Watch Dogs On Xbox One Vs 360 Vs PS3 Vs PS4 Vs PC

Watch Dogs is out on both current-gen and last-gen systems. While all versions of the game play the same, each version looks slightly different.

IGN brings us this graphical throw-down, where we can see how each version of the game fares against one another. Overall, as you might expect, the current generation looks the best — but the game still looks great on the PS3 and 360.

You'll want to skip to around the 2:20 mark if you want to see the graphical comparisons for straight up gameplay. It's also worth keeping in mind that the PC graphics shown here are on ultra, which can differ from what the game looks like on low. But while the game may look the best on PC, players have experienced issues on that platform.

None of these, of course, look quite like what we were shown in 2012, as this clip by VideoGamerTV shows:

But, hey, personally, I don't really have a problem with that. I just mention it since I know it matters to some people; some of the harsh reactions we've seen online seem based on expectations — which were set by things like this demo — not being met.

In any case, what platform will you be playing Watch Dogs on?


Comments

    How can you not have a problem with them advertising one product and selling us another? Its false advertising and it needs to stop.

      Personally I'd rather play something than nothing.

        I'd rather they show the actual game so I can make an informed decision.

          We've known for a while now it doesn't look like the 2012 model though.

            How does that make it OK?

              No ones forced you to buy it, I'd rather it looked like 2012 version, but whats the alternative? not buy it? Would people be happy if they delayed it couple more years to make it look better on all versions? I dont think so.

                They do this with all there games. Look at the FarCry 3 reveal and Assassins Creed. It's false advertising and it's taking advantage of gullible idiots to get sales and that's not ok.

                  I loved FarCry 3, prob my favourite game from 2012, I thoroughly enjoyed all the Assassin Creeds except number 3, and am currently enjoying Watch Dogs at the moment....guess I'm a gullible idiot.

                  their*

                  No one has forced you to buy this game, all trailers these days come with disclaimers claiming that it is not representative. People get way too angry over things like this nowadays when there is literally nothing that can be done, the developers have covered themselves and people should just be more savvy.

                  While I'm a little disappointed it doesn't look like what I expected it to be, I'm with @blackdahlianz and @twogirlsoneleica. The game is still really enjoyable.

                  It's like an online dating website. Always assume that in real life they don't look quite like what their profile pics make them out to be. Yet you can still enjoy dating them. ;)

      The old Ubi Bait&Switch. After this, FarCry 3 and Assassins Creed I have made myself a rule: NEVER get hyped for Ubisoft games before they launch or at the very least ALWAYS take the 'gameplay' leading up to release as pre-rendered.

      That's why there are disclaimers. Quality changing over several years of development in order to fine tune performance (which is more important than graphics) is a bit of a silly thing to get angry at... I just enjoy the game?

        The only problem is: they had to use PC hardware available in 2012. We're at least one generation ahead now. SLI/Xfire is disabled, so either they forced this or they only used a single GPU to run the demo. The movements in the 2012 demo are consistent with it running live, and not being rendered (could be wrong).

        If we look at PC release only, we got screwed. There are no excuses.

        Enjoying the game is great, by all means I am not saying it isn't.

        But these things are more than subtle tweaks and it is a Ubisoft trend. I mean, look here: http://puu.sh/95VFh/3c4ecaadda.jpg

        I for one am not OK with how they do business, regardless of if the games are fun they are still showing 'dolled up' versions to the people. It's literally false advertising.

        And I don't agree with it because: "As advertising has the potential to persuade people into commercial transactions that they might otherwise avoid" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising

        Am I saying that graphics are all that matters? No, of coarse not. But they marketed the game as being truly 'next gen' and looking amazing when it looks quite average. It's the same as with Battlefield 4, except at least Watch_dogs 'works' (Although some would argue, I mean, look at the steam user ratings.)

        I, and many others, don't like what the big companies are trying to do and so what if we want to be vocal about it?! It's not like we are saying the game is trash or not fun. We think it's great that you are enjoying it in fact!

          ZOMG! he has his hands in his pockets. In 2012 he didnt! False advertising!
          But seriously, since 2012, a further two years of development they had to scale back in the graphics department to allow for the extra game mechanics.
          In 2012 the game world might have been half the size. It might have had a fraction of its game play mechanics. They have expanded on all of that so they had to cut back the graphics.

          Also, the 2012 version was built with the new consoles 'hypothetical' specs and performance promises. The new consoles ended up being not as superior as Sony and MS claimed so they had to scale the game back.

          And lastly. . . you really expected this to be a big wondrous fantastic game? There were tell tale signs all over the place that this wasnt going to be up to expectations.

          I should start my blog. The pre-release review site.
          About 90% of the time I can pick what a game will be like and the review scores it will get after watching a trailer.

            Whilst you made some very valid points in the first paragraph, the argument in the second would've held water if it wasn't for the fact the game is on PC as well. Why would they have needed to scale it back at all in that case? In most cases, the hardware available exceeds the requirements of games these days, if you spend enough money on your machine, you can run whatever is out there at max settings, and in many cases, easily so.

