• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Watch Dogs 2

delita said:
It's not about the graphics just being "not good" - the graphics look fine. I'm just saying, there are games with better graphics that run far better than what people are saying about this game. This game could have the best or worst graphics on the market, have the absolute best gameplay of any game of all time, and I still wouldn't buy it if it ran like shit. Why? Because I'm not giving my money to a developer for something that can run just fine on a PS4 but not on a PC.
Click to expand...

Well, it doesn't, but ok

It's not like the idea of lowering graphics settings to match your level of enjoyable performance on your hardware is a lost art or some new idea.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Well, it doesn't, but ok

It's not like the idea of lowering graphics settings to match your level of enjoyable performance on your hardware is a lost art or some new idea.
Click to expand...
Yeah....well, all I know is I'm watching a video of a guy playing 1440p on a Titan XP and there are dips that go as low as the 30s. That to me says the game needs some patching. If you can still find that enjoyable, that's great...more power to you. I tend to wait for a few patches these days myself.
 
delita said:
It's not about the graphics just being "not good" - the graphics look fine. I'm just saying, there are games with better graphics that run far better than what people are saying about this game. This game could have the best or worst graphics on the market, have the absolute best gameplay of any game of all time, and I still wouldn't buy it if it ran like shit. Why? Because I'm not giving my money to a developer for something that can run just fine on a PS4 but not on a PC.
Click to expand...
Run the game at 1600x900 on Medium settings with FXAA and locked to 30 FPS. Because that is how it is running on PS4. Then unlock the framerate and come back and tell us it is still running better on PS4.
 
Armenius said:
Run the game at 1600x900 on Medium settings with FXAA and locked to 30 FPS. Because that is how it is running on PS4. Then unlock the framerate and come back and tell us it is still running better on PS4.
Click to expand...
Better was the wrong word. Those are the only settings you get on PS4. It's running "as intended".
 
Armenius said:
Run the game at 1600x900 on Medium settings with FXAA and locked to 30 FPS. Because that is how it is running on PS4. Then unlock the framerate and come back and tell us it is still running better on PS4.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it doesn't mean anything unless one is comparing the same settings and resolutions. It seems like many PC gamers think that "If I can't max out the game and get better performance than a console running no where near max PC settings then it's a bad console port."
 
heatlesssun said:
Running "as intended" is a much less defined thing on a PC with various settings and resolution options.
Click to expand...
The game just needs some patches. That was my one and only point. Lol. No one expected a flawless execution from Ubisoft.
 
I'd love to see some comparison shots between regular textures and the HD texture pack.

Also, it sounds like some folks are having trouble getting the HD texture pack to install and run on uPlay?
 
heatlesssun said:
Yeah, it doesn't mean anything unless one is comparing the same settings and resolutions. It seems like many PC gamers think that "If I can't max out the game and get better performance than a console running no where near max PC settings then it's a bad console port."
Click to expand...

To be fair, Doom has kind of proven that crowd right.
 
heatlesssun said:
While Doom (2016) is great I don't think graphically the most impressive game to come out this year.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's a pretty good contender. And it runs like a dream on many systems.

Witcher 3 was last year, but I'd say it's a top-notch graphics showcase and it also seems to run pretty well for the most part.

Same with games like Battlefront and BF1. It really does seem to have much more to do with the engine and optimization work put in than it does with, "game has HD textures / looks good so it'll probably not run well on mid-range PCs"
 
Only had time for a quick run through the starter mission, runs like butter on Ultra settings, 2560x1440 resolution.

SLI seems to work fine, which helps.

The controls were throwing me a bit but it looks like a game I could get lost in for some serious hours. Not bad for a freebie from an SSD purchase.
 
Haven't tried this yet with the controls. But does anyone know if you can have both a gamepad and still use the KB/mouse?

MGS:TPP allowed it, but there was a slight delay in the hand off (pressing a key swaps to KB/m). I wish more games would allow for it, as most detect a gamepad and switch to that control scheme only. If both are active at the same time, you can easily switch between them. And very few games include traditional joystick support these days (heck, BF3 didn't initially and it had fighter jets).

3rd person open-world games tend to play well with a gamepad, but mouse is always superior for aiming.
 
Last edited:
MavericK said:
I'd say it's a pretty good contender. And it runs like a dream on many systems.

Witcher 3 was last year, but I'd say it's a top-notch graphics showcase and it also seems to run pretty well for the most part.

Same with games like Battlefront and BF1. It really does seem to have much more to do with the engine and optimization work put in than it does with, "game has HD textures / looks good so it'll probably not run well on mid-range PCs"
Click to expand...
I agree with all these - Witcher 3, Doom, BF1, and add Rise of the Tomb Raider for sure.
 
I just installed WD2 today, didn't install HD graphics pack though and it still looks good and runs well for me so far but I am only in the tutorial part of the game. This on a GTX1070.
 
Brent_Justice said:
It's not like the idea of lowering graphics settings to match your level of enjoyable performance on your hardware is a lost art or some new idea.
Click to expand...

