Windows Watch_Dogs

[cluthz]

The official minimum specs state that a GTX 460 is the minimum requirement.

The 650M has more pipelines/cores than the 460, so i think you should be able to run it. But I wouldn't try to go past low/med specs.

People with very powerful rigs are getting done over by the poor optimisation in the game...

Nvidia changed architecture quite a bit, so comparing pipelines and cores that way doesn't work.

Still not a good measure, but bandwidth and texture filtrate gives a better figure, and a GTX460 beats the 650M in both.
According to toms hardware GPU hierarchy the GTX460 is on par with 670M:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

Anyways, system reqs are always estimates and the game might still run at PS4/XBone settings on minimum few rigs (PS4 900p 30FPS).

It seems scaling is done well according to MICHAELSD, funny how a PC at minimum reqs can do 1080p where as the new console gen cannot

 

[alphaod]

I got the PS4 version yesterday and it's fun enough, although driving is a challenge because all the computer-controlled cars are driving on the wrong side of the road and I keep crashing into them

In Chicago (where the game is set), and the entire western hemisphere for that matter, we drive on the right-hand side.

I'm pretty that was meant to spite us LHD folks.

Anyway I switch between RHD and LHD so much, they're basically the same to me now.

 

[Hakiroto]

How's it run on Ultra at 1080p?

I'll give it a go later and let you know. I think I might have quickly tried it but I just can't deal with playing games on the iMac at 1080p. They look much better at native resolution with a few sacrifices in the settings. I think I've found the sweet spot for Watch_Dogs, however. It's native resolution and the high preset with one or two things down to medium. It's so hard to see the difference between some of these settings.

 

[garnerx]

Performance is quite variable for me. 60 fps with vsync most of the time, but then heavy stuttering at random moments, particularly when driving. I read that reducing AA to the bare minimum has the most significant effect on reducing this.

It's an ugly game, though. Everything is smooth, shiny and weightless. The cars are floaty, the main character doesn't seem anchored. It looks like a Saints Row game. I can't believe they had the audacity to label this 'next gen' because it is clearly nothing of the sort.

 

[MICHAELSD]

Nvidia changed architecture quite a bit, so comparing pipelines and cores that way doesn't work.

Still not a good measure, but bandwidth and texture filtrate gives a better figure, and a GTX460 beats the 650M in both.
According to toms hardware GPU hierarchy the GTX460 is on par with 670M:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

Anyways, system reqs are always estimates and the game might still run at PS4/XBone settings on minimum few rigs (PS4 900p 30FPS).

It seems scaling is done well according to MICHAELSD, funny how a PC at minimum reqs can do 1080p where as the new console gen cannot

I wouldn't exactly say that... rMBP runs letterboxed in full screen mode. You can fix that by setting the desktop resolution to 1080p. Only played the first few minutes though but it looks like Ultra detail with High textures and Low shadows is doable at 1080p. Consoles are High across the board.

 

[cluthz]

I wouldn't exactly say that... rMBP runs letterboxed in full screen mode. You can fix that by setting the desktop resolution to 1080p. Only played the first few minutes though but it looks like Ultra detail with High textures and Low shadows is doable at 1080p. Consoles are High across the board.

That's probably true, but I think most people hoped that the new consoles should be able to beat a 1 year old macbook pro, which does have a middle of the road mobile GPU. Previously console generation have taken a big leap for each iteration, but XBone and PS4 seems like a slight upgrade from X360 and PS3.

I have not gotten Watch Dogs yet, but I will probably get it sometimes later as I have a long backlog of games. Hopefully the game will be better optimized then, and hopefully I should be able to run it on ultra at 60 FPS.

 

[saturnotaku]

hopefully I should be able to run it on ultra at 60 FPS.

Not going to happen unless you have 3+ GB of vRAM.

 

[cluthz]

Not going to happen unless you have 3+ GB of vRAM.

I have a GTX780 GHz Edition with 3GB (20% higher clocks than standard 780), so with some optimizations I hope I'll be fine. It will be the first game I have played that break 2.5GB VRAM if the 3GB usage is real. Sleeping Dogs do push close to 2.5GB with everything maxed, but other games like Metro LL, Bioshock Infinite and Far Cry 3 tops out on around 2GB.

Anyways, I do rarely play games at launch, usually I wait a bit down the line so issues are ironed out to fully enjoy the experience

 

[MICHAELSD]

Most deceptive game released this year IMO. Looks nowhere near as good as the demos or commercials at Ultra settings, and plays under 10fps in the actual game. You need to play at low if you want 30fps 1080p. Real time cutscenes look pretty good and render fine but the game itself is a huge mess that looks like any 360 game with slightly better shaders. AC4 played close to maxed and looked better in-game.

If only it looked like the commercials, this'd be acceptable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFwv07gQaLQ

 

[lunaoso]

Most deceptive game released this year IMO. Looks nowhere near as good as the demos or commercials at Ultra settings, and plays under 10fps in the actual game. You need to play at low if you want 30fps 1080p. Real time cutscenes look pretty good and render fine but the game itself is a huge mess that looks like any 360 game with slightly better shaders. AC4 played close to maxed and looked better in-game.

