News

Ubisoft On "Watch Dogs" Delay, Downgrade

By Garth Franklin Sunday March 9th 2014 12:46AM
Ubisoft On "Watch Dogs" Delay, Downgrade

The excitement over the May 27th release date announcement of Ubisoft's long-awaited video game release "Watch Dogs" has been tempered over the past few days in the wake of the recent trailer.

The company has come under fire on various game forums like NeoGaf for the apparent major downgrade of the games visuals in comparison with the now famous E3 2012 trailer.

The gameplay still looks fine, some elements are about on par (facial animation), while smoke effects appear to have actually been improved. That, however, seems to have come at the cost of the environmental physics effects - lighting, movement, anamorphic lens flares, explosions, etc. have all been seemingly simplified to early PS3/360 levels.

An already infamous animated GIF has been making the rounds comparing the E3 2012 reel for the game, and what's said to be the PS4 version of the game from a recent hour-long demo played by some game journalists. The difference is both highly apparent and rather concerning.

Ubisoft's PR and event manager, Tessa Vilyn, has responded to the reports with denials (via GamePur) saying:

"Believe me the game is not downgraded, that would just be a bit ridiculous... I saw the game it looks incredible. It looks what a next gen should look like. Really they didn't downgrade anything, its just a little different then when you first saw it i guess. It really does look great."

It has been revealed the game runs at 960p 30fps on Xbox One, 1080p 30fps on PS4, and up to 4K and 120fps on PC. What about that Wii U version? Turns out it's still coming, but the team needed more time to make full use of the platform. Senior producer Domnic Guay tells Polygon:

"We wanted that team to have the time to explore the GamePad and be able to have fun with it and see how far they could push it. It's also an interesting platform, because it has its own strength, which we want to take advantage of."

SHARE: