|
*edit* oops. ignore this.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
Actually, it looks like the specs were taken down from the store. I went over and checked and I can't find it anymore. http://shop.ubi.com/store/ubina/en_CA/pd/ThemeID.8605600/productID.274997500/Watch-Dogs.html This is the link everyone's using in the articles. Probably Ubi screwed up. I can't imagine 6 gb being minimum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
If those are true, I wonder how big the difference between PC/PS4/XB1 and the PS3/360 versions is going to be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
Red Mundus posted:Either Ubisoft has no idea how to port a game (likely.) or everyone, including Ubisoft's store, is just guessing the system requirements. (also likely.) I think it's probably the latter. Ubisoft aren't angels, but the last few PC ports of theirs that I've played (Tomb Raider, AC3) have been pretty decent so I'm willing to give them a bit of credit on this front. Not enough to pre-order though 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Athenry posted:If those are true, I wonder how big the difference between PC/PS4/XB1 and the PS3/360 versions is going to be. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpemyeVjppc Going rumor is that this is what the current gen version will look like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
webmeister posted:I think it's probably the latter. Ubisoft aren't angels, but the last few PC ports of theirs that I've played (Tomb Raider, AC3) That was Eidos/Square-Enix, not Ubi.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpemyeVjppc Hm, they hit Aisha Tyler with a dumptruck. I'm... oddly OK with this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Sindai posted:I'm surprised that WD is 64-bit only while AC4 isn't. I'm not. AC4 is being made by the same team that did Revelations, the B-team. It makes sense that they'd have less leeway in altering the engine as opposed to the lead team.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:[Aisha Tyler Video, Again] Wow, that looks more like rear end than I thought it would. Those distance textures 
CJacobs fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Oct 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Wow, that looks more like rear end than I thought it would. Those distance textures I hate judging things like that from youtube videos, but yeah, the models and textures on that are noticeably worse than what they've been showing off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 02:09
|
|
|
Athenry posted:I hate judging things like that from youtube videos, but yeah, the models and textures on that are noticeably worse than what they've been showing off. That's how it looks like when we advance a generation. Somehow reminds me of the difference between Force Unleashed for the PS3 and Wii.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2013 08:36
|
|
|
Just read this hands-on by PC-Gamer.(http://www.pcgamer.com/previews/watch-dogs-hands-on-playing-it-cool-as-an-incognito-hacker-in-cyber-chicago/) I'm not sure what to believe yet but I really like this whole idea of the GTA freedom combined with not killing pedestrians like they were flies. Maybe a sandbox city-set game can actually not turn into a massacre? On the other hand, it is mentioned in the article that the developers said you can't finish the game without a gun and that's something I'd like to change - would be cool just to finish the game by hacking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 09:19
|
|
|
Honestly I think it's too bad that most of what we've seen so far revolves around using the hacking for violence since Aiden's just a regular guy otherwise. That's not to say I don't like the way it's turning out, I just think a stealth-based game with the intricacies of this game's hacking would also be pretty sweet; like Deus Ex: HR but with goofy hats and even goofier trenchcoats than usual.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 09:27
|
|
|
Sjonsson posted:Just read this hands-on by PC-Gamer.(http://www.pcgamer.com/previews/watch-dogs-hands-on-playing-it-cool-as-an-incognito-hacker-in-cyber-chicago/) quote:there’s only one ending regardless of how you play, though I’m told its meaning will be up for debate. Oh god, it's gonna be loving Deus Ex's ending all over again isn't it? What is it about cyberpunk that attracts that? Stroth fucked around with this message at 10:07 on Oct 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
Deus Ex at least pretended to have different endings, but they were all awful. Since it's Ubisoft I imagine it'll be more like the AC games' endings, with a scripted story resolution, but there's nothing wrong with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
Stroth posted:Oh god, it's gonna be loving Deus Ex's ending all over again isn't it? What is it about cyberpunk that attracts that? I don't think it's that much of a deal as long as it's a really good ending. I guess I'm not a part of the majority in this matter though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 12:01
|
|
|
Sjonsson posted:I don't think it's that much of a deal as long as it's a really good ending. I guess I'm not a part of the majority in this matter though. I agree, as long as the ending is a good one then I don't see an issue. Plus I doubt I'll complete the game more than once so for me its all about the quality over quantity, although that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
Stroth posted:Oh god, it's gonna be loving Deus Ex's ending all over again isn't it? What is it about cyberpunk that attracts that? Only one ending, so it'll be open enough to justify a sequel, but closed enough for resolution. At least I'm sure that's what they're aiming for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 13:40
|
|
|
