I don't understand why people forget that these public demos are more scripted and pre-prepared than the robotic conference talks.

This stuff may be in-engine, but that doesn't mean they do not go to great lengths to pretty it up. I just take all E3 demos as what the game would ideally be like in the absolute best scenario.

I was incredibly disappointed in EVERYTHING from all the three manufacturers. The Last Of Us just looks like a swearing, dirty, mature, cover based Dreamworks/Pixar movie, Halo 4 doesn't interest me, and Nintendo showed SHIT ALL.

Watch Dogs was amazing. Lords of Shadow 2 trailer was amazing. MGR looks phenomenal. That was all E3 was to me.

I would have been interested in Sony's conference if they had talked about The Last Guardian but we all know how that went. Fuck I am so sick of everything Naughty Dog does, and All Stars looks boring as shit. Special-only kills? WTF is this? They were hardly even doing damage when they weren't using specials. And the demonstration with the narrator was horrendous.

The only thing I am excited about from the three major briefings was SmartGlass, for completely un-gaming related reasons, and MAYBE Forza Horizon.

Ugh E3 sucked this year.

There's a chance that it's all smoke and mirrors, but I choose to believe.

As awesome as Watch_Dogs looked, I'm still more excited for Beyond. I will buy anything from the mind of David Cage at launch.

I'd look at The WItcher 2 being played on a high end PC Vs. the 360 and this thing about you talking about the wow factor that Watch Dogs has because you think it'll have that level of detail on a console will be diminished somewhat. Witcher 2 on the PC had more detail than the 360 did,

easy when you are not bound by a 2 year dev cycle you can do cool stuff.

I just can't see it. Watch Dogs seems more exciting to me based on what the demo allows me to infer about the game, rather than what it actually shows. Because it doesn't show a whole lot.

I just want as much info as early as possible so I can upgrade in anticipation for this. I'm no graphics whore, but I do love the occasional Crysis-esque benchmark game, and I want to play Watch Dogs with every bell and whistle cranked up. If this game is indeed open world, I could spend a LOT of time just walking around and marveling at everything.

Ehhh I don't know that guy just pushed the door without his hands touching the handle ... Nico at least used his hands to open doors (I'm kidding the game looks great)

but I don't know while it looked amazing I was more impressed by The Last of Us and that's on the PS3 so no need for fancy PCs to pull great graphics and animations.

@Dalai said:

@jakob187 said:

...like the coat flapping while he runs or the animations...

I knew the trench coat physics had something to do with this.

You know your jaw hit the floor when that back trenchcoat flap started moving around. You...Dalai...being the master of trenchcoat physics...

...like the coat flapping while he runs or the animations...

The Last of Us, Beyond and Watch Dogs have blown pretty much everything else at E3 out of the water for me.

Even with lower GRAPHICS, I'm still psyched about the game. Moreover, it is very much about the level of detail going into the little things that matter more to me than just the overall "graphics" of the game. I just couldn't really find the words to describe all of it.

Those little details...like the coat flapping while he runs or the animations...are things we've easily seen done by Naughty Dog on this current generation of consoles. Therefore, trying to lead one to believe that the parity of those things in this demo vs what will come to consoles is not equal to one another seems like just another way for gamers to be jaded and cynical about a product getting people excited.

Moreover, while people can pull out all the Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 examples of "PC compared to consoles", I can also say that those games look pretty fucking spectacular on consoles. If Watch Dogs can have that level of polish on the consoles, then I'm more than okay with it so long as the details are there.

Also, yes, that co-op tease at the end was pretty fucking sweet.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

I was impressed by it as a new IP but as a demo? Nah son. I saw an edgy-as-fuck walking simulator, then press x to hack and a dive into third person gunplay.

You are the reason they feel every E3 trailer has to look the exact same.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish said:

I was impressed by it as a new IP but as a demo? Nah son. I saw an edgy-as-fuck walking simulator, then press x to hack and a dive into third person gunplay.

You are the reason they feel every E3 trailer has to look the exact same.

@jakob187 said:

The game was being played on a PC, not on a console. We still won't know how it will look on consoles.

Right, buy Yves came out and said it will be on current-gen consoles.

Not in the form we saw it.

obviously corners will be cut for the console versions.  But it's a really feasible game on this generation of consoles, it won't look as fancy as the demo they showed but I don't see anything next generation in the mechanics and gameplay portion of that game.

