It appears that Division is suffering from a bit of a graphical shift in a lot of different areas, most conspicuously in some that were heavily touted in original game play trailers. An article on Design & Trend goes over some of the more notable shifts in the visuals. (Sorry, apparently I can't post proper links yet. If you type 'The Division' into Google News it should be one of the first items that pops up.) I'm not surprised, because this happens to every freaking game that comes out, and visuals are not everything when it comes to game play. Still, I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks about these changes, particularly in regards to the possibility that these concessions are being made to accommodate older systems.
Theres always going to be a compromise between graphics, and playability in any new game. I would think most people would rather have a game thats playable in every other aspect at the price of some top-end graphics. Having said that, all new titles now have customisable graphics that should allow high-end users to have the best available graphics options while still allowing people with older systems to get a decent framerate, so I can't see why they would make concessions just to keep those of us with ancient computers happy.
Damn, sad to hear that! I know for a fact that the graphics will be really good, I just want to know why they did it. Was it because of the features or because they wanted to optimize better for older systems as well?
Well it's going to be inevitable since most of the time those demos are being run on a monster PC just to really pump up the visuals for presentation purposes. Although the consoles of today are more than capable of producing those stunning visuals, there are things that needs to be trimmed down and considered like the overall size of the game, since great graphics comes in great gigabytes, also the overall performance of the game, wouldn't want the hardcore FPS nerds to freak out when the game can only run 30FPS at 1080p.
So true, there always seems to be a lot of animosity from those with really awesome gaming rigs when a game even has customization options that cater for older PC's, its like some of them think that people with less powerful PC's shouldn't even be playing a game if they haven't got the hardware to cope with it on the maxed-out settings. If I could get 30FPS at 1080p I'd be more than happy. I'm normally somewhere around 18-22 FPS on a good day.
Dang. The graphics were something that the game really had going for it. Yeah, it's not the most important thing in the world, but it's like seeing an advertisement for a tasty looking burger and then getting something that looks like it was hastily put together, squished and sadly leaking mayo.
Ubisoft should really learn to market games when they're sure that they can resemble the final product, or people will continue to be disappointed with every new release. See Watch Dogs, Assassin's Creed Unity and so on. Fortunately the game still looks fine, but lying about a product you're selling in order to make it look shinier than how it really is should be considered illegal because that's what it is. It's a borderline scam.
I wouldn't mind the graphics being downgraded since this is after all an MMO, so that means you're dealing with a lot of real time high poly count in terms of real players going about in the world, so downgrading the graphics a bit is must if you want to keep your FPS going smoothly. But yeah, I agree with the fact that Ubisoft (or any other game companies) shouldn't really show demos of games with really stunning graphics just to make ends meet in terms of marketing.
Woah, pump the breaks a bit there, friend. I get yours and everyone's frustration but I find I'm okay with giving them a pass. I've mentioned this in another post about the graphics, but you're looking at an unfinished game. Now developers don't just go and make a game, with maybe a few mentions in Nintendo Powers or PC Gamer, and get left alone. They have to create buzz, the media demand updates to get people to their sites talking, and because of this they need to release something. What do you expect them to release, a crappy version of their game? No, of course not. I know for a fact they go all out and scale back, because that's just the way you build a game when you have as many resources as Ubisoft. You don't start crappy and scale up, you go balls-to-the-wall and make the game as awesome. Then they see system specs and adjust (down) towards that.
Dude I know right! I personally loathe those kinds of people. But in a way I do understand them, because for the most part I think it's kind of a fault of the developers, I mean if a video card as powerful as a GTX 980 Ti cant maintain a stable 60 FPS on Assassin's Creed Unity then there might be something wrong with the game. But yeah, anytime I can get a stable 20-24 FPS on my open world games I would be more than happy.
Yeah absolutely Becca, Theres no reason why developers shouldn't be able to cater for the top-end users, and us with our dinosaurs. I'm glad its not just me thats getting relatively low FPS, sometimes it can feel like you're the only person playing a game that hasn't got a water-cooled machine that NASA would be proud of.
I believe I read from one of the developers that the graphical integrity of the Division is still intact. The latest footage that has been seen as differences from what be saw in other trailers. Firstly, it is recorded gameplay instead of pre rendered scenes. Secondly, some of the footage is a view of the console edition and not the PC, which will still have a higher graphic quality that consoles can't come close to. In addition, this is alpha gameplay. Things are subject to change and the graphic change may have been needed so that the game can perform well on consoles. I don't care about the downgrade at all. The game looks good enough, I just want stellar gameplay and a polished release.
I doubt it's going to come to old systems, considering how the current gen is already falling short in performance and graphics. Just as guruproto said, this is alpha and the entire look of the game could change along with the mechanics. I'm keeping my expectations low until I can play it for myself and see how good it actually is.
I strongly disagree with this statement. Good graphics do NOT in fact, automatically make a game good. It can elevate an average game to good status, but a crappy game is still a crappy game regardless of graphics, and vice versa.
That's very unfortunate. It figures though, sadly. You'd think by now they could figure out a way to not have problems.
Oh yeah, absolutely. I personally never cared for good graphics, but I appreciate a nice look. Groundbreaking graphics, like it was initially shown, can bring a lot of new people in, even people aren't gamers, and it's a shame that there appears to be a downgrade with The Division.
The problem here is the fact that they deceived customers. I don't really care about the graphics and how the game looks. I think the game still looks great. But they lied and they're still lying because they're not saying anything about the downgrade and this is disappointing people and I can see why.
That's a problem with corporate culture. There are people on that team who only want to make video games for other people to enjoy, but their managers and CEOs and such only care for profit and they'll do anything to get it. Fortunately, good game means profit so I'm still very hopeful for this game, regardless of the graphics downgrade.
I wouldn't go so far as to say they outright lied. Anyone who knows anything about gaming won't use the first video they see as a basis for purchasing a game. We've also not seen the completed game yet, so we don't know just how far the graphics have been "downgraded". If you're seeking out videos of an alpha build, then you also need to know that it's not the final product. That's gamer common sense.
