PDA

View Full Version : Do you accept the Visual Downgrade from the E3 Demo?



iambladers
07-18-2014, 11:56 PM
Found some comparison pictures. Personally from watching the stream the other day, i saw the volumetric lightning and smoke is gone from the E3 demo and so is the bloom. The explosion and destructible parts has been toned down.

Its disgusting. Do you accept the Visual Downgrade from the E3 demo that has become a hallmark of all Ubisoft games?

Kid's Room
http://www.abload.de/img/downgrade0sf75.png

Living Room
http://www.abload.de/img/downgrade2g1kz0.png

Upstairs Hallway
http://www.abload.de/img/downgrade31xkzz.png

Automatiik
07-19-2014, 12:31 AM
the e3 demo was on PC and the stream was pre-alpha version on PS4. I never saw any doors in the stream gameplay compared to the e3 demo that had 2 doors with a barricade infront of it when the attackers are trying to breach the basement closer to the end of the video and the hostage was able to talk to the drone too.

iambladers
07-19-2014, 12:39 AM
the e3 demo was on PC and the stream was pre-alpha version on PS4. I never saw any doors in the stream gameplay compared to the e3 demo that had 2 doors with a barricade infront of it when the attackers are trying to breach the basement closer to the end of the video and the hostage was able to talk to the drone too.

The stream was on a PC with keyboard,mouse and xbox 360 controller plugged in.
They were all holding an xbox 360 controller (idk how you missed that)
Plus check the button prompts at the bottom of the ss.

HilbillyRokstar
07-19-2014, 01:10 AM
You're pretty easily disgusted...eh bud? It's the way the he game is played. If you wanna change your snide little comment from the acceptance portion of the poll...then yes...I'm ok with it. Now if and when they promote it as the finished product...the way Gearbox did with Aliens..if there is such a disparity..then we'll have a problem!

I'm much more concerned about things like weapon balancing and game design tactics than flashy graphics at this point.

Automatiik
07-19-2014, 03:25 AM
The stream was on a PC with keyboard,mouse and xbox 360 controller plugged in.
They were all holding an xbox 360 controller (idk how you missed that)
Plus check the button prompts at the bottom of the ss.

You're right it was on PC my bad. I was focused on the actual gameplay didn't pay too much attention to the guys sitting at the tables, I knew they were infront of computers but you could still set up consoles to a monitor. I just quickly glanced at those things and thought the green A button was a green Triangle button plus I was watching the stream on my iPhone so it made everything smaller like the action button when they breach windows from the ropes looked like a circle. But my point was that they were playing the pre alpha version so they probably had a reason to turn down the graphics. Still months away till they introduces the final version of gameplay, hopefully they have a demo/beta to actually judge for ourselves.

HilbillyRokstar
07-19-2014, 04:14 AM
You're right it was on PC my bad. I was focused on the actual gameplay didn't pay too much attention to the guys sitting at the tables, I knew they were infront of computers but you could still set up consoles to a monitor. I just quickly glanced at those things and thought the green A button was a green Triangle button plus I was watching the stream on my iPhone so it made everything smaller like the action button when they breach windows from the ropes looked like a circle. But my point was that they were playing the pre alpha version so they probably had a reason to turn down the graphics. Still months away till they introduces the final version of gameplay, hopefully they have a demo/beta to actually judge for ourselves.Exactly. I will hold my opinion on graphics quality til then.

Dome500
07-19-2014, 03:11 PM
PS4 VS PC => The difference will always look like this.

Anyway, I hope Ubisoft is this time making a GOOD PC port, seriously don't screw this up Ubi.

Aside from that, gameplay > graphics. If the gameplay is brilliant I don't care, if they screw up both I won't buy it anyway.

iambladers
07-19-2014, 05:00 PM
PS4 VS PC => The difference will always look like this.

Anyway, I hope Ubisoft is this time making a GOOD PC port, seriously don't screw this up Ubi.

