The Division. Are we interested?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pigeon_Killer said:
This. Hard to believe that the people that put so much emphasis on graphics these days are the same people that are killing creativity and variety.
Click to expand...

It isn't necessarily just how it "looks" though, it is the physics and how things happen and the interaction with the game world etc. that CAN impact how the game "feels" to play.

Again like watch dogs, there was so much removed from the e3 version that the game lost all the atmosphere i.e. the night club scene in the e3 footage looked so engrossing but the final version, a big fat meh.


Like I said earlier:

As gregster and all like to keep saying about gameworks effects, they are there to give extra graphic fidelity and immersion to said games, they can be turned off for those who can't run them thus everyone wins, is it any different here?
Click to expand...
 
TonyTurbo78 said:
Is this why you buy these expensive cards and monitors Greg and in your Gregster reviews talk about graphics and cool effects. We all love graphics, gameplay and the core of the game sure is more important, but if Chuckie Egg came along today, none of us would be interested. Thing is Greg, I'm not annoyed at how the game looks, it's looks decent enough and the gameplay looks brilliant, I've been interested in this game for a long time regardless of how good or poor the visuals turn out to be. What annoys me is the blatant BS regarding what the PC looks like, people saying things like trust us guys, the pc version looks like the 4k screens I'm playing it or it almost looks as good as the E3 footage etc.....No it doesn't....Don't do that. It's the lies that annoy me, just show me something that's totally representative of what I'm buying, not what I could have 6 years down the road.
Click to expand...

I bought BF Hardline and all the DLC for my sins and it looked great but what the dickens was going on with gameplay? Shocking game for me and should have just been some BF4 DLC. I bought Watchdogs and found it boring personally and only got a few hours in before retiring it, I bought Ori and the Blind Forest and couldn't get enough of it and graphically not great but so much gameplay and hooked me big time. I want a game to look good but mostly have the gameplay - So you ask why do I buy these expensive GPUs and monitors? Because I want my cake and eat it really, ergo give me the graphics and the playability please.

Of course I can understand what you mean about UBI and how angry you are that it doesn't match up to the E3 demo that was on show but for me, if it has playability and gives me lots of enjoyment, am I wrong to buy it? (not that I have bought it but if the gameplay is there when I play the Beta, I certainly will).
 
Graphics are nearly equally as important as gameplay these days. The problem is only a very small number of developers can manage the two with equal success. I don't know why anyone is debating this?

In an age of QHD+ monitors and even mid range graphics cards that are more than capable of pushing out high/ultra quality visuals, the immersion factor in a modern game is amplified by excellent graphics matched with the gameplay.

Two key games off the top of my head are Dying Light and Alien: Isolation. Both games offer superb graphical ambience yet are set in completely different sandbox formats.

Otherwise what is the point in going forward and upgrading hardware to experience them if graphics never got better because "it's all about the gameplay innit"?

A game like Division just wouldn't be as fun with mediocre graphics. It's a game designed around the gritty and "alive" game world and needs that atmosphere.
 
2 of my favourite games of late were AC:U and AC:S because they had gameplay and looked fantastic. Crippled my machine lol but they looked and played great. Another one of my favourites was BF4, which apart from some stupid bugs was very good looking and played very well.

We are not wrong to want our cake and eat it and quite right Mrk, no point upgrading our machines if we are not interested in visuals.
 
We want graphics!

When do we want them?

It's a bit of a sad state though. I don't tend to like many new games. Tomb Raider last year, Dying Light, SOMA etc... All games with excellent gameplay and excellent graphics to match. These kind of games don't come round often though, so when a game like Division promises "never before seen" visuals, we have every right to expect that.
 
mrk said:
Graphics are nearly equally as important as gameplay these days.
Click to expand...
To some people they are but not everyone. The best games I played on the Xbox and have played on the PS4 and PC recently have all been indie titles that focus entirely on gameplay.

mrk said:
These kind of games don't come round often though, so when a game like Division promises "never before seen" visuals, we have every right to expect that.
Click to expand...
Ubisoft are one of the worst developers around. They've repeatedly lied about the state of their games and they've repeatedly screwed over customers with game breaking bugs that never get fixed because they put all of their efforts in to DLC to screw over their paying customers once more.

Surely the alarm bells ring whenever Ubisoft announce a game? :confused:
 
Last edited:
They are not exactly doing a Colonial marines, are they?

Haven't seen any Division adverts with false screenshots or the ubiquitous not representative of actual gameplay watermark.

E3 was just a vertical slice of what could be achieved, not necessarily what will.
 
hyperseven said:
They are not exactly doing a Colonial marines, are they?
Click to expand...

No, I dont think they have but Ubisoft/Massive are walking a thin line every time they bleat on about the extra fancy bits the PC versions will get but then dont deliver. There has been so much debate about what the PC version will look like, with very little - or no - transparent evidence from Ubisoft, its only due to the handful of leaked PC gameplay that everything points to only a slightly better console quality.