            In consideration of that, I know there are performance issues with the game on PC at the moment, which should hopefully be rectified by updated driver support and game patches. The power of the hardware is not the issue in these cases.

            My point was that it sucks how PC games get hobbled simply because they need to run on consoles. They really should focus more on making their engines and content scalable and offer the best experience on each format.

            Last edited 31/05/14 3:37 am

              Developers make more sales on consoles, so development is focused only on consoles.
              Its better for them to focus on the common denominator (PS4, XB1) and port to the others. . . as shit as that is for PC gamers.
              I was hoping the new consoles would mean an improvement of PC ports but, like I said above, the new consoles arent up to the standard we were hoping.
              The best we get is better resolution, frame rates and (after a few months of optimisation) stability.

              Then, we see all these ridiculously expensive and impressive graphics cards, but what are we going to play on them? Console ports at a higher resolution.
              And we have a minimum seven years until the next console generation. But, like last generation, after five years there will be a big swing to PC gaming again as people get sick of the underpowered consoles. That will tell manufacturers to release a new console which will swing gaming back to consoles again.

              And, the worst thing is, games made exclusively for PC are generally underpowered indi games which in no way push a PC ability.

              As I said further down. I don't think the game was scaled down because of consoles (And given that a 7850 can run the game 1080p30fps so should the PS4 BTW.)

              I think it was scaled down so that the E3 area didn't look stupidly better than the rest of the game.

              Last edited 31/05/14 12:29 pm

        Yeah but with Ubisoft that doesn't seem incredibly likely. Way too often a Ubisoft game will show footage close to release that isn't even close to what you get in the final build.
        It's one thing to show footage from a game and have it change over the course of development, but Ubisoft seem to intentionally showcase games that don't accurately/realistically reflect the finished product. Even people who love their games seem to agree that it's completely predictable that a pretty Ubisoft game seen at E3 is often a completely unrealistic example of how the game will actually look.

        The game itself is fine and yes, it's something anyone can see coming so most of us know when we purchase the product, but it's an incredibly insulting, dishonest way to sell a video game. Whether you see it coming or not it's still a bait and switch. Frankly if I were running a major games expo I'd ban them from showing anything they couldn't prove was running on actual hardware or within the parameters of a realistic projection of how the game would run.
        I think this behaviour would stop in a heartbeat if they had to be transparent about what their games were running on, or if they were in fact running and not pre-rendered.

      Its not false advertising. Its displaying a product in its development stages.

      If the 2012 footage said "buy now" or something then it would be false advertising because they are displaying and advertising an item for sale.

      All they did was show you what they were working on.

      It was a pre alpha tech demo, made before the specs of the next gen machines were released. If you are so concerned about the final product versus initial videos, then wait to read professional reviews. And stop complaining.

    I'm pretty unimpressed by the game visually (it's not terrible but it's doesn't impress). It plays well and I'm having a good time, but I'm yet to see the game look great in motion. It reminds me of the first Saints Row game where you can tell they put the bulk of their time into just getting everything running but there's a steady lack of polish and detail game-wide. There's also a bit of that last gen game running on next gen hardware feel to it.
    Again it doesn't make it a bad game, it's just a bit hard to make a point for platform superiority with it when it doesn't feel like it's pushing what the XBOX One, PS4 and PC can do.

    WHERE IS THE 2012 GAME?! PC's can handle it, it ran on something at one point in time. Stop fucking us around. The game looks bland as shit, I'm not getting for more than $15.

      Well, given how bad it seems to run... Could they run it? (I know they should be able too, but the game has issues as it is.)

        The skeptic in me says they purposely gimped the PC port so that it doesn't overshadow the next-gen consoles too much. Since SLI/X-fire is not currently working, that means it was either done or purpose or a single-GPU was used to show it off in 2012.

          I don't disagree. Look at the shoddy view distance/ LOD's/ texture filtering even on Ultra.

    These are two of my favourites:

    1) Look at the lights on the roof lol: http://puu.sh/95VFh/3c4ecaadda.jpg
    2) The club lol: http://puu.sh/95VIE/02508ffe1e.jpg

    *Edit: Sorry, forgot to post the original video: http://youtu.be/L_A6Z3gkXlk

    And here's one more screen for anyone interested: http://puu.sh/95W6X/8abe85f7de.jpg

    In short:
    Less asset decoration, less props, less cars and peds, lower res shadows, no more physically based materials, lower res textures, worse Depth of field (If any?), no more anamorphic lens flares from cars, no more particle collisions for rain hitting the ground or other assets, no more volumetric smoke and far less particle effects like wind (That look like smoke/ mist blowing I guess) and less leaves blowing around.

    In all: Another bait and switch. That's false advertising through and through.

    Last edited 30/05/14 12:56 pm

      Also way less depth of field (in fact the 2012 demo had way too much - it would become annoying in the final game).

      Normally I understand the reduced effects as per what you pointed out, but I'm surprised they reduced the assets that much. I noticed the lights straight away.

        I know. If they were there why not lock it to only being in the 'Ultra' setting at least. Surly it's more work to take them out completely?

        I guess it was so that the Demo area didn't stand out as looking 'next gen' compared to the rest of the game lol.