Aside from that, gameplay > graphics. If the gameplay is brilliant I don't care, if they screw up both I won't buy it anyway.

They were playing on PC so its PC vs PC.

Secondly Ubisoft making a good pc port? hahaha i can't stop laughing.

To those saying wait.... their MO was to get your pre-orders from the fake demo at E3. they already got it.
how much they downgrade it later doesn't matter to them.

HilbillyRokstar
07-19-2014, 11:33 PM
They were playing on PC so its PC vs PC.

Secondly Ubisoft making a good pc port? hahaha i can't stop laughing.

To those saying wait.... their MO was to get your pre-orders from the fake demo at E3. they already got it.
how much they downgrade it later doesn't matter to them.If you buy or don't buy...based on an electronics show...then you deserve what you get.

When you watch a car or motorcycle show...do you immediately run down to your local dealer and give them a deposit.. thinking the production vehicle you are gonna get is gonna be identical to the one on stage?

It's the same thing...that's how it works. That's how these things have always worked.

Dvsilverwing
07-20-2014, 05:20 AM
"Shamefully yes"? No, just yes. Gameplay will always come before graphics for myself, and if graphics get in the way of good performance and fluidity in gameplay I say to hell with them, I'd rather have mildly downgraded graphics and better gameplay any day.

Kaiskune
07-20-2014, 12:46 PM
"Shamefully yes"? No, just yes. Gameplay will always come before graphics for myself, and if graphics get in the way of good performance and fluidity in gameplay I say to hell with them, I'd rather have mildly downgraded graphics and better gameplay any day.

I have to concur, Future Soldier sold itself out to superior graphics and the game was overall lack luster in story and gameplay

a top line level of game play with 2nd or even 3rd place graphics afr outstrips the need for the game to look overly pretty

Dome500
07-20-2014, 06:44 PM
They were playing on PC so its PC vs PC.

Secondly Ubisoft making a good pc port? hahaha i can't stop laughing.

To those saying wait.... their MO was to get your pre-orders from the fake demo at E3. they already got it.
how much they downgrade it later doesn't matter to them.

Well, then it's pretty simple. If the PC port is bad I will not buy it. There is almost no game I preorder today, I first wait around 2 weeks after release until I get it.
Except the Witcher 3. CD Project Red rocks.

shobhit7777777
07-21-2014, 07:56 AM
Don't care.

If all you saw in the gameplay vids worth discussing was bloom and volumetric lighting.....then I don't have much to say.

Pest_AWC
07-21-2014, 03:16 PM
"Shamefully yes"? No, just yes. Gameplay will always come before graphics for myself, and if graphics get in the way of good performance and fluidity in gameplay I say to hell with them, I'd rather have mildly downgraded graphics and better gameplay any day.

I agree. I just voted "I don't care". Give me the best graphics you can, but fluid gameplay and a solid game are most important.

I want things like footprints in snow and when walking off wet surfaces, working doors and windows with fluid control, and realistic physics that includes gimping wounded players based on where they get hit (if the first bullet doesn't kill them). I don't really need it so realistic that it has bullet drop and takes wind into account though...this is mostly CQB afterall...

xBeanieBoy
07-22-2014, 01:02 AM
Everyone saying that gameplay comes before graphics is 100% correct. Especially when showing consumers a pre-alpha version of the GAMEPLAY of what is to come. I really dislike when people judge a game that is in pre-alpha.. Really? Like people talking about there being no recoil. You're judging a game that releases next year.. LOL I voted "Dont Care" at this point in the development process

twinspectre
07-23-2014, 04:13 PM
instead wasting our time about the graphic being dumbed down , why don't we focus for more important thing like No Handholding , no Objective mark , Realistic Damage(not Destruction) , no Regenhealth , no Aim Assist , no Dumbed Down gameplay , Realistic Recoil and other thing ?

BIAk_SHREDIT
07-29-2014, 07:22 PM
Still playing Rogue Spear and Raven Shield. Do you honestly think I care about graphics?

