Watch Dogs 2 PC benchmarks

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Kloaked said:

Thanks sugarplum.

Anytime babycakes.

[MEC-777]

7 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I might once it's 10 to 20 bucks and if it gets at least 50% more performance through patches. 

Good luck with that. lol. I've never seen a game's performance increase by 50% from patches. 

 

 

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, MEC-777 said:

Good luck with that. lol. I've never seen a game's performance increase by 50% from patches. 

I think an AMD card like those Hawaii ones, jumping to DX12 plus a really fucking garbage game could get 30 to 40% increase. But yeah that was kind of my point

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, MEC-777 said:

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.  

But AC Unity is, IMO and that of many other people, actually a better game than Syndicate, and I would also say than Primal. It just had a ton of bugs and performance issues at launch - but with more story and less menial quests (as amazing as that sounds) than those latter two games.

 

With tons of bugs and performance issues at its release, which ended up defining the game's reputation, Unity has a Metacritic critic score of 70. Without launch issues, Syndicate has a Metacritic critic score of 74.

[Techicolors]

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

But AC Unity is, IMO and that of many other people, actually a better game than either Syndicate or Primal. It just had a ton of bugs and performance issues at launch.

 

With tons of bugs and performance issues at its release, which ended up defining the game's reputation, Unity has a Metacritic critic score of 70. Without launch issues, Syndicate has a Metacritic critic score of 74.

 

 

I've actually decided to play through AC Unity, considering I have a 1070 now (got the game when I still had a 280x). No doubt it's riddled with bugs, glitches, and performance issues, but looking past that, the game appears stunning. IMO better than Syndicate. And the crowds are something to behold, in spite of the relentless pop-in and repeat NPC designs. 

[Guest Kloaked]

8 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

But AC Unity is, IMO and that of many other people, actually a better game than either Syndicate or Primal. It just had a ton of bugs and performance issues at launch. 

What was wrong with Syndicate? I'm avoiding it until I can get it for like $5 since I'm sorta burned on Ass Creed and probably won't ever finish it.

[Delicieuxz]

19 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

What was wrong with Syndicate? I'm avoiding it until I can get it for like $5 since I'm sorta burned on Ass Creed and probably won't ever finish it.

The questing is the most menial, and cut & paste out of all the ACs I've played (1, 3, 4, Rogue, Unity, Syndicate). It's boring, IMO, and not just because of the lack of any character development, and of any meaningful story or sense of purpose, but also because everywhere looks the same: It's world that's just one flavour, everywhere.

 

That the main characters don't seem to have anything about them that justifies themselves and their conduct as assassin's also stands out to me... they seem like a couple of psychopaths who aren't guided by any higher idealism, and are just the thugs you play as, as opposed to the thugs you kill.

 

The writing seems ham-fisted in areas, and has trouble making it seem like the people who are targeted by the assassin's are actually any worse than the assassin's themselves, and so relies on petty association of sentiments, and overplaying concepts to come up with some very-thin rationale for why you're going to slaughter everyone in red. Basically, it comes down to red-team gets killed because they're not green-team - but your green-team is ultimately exactly the same as the red team.

 

And things like children being employed in warehouses means kill every adult in every warehouse to save the poor children, and act like it makes the player-character mass-murderer noble... really tryhard writing, IMO.

 

Up until Unity, AC always had a strong sense of purpose, personal journey, and importance of mission. Unity and even moreso Syndicate are mostly a collection of bite-sized menial quests, copy & pasted ad nauseum, without the over-arching sense of greater purpose that the AC games had up to before Unity.

[VerticalDiscussions]

 

When even this thing can barely play it on 4K with settings to go, you know that game is as optimized as a low budget movie is created and then rated by the very professional (no sarcasm included), IMDB.....

[Morgan Everett]

Having tested it now, I have to say I'm not very impressed. I see dips into the high fourties/low fifties fairly regularly, and that's with "Extra Details" at 0%, no fancy shadows and only SMAA. It's not a great port if my experience is anything to go by. 

[Zeeee]

14 hours ago, Kloaked said:

Just about every game looks better on PC if it has more complicated graphics. Overwatch probably looks the same between all platforms.