@Raven10 said:

As others have said pretty much everything Ubisoft showed at their press conference (and EA as well) was being run off of a PC. Compare Crysis 2 on PC (With DX11 and hi-res texture patches) to the console versions and you will be able to get an idea at the level of downgrade we will probably see. One good way to check with some of the too good to be true demos is to see if they have any anti-aliasing. The 360 is only capable of 2x MSAA or medium FXAA. Neither of those formats will come close to eliminating jaggies. Look at the 1313 demo and there are literally no jagged edges. I didn't really notice any in Watch Dogs either. That means they were almost certainly using the new AA technique on the 600 series of Nvidia GPU's. It is said to provide 16x MSAA quality at the cost of only 2.5x. The only other system out there that can at times provide a similar quality is Sony's MLAA. But that varies wildly in quality depending on the title. You can see though how jagged edges were very minimal in The Last Of Us and Beyond. But 360 simply isn't capable of that level of AA. So we are talking games running on 600 series GPU's probably 690's. Each of those is 10-15x more powerful than the GPU's in current gen consoles. What you saw at Microsoft's press conference was definitely the highest quality of graphics that can run on a 360.

FXAA and MLAA are not real anti aliasing and MLAA is made by AMD. They cause a slight bluring effect but use far less recources so a lot of people and games use them. MSAA is better quality.

@jakob187 said:

It's not just about the graphics. It's the interaction with everything. It's the flow of his coat, the particle effects flying around, the way the camera focuses,

......

Moreover, whether it was being run on a super high-end ZOMG PC or not, I doubt that Ubisoft is going to show that off and then allow the parity of the graphics drop SIGNIFICANTLY on its console release. Beyond that, look at how excellent the look of Far Cry 3, Splinter Cell: Blacklist and Assassin's Creed III is on consoles.

The coat and particle effects are graphics related, and look better on better hardware.

If you think a publisher wont allow a difference a big differencce between PC and console, go look at BF3, Crysis 2, Metro 2033, or GTA 4.

The Far Cry 3, Splinter Cell, And Assasin's Creed demo were most likely being run on a PC with controller, like they've done countless times before. These game's are multiplatform.

Just don't hold all games to that high of a standard. Done problem solved.

@PillClinton: Star Wars 1313 man. MAN. Man.

man, fuck you. Watch dogs looks awesome

Watch Dogs and SW1313 seem to be having a similar effect on the whole perception of E3 this year, being that they seem to be the only "next-gen" games we've seen so far.

@Vegetable_Side_Dish: I'll be honest - The Last of Us looks great...but compared to what Watch Dogs was showing, it still didn't LOOK as impressive to me.

Yes, Watch Dogs was running on a high-end PC. Regardless of that, it was still doing things that made me say "wow, that LOOKED amazing". It's that difference in parity we saw when Uncharted 2 first came out, where we said "holy shit, stuff LOOKS good...it FEELS right". That's how Watch Dogs looked to me, but it took it one step further.

Yes, I would like to see the demo played by multiple people and hear what their experiences were with it. At the same time, they could have that demo locked to a certain set of choices to be made.

Will it look as good on consoles? Well, we've seen Prey 2 (despite it not being anywhere in the near future for release). We've seen what stuff like id Tech 5 was able to produce in terms of graphics. We've seen what Assassin's Creed III and Far Cry 3 are delivering in the graphics department.

Let me throw this out there, though: what would you rather have, a gameplay demo running on a PC with those graphics and that amount of detail...or a demo that is purportedly gameplay footage but is actually a CG trailer (Killzone 2)?

EVEN IF THE GAME IS RUNNING ON PC, it has stomped everything else on the show floor into the ground for me personally due to the level of detail going into everything.

@jakob187 said:

It's not just about the graphics. It's the interaction with everything. It's the flow of his coat, the particle effects flying around, the way the camera focuses, that slow-mo gun shooting and how the rain stops in the middle of it. It was how the woman gets shot in the car. Can I save her? Does she HAVE to die? When he pulled the guy out of the car and the guy scrambled away, could that have happened with both of them?

There are a lot of questions, but looking at everything that happened, it's easy to see that there is a lot of love and detail going into everything that makes me really excited.