E3 always has been and always will be a proof of concept. Nothing more. They aren't playing finished products in front of your face - they are showing you concept videos (or heavily touched up demos with scripts), so that you get an idea of what the game is about and how the developers intend for it to feel.

If all you're looking at are the graphics... well... we can't help you here. It's a Rainbow Six forum, not the Crysis threads.

Dieinthedark
07-31-2014, 06:30 AM
Don't really care at this point, I was more impressed with the destructible cover and need for teamwork than visual flair. My personal thought is that the E3 demo was pre-rendered anyway and not a live gameplay

mst3kld
08-08-2014, 06:59 PM
It is the same thing they did for watchdogs and the same thing they will be doing for the division. If you watched the gameplay stream from two days ago you will see it says "HOLD A" for beach or something like that. The demo is just a port over. They are not building the game on the PC it is being built for ps4/Xbone. Ubisoft has not supported PC in years because they have always blamed their lackluster PC sales on pirates but that is not the real reason. I want the game to be amazing and draw me in for hours at a time like Rainbow 6, eagle watch, and Rouge Spear did.

TheCyrcus.TTV
08-31-2014, 11:30 PM
Gampeplay > Graphics . . . 'nuff said.

Obviously I'd like to see the graphics not get downgraded, but it's not something that's going to make me not buy the game.

Cortexian
09-04-2014, 11:24 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the E3 playable demo looked like it did purely because the devs got told they had to whip something playable together for E3 at the last minute. So instead of making it look amazing and spending a boatload of time optimizing it to make sure it looked good, we got lesser graphics than the E3 presentation in exchange for stability.

The build they recorded the presentation on could of very well crashed 9 out of 10 times before they got a nice stable capture that they could present. While the playable demo actually had to work as much as possible...

To many unknowns to make calls this early IMO.

Shazbot4
09-05-2014, 03:50 AM
i renounced my interest in the division, shunned those forums and come here for something new and what's the number 1 thread... downgrading... why isn't freelancer locking this moe foe down for speculation and none factual comments on topics already covered like he's doing over to the division topics?

at this evolution in game hyping and marketing tactics with the big 2 EA and activision it should be everyone's standard opinion not to believe anything they see anymore. after watching the daybu of R6 siege i thought to myself... that game looks like it COULD be fun. then watching the team attack the hostage takers and observe the guy called "havoc" skip around the screen untouched and then miraculously appear behind the lead player for the final killing blow out of no where at the end of the video, i figured... yup... that guy had the host connection...

those screen shots from the op look like a pretty rock solid argument. 2014 shots look like garbage, once this thread hits 1000 views and 10 pages of replies it will most certainly be locked as time to launch grows near to avoid any bad vibe from gamers and to not hurt day 1 sales.

so freelancers last comment "to many unknowns to make calls this early" tells anyone with the correct reading tools everything they need to hear. what ever the opposite of what he said is the actual truth. does he explain why the screen shots look horribly different with a definitive answer? no. does he say "what was shown in e3 demo is the game"? no. "the devs had to whip something together last minute"... thats a real confidence booster isn't it? the biggest game convention electronic arts one of the top 3 biggest gaming compaines in the world with bazillions of dollars, armies of people and resources and they had to whip something together last minute..... right....... so it's more stable... sure.... i mean... that's how most people got rich... just winging it...

stop and think about this... does this statement make sense? millions of dollars in development and they just whip something together unplanned? any of you that have jobs... how much of your work is just WTF whatever lets wing it and your bosses and customers are ok with that? you keep your jobs...? does anything get done? apparently, according to freelancer, the answer is yes if you work for EA games with a $100,000 salary. "here is a 10 million dollar budget... get back to us whenever... 1-4 years from now, whatever you want... it doesn't really matter, just spend lots of money drawing rainbow 6 siege.... and when it comes time for E3(doesnt matter what year) just throw something together to get people interested in buying it.... that worked for watchdogs...