 

What you also don't realize is most console titles run at 30 fps with adaptive resolution sometimes, whereas even midrange PCs are able to run those games at higher detail levels and go up to 60fps at a constant resolution. So if you want to run the game at 30fps but also max it out to where it's even better looking than consoles than before, you're welcome to. I thought the main advantage of PC was that we could run games at higher frame rates but I guess not :^)

Okay really? LOL i cant take your argument seriously because you actually just assumed graphical fidelity = resolution. LMAO what i mean by graphical quality is the games character models the details on the faces the details on the textures and lighting and shadows and all that everything except resolution obviously PC games have better resolution than consoles no doubt but that doesnt necessarily mean its better looking graphically. Its not going to look more realistic or have way deeper textures because of higher resolutions. 

Like i said DEVS almost all of them aside from a couple love to develop for consoles first and port their games to pc and they dont put time and effort into the pc version alone to make it more realistic graphics wise etc that takes too much time so they say fuck it.

[MEC-777]

6 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

But AC Unity is, IMO and that of many other people, actually a better game than Syndicate, and I would also say than Primal. It just had a ton of bugs and performance issues at launch - but with more story and less menial quests (as amazing as that sounds) than those latter two games.

 

With tons of bugs and performance issues at its release, which ended up defining the game's reputation, Unity has a Metacritic critic score of 70. Without launch issues, Syndicate has a Metacritic critic score of 74.

See, I usually don't look at metrics when considering a game that looks interesting to me. I don't watch reviews and try not to look at screenshots or gameplay footage either. I go in with zero expectations and usually find I enjoy the game much more so this way compared to times when I did watch reviews and everything before playing. 

 

IMO, it effects many people subconsciously and can change your expectations for the game before you even play it. One example is say there's a minor flaw that one reviewer points out or there's one particular thing they didn't like about it. If it hadn't been shown or pointed out to you, you may not have ever noticed, but now it's in your head and you see it all the time. 

 

Now, in some cases like with No Man's Sky, where there's such an uproar about the games many issues, that's obviously something you can't really and shouldn't ignore. lol

 

Part of the problem is the criteria for what makes for a "good game" is different for everyone. That's one of the main reasons I usually don't look at scores and metrics.

 

To each, his/her own.

[MEC-777]

Downloading the game as I type this. Will test it out on the 980 and then compare to the 1070 and see what's what.  

[IAEInferno]

8 hours ago, MEC-777 said:

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.  

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. 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

Ubisoft is starting to make unoptimized crappy games, you might have enjoyed AC Unity and Syndicate but I haven't, it's quite repetitive now and I can only say that people that enjoy those horribly repetitive  games must be as dismissive and self-righteous as you are.

 

You mean to tell me that if I temporarily stop buying video games from a company until they optimize it properly or give a discount makes me emotional and ignorant? You are self-righteous and as dense as Mercury.

[4DHavoc]

14 minutes ago, IAEInferno said:

 

 

Ubisoft is starting to make unoptimized crappy games, you might have enjoyed AC Unity and Syndicate but I haven't, it's quite repetitive now and I can only say that people that enjoy those horribly repetitive  games must be as dismissive and self-righteous as you are.

 

You mean to tell me that if I temporarily stop buying video games from a company until they optimize it properly or give a discount makes me emotional and ignorant? You are self-righteous and as dense as Mercury.

 

 

That mod can say anything because he is a mod, he is an a s s.

[MEC-777]

13 minutes ago, IAEInferno said:

I think you didn't read what I said entirely..

 

Who said I boycotted the company? I merely said that I will buy games from them if they optimized their games so that it won't be that "demanding".

 

Assuming that I'm boycotting a company because I won't buy from them because their games are getting more demanding doesn't make sense.

You're right, I did read it wrong. Here's the quote again for clarity: "... vowed to never buy anything from ubisoft if they keep up with the demanding games. "

 

Usually when one vows to not buy anything from a company for any reason, that is called boycotting, regardless of the reason. 