The point of buying a $500+ GPU is to not have to do this.

BTW - didn't get your specs, are you running a 1080 or a Titan XP?
 
Spidey329 said:
Haven't tried this yet with the controls. But does anyone know if you can have both a gamepad and still use the KB/mouse?

MGS:TPP allowed it, but there was a slight delay in the hand off (pressing a key swaps to KB/m). I wish more games would allow for it, as most detect a gamepad and switch to that control scheme only. If both are active at the same time, you can easily switch between them. And very few games include traditional joystick support these days (heck, BF3 didn't initially and it had fighter jets).

3rd person open-world games tend to play well with a gamepad, but mouse is always superior for aiming.
Click to expand...

I didn't try using both at the same time if that's what you mean but it switches back and forth without any noticeable issues or lag.
 
delita said:
The game just needs some patches. That was my one and only point. Lol. No one expected a flawless execution from Ubisoft.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Time to get real with some settings.

I liked part 1 and my expectations were that this would be "better" and I think that's what I'm seeing here by and large. Not by an earth shattering degree, mind you.
 
MavericK said:
The point of buying a $500+ GPU is to not have to do this.

BTW - didn't get your specs, are you running a 1080 or a Titan XP?
Click to expand...

If a game uses advanced enough options to push hardware I'm all for it. I'd love to see games that use techniques that even push Titan X's. Make you look at those games and go "damn, I wish I had the money to buy the parts able to run it at those settings". I'm all for things like WD2's lighting and shadow systems instead of the massive stagnation we had for the final 3-4 years of the previous console generation.
 
MavericK said:
The point of buying a $500+ GPU is to not have to do this.

BTW - didn't get your specs, are you running a 1080 or a Titan XP?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. A game can still be released with graphics options that exceed current generation video cards and require the next gen, or even next gen, to get everything out of it at full tilt.

I prefer games that push the boundaries, and drive technology forward.
 
heatlesssun said:
While Doom (2016) is great I don't think graphically the most impressive game to come out this year.
Click to expand...

True, you can't get grand vistas and incredible draw distance in a corridor shooter. However, Doom still looks excellent, with strong graphical effects, and will give you 60 FPS running on a toaster. Technically speaking, Doom is by far and away the most PC-optimized game and engine in recent memory.
 
Derangel said:
If a game uses advanced enough options to push hardware I'm all for it. I'd love to see games that use techniques that even push Titan X's. Make you look at those games and go "damn, I wish I had the money to buy the parts able to run it at those settings". I'm all for things like WD2's lighting and shadow systems instead of the massive stagnation we had for the final 3-4 years of the previous console generation.
Click to expand...

Brent_Justice said:
Not necessarily. A game can still be released with graphics options that exceed current generation video cards and require the next gen, or even next gen, to get everything out of it at full tilt.

I prefer games that push the boundaries, and drive technology forward.
Click to expand...

I get that viewpoint. I used to think that way - to some extent, I still do. But for me, the problem with that ended up being that by the time I hard the hardware to max out the game, it was 2-3 years later and I didn't care about replaying the game at that point.

For example, Crysis 3 is one I always tend to load up when I do an upgrade. I end up playing it for about a half hour and then quit because a) I've already played it and b) it's not that amazing of a game in the first place. It has to be a pretty great game with a lot of replay value for me to revisit it years later.

For me, personally - VR is going to be what drives me to upgrade in the coming years. That is the primary reason I bought a 1080, not current regular PC titles.



Brent - why will you not post your specs? I just want to compare to what I have because you said you were getting good performance is all.
 
MavericK said:
Brent - why will you not post your specs? I just want to compare to what I have because you said you were getting good performance is all.
Click to expand...

Haswell i7 @ 4.6
16GB RAM
1TB SSD
2x Maxwell TITAN X SLI
Latest Game Ready Driver for this game

Playing at 2560x1600 at global preset "Ultra" settings, with HBAO+ manually enabled, and SMAA, could probably go up slightly higher settings maybe add PCSS shadows, or Object Detail slider, might also try other forms of AA, SMAA is good, but there's still a lot of jaggies that bug me. I have found driving at night is more graphically intense than in the day time. My lowest FPS is in the lower 40's, i'm averaging 53 FPS according to my run-through test at "Ultra" settings and HBAO+ with SMAA.
 
Brent_Justice said:
Haswell i7 @ 4.6
16GB RAM
1TB SSD
2x Maxwell TITAN X SLI
Latest Game Ready Driver for this game

Playing at 2560x1600 at global preset "Ultra" settings, with HBAO+ manually enabled, and SMAA, could probably go up slightly higher settings maybe add PCSS shadows, or Object Detail slider, might also try other forms of AA, SMAA is good, but there's still a lot of jaggies that bug me. I have found driving at night is more graphically intense than in the day time. My lowest FPS is in the lower 40's, i'm averaging 53 FPS according to my run-through test at "Ultra" settings and HBAO+ with SMAA.
Click to expand...