back in reality... where everyone who pays for their own food and rent and none EA game forum moderators live... the real answer is... once a game is at E3 or any kind of press release is made it's pretty much done. why else would they be showing it if they got 5 years left to work on it? hype would die and become old. 1-2 years is pretty average, notice how the time from press releases and previews to actual release date is increasing? destiny? pre order pre order pre order!!!! anyway... they show a game.. it's done, minor tweaks are left... what EA wont tell you is what your being shown at E3 isn't the game. its a 10 minute demo of the same game on steroids being shown on the top of the line PC's. the final product looks more like what we are use to seeing... about the best looking graphics last gen games had to offer on current gen is about the standard.. sorta.. follow? if it looks to good to be true.. it is.

to buy any game now adays new is a bad idea, unless you own the house you live in. wait less then a week for a used copy so you can return it or sell it for what you paid for it. wait for the unbiased youtube video reviews to come out, know what the game actually looks like then buy it.

iambladers
09-06-2014, 12:03 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if the E3 playable demo looked like it did purely because the devs got told they had to whip something playable together for E3 at the last minute. So instead of making it look amazing and spending a boatload of time optimizing it to make sure it looked good, we got lesser graphics than the E3 presentation in exchange for stability.

The build they recorded the presentation on could of very well crashed 9 out of 10 times before they got a nice stable capture that they could present. While the playable demo actually had to work as much as possible...

To many unknowns to make calls this early IMO.

So basically its, let put out a fake scripted showcase with god-tier graphics and advertise it as the real game (alpha & in-game) so we can generate hype and pre-order and then downgrade it later and say "oops well we optimized it. we did it for your own good"
Now i know you will be quick to say, no its not that.

So explain that to the casual gamer? you do know that casual gamers make up about 80-90% of gaming?
I was a casual gamer up until last year. I found out about watchdogs a 2 months before its release.
and that was only because i saw it get mentioned on gtaforums.
Before E3 2014, I have never watched an E3. I see clips and news about E3 days/weeks later just like any other casual gamer,

That doesn't mean i wasn't a tech guy (my major is CS) or a gamer. I played alot of games, but i was casual.
I didn't follow the gaming community. I just see games advertised at E3. And I say cool that looks great and i buy it 1-2 years down the line when its released.

That's what happens with me, and i'm sure that's what happens to alot of people.
The only video/demo they see of a game is the one at E3 or other events.

Now you see why its a lie to generate hype and preorders.
There are millions of gamers like me, who buy games off their E3 demos or other event demos.
Well i was like that. Now i'm no longer a casual gamer as I won't be here if i was.

The minute GTAV came out i was no longer a causal gamer.
If GTAV never came out i would have bought WD day one with only the E3 footages from youtube (rahmanhd guy) as the only source of advertisement of the game i have ever seen.

Do you know how many millions of people that is? who was shocked when they put in WD and saw a totally different game? Who may be shocked when they put in R6 Seige and find out the demo they saw at E3 isn't at all what the game looks like.

This is classic false advertisement 101 and i'm sick of it.

Shazbot4
09-06-2014, 07:26 AM
well said imablader.

make a average game. then generate hype by showing a 10 minute demo of what the game looked like if everyone had a 10,000 dollar gaming computer and make everyone think its going to be a console game when it's not. i'll bet my left nut the division and R6 are going to use the same crapy graphics engine watchdogs has, consumers wont actually find out till the game is released, suckers. it's why you wont ever see a definitive answer from EA or ubisoft on the subject and they lock topics that show proof of it.

v.y.t.e
11-29-2015, 04:31 AM
hmm after playing the Open Beta, I missed the brilliant lighting effect and high resolution textures.
The sample images on page 1 show already clear.
I just hope that the final version still has a lot up its sleeve, otherwise I think it would be a real shame,
once again to confuse the customer with prerendered gameplay. I just wonder why you do something strong?