        Last edited 30/05/14 1:50 pm

          That's what I really don't get. I mean fair enough for Xbox 360 and PS3 it'll look worse, that's a given. But for PC where you can max things out, they should have left those in.

          I guess it was so that the Demo area didn't stand out as looking 'next gen' compared to the rest of the game lol.

          I think you've hit the nail on the head there. They've made incredibly detailed areas to use in these demos but they couldn't leave them in without highlighting the lack of detail everywhere else. You can't have a fully modeled 3D railway line on one corner and a painted on 2D textured railway line on the other.

    We should not be ok with false advertising and over selling. We should all be aware how game companies use hype to drive up pre-orders before under delivering the product.
    When that early 7.5/10 review popped up and Ubisoft quickly claimed it false, we should have realised they were silencing critics until after the sales had gone through.

    Players are also at fault. 50% of hype comes from the company, but the other 50% is perpetuated by players themselves. All a game needs to do is tease people in to thinking anything is possible, our brains kick in to overdrive and fill in the rest.

    So in the future when a company claims to have reinvented the wheel, don't believe them until you see it. Take it with a grain of salt and expect a wheel with an alarm clock on it, not some kind of 6 dimensional cosmic tire.

      I enjoy video games!

      Apparently someone likes being sold a lie ;)

      *Edit, I do apologise, this post was ruder than it should have been.

      Last edited 30/05/14 1:55 pm

        or he just doesn't care enough to let it stop him playing a decent game.

          Who said I won't play it?! I hope you guys are enjoying the game, really. It's the bad business I, and I assume the others, don't like.

            I get it, but there ain't anything to be done about it. I'll be honest, at first I was very unimpressed with the game, thought it was bit bland and meh, but after sinking a few hours into it I'm really enjoying it, I really like the ability to hack other players games and welcome the chance to take down hackers in mine. Think I'm about 20hrs in now 26% through.

              We know. I agree, but threads like this (It's a graphics comparison thread) are a great place to at least acknowledge the problem, which is what it is.

        I know what you are saying, but it isn't quite like that. It would be better to say that I never brought in to the lie to start with.
        I don't agree with the practice at all and think companies should be held accountable. But at the same time, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

        Lets put it this way.
        Assassins Creed was released in 2007 and was also over hyped and over sold to people. Game sold well and nobody did anything practical to stop them so they did it again....and again and again. They never owned up to the practice nor have they ever said they will stop.

        In the words used in their own game Far Cry 3, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We buy title after title from them expecting them to suddenly change a very profitable practice. They get money and we get buyers remorse, remorse that doesn't transfer over to the next game we buy in to.

        If you brought a chocolate bar from me and it turned out to be a dog turd, dick move on my part.
        But if you keep buying the dog turds from me, then when does the fault start falling on you?
        And when I finally tell you that I will be getting in super special chocolate bars in a few weeks and you pre-order a case....after all those dog turds? It stopped being my fault all together and is completely in your lap.

    Really not that impressed by Watch Dogs at the moment. The game seems reasonably fun and I want to keep playing it, but it runs pretty arse on PC. Most of the time it's totally fine, but as soon as I hop in a car the frame rate tanks. The stuttering is so bad it's borderline unplayable.

    They really need to go back and optimise this shit.

    I was going to come on here and rip on everyone for blowing up about bad graphics on a game which was released simultaneously on 5 very different machines at once… but really the difference between the 2012 demo and the final product is comically bad.

    Honestly if they’d made if for new gen consoles and PC then I don’t see any reason why it couldn’t look very similar to the demo, but to get that kind of thing running on last gen-consoles was never going to happen (in fact I remember everyone saying it was ridiculous when they showed it as a “current-gen” game back in 2012). In the end I guess they just couldn’t be sh*tted differentiating between the power levels of each and just decided to go with the lowest common denominator.

    Hopefully by the time they do Watch_Dogs 2 (almost certainly in 2015 knowing Ubisoft) they’ll have scrapped the last-gen consoles and can dig up some of these scrapped assets and put them back into the game.

    What a ridiculous sentiment here. THIS garbage has to stop. Unfortunately, things change during development. They basically showed us a pre-rendered video highlighting the game's intended features. They were sneaky about it, mind you but there actually is a line between the responsibility of the seller and the responsibility of the buyer.

    Traditionally, responsibility has been split like this. Today, consumers accept NO responsibility whatsoever for their choices. The game was shown to be looking far more advanced than it was at one point: totally correct. Then the game was AGAIN shown and advertised in its ACTUAL state. It wasn't false at all, it was actually perfectly honest, they just decided not to call the game a "disappointed", "terrible" or "rubbish" simply because the game was altered slightly during development.

    We've been getting gameplay videos that have been reflective of the finished product for months now. I saw them, as did many others and STILL went on to purchase the game. Nothing HAS to stop, consumers need to be educated better. This is how marketing works and it's legal. Instead of complaining, try and stay a step ahead of it so you can make informed decisions as a consumer. It might help with that whole "hating everything with minor flaws" epidemic that goes around as well.

    Last edited 30/05/14 5:45 pm

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now