![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
The Division - officially announced for PC!
- Thread starter Blade-Runner
- Start date
piscian18
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 11,021
Oh a Ubisoft title excellent, looking forward to saving my money.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,659
Don't victim shame us...they are the ones being stupid by putting out BS trailers and then downgrading, not us for believing it.
The graphics they showed seem totally possible in 2015/2016 given titles like Crysis 3, Witcher 3, etc.
Developers need to stop this shit of putting out early gameplay trailers where the game has no chance of looking as good as it does in the trailer. If they want to put out a trailer and then make the graphics better as development goes on, then by all means. But using bullshit trailers to drum up pre-orders is fucking false advertisement IMHO.
LeviathanZERO
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Messages
- 6,496
Precisely why I'm done with this game(hell maybe Ubisoft as a whole).
Don't insult my intelligence and then ask me for money. I don't care how "good" the game is at this point. Ubisoft needs a refresher course on what it means to PUSH technology and not hold it back by stupid arbitrary reasons. That is unacceptable to me. To any corporation in technology/gaming. If you are not pushing the limits, don't call yourself a AAA developer, especially when all you do is make B level excuses.
Certainly don't come asking me for the full $60 after stating such pathetic excuses...
Porter_
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 8,466
i don't really get worked up over things in the gaming world but i agree with you. it's a misleading practice by developers/publishers. i have much more respect for outfits that don't do it and just show you what you'll get.
same with BF2, 2142, BC2, BF3, and BF4 if my memory serves me correctly. that's as far back in DICE's history that my memory will allow when it comes to game trailers.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,659
Agreed...I think Fallout 4 looks the same as they showed as well. Some people were a bit disappointed with the graphics (myself included) but at least they didn't lie and show some BS that was unattainable with the final product.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,659
It's really not. There are plenty of games I like. Unfortunately developers like to keep pulling these shenanigans and pissing everyone off.
If you want to constantly get bent over by developers then that's your problem. We as gamers shouldn't stand for that shit, it's making the entire industry worse.
Blade-Runner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 4,103
Fuck you haters for injecting facts into a conversation and destroying hype! HYPE for gods sakes, how could you?! How else will mindless drones know which games to buy if you keep destroying the HYPE!?
Come on be realistic, this is Ubi we are talking about, all its sand box games are just about copy and paste jobs with the same redundant game mechanics, filler side quests, excessive collectibles, tower activation, etc. Given its predisposition to lie about graphics, its not a stretch of the imagination that it will lie about anything else if it means selling more copies.
the alpha has been getting good reviews so hopefully it will bypass the usual Ubisoft open world tropes and deliver a great game...I'm expecting downgraded graphics but the game can still look really good even with it
Blade-Runner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 4,103
From console nubs....I recall people praising the alpha build of Destiny as well, and we all know how that turned out. I will keep my expectations suitably realistic for now.
Blade-Runner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 4,103
Hope the final product and/or PC version will look better...but then again it is Ubisoft.
This is what the game was revealed as:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njfj6KwEAfg
And it has only been a steady stream of downgrades since then...
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,659
I imagine graphically this will be Watch_Dogs all over again. That said, I still enjoyed Watch_Dogs despite the massive graphical downgrade from what we saw in the trailers.
From what I've been hearing about the closed alpha it does seem like this game could be good.
From what I've been hearing about the closed alpha it does seem like this game could be good.
I only played Watch Dogs with mods but it looked pretty stunning to me...
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040921062&postcount=2017
That's because most of the E3 reveal code was still in the game and the community worked on bringing it back into the game. Look at the game without any mods and you'll notice a massive downgrade.
but if you're playing on PC and install mods to make it look stunning then is it really a downgrade?
Porter_
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 8,466
that looks pretty good. maybe i should pick up Watch Dogs on sale sometime.
Yes? The graphics they shown at the E3 reveal were not representative of the final product and IIRC not all the features from the E3 reveal were able to be put back into the game. If it weren't for modders then the game would still look horribly downgraded (as it still does on consoles due to lack of mods).
zamardii12
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,381
Have any of you been playing the alpha? Is fucking graphics the only thing anybody cares about anymore? The Division has gameplay elements that have never been done here before, and the alpha looks great. I am sure it'll look even better on PC.
The fact remains that from what I have personally experienced with this game that it's a day-one buy for me. Has Ubisoft fucked up a lot lately? Yes and I entered this Alpha with some negativity and careful optimism, however the Division is an actual great game and I think over time as they add more content will evolve into an amazing experience. Playing this with a group of friends is going to be epic, but even on my own the gameplay, control, interface, and everything I have seen so far has completely taken all my worries about this game away.
