. This is something serious. Just FYI since you're playing it @Kloaked

 

This is a must read:

Quote

Watch Dogs 2 has landed on PC and so far, the game seems to be doing really well on Steam, with many reviews praising the game and few reports of PC-specific issues. However, there is one thing that is raising eyebrows this week- the game’s anti-cheat system. For Watch Dogs 2, Ubisoft is using EasyAntiCheat, which not only prevents modding, but it is also built to take screenshots at random while the game is running, even in single-player. These screenshots are then uploaded to ‘public servers’ and free for anyone to view.

On the modding side of things, EasyAntiCheat scans the game’s memory, your PC system memory and the original game files to check for any modified files within the game directory. If any modified files are detected, the system will remove them automatically, which could be a real issue for anyone looking to mod Watch Dogs 2 while playing in single-player mode.

As for privacy, the main concern here is the random game capture, the TOS reads: “EasyAntiCheat will take screenshots of your game screen and upload them on public servers, viewable to everyone, if the server provider wishes so. The author of this software and EasyAntiCheat takes no responsibility of screenshots captured outside the game screen. If any personal or harmful information is captured into a screenshot, the user is fully responsible of the happened incident and any consequences it may result in.”

 

http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/security-software/matthew-wilson/watch-dogs-2s-anti-cheat-prevents-modding-and-raises-privacy-concerns/

[Princess Luna]

15 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

I think Ubisoft just did something much, much worse than making the game run as it is running. This is something serious. Just FYI since you're playing it @Kloaked

 

This is a must read:

 

http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/security-software/matthew-wilson/watch-dogs-2s-anti-cheat-prevents-modding-and-raises-privacy-concerns/

Does it really make sense to try so hard fighting piracy off by adding such restrictions? People who buy the game will want to be capable of full experience which includes the possibility of mods while also hoping they will have more security with it, putting restrictions to those people feels so unfair especially when their privacy security is compromised.

 

On the other side of the table, eventually like it always happens, people will manage to crack it and have the pirated version available on torrenting websites soon or later and the people who downloads these for they only care for the offline gameplay will probably not bother waiting longer for their "free" version.

 

So at least to my point of view going hardcore on anti-piracy measures ends up always just worsting the experience of those who went legit and paid for the game, like that hilarious issue with Rainbow Six Vegas 2 that people who bought it from Direct2Drive end up all label as pirates.

[Misanthrope]

19 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

I think Ubisoft just did something much, much worse than making the game run as it is running. This is something serious. Just FYI since you're playing it @Kloaked

 

This is a must read:

 

http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/security-software/matthew-wilson/watch-dogs-2s-anti-cheat-prevents-modding-and-raises-privacy-concerns/

...And they implement this on Watch Dogs. Did they even know what the game is about? I think Ubi execs are disabled: they go through their life without their sense of self awareness. Terrible plight really.

[Bouzoo]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

...And they implement this on Watch Dogs. Did they even know what the game is about? I think Ubi execs are disabled: they go through their life without their sense of self awareness. Terrible plight really.

Yeah, the irony at its finest. 

[Techicolors]

I am quite surprised that this thread blew up. Efforts to make the post look all nice was worth I guess! 

 

25 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

I think Ubisoft just did something much, much worse than making the game run as it is running. This is something serious. Just FYI since you're playing it @Kloaked

 

This is a must read:

 

http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/security-software/matthew-wilson/watch-dogs-2s-anti-cheat-prevents-modding-and-raises-privacy-concerns/

lol I have mentioned this in the OP. 

[Bouzoo]

Just now, Technicolors said:

lol I have mentioned this in the OP. 

Wow yeah you did. I somehow missed it. 

[MEC-777]

41 minutes ago, IAEInferno said:

The last Ubisoft game I bought was AC IV Black Flag, it was fun and then I instantly refunded AC Unity and vowed to never buy anything from ubisoft if they keep up with the demanding games.

Boycotting a company for 1 bad game, assuming all the games they make from then on will be bad, seems like an emotional knee-jerk reaction and a bit ignorant, really. There have been many good games since AC Unity, IMO. I've thoroughly enjoying AC Syndicate and FC Primal, to name 2. Both of which run quite well on a variety of hardware.  