 

You're right though, I said you were boycotting because of one bad game which was incorrect. As you pointed out; it was actually because the game(s) were/are more demanding. Well, games are only going to keep getting more demanding as they increase detail/visual quality, physics etc. so I guess you'll have to boycott all publishers that release new games that happened to be more demanding then?

[4DHavoc]

7 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

You're right, I did read it wrong. Here's the quote again for clarity: "... vowed to never buy anything from ubisoft if they keep up with the demanding games. "

 

Usually when one vows to not buy anything from a company for any reason, that is called boycotting, regardless of the reason. 

 

You're right though, I said you were boycotting because of one bad game which was incorrect. As you pointed out; it was actually because the game(s) were/are more demanding. Well, games are only going to keep getting more demanding as they increase detail/visual quality, physics etc. so I guess you'll have to boycott all publishers that release new games that happened to be more demanding then?

 

 

I think what he meant was optimization, are you just assuming things to get your own way?

 

Self-entitled mod.

[IAEInferno]

19 minutes ago, MEC-777 said:

You're right, I did read it wrong. Here's the quote again for clarity: "... vowed to never buy anything from ubisoft if they keep up with the demanding games. "

 

Usually when one vows to not buy anything from a company for any reason, that is called boycotting, regardless of the reason. 

 

You're right though, I said you were boycotting because of one bad game which was incorrect. As you pointed out; it was actually because the game(s) were/are more demanding. Well, games are only going to keep getting more demanding as they increase detail/visual quality, physics etc. so I guess you'll have to boycott all publishers that release new games that happened to be more demanding then?

 

 

Did you even read what I said? Have you seen or played the Witcher 3, Gta V? those are demanding but well optimized games, hell they even look more aesthetically pleasing for me than dishonored 2, AC Unity or Syndicate.

 

Why are you twisting my words? 

[Guest Kloaked]

8 hours ago, Zeeee said:

Okay really? LOL i cant take your argument seriously because you actually just assumed graphical fidelity = resolution.

No I didn't.

 

8 hours ago, Zeeee said:

LMAO what i mean by graphical quality is the games character models the details on the faces the details on the textures and lighting and shadows and all that everything except resolution obviously PC games have better resolution than consoles no doubt but that doesnt necessarily mean its better looking graphically. Its not going to look more realistic or have way deeper textures because of higher resolutions.

I know what you mean. I was just making a different point entirely. Don't assume someone's entire argument is based around what's going on inside of your head. Actually read what I said.

 

So I'll just reiterate: PCs can run games at a consistent and higher resolution and higher frame rate than consoles. That in of itself takes more horsepower than what the consoles have. I did not just say "graphical quality has everything to do with resolution", even though it actually does plays a major part.

 

8 hours ago, Zeeee said:

Like i said DEVS almost all of them aside from a couple love to develop for consoles first and port their games to pc and they dont put time and effort into the pc version alone to make it more realistic graphics wise etc that takes too much time so they say fuck it.

Like I've been trying to say, Ubisoft put way more effort into the PC port of Watch Dogs 2. This whole hoopla over the game is uncalled for. If you want the game to run better, I understand. There's a valid argument there. The point I've been trying to make to you and others is that WD2 had way more work put into it for PC than the first game did.

 

Just so I'm clear, I'm not justifying Ubisoft for not making the game for PC first, that way the game would be at it's peak in graphical fidelity and performance. 

 

Also, if you're going to respond to me, please at least act like you have common decency. Throwing "AYY LMAO DAE THINK KLOAKED DOESNT KNOW WHAT HES TALKIN ABOUT AMIRITE" at me isn't making anything you say any more valid.

[Bouzoo]

8 hours ago, MEC-777 said:

Downloading the game as I type this. Will test it out on the 980 and then compare to the 1070 and see what's what.  

I'll be waiting for your and Kloakeds darkest secrets to leak online. Gonna be amazing. 

[MEC-777]

9 hours ago, 4DHavoc said:

I think what he meant was optimization, are you just assuming things to get your own way?

 

Self-entitled mod.

If that's what he meant, then that's what he should have said. Honestly, that's not the way I read it. If I misunderstood, then I apologize.