Go and play it then judge for yourself. I personally am tired of holding myself back from being excited like I did with this and I was thoroughly surprised how great it has been so far. Obviously nothing here is meant to change your mind, but my suggestion is to merely try it for yourself. Pre-order the game, get the beta code and then cancel your pre-order so you'll be able to see what it's like.
Last edited:
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,659
I already said the game itself could be good. That doesn't excuse this shit with trailers that are not representative of the graphical fidelity in the final product, doesn't matter what developer it is.
I'm not going to write the game off because of the graphics but the bullshit needs to stop, period.
zamardii12
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,381
Do you also get this pissed off in car commercials when they show the most speced out version of a car only to find when you go to the dealership that what they showed on the commercial is more expensive that the lot car? Or when you go to Mcdonalds and you find that your Big Mac doesn't look as perfect as on the commercial?
I understand what you are saying... don't get me wrong... but this has been going on with everything since advertising has been around. When you are trying to show something and to sell it to people you want to make it look perfect. I can guarantee you that in the case of The Division, the PC version with a high-spec rig will look as good as the E3 videos just based off of what i've seen on the Xbox One.
Trust me, when I first started The Division I was like "What the fuck Ubisoft? You pulling this shit again? Looks nothing like the E3 videos!" And I was even ranting on the Ubisoft Alpha forums that it looks way less nice than the E3 video and those arguments are still happening between many people still playing the Alpha. I was even going into detail about how the glass on the car doesn't break as it did on the E3 videos... and there is even a post over there people arguing that when you are "in-cover" on the side of a car and the car is open slightly whether the character animation being used to close the door when going alongside the car is being closed with the character elbow or his hands and as to whether it's a full nudge of a push. People get ridiculous with this stuff and I can understand why.
But guess what, after playing it I appreciated it a lot more and the game's graphics do in fact look pretty damn good and pretty close to what i saw at E3 but just not quite. It's no secret that those E3 videos were being played on a maxed-out PC. No, they wouldn't say it b/c they want to sell the game. Personally, when I see a video now of any sort of gameplay I take it with a grain of salt.
To be honest when you think about it, to expect the final product to look as good as they show it is quite stupid. The point of a demo is to show it at it's best... just like every fucking commercial on TV... everything has to look perfect. Would it better if they showed all the graphics on "Medium" settings? Of course not, b/c everybody would then bitch that it doesn't look that great. Even as good as The Division looks I read one person who is playing the Alpha say the other day that the graphics look Xbox 360ish. Fucking ridiculous. lol. Or would it be better if they showed the game at it's best? That's a personal opinion and in terms of advertising and business the former makes more sense.
If the game isn't fun at the end of the day it won't make a damn difference how good it looks. I think it makes more sense in a gameplay video to show the main gameplay concepts and to make it look as good as possible.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,659
Not really, because in the car example they at least have fine print at the bottom that says "$X as shown" so you know it's not going to be base price. As for McDonald's...a Big Mac costs $2.50, not $60. Would it be cool if it looked like the commercial? Sure. Is it kind of bullshit that they show "food" (because it's not even actually real food) that looks nothing like what you get? Yeah, it is. But I guess when I pay a couple bucks for a burger my expectations aren't as high. If I saw a Big Mac on TV and then when I got it it had half the amount of beef and no cheese, then yeah I'd be pissed. That's more akin to what the situation here is.
I do as well, but that doesn't mean we should have to try and see through the lies and discern what's actually real.
Thing is, this isn't really a problem of it being shown "at its best", in many circumstances there is no way achieve the graphics they show in the demos, even with max settings on PC. That's the issue. With Watch_Dogs it was somewhat possible via advanced tweaks but even then it wasn't 100%.
I'm not saying no one should try this game or buy it if it's a good game, but for me I can't reasonably pay good money for a game when Ubisoft continues to pull crap like this. Whether you like it or not you are rewarding them with your wallet when you do so, and that's all they really care about.
I don't see how people don't understand that;
- you can be critical of the obvious graphics downgrade, because of the weak consoles and bullshit marketing
- still excited for the game, especially the PC release
These 'ideas' are not mutually exclusive.
- you can be critical of the obvious graphics downgrade, because of the weak consoles and bullshit marketing
- still excited for the game, especially the PC release
These 'ideas' are not mutually exclusive.
Last edited:
too many people value graphics over everything else...graphics downgrade does not equal bad game
Well I mean, yeah, graphics and art style are important to me.
Exactly, I still think it'll be a great gameplay experience - but that doesn't excuse the developer from providing "gameplay" reveal trailers and then not delivering anywhere close to it with the final product in terms of graphics. Graphics typically don't make or break the game, but they can definitely enhance the experience.