Sjonsson posted:Just read this hands-on by PC-Gamer.(http://www.pcgamer.com/previews/watch-dogs-hands-on-playing-it-cool-as-an-incognito-hacker-in-cyber-chicago/) Sleeping Dogs was this way. Every time you tried to run over a pedestrian they always just barely jumped out of the way. It looked ridiculous if your goal was to run over pedestrians (you monster) but if you played it with the correct mindset of not trying to kill them then it ended up looking pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Sleeping Dogs was this way. Every time you tried to run over a pedestrian they always just barely jumped out of the way. It looked ridiculous if your goal was to run over pedestrians (you monster) but if you played it with the correct mindset of not trying to kill them then it ended up looking pretty good. Nah, I annihilated plenty of pedestrians in that game. My superiors were not happy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
Obsidius posted:I agree, as long as the ending is a good one then I don't see an issue. Plus I doubt I'll complete the game more than once so for me its all about the quality over quantity, although that's just me. That's a very good point, I very seldom play a game more than once even though there are different endings. In example: I never replayed Bioshock even though I knew there was different endings and that I loved the game - I just asked a friend about the ending and looked at the whole thing on Youtube. To me it's almost like the contradiction, if the different endings aren't really, REALLY good they shouldn't be there, I'd just rather have a singular ending. Multiple "ok"-endings are just poor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Sleeping Dogs was this way. Every time you tried to run over a pedestrian they always just barely jumped out of the way. It looked ridiculous if your goal was to run over pedestrians (you monster) but if you played it with the correct mindset of not trying to kill them then it ended up looking pretty good. I think you're thinking of Driver:San Francisco with that. Sleeping Dogs definitely let you hit pedestrians.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 15:43
|
|
|
It was more lenient. Like there's a spectrum between "people never die" and "people die if you so much as clip them", and depending on how the game is oriented it can fall somewhere on that line. Cop games tend to be more toward that end, LA Noire had the same thing where it's really hard to actually hit someone dead on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
It gets a bit more believable in Driver: San Fran if you just remember how the opening tells you it's all in Tanner's head. Dude doesn't want to get some poor guy's life on his conscience, so...he doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Sjonsson posted:That's a very good point, I very seldom play a game more than once even though there are different endings. In example: I never replayed Bioshock even though I knew there was different endings and that I loved the game - I just asked a friend about the ending and looked at the whole thing on Youtube. GTAV has multiple endings, although once you get the choice it's supremely obvious which one is the "correct" one. I don't really even know why they bothered putting them in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
See you guys in Spring 2014  http://www.vg247.com/2013/10/15/watch-dogs-has-been-delayed-into-spring-2014/
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
suddenlyissoon posted:See you guys in Spring 2014 Haha, seriously don't pull pranks like that its not good for my blood pressure. Edit: gently caress this is ridiculous. I hav watchdogs as my release title and frankly its the only game I am truly looking forward to. Pissed off is an understatement. Obsidius fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Oct 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
suddenlyissoon posted:See you guys in Spring 2014 Considering the initial release date was in a month, they must have run into some serious showstopper bugs or something. (Or maybe they're just moving the game to a less crowded release date) e: or is this a joke? I can't tell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Polygon's reporting it as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:e: or is this a joke? I can't tell. It's on the Ubisoft Blog, doesn't get more official than that I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Now literally nothing to play on the One.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
In the long run it is a good thing, assuming they're actually going to be improving the game and it wasn't secretly a last minute strategic decision.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Well that certainly explains why it wasn't up on Steam for preorder when AC4 was. It is really weird to see the announcement this close to release though. Wouldn't they have normally been shipping out the gold master for replication like next week? I guess they hoped heroic effort and a shitload of crunch time was going to pull things together at the last minute and finally decided not to release it in a worse state than AC3. Sindai fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Oct 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Well that's a load of bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Qwo posted:Well that's a load of bullshit. It's an objectively good thing for the game though. And means it doesn't have to compete against Ubisoft's own properties as well as the usual Christmas cavalcade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Now literally nothing to play on the One. I'd like to talk to you about Titanfall...
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean, I'd rather have Watch Dogs now in a perfect world, but considering they feel it's important enough to the game's quality that they push it back, I'd say it'd be a good move for them to push it back. Make a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
limaCAT posted:I'd like to talk to you about Titanfall... Not launch. (And probably not going to be good.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Welp. I was going to get Watch_Dogs at release and save AC4 for the Steam summer sale. Might as well get AC4 now since nothing else interests me this fall. Well played Ubi.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
Official source on the delay http://blog.ubi.com/watch-dogs-delay/
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:44
|
|
