Watch Dogs

after all the purpose of a beta is to test that the game is good enough for release, therefore they are wanting to release the game as is and are hoping with the beta test some things which they couldn't find themselves are found so they can be plugged before official release.

That'd be closer to a Release Candidate really, as far as the terminology is concerned. Although the reality these days seems to be to beta-test it and simultaneously release it to the public as a release product and fix it after the damage is done.
 
no such thing as release candidate for console games IMO, it's more for stuff like windows, etc.

games have an alpha build which is demoed at shows like E3 or whatever.

then a beta which is tested in house and sometimes publicly.

if there is a release candidate that is what would be sent to review sites and magazines, etc either a week or a month before release.

as you say the game is just released the same as the beta and any issues are just fixed with patches.
 
About that 'review' -

'This guy is clearly playing the beta version. How do I know?
Well i was involved in the beta. The beta was the first act of the game which was 10 to 12 hours in length. The full game is made up of several acts each taking 10 to 12 hours to complete. By the way by complete i mean story. Too 100% everything would take many many more hours. Also this guy has broken the video copyright embargo ubi has in place. This means anyone who posts videos of the game before the release date is exposing themselves to legal action, retail or review copy, it does not matter.'

That isn't going to make it look like the game we saw at E3 2012.

Its obvious that they just can't make that level of graphics sustainable for anything more than a quick play through of the first couple of minutes of the game.

It will still be a good game, and ultimately graphics don't define a game so its not as big of a deal as some make out.

But theres no denying the final graphics are definitely a downgrade over what we promised.
 
the difference between a beta and release version is supposed to be just bug fixes, nothing else.

so if his review is that the beta is crap then that also applies to the release version tbh.

had it been an alpha build then yeah, many many things can and will change between that and release.

after all the purpose of a beta is to test that the game is good enough for release, therefore they are wanting to release the game as is and are hoping with the beta test some things which they couldn't find themselves are found so they can be plugged before official release.

therefore it doesn't matter if it's the beta tbh
Don't forget though that sometimes a beta is a limited version, missing out on levels or areas of the game. If the Watch Dogs beta was simply a chunk of the game, then reviewing that chunk and and scoring it like a retail version is misleading. Many games start out weak and finish really strong, and vice versa, and basing a review on just part of a game is the worst thing a reviewer can do. Graphically the game won't change much (maybe some stability fixes) but if the story gets better or worse, that could have a big impact on the final score.
 
Sometimes it looks amazing and sometimes it looks poor. Half the time we don't really know what version we're looking at and added to that the compression in a lot of videos we see can be horrendous. Ubisoft haven't done them any favours with the build up to this. It's beeen a bit of a joke from the start.

Just going to wait until they release the thing before I make up my mind about it.
 
I think a lot of the poor graphics comments are coming from those looking at highly compressed PS3/360 versions tbh.

I saw some PS4 footage and it looked better than the PC version up close in some areas then inferior in others.

I think I'll wait to play the game myself before judging graphics as the info online is all over the place.
 
Ordered it from Tesco for £39 because I'm weak. If I don't like it I'll get a bit back selling second hand.
 
On the fence on this. Was planning to see what reviews made of it before taking the plunge but I thought review embargo lifted on the 22nd but this thread suggests it's the release date 27th?
 
I think a lot of the poor graphics comments are coming from those looking at highly compressed PS3/360 versions tbh.

I saw some PS4 footage and it looked better than the PC version up close in some areas then inferior in others.

I think I'll wait to play the game myself before judging graphics as the info online is all over the place.

General consensus from the leaked info is the night scenes have some very nice effects which make it feel next gen.

Daytime, not so much.
 
Yup, review embargo is the 27th.

I still want to find out what time the embargo lifts. The possibility that the game is going to have been on sale for the entire day before the embargo lifts is rather stupid. Quite annoying too because Tuesday is my day off but I'm not buying it until I've read a few opinions.
 
I still want to find out what time the embargo lifts. The possibility that the game is going to have been on sale for the entire day before the embargo lifts is rather stupid. Quite annoying too because Tuesday is my day off but I'm not buying it until I've read a few opinions.
Or a bad sign.
 
My guess is that the review embargo will be lifted at 2pm GMT, which is 9am EST. That's the kind of time I've been held to in the past when under embargo.
 
Im excited about it either way. It looks pretty original for an open world game. Nightime looks stunning...daytime looks abit flat but the gameplay looks fun which matters most.
I reckon its going to score around 80-90%. The downgrade in graphics really shouldn't hurt the score as high quality videos iv seen make it still look really good.
 
Back
Top Bottom