Who in this thread said it makes it a bad game?
LeviathanZERO
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Messages
- 6,496
This is not the argument. It's about coming clean, like most respectable developers. These are not friends or even acquaintances. They are businesses begging for your money. If you dont come clean from the get go, you are not worth my time. Ubisoft isn't making Gold here, they are making games. And not even excellent ones, just mediocre ones. But you want to throw lies and excuses on top of that?("We just CANT have such a gap!!!!" Such a comical excuse that I have never seen from any other developer...) Get out of here with that. You aren't going to see my money. Some other more respectable developer is...
zamardii12
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 3,381
I still have to take issue with your reasoning here. Think about it this way, if they showed the Division to the public and they show the graphics in a quality that is the lowest common denominator then people will say that the graphics are shit and possibly not buy it. Do you see what I am saying? Your argument totally makes sense to me and I agree about Watchdogs however think about it in terms of PC players. The Division is also being released on PC, so then what about when people who say haven't upgraded their videocard or whatever in a while can't get the game to run smoothly for them? They literally can not make everybody happy and it's not possible. What do you think would be the most sensible thing to do to sell a product like a videogame being sold on multiple platforms? To show the game at it's best or it's worse?
Here is another example... Assassin's Creed Black Flag was released across PS4, PS3, Xbox 360, and Xbox One. Should have Ubisoft shown that game with PS3 graphics or PS4 graphics to sell the game? Or do you think that the people with last-gen systems can for the most part figure out that maybe their game won't look as good as what they're showing? This is my point. You can't please everybody, so the best way to represent your product is to have it look it's best when being released across multiple platforms. If a game is also coming out on PC then I would expect that they will show a game at it's best and not think that my console version will look as good. Now in the case of Watchdogs yes I agree it didn't look as good as it was shown, but in all honesty it didn't look SO much worse than what I saw at E3 for me to say that they tricked me or scammed me and they are taking advantage of me. I personally REALLY enjoyed Watchdogs myself so obviously that factors into my thinking. Did I buy the game at launch? No. But I never ever buy games at launch only in very rare circumstances.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,659
I do, absolutely. But here's the problem (again):
You use the phrase "at it's best"...what we are talking about here is that trailers will be shown with graphics that are not actually attainable with the final version of the game. Even with max settings on the best PC money can buy. They downgrade the graphics to a point where even modders are unable to fix it. THAT is the problem.
But as stated above, no one is saying that the game can't have good gameplay and that graphics are all that matter. But this is a (maybe not so) recent trend with supposed AAA developers where we are seeing screenshots and trailers of alleged "in-game/gameplay" footage that end up being complete BS and not possible with the final version of the game.
I don't want to derail this thread further so let me just say I hope the game ends up being as awesome as some of the alpha testers are claiming it is.
they have come clean...they released the initial E3 video but later videos and the recent Xbox alpha and upcoming multiplatform beta will show the graphics as they are...so there's no deception except from the Ubi-haters and people who constantly like to gripe about graphics downgrades...didn't Witcher 3 have a downgrade at launch?...seems like people only want to harp on certain titles or developers
the only game that blatantly lied concerning graphics was Aliens: Colonial Marines...they lied all the way up to release...Watch Dogs and other titles released updated trailers and gameplay footage prior to launch
The Witcher 3 also got a ton of shit for the downgrade...
It's not "Ubi-haters", its the fact the quality of some of their high profile games have not been what they initially reveal that has hurt their reputation. Watch Dogs, Assassin's Creed Unity, and now this. It doesn't look good when you release games that either look or perform nothing like what you make them out to be. You want to show your games at their best, but it should be attainable by the highest end PCs which isn't the case.
Witcher 3 downgrade got a pass for the most part because it's CDPR and because gameplay was excellent
again why are people so obsessed with initial launch trailers released 1-2 years before launch?...if later trailers showed the true graphics, then what's the big deal?...people just want to hang on to something to prove their argument...if games like The Division are getting open betas then everyone will get the chance to try the game before release
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,659
All people are saying is that it's a BS practice intended to generate hype and pre-orders before the graphics are finalized. To me when I see massive downgrades with no mention of it (or straight up lying about it when asked as Ubi has done before) it goes from a potential day one purchase to a "maybe on sale". It also kills most if not all hype I had for the title because it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Plus, you have to wonder why a 1-2 year old trailer would have graphics that are better than now. Maybe it wasn't possible performance-wise back then on a high-end PC or whatnot, but several years later it still isn't and they have to downgrade the graphics? BS.
I think the real culprit is consoles.