One sees but that this may look like this and it has been seen by former officielle gameplays that this would be implemented without any problems.
If the marketing department really want the "next-gen" consoles as maximum reference users ...
then please separates this audience completely of us PC users.
We buy some hardware in 4 digits and can still only the graphics a ridiculous XBox enjoy ... :(

S4R1N.PdM
11-29-2015, 04:47 AM
"Shamefully yes"? No, just yes. Gameplay will always come before graphics for myself, and if graphics get in the way of good performance and fluidity in gameplay I say to hell with them, I'd rather have mildly downgraded graphics and better gameplay any day.

I don't really think it's a question of gameplay, do you think it's acceptable for a developer to hype a game up to this extent and not only cut features (helicopter deployment) but have absolutely massively cut down graphics.

I say no, it's not acceptable. Especially when they haven't even got their network issues resolved after having months to do so.

Kuifje-AMG
11-29-2015, 05:06 AM
Dear OP,

I dont appreciate having such a biased Poll, you should mention, yes, and I dont mind as options.

Also you should know that that since the beta is out, the graphics is great, for a solid experience, the ambient occolusion, HBAO, the Anti-Aliasing, the attention to detail, the game is solid compared to many other ps4 titles.

I have a high standard when it comes to these things, I think people are more bothered about the hype vs actual than anything else, but lets be real, ubisoft has shareholders and they have certain expectations on return, and part of that is the hype train and day one sales.

in any case, I for one dont like to complain, I vote with my money.

Personally, I wont be buying the game because the game has no dedicated servers only match making and my ping is prohibitively high given that the player base is primarily overseas, unlike CS and BO which has a considerable player base in UAE.

Regards,

Seansation
12-04-2015, 06:37 AM
Also you should know that that since the beta is out, the graphics is great, for a solid experience, the ambient occolusion, HBAO, the Anti-Aliasing, the attention to detail, the game is solid compared to many other ps4 titles.


Are you fkn for real? I've got a brand new PC and I can tell you that even with all options maxed the game looks like dog**** (compared to the debut trailer).

It has plenty of problems - some of the top of my head include: rubberbanding, some dodgy lobbies & occasional questionable hit detection. Having said this, I am honestly enjoying the game and it is really is fairly solid.

A lot of my issues are can and will (hopefully) be fixed, but this practice of improving the graphics and effects on their trailers is totally unacceptable. I really would like to have more faith in the company but seriously doing this after the watch dogs shenanigans... what can I say.

**Totally forgot that they removed the helicopter deployment. Also should note that the models sure as hell never behave like they do in the trailer.

PrinceAdamLanza
12-04-2015, 07:40 AM
Anytime you can tone down graphics of a game and get a larger playerbase (older computers), and eliminate some of the casual gamers who are PC enthusiasts working 40 hours a week, I consider it a good thing. Graphics could be 1998 rendering for all I care, usually when a pre-release product looks extra flashy its to appease those casual gamers into buying anyway. A generational fad of sorts, don't really recall graphics being a standard or benchmark for the traditional r6 titles by red storm, but of-course that was before everyone was buying dedicated cards and consoles to play first person shooters on with a joystick and aim assist, lol.

SIeazy
01-31-2016, 09:48 PM
The graphics and animations in Siege are horrendous now. It looked so good when the game wasn't nearly finished and now it looks like a game from 2009.

TheNoobZMaster
01-31-2016, 10:13 PM
TBH graphics don't really make a difference in competitive play, because people will use only as much graphical eyecandy as it's necessary (texture clarity, shadows, sound quality, sprites and particle density).

It all starts at putting everything to the lowest settings, checking if you have 144FPS at least, then increasing visual clarity (resolution, texture detail, shadow detail) until a stable balance of 120+FPS and good visual clarity is achieved.

My GTX970 STRIX and i7-4770K can handle the game at 60FPS on Ultra (1440p), but playing at these settings means shooting yourself in the knee in terms of reaction time (with more eyecandy increases the output lag), eye fatigue (brain has to react to every single frame, and the less there is, the faster it gets tired), and PC stability (overclocking, even if done correctly, is still a potential point of failure hardware-level).