17 minutes ago, DarkBlade2117 said:

 

Have to agree with @Misanthrope here. The game is a shit port, do not just look at what the Ubisoft has done with their previous games. If you just ignore every other company does and focus on a singular component, what the fuck is the point in competition? I can also agree with you on this is a "good" port for Ubisoft, but compared to many other ports we've gotten, it is purely shit. 

Yes games are going to get "more and more" demanding but not at this rate. A GPU just doesn't go from being able to maintain a certain FPS in games like the 980Ti to barely being able to manage 60FPS. Oh and yes, I went and watched some videos again, The game does not look as good as previous games like GTA V, Witcher 3 ect but "blah blah engine blah blah does not count". That just shows it is even more of a shit port. Who cares if they put MORE effort into it? They did not put ENOUGH effort into it, and yes Ubisoft does have some good games, and those are the games that actually deserve attention like the Far Cry series, the beginning of the Assassin's Creed series (though imo after Black Flag I have not bought one because the game started falling short to me), The South Park Stick of Truth a ton of good reviews. But look at a good portion of their "bigger" titles, The Crew, Tom Clancy's The Divison, Watch Dogs, the reviews were mediocre at best.

I respect your opinion that the game is crap. But your claims such as:

 

-"Yes games are going to get "more and more" demanding but not at this rate." Really? Says who? Based on what? What if they really are? 

 

-"A GPU just doesn't go from being able to maintain a certain FPS in games like the 980Ti to barely being able to manage 60FPS" Apparently they do - because it's based on how demanding the game is, not on what someone thinks or claims the GPU should perform like, regardless of any other factors. 

 

You said you "watched some videos". On YouTube, I'm assuming? Game capture is not the same as seeing it rendered raw on your own monitor in front of you. This is not a valid way to judge how good a game actually looks and how much detail there actually is. 

 

12 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

I think Ubisoft just did something much, much worse than making the game run as it is running. This is something serious. 

 

This is a must read:

 

http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/security-software/matthew-wilson/watch-dogs-2s-anti-cheat-prevents-modding-and-raises-privacy-concerns/

This is definitely a FAR bigger issue/concern we should be discussing, not how well it runs or whether it's a shit port or not. How can it take screenshots when you're not even in the game? That's not cool. Even though I got the game for free, I may not even install it until I know more about this. Thanks for bringing this up. 

[MEC-777]

5 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

Wow yeah you did. I somehow missed it. 

You're not the only one... lol

[Guest Kloaked]

1 hour ago, Bouzoo said:

I think Ubisoft just did something much, much worse than making the game run as it is running. This is something serious. Just FYI since you're playing it @Kloaked

 

This is a must read:

 

http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/security-software/matthew-wilson/watch-dogs-2s-anti-cheat-prevents-modding-and-raises-privacy-concerns/

I think that's a valid complaint. 

56 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

You said you "watched some videos". On YouTube, I'm assuming? Game capture is not the same as seeing it rendered raw on your own monitor in front of you. This is not a valid way to judge how good a game actually looks and how much detail there actually is.

You mean a Youtube video won't show you how good a game actually looks? I mean c'mon, it's Time.CurrentYear.

 

 

Don't you see how bad that game looks in the video? That's actually how it looks.  /s

[Guest Kloaked]

3 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

That's like saying "This game is a 4 I can tell they put twice the efford of their previous 2 game" when everybody else is doing 6 to 8 games.

 

Their "better effort" it's still quite fucking mediocre at best vs the competition.

Yeah no. You're still under the impression that the game is bad (based on the score you're giving it in your analogy), and it's not. I hope you actually get to play it sometime.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Kloaked said:

Yeah no. You're still under the impression that the game is bad (based on the score you're giving it in your analogy), and it's not. I hope you actually get to play it sometime.

I might once it's 10 to 20 bucks and if it gets at least 50% more performance through patches. Otherwise I'm not interested in wasting my money just to reply to your apologetics more thoroughly: have fun with your petty victory.

[Guest Kloaked]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I might once it's 10 to 20 bucks and if it gets at least 50% more performance through patches. Otherwise I'm not interested in wasting my money just to reply to your apologetics more thoroughly: have fun with your petty victory.

Thanks sugarplum.