Ah- I see, it's more of a 'why can't we have more projects with this much effort/attention to detail' than a 'graphics' thing here. :P

The general level of impression around Watch Dogs may be related to the general consensus rumbling throughout the industry- a consensus stating that the current generation is completely burned out. Suddenly- something with as amazing of an initial showing and promise as Watch Dogs comes along, and everyone is amazed that it's still apparently rooted firmly within the current gen.

@jakob187 said:

When the demo was originally played, I thought to myself "if this is where gaming is going in the next generation of consoles, I'm super on-board". When it was revealed that it was current-gen consoles...

A reaction your own post reflects. :P

But Watch Dogs' roots within the current gen are affirmed by people such as... Oh...

Brad said:

"Nothing about what they showed couldn't be done on current machines, except the graphics."

Quote shamelessly taken from Brad's twitter. :P

As others have said pretty much everything Ubisoft showed at their press conference (and EA as well) was being run off of a PC. Compare Crysis 2 on PC (With DX11 and hi-res texture patches) to the console versions and you will be able to get an idea at the level of downgrade we will probably see. One good way to check with some of the too good to be true demos is to see if they have any anti-aliasing. The 360 is only capable of 2x MSAA or medium FXAA. Neither of those formats will come close to eliminating jaggies. Look at the 1313 demo and there are literally no jagged edges. I didn't really notice any in Watch Dogs either. That means they were almost certainly using the new AA technique on the 600 series of Nvidia GPU's. It is said to provide 16x MSAA quality at the cost of only 2.5x. The only other system out there that can at times provide a similar quality is Sony's MLAA. But that varies wildly in quality depending on the title. You can see though how jagged edges were very minimal in The Last Of Us and Beyond. But 360 simply isn't capable of that level of AA. So we are talking games running on 600 series GPU's probably 690's. Each of those is 10-15x more powerful than the GPU's in current gen consoles. What you saw at Microsoft's press conference was definitely the highest quality of graphics that can run on a 360.

@DagobahDude said:

Ever had a PC for seven to eight years? If you did, how did it fare vs. a new one?

This may blow the minds of some people but yes. My first PC was my parent's old computer, which I scrapped in 2011. They got it in 2001. It had 8MB worth of VRAM on an integrated graphics chip - and I was using that shit in 2011.

Just an odd off-topic aside.

EDIT: Excuse me, it was 2010. I got rid of it in 2010.

I was impressed by it as a new IP but as a demo? Nah son. 
 
 I saw an edgy-as-fuck walking simulator, then press x to hack and a dive into third person gunplay. The tease at the end about the co-op and the big city was brilliantly done, but we didn't actually see anything concrete, it's all hype. The Last of Us gameplay was the highlight for me, the atmosphere, the characters, the combat, they were all as good as I'd hoped (crafting and no regen health? Fuck Yes) and I didn't see any button prompts on screen in that combat. 
 
That was really the only part of E3 where I genuinely couldn't look away from the screen to check all the snarky-ass comments about what was happening. 
 
Apart from the Nintendo conference that is, and whatever the fuck they thought they were doing. Ugh. (There's my snarky-ass comment.) 

@jakob187 said:

It's not just about the graphics. It's the interaction with everything. It's the flow of his coat, the particle effects flying around, the way the camera focuses, that slow-mo gun shooting and how the rain stops in the middle of it. It was how the woman gets shot in the car. Can I save her? Does she HAVE to die? When he pulled the guy out of the car and the guy scrambled away, could that have happened with both of them?

There are a lot of questions, but looking at everything that happened, it's easy to see that there is a lot of love and detail going into everything that makes me really excited.

Moreover, whether it was being run on a super high-end ZOMG PC or not, I doubt that Ubisoft is going to show that off and then allow the parity of the graphics drop SIGNIFICANTLY on its console release. Beyond that, look at how excellent the look of Far Cry 3, Splinter Cell: Blacklist and Assassin's Creed III is on consoles.

@Coafi said:

@jakob187 said:

When it was revealed that it was current-gen consoles, it forced me to look at all the other games coming along and say "how the fuck do these other games look so janky?"

The game was being played on a PC, not on a console. We still won't know how it will look on consoles.

Right, buy Yves came out and said it will be on current-gen consoles.

Sure. What they showed look amazing. But it isn't the final product. I've seen amazing things only to be disappointed.