This game manages to be quite responsive and well-looking at low settings with textures set on "very high".

If ambient occlusion and other volumetric eyecandy doesn't give me a visual edge over someone who has it, I just turn it off.

yehowah123
01-31-2016, 10:25 PM
You know what is a cinematics about? do you? It's a SHAME that you can't distiguish between them. E3 -> CINEMATIC! CINEMA just to explain the possible gameplay NO LIVE gameplay included. Just to show off the possiblities its just a fcking trailer... SURE the endgame graphics differ from an fully rendered animated 3D Movie. WTF folks its really a shame that you didn't disguish between a 3D Movie and REALTIME GAMEPLAY Videos. .... As a Publisher you just do cinematics to show off some features, because your current state of your game isn't that good, BUT you have to show your fans some possible gameplay features, you MUST show some features, thats all. And all features shown in 3D video are available ingame at the moment!

So you are just dumb kids... sorry but thats all. Its an amazing game and in a competitive gameplay you don't need that much blur/flare events!
As always (Kids) Haters gonna hate.

Mcspanky37
02-01-2016, 12:35 AM
Of course I accept it. You'd have to be blind not to notice how much the graphics have been nerfed. Having said that, the game still looks really good so I can't complain. Every single Ubisoft title is made to look extra good pre-release so they can build more hype, and then dumbed down by time of release because the games have to actually be optimized and playable.

WithHatred
02-01-2016, 02:42 AM
The only difference is lighting

Mcspanky37
02-01-2016, 05:08 AM
My GTX970 STRIX and i7-4770K can handle the game at 60FPS on Ultra (1440p), but playing at these settings means shooting yourself in the knee in terms of reaction time (with more eyecandy increases the output lag), eye fatigue (brain has to react to every single frame, and the less there is, the faster it gets tired), and PC stability (overclocking, even if done correctly, is still a potential point of failure hardware-level).

That's funny. Unless you're talking about a mix of ultra and other settings, you're not getting 60 FPS at 1080P let alone 1440P...;)

Or worse...you're using the upscale AA.

Scottish1986
02-01-2016, 07:01 AM
The game runs well for me and I enjoy the gameplay for the most part and that's all the matters to me. I would like stuff put in and taken out but I ain't to bothered about graphics aslong as it looks good and doesn't burn my eye balls like some of the old games i tried to go back and play, even though at the time they never hurt my eyes but they did after I had went back to them 6 months+ later.

TheNoobZMaster
02-01-2016, 10:55 AM
That's funny. Unless you're talking about a mix of ultra and other settings, you're not getting 60 FPS at 1080P let alone 1440P...;)

Or worse...you're using the upscale AA.

Nope, legit 2560x1440, VSync off, multisampling AA off (Temporal Filtering), graphics preset "Ultra". 60-75 FPS even while recording.

I'll update this post with an in-game video recording with uPlay FPS counter so you can see for yourself.

UPDATE1:


https://youtu.be/2a7_N_QHVkM

The video is 1440p60fps, it will be fully ready (processed) within a half an hour.

JustBoneBrook
02-01-2016, 04:34 PM
who care about graphique no really. what I care is the serveur lag they got. oh and i am a bit sad i can't drop form the helico

secrecy274
02-01-2016, 04:51 PM
I should, I really should... but I don't, I don't care at all.

JustBoneBrook
02-01-2016, 09:35 PM
I should, I really should... but I don't, I don't care at all.

na you should not because there probably a raison for that (I doute they just reduce the graphique because they like to reduce graphique.)

Mcspanky37
02-02-2016, 12:02 AM
Nope, legit 2560x1440, VSync off, multisampling AA off (Temporal Filtering), graphics preset "Ultra". 60-75 FPS even while recording.