I think all the voices defending the devs and the PC visuals will grow quieter the closer we get to release at which point the devs will probably start damage control on all the website articles hammering the word 'downgrade' and issue some BS response. The rest will get swept under the carpet and life goes on just like Watchdogs.

Only this time it seems the gameplay of TD is going to be much better than WD so Ubisoft/Massive will still walk away giggling with all the money they made out of us gormless pre-ordering sheep that bend over and take their giant graphics downgrade shafting each year.
 
I just watched to the very end of that watch dogs before and after comparison video I linked above and that explosion difference at the end lmao! It is that kind of thing that makes me go "wow" when playing a game.

mrk said:
Graphics are nearly equally as important as gameplay these days. The problem is only a very small number of developers can manage the two with equal success. I don't know why anyone is debating this?

In an age of QHD+ monitors and even mid range graphics cards that are more than capable of pushing out high/ultra quality visuals, the immersion factor in a modern game is amplified by excellent graphics matched with the gameplay.

Two key games off the top of my head are Dying Light and Alien: Isolation. Both games offer superb graphical ambience yet are set in completely different sandbox formats.

Otherwise what is the point in going forward and upgrading hardware to experience them if graphics never got better because "it's all about the gameplay innit"?

A game like Division just wouldn't be as fun with mediocre graphics. It's a game designed around the gritty and "alive" game world and needs that atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Nailed it.

Take away the amazing particle, smoke, shadows and lighting effects (the best I have seen) from AI and the game would have been very meh and not as atmospheric or scary.

Take away the gore, decapitating effects from dying light, l4d, killing floor and all the other zombie games, they wouldn't have been as fun.

etc. etc.

hyperseven said:
E3 was just a vertical slice of what could be achieved, not necessarily what will.
Click to expand...

Except here is the problem....

They DID achieve it! They showed actual "in game" footage on a 3 year old PC....
 
dunno if posted, but 5 mins in is focused on The Division and what effects are missing or in game as promised.



Nexus18 said:
Except here is the problem....

They DID achieve it! They showed actual "in game" footage on a 3 year old PC....
Click to expand...

So the E3 unfinished game/demo did anyone from the developer or publisher come right out and say that this is representative of what the final product will be?

Bet you kick off at Maccy D's because the Big Mac looks you get looks nothing like the one pictured on the menu :p :D
 
Last edited:
Well, the last game that had all this furore about graphics downgrades was witcher 3 and that, for me, was game of the year and still looked great. Was I a bit miffed that it could have looked better? Yep. Was it still an epic game worth full price? Yep.

I'm not saying that will be the case here, but I'm going to reserve judgement until I've played it.
 
TonyTurbo78 said:
just annoys me these youtube celebs....and I use that word very loosely, are all like Zomg it's almost as good as the E3 videos. I'd rather they just said yes it's slightly better than console as you would expect, but nowhere near the level of E3. Just tell the blinking truth that's all I want.
Click to expand...

Just mute them and watch the video. What I do every time. Don't think I've ever heard any of the 'celebrities' voices. I have eyes, don't need some moron to tell me what I'm seeing.
 
Just watched that video posted by hyperseven above, very interesting and very accurate.

I lol'd at 16:10 as it confirms everything. They never initially intended to develop the game for PC so it really is an after thought and a bolt on port. Hence it looks like ass!

busted.jpg
 
This game was originally announced for consoles with no plan on a PC port. They later decided to make a PC port as a result of outcry from PC gamers that wanted it.

They then make it and now are just being constantly complained about and getting poop thrown at them.

Now I am not trying to defend Ubisoft here, they have made their fair share of fudgeups and even with this they have made some silly statements. They shoot themselves in the foot a lot but I for one am just glad we are getting what looks like a very interesting game and hopefully the beta will live up to that next weekend.
 
Never intended or not doesn't matter. They publicly said via their game marketing video that it is a game with visuals never before seen in a game like this.

Well actually it looks good, but nowhere near as good as E3. So actually it looks games we have all seen before... Back in 2013...

If you're going to make a statement like that then it has to hold up. This is why devs like Valve never go all out and make fantastic pre-order selling words and then shoot themselves for it later when things don't go to plan.
 
Sargatanas2511 said:
This game was originally announced for consoles with no plan on a PC port. They later decided to make a PC port as a result of outcry from PC gamers that wanted it.

They then make it and now are just being constantly complained about and getting poop thrown at them.

Now I am not trying to defend Ubisoft here, they have made their fair share of fudgeups and even with this they have made some silly statements. They shoot themselves in the foot a lot but I for one am just glad we are getting what looks like a very interesting game and hopefully the beta will live up to that next weekend.
Click to expand...

It was always billed as PC :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom