Banned
Sorry but this is the same lame excuse that UBI and or You guys have been telling everyone since we started this debate last year so I won't go on a rant. All I will say that is that why is it that others can do it (Crysis, MoH, CoD, etc) but UBI can't? At the end of the day UBI games are not optimized for either end of the spectrum.
Senior Member
What are you talking about mate ?
Crysis lol have you seen crysis working on console on release it has been release on console 4 years after pc release and on pc you had to have a war machine to enjoy it !
Cod with that old quake engine used over and over and over again modified has hell, Medal of Honor Quake 3 engine and last one with Frostbite 2 that allow medium machine to works fine.
Now you're talking about excuses and all but you never give facts and prooves to support your statements did we said Ubi can't optimise a game ? No they said that because of the so many configurations a pc can have it's a hard work to optimise all that compare to a PS4 as all PS4 have the same harwdware and same for XOne.
So when are you going to stop coplaining, stop twisting what people says and finaly say something that makes sense and explain it, cause as Bluefox asked you before to support your statements you never did but argue again with non sense sentances.
It is really time you stop saying things that people never said.
Volunteer Moderator
Mainstream AAA games aren't optimized for either end of the spectrum, not just Ubi games.Originally Posted by GiveMeTactical Go to original post
Why would a company develop a game for anything other than the largest audience possible? In this case, they pick some middle-ground between what all the different platforms are capable of. For consoles that's fairly easy, they're all relatively similar in terms of potential performance right now. For PC builds they need to target the most common types of hardware. If Steam Hardware Survey is to believed, that would be something like:
CPU: 2-4 Core, 2.3 Ghz to 2.69 Ghz
RAM: 8GB
GPU: GTX 650 - GTX 970 or equivalents
Resolution: 1366x728 - 1920x1080
That's a pretty huge variation in hardware, and it's only taking into account some of the most popular configurations. Obviously Ubisoft will want to target optimization towards people running things like this though, because they make up the bulk of the people who will end up buying and playing the game.
The 5% of us that sit at the top of the PC hardware master race will always miss out in the full possible potential of a game because of this, and this isn't a trend specific to Ubisoft. Unless a game is being designed 100% for PC with no other platforms in mind, you won't get mind-blowing graphics. Look at Star Citizen though, it's entirely possible to pull off mind-blowing graphics when your target platform is PC gamers with paychecks behind their hobby.
Banned
There you go again getting your [redacted] insulting my replies and other companies only because you are a moderator and feel you have the right to. I don't the inclination to explain it to you, yet again, so you are more than welcome to ban me for another week or close the thread because you feel on crapping on what we are replying to.Originally Posted by M_Ulukai Go to original post
If you care to read my responses to superbiscot you will see that I did explain, perhaps to simple for you or perhaps to hard, not my problem. Most people who buy a game don't have to be a computer programmer or a game optimizer, all they care about if that they have paid money for a product that does not work as it should.
But again, if you want to close a thread you don't like, the easiest thing you can do is what you just did, create controversy and insult everyone... let's just wait for ubikeeba to lock it down/
Senior Member
I defy you to find only one insult in the post I did just before !
You explained nothing, you just talk about COD,MOH and Crysis and saying they are optimized because it's others companies that made them but you know nothing cause if you red a little what's going on in the video games press you'll know that too many COD weren't well optimized and many pc users had issues with the frame on pc even BO3 !
Crysis, again like I said you needed a war machine to make it work propertly ! Last MOH wasn't optimized for Quad core cpu.
Now I'd like you to support any statement you make cause you don't stop talking about things you don't know, every time you talk about something you're not credible because you explain nothing and there's nothing to support what you say. It's like the time you were mad about The Division, R6 Siege, games you never played and you judged them and when asked why you said you red others people feedback on the forums.
Member
@ BluefoxOriginally Posted by AI BLUEFOX Go to original post
First answer is the HD pack is nothing but a few shiny mildly touched up graphics with lighting and such. I wouldn't even call it an HD pack, it's more of a "Small adjustment" to try to keep PC gamers happy.
Your second question answer is: They are bothering with Ubisoft games due to the fact that their are so many new PC gamers out there that are so ignorant and naive of Ubisoft's ways. Ubisoft says things they want to hear to bait them into buying the product. I bet 95% of the ratings are all newbies and have never heard of R6 in the first place and will soon taste the bitterness of Ubisofts bitter apple. In fact I know a lot of people that already have and they refuse to support Ubisofts games anymore.
@ Cortexian
Make Consoles & PC's have a different engine like Red Storm did with the GR series.
Ubisoft claims they built "The Division" PC version from the ground up. It was supposed to be a fully dedicated version to PC but yet they still downgraded the graphics on it and spewed out their typical nonsense of "Performance Issues" good grief.
ARMA 3 has better frickin graphics than WildLands at this point and it's open world and they are an Indy team and it's all because they build their games from the ground up for PC and not the other way around like Ubisoft does. Bohemia Interactive actually cares about their PC fan base. GR:WL could look just as good if not better if Ubisoft really wanted and cared about us.
Yes lots of Ubisoft titles do utilize NVidia Game works but they don't use it to the extreme. Sure they may tweak minor stuff for a few visual points on PC but none if it is vast enough to really notice a big difference from Console and PC.
They probably also have contracts with Nvidia and are required to advertise it in their product but again it's not a huge difference between visuals in console to PC which it should be but this is clearly not the case.
If they really cared they would have written an article in saying that they would like to improve the visual quality of the PC version. Have the higher visuals for those that can enjoy it more on PC or have the ability to be able to tone the visuals down. It's as simple as that. There are many graphical options in many other games that you can dial down or turn all the way up with a disclaimer that it will take a toll on GPU.
Member
Or they could also do what Square Enix has done with the latest Hitman game where the option is given to the player to allow the game to set up a bench mark for the graphics based on your computers specifications, that way they don't have to worry about toning down the overall quality of the graphics at its highest settings for neither the consoles or those with lower end PC's, the game itself will do it for you. We still could have gotten the high quality graphics shown from E3 for Rainbow Six Siege, assuming that was even real gameplay.Originally Posted by GhostLeader- Go to original post
Volunteer Moderator
And end up with games that don't even remotely resemble each other? No, there's many reasons why the industry as a whole doesn't do this anymore. The biggest one is probably that MOST of the work on a game can be done in one place and then just "exported" out to most platforms now, PS4, Xbox One, PC, etc...Originally Posted by GhostLeader- Go to original post
I still don't get people complaining about a graphics downgrade in The Division... Heck, people say there isn't even dynamic lighting. Apparently we're playing entirely different games because there is 100% dynamic lighting and real-time reflections, amongst other things in my version of The Division on PC. The Division is one of the best looking games I've ever played.Originally Posted by GhostLeader- Go to original post
Yeah, some lighting and post-processing effects have been toned down. IMO that's more of a playability thing than a performance downgrade. As cool as god-rays and lens flare effects are, there is a point were they're so prominent that they actually detract from gameplay by obstructing views.
And yes, some other effects were either removed or removed from certain areas of the game for performance reasons. Again, this is likely to cater to the largest majority of gamers out there.
I'm not even going to debate this, because you're simply wrong. Arma 3 does not look as good as Ghost Recon Wildlands when comparing the PC versions of the game at the same resolution back to back. You're going to have to take my word on this, as someone who has played both games on PC with the graphics of Arma 3 maxed out.Originally Posted by GhostLeader- Go to original post
Again, of course. They need to cater to the MAJORITY of gamers. This includes the majority of PC gamers. And as much as we PC Master Race gamers would like to believe that everyone has a GTX 1080, 32GB of RAM, and an overclocked i7 processor... That's just not the case. The reality is that the majority of PC gamers are using much more moderate hardware. Optimization HAS to be focused in this area since those players make up the majority market share.Originally Posted by GhostLeader- Go to original post
It's better to have 5% of players with gaming super-computers have issues because SLI doesn't work, or the game won't render 1,000,000 FPS on 9 monitors instead of having 80% of your players with fairly normal gaming rigs having texture popping and no faces. This is a cold hard fact of game development. No amount of complaining or suggestions can change this.... I hope you get where I'm coming from.
There hasn't been an article saying this won't be the case. I entirely expect Ghost Recon Wildlands to have a full compliment of advanced graphics and display options when the game launches, much like The Division already has.Originally Posted by GhostLeader- Go to original post
Member
Originally Posted by Cortexian Go to original post
And based on the tons of footage I've seen of Arma 3 on its highest graphics settings, I see little to no difference in quality between Wildlands and Arma 3. At the very least, one cannot say with absolute fact that Arma 3 does not look as good as Wildlands because that is certainly not the case. In fact, until the next batch of consoles and PC's are released within perhaps the next five or so years, open world games won't even begin to look much better than Arma 3 with maxed out graphics as anybody with eyes can with the comparison below.
Ghost Recon Wildlands:
Arma 3:
Community Manager
@Ulukai and @GiveMeTactical
Everyone has the right to their own opinions. You guys clearly don't agree on yours. Since we are discussing opinions here, it is hard to present "facts" in order to back them up.
This forum is open to all discussion both positive and negative. I please ask you both to respect each other's opinions, agree to disagree, and move on. The insults back and forth are neither helping sway the other, nor are they helping to promote healthy discussion.
Thank you both for your consideration on this issue.