Thanks, appreciate it. I think I might just pick it up and see how it goes, given how cheap the keys are right now.
 
Terpfen said:
True, you can't get grand vistas and incredible draw distance in a corridor shooter. However, Doom still looks excellent, with strong graphical effects, and will give you 60 FPS running on a toaster. Technically speaking, Doom is by far and away the most PC-optimized game and engine in recent memory.
Click to expand...

Not to take anything at all away from Doom, it's a great game and it looks great. And it runs well across a lot of hardware and even consoles and still looks good. But even with Doom you can't max it out and expect anything to run it at 60 FPS especially above 1080P resolutions. To MavericK's point, sure when you spend a ton on gaming hardware most everyone wants to crank everything in every game up to max and get at least a sustained FPS. I don't think poor optimization for the PC is always the culprit. Sometimes it's just more than even the best hardware can handle.

And it does get to be very subjective. Looks like Brent others are pretty happy with the performance while as it always the case with PC titles others not so much. I've bought more games this year than in a long time since I upgraded this summer and thus far I can't think of too many titles I've tried that didn't give me very great performance save Quantum Break, which has it's rough spots but still runs well enough to be enjoyable maxed out at 1080P and it looks very good I think.
 
Last edited:
MavericK said:
I get that viewpoint. I used to think that way - to some extent, I still do. But for me, the problem with that ended up being that by the time I hard the hardware to max out the game, it was 2-3 years later and I didn't care about replaying the game at that point.

For example, Crysis 3 is one I always tend to load up when I do an upgrade. I end up playing it for about a half hour and then quit because a) I've already played it and b) it's not that amazing of a game in the first place. It has to be a pretty great game with a lot of replay value for me to revisit it years later.

For me, personally - VR is going to be what drives me to upgrade in the coming years. That is the primary reason I bought a 1080, not current regular PC titles.



Brent - why will you not post your specs? I just want to compare to what I have because you said you were getting good performance is all.
Click to expand...

Maybe in a couple hardware gens VR will be a thing to push me to upgrade, but right now even the Rift makes me motion sick so I'll stick to wishing normal games would push hardware as much as possible.
 
Armenius said:
I'd rather deal with the occasional cheaters than have a damned rootkit installed on my PC just to play a game...

Glad I waited.
Click to expand...

It's surprising that this doesn't seem to matter to others? What's alarming is that I don't think it's just about cheaters but them locking the game down from mods for the fear that it might impede their ingame transactions is the bigger picture.
 
So performance seems alright for me. Had to keep shadows a couple notches down and can't use TXAA, but Temporal seems good enough and overall performance is playable at 1440p.

Texture quality with the HD pack is sort of mixed...characters and certain textures look really good, other world textures look pretty bad. I guess they didn't replace them all?

Game seems fun so far, pretty similar to the rest but it seems like there is more to hacking this time with the puzzles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Q-BZ
like this
heatlesssun said:
Not to take anything at all away from Doom, it's a great game and it looks great. And it runs well across a lot of hardware and even consoles and still looks good. But even with Doom you can't max it out and expect anything to run it at 60 FPS especially about 1080P resolutions.
Click to expand...

You can absolutely expect it, because Doom can and will run at 60+ FPS when maxed out. I've maxed out everything and get 175 FPS at 1920x1200.
 
Terpfen said:
You can absolutely expect it, because Doom can and will run at 60+ FPS when maxed out. I've maxed out everything and get 175 FPS at 1920x1200.
Click to expand...

I meant to say above 1080P resolutions. With the sig rig at 5760x1080 with everything single setting maxed out I get about 85 FPS on average. 4k resolution would probably knock that down to 60 or so. Even Doom requires good hardware to push it with all of settings at max at high resolutions to sustain good framerates.
 
heatlesssun said:
I meant to say above 1080P resolutions. With the sig rig at 5760x1080 with everything single setting maxed out I get about 85 FPS on average. 4k resolution would probably knock that down to 60 or so. Even Doom requires good hardware to push it with all of settings at max at high resolutions to sustain good framerates.
Click to expand...

That's still doing better than other 4K games. Battlefront and Battlefield 1, for instance, run at about 40 FPS at maxed out 4K.
 
zamardii12 said:
Looks like Watchdogs 2 is running pretty good on PC: http://kotaku.com/watch-dogs-2-runs-just-fine-on-pc-1789459460
Click to expand...
9HwwElv.png
 
Ebernanut said:
Lol, Temporal Filtering is such a misleading label. I really don't like this trend of pushing upscaling in the PC version of games, I would much rather turn a few other settings down.
Click to expand...
I know, right? The ambiguity of this option in Dishonored 2 really ticks me off.
 
I'm pretty happy with this game. It's big, varied, lots to do... if you have all the apps installed it's always buzzing at you for something... gameplay feels good.

I remapped a few keys to get the controls as close to The Divison as I could since I've been into that and this game feels like a cousin of sorts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top