I'll update this post with an in-game video recording with uPlay FPS counter so you can see for yourself.

UPDATE1:


https://youtu.be/2a7_N_QHVkM

The video is 1440p60fps, it will be fully ready (processed) within a half an hour.



Temporal filtering is the upscale "AA" I was referring to.

Visually it's equivalent to playing the game at half the resolution you have set, except it stretches to fit the screen (and UI elements are rendered natively). 1080P with temporal filtering off, for example, looks much better than 1440P with temporal filtering on. Thanks for the effort but you need to turn that setting OFF and try again ;). You're not really playing the game at 1440P unless that option is off.

TheNoobZMaster
02-02-2016, 12:05 AM
Temporal filtering is the upscale "AA" I was referring to.

It's basically like playing the game at half the resolution you have set, except it stretches to fit the screen (and UI elements are rendered natively). 1080P with temporal filtering off, for example, looks much better than 1440P with temporal filtering on. Thanks for the effort but you need to turn that setting OFF and try again ;). Playing with that option on turns the game into a blurry eyesore - you're not really playing the game at "Ultra" unless that option is off.

Well OK then, let's turn it off. Recording new video.

Either way, I pointed out in the video that using multisampling AA is unreasonable as it consumes more VRAM than the GPU can allocate. Hence why Multisampling AA is a separate option within graphics settings.

UPDATE 1: at 1440p, with AA "off" I get 45-55 FPS

UPDATE 2: at 1080p, same settings, it's 65-85 FPS

I have both videos recorded, but it's night time and I'm lazy. I think I've gathered enough trust to go to bed by just leaving the test numbers.

If you still would like to see the test results, I'll upload them tomorrow, just let me know.

Bronzebreak
02-02-2016, 02:11 AM
Glad to see a lot of positivity on this thread.
Well, at least a lot more than I had assumed there would be.

As it stands I un-shamefully accept and enjoy the current graphics (for many reasons already stated in the thread), and are surprised that people were holding UbiMont so hard to the footage released.

Oh well, always good to see healthy discussion at least.

BuffedAndLoaded
02-02-2016, 02:30 AM
This isn't really the first time that the graphics get downgraded from the E3. For example, Watch Dogs.

Though I'm fine with this graphics and it shouldn't be too shocking to people that the graphics downgrade, there has to be some fix between consumer and company for multiple issues, including this one of course.

JojoTheSlayer
02-02-2016, 02:35 AM
No, I dont care and whats more important to me is that R6S seems to have found a good balance on Details vs Settings and Map design.
You cant really reduce the details such that you gain an advantage and so on. An aspect that is more important to me.
I really dislike playing very good looking games knowing every competitive player is playing on ultra low to remove all shadows, light differences and so on.



This isn't really the first time that the graphics get downgraded from the E3. For example, Watch Dogs.


If this was a Single Player game only or main focus. Then I would mind because then what other people settings are dont matter at all.

JAE_14
02-02-2016, 04:00 AM
At first I was ok with it but not blown away. Then i downloaded the Vegas games and realized how bad they looked comparatively to what Siege actually looks like and now I'm more than Ok with it.

The only thing visually that bothers me at times are the movements of the operators. Like why do they look like they're break dancing while prone and moving around? Lol

Terr0ristHunter
06-05-2016, 06:02 PM
I really wish we had the graphics and the layout from Alpha/Pre-Alpha... It looks so much better, and so realistic....
Alpha + better quality... that would have been so awesome.. But the final version of the game, the game looks so bleh...
The quality and textures looks washed.... too much brightness etc...

Who in their right mind doesn't think this is ****ing awesome looking graphics?
http://www.abload.de/img/downgrade2g1kz0.png
http://www.abload.de/img/downgrade31xkzz.png

Saigon_Lily
06-15-2016, 04:50 PM
Why necro this?

CGPsaint
06-15-2016, 05:07 PM
Why necro this?

While a valid question, I'm more impressed that someone used the Search feature before posting a new thread!