If only it looked like the commercials, this'd be acceptable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFwv07gQaLQ

To be fair, same thing happened with AC4. Although both situations were kind of disappointing, I'm fine with that as long as it runs well and still looks good. Hopefully ubisoft can get a patch out to optimize watch dogs a little more, but overall I've had a lot of fun with it so far.

 

[Nermal]

I'm pretty that was meant to spite us LHD folks.

Yeah, it was a joke (although apparently a very subtle one!)

 

[Hakiroto]

I've been seeing threads pop up all over the place over the past couple of days about this and how the game seems to be very poorly optimised. There's a pretty respected guy on YouTube who plays/reviews games and he can't maintain 60fps with SLI Titan cards at 1080p. I found it hard to believe at first but his video shows it. That said, there are other factors such as which video card drivers he has, etc.

As a lot of people have mentioned, it's not as good looking as it should be (or as it was when shown a year ago). I am, however, having a lot of fun with it so far and now that I've found the settings sweet spot on my iMac I'm happy. Let's just hope they further optimise with upcoming patches. We'll see, I guess.

 

[AndyMoore]

Wonder if this would run on my 2010 27" iMac?

 

[polinux]

Ok I'll add some into here.

I have 2 Mac's

On my CustoMac which is :
i5 4770K Overclocket to 4.4Ghz
16GB Ram
ASUS GTX 760 DirectCUII OC 2GB
and Win 8.1
Game runs pretty much without any issues. Sometimes when you drive a car very fast graphics do struggle But I believe is rubbish optimisation of the code.

Second Mac Which is MacBookPro 17" i7 2860QM 16GB Ram and ATI HD6770M with 1GB Memory

Game is playable on low with 1280x800 only. (I mean around 25-30fps). Looks horrible

IMO game is not even close graphically to what was presented before release. Graphics is slow and not optimised at all.

For comparison as a point of reference I'll use Battlefield 4

CustoMac : Ultra ~100fps No issues (I play on Medium for better accuracy ~190-200fps).
MacBookPro: Medium ~30fps (Low optimised for better accuracy ~70fps).

So knowing how demanding BF4 is that makes the point of WD being rubbish gaming xperience

 

[MartinAppleGuy]

Which is better, Infamous or Watch Dogs, can pick up either for around 35 bucks each on ps4. Wondering which to get.

I'd go for Watch Dog's. I'm loving it

 

[saturnotaku]

Second Mac Which is MacBookPro 17" i7 2860QM 16GB Ram and ATI HD6770M with 1GB Memory

Game is playable on low with 1280x800 only. (I mean around 25-30fps). Looks horrible

That stinks. I was hoping to pick this up at some point. Guess it will have to be for the PS3 then, assuming I don't upgrade my Mac first.

 

[MICHAELSD]

Eh the main game isn't even that good. Weapons and cars don't handle well and it feels like most other open world games. Not wasting anymore time in this. The first two hours deserve a 6.5/10.

 

[davelanger]

Which is better, Infamous or Watch Dogs, can pick up either for around 35 bucks each on ps4. Wondering which to get.

Go for watch dogs. I have played both and I can play WD for hours just doing side missions and walking around the streets, playing poker, the chess games, ect etc.

Second son is a good game but I would say rent it. Its 20 hours on either good or bad, but the other karma playthrough isn't much different. I platinumed 2nd son but it was a choir to do so.

 

[lunaoso]

I've really really been enjoying watch dogs. It'll probably end up being the first game I 100% in a long time. Seems like there's a lot of mixed opinions on here though. Hopefully we see a PC patch soon to fix the lag problems.

 

[VI™]

I don't know the validity, but I read somewhere that it was optimised for 720p on the Xbox and everything else got the shaft in comparison. The PS4 actually looks dull because of this according to the posters. I'll find the thread and link it later.

 

[monokitty]

I've really really been enjoying watch dogs. It'll probably end up being the first game I 100% in a long time. Seems like there's a lot of mixed opinions on here though. Hopefully we see a PC patch soon to fix the lag problems.

Agreed. I've been having a lot of fun with Watch Dogs. Some of the side missions are actually more intriguing to me than the primary storyline, but I'm working through both at the same time. While overhyped, certainly, the graphics still look pretty amazing to me, world and city feels alive, and the hacking, gunplay, driving, and explosions are a lot of fun, even if a bit repetitive. It should get even better once Ubisoft patches the game for a number of bugs I've encounter and randomly-triggered lagging. You can't compare it to GTA, because it isn't the same game, even if certain elements are shared between the two - if you want to insist it's like GTA, you'll probably be disappointed.

 

[lunaoso]

Agreed. I've been having a lot of fun with Watch Dogs. Some of the side missions are actually more intriguing to me than the primary storyline, but I'm working through both at the same time. While overhyped, certainly, the graphics still look pretty amazing to me, world and city feels alive, and the hacking, gunplay, driving, and explosions are a lot of fun, even if a bit repetitive. It should get even better once Ubisoft patches the game for a number of bugs I've encounter and randomly-triggered lagging. You can't compare it to GTA, because it isn't the same game, even if certain elements are shared between the two - if you want to insist it's like GTA, you'll probably be disappointed.

Well said. I've put in a good 7-10 hours in since launch day, and I just started Act 2 of the campaign today! I find the side missions to be a lot of fun, and that's crazy coming from me.