 

The personal shot isn't necessary. We're just having a conversation here, are we not?

 

9 hours ago, IAEInferno said:

Did you even read what I said? Have you seen or played the Witcher 3, Gta V? those are demanding but well optimized games, hell they even look more aesthetically pleasing for me than dishonored 2, AC Unity or Syndicate.

 

Why are you twisting my words? 

Not twisting words, just trying to understand your perspective. You said you "vowed to not buy anymore Ubisoft games if they continued to release demanding games". I'm not drying to be a smart ass, that's just what you said and I took it as that. If you meant "poorly optimized games", then that makes more sense and I can understand that point of view. 

 

Demanding and poorly optimized are related, but are also two separate things. Like you said, there are demanding games that are well optimized and games that are demanding because they are poorly optimized.

 

Again, if I misunderstood, I apologize.  

57 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

I'll be waiting for your and Kloakeds darkest secrets to leak online. Gonna be amazing. 

You know it!     /jk

 

Seriously though, it just seems to me like a lot of people are over-reacting before even playing the game or seeing it in person (not in a YT video) and without knowing what's actually "under the hood" of this game. I'm not claiming the game is well optimized and should be demanding. I don't know. I haven't played it. All I'm saying is it could be decently optimized and could very well just be one of those graphically demanding games. I'm withholding making any claims until I actually play it. 

 

   

[dragosudeki]

On 12/1/2016 at 0:09 PM, Misanthrope said:

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.

Not really. These are the type of games where I wait for a GOTY edition on sale, otherwise you lose so much money buying the game and individual DLCs (which is usual for these kind of games). I'm sure there are many other people who have the same mindset.

[MEC-777]

Played the intro mission thus far on my 980. Still downloading the game (slow internet ) and the 1070 is still in shipping. 

 

Didn't play enough to get a good idea of how well it really runs yet because none of the opening scene/mission is really out in the open world. Had it set on the ultra preset with motion blur turned off at 1080p. Was also running Vsync (because screen tearing sucks). Majority of the time it sat at 60fps and felt very smooth. Ocassional dips into the 50's and as low as mid 40's once or twice, but I didn't notice it much. 

 

I tried turning MSAA on to 4x and that TANKED the frame rate down to 25. So it seems the game does have some optimization issues with AA settings. I would recommend running DSR instead of using AA to deal with jaggies because it seems that will be less demanding and more effective. 

 

But, I'll hold off on further analysis until I've got the game fully installed and have played it for at least a couple hours. 

[Notional]

I don't really get the comparison between the Watch Dogs games and GTAV. I own all 3, and it's very clear, that even WD1 is much better looking than the old GTAV by now. So the whole GTAV is very optimized, might be correct, but not completely comparable, due to the WD games looking much better.

That, of course, means WD needs a lot more resources to achieve similar frame rates.

 

As for WD1, setting buffered frames as low as possible, improved steering quite a bit, and disabling most of the GameWorks crap, meant that even normal computers could play the game well. The problem with that game was, that it was really the first next gen game, so people with old 770, 2GB still thought they could max everything out, even though the textures alone would destroy those cards.

 

As for WD2 however, things are a little more annoying. Even though they talked about it focusing on OpenGPU after the GameWOrks debacle, it's clear the NVidia money truck has visited yet again. However, even if you disable all this GameWorks crap, the game still has performance problems, not relevant to VRAM. It simply suffers from input lag, as well as regular lag, or outright microstutter. This makes it annoying as hell to play, because all these things forces simulation sickness (at least for me). So I need to wait for some perf. patches before I can play it.

That being said, this also shows why ingame benchmarks really should be mandatory on such performance heavy games.

 

One thing that can be said about WD2 though: No better looking GTA type open world game exists. 

[Bouzoo]

@MEC-777 @Kloaked

 

Apparently you can disable the spy thing

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/228363/watch-dogs-2-wants-to-monitor-your-system-but-you-need-not-let-it-do-so

 

 

[Bouzoo]

4 hours ago, Notional said:

One thing that can be said about WD2 though: No better looking GTA type open world game exists. 

Try explaining that to blind people who are preaching that GTA looks better.