There is little motivation for hardware innovation at the moment. The big players have invested countless dollars into their existing platforms and would like to stay profitable with them before having to incur the costs/growing pains/effort/risks of new ones any more often than necessary. Very few to no one are targeting cutting edge processors/video cards exclusively today to avoid limiting their potential customers out of the gate. I've been feeling like I'm due to have my mind blown (which has happened every so often in the past for technologically-ground-breaking games (when Quake showed up, as an ex.) for years. I may have it blown by the Unlimited Detail tech that is supposedly coming out any time now, unless it has horrible limitations.

The bottom line is that few are putting the time and money into the kind of game tech we're truly capable of pulling off today. Think about Moore's law, exponential growth in various technologies/Singularity topic, and then recall that most of what we are playing are least-common-denominator (as they have a console target, and no one is going to make more than one game when they can barely manage one) games in a space where the Xbox 360 was all but locked down hardware-wise in 2004, and the PS3 similarly in 2005 timeframe. That's ~7-8 years ago! That is approaching infinity in tech years. Ever had a PC for seven to eight years? If you did, how did it fare vs. a new one?

Watch Dogs did not ruin E3 for me, because without it, I would literally have nothing to praise. It's obviously a real-time playable demo, so I don't doubt we will get an amazing game here (it's not like the lies of pre-rendered or non-playable/artist-created (vs. code simulation) trailers/conceptual stuff). Unless we are dealing with a new kind of deceptive playable demo (unlikely, the work required for this would be huge, the art/code integration in this leads me to believe we can expect an actual game on par with this demo). The only question for me is where the slider will fall between simulation/sandbox and script... and I really have high hopes based on the demo.

E3 wasn't ruined by Watch Dogs. For you, it was ruined by companies that are never happy with their core (and profitable -- but never profitable enough) user base. They get greedy and always have to go after grandma too, spending a lot of their time and energy on stuff that their core audience (who always carries them through a successful product launch) doesn't give a damn about. We wanted GAMES, we were force fed more Kinect stuff (we didn't want it last year, we don't want it now (sure, cool PC hardware/hobbyist novelty/innovation, no doubt)) (Microsoft still trying to recoup massive development cost of Kinect), a bunch of sports programming we can already get through other outlets (everyone has to try and be your MASTER HUB for everything, meh), and an Usher performance (um...).

Did my rant leave anything out? :-P

@jakob187 said:

"how the fuck do these other games look so janky?"

Because it wasn't being showcased on a console- it was being shown on a top-of-the-line PC. Odds are it won't look that good on the consoles. Exactly how large the graphical gap will be- that remains to be seen, but there will most likely be some sort of noticeable downgrade.

The same goes for another graphical powerhouse at the show: Star Wars 1313. The key difference is that while we know for a fact that Watch Dogs is going to 360/PS3- we haven't heard confirmation on 1313's platforms outside of PC yet (Not to my knowledge at least- maybe I've missed it >_> ). But it's pretty safe to assume it too will be multi-platform.

Will 1313 also be going 360/PS3 though- or is it potentially the first actual next-gen game we've been shown? :O (..... My gut wants to say that it probably isn't- but we'll see. :P )

Unfortunately it looks like an Assassin's Creed clone - kind of like the game we were supposed to get about Desmond but never will. The teaser was amazing, the gameplay demo...well I can wait for it to be $20. I also get the feeling, much like 99% of other open world games, it's not going to be as free form as they claim. Ok everyone has a file on them, will any of them be interesting outside of the missions? Will it be more than little Easter Eggs about the Devs? The whole thing felt so very much like a set piece, I have a hard time believing the rest of the game will hold itself to that standard. If they can put out more footage of that same mission being played differently, wildly differently, I'll be a lot more open.

@MikeGosot: PC is eternally the next gen console just by its very nature.

The Last of Us, Beyond and Watch Dogs have blown pretty much everything else at E3 out of the water for me.

I was sold more on the gameplay than the graphics, but I'll even admit it the graphics are a selling point to a degree. I just hope Ubisoft can live up to this instant hype.

@jakob187 said:

It's not just about the graphics. It's the interaction with everything. It's the flow of his coat, the particle effects flying around, the way the camera focuses, that slow-mo gun shooting and how the rain stops in the middle of it. It was how the woman gets shot in the car. Can I save her? Does she HAVE to die? When he pulled the guy out of the car and the guy scrambled away, could that have happened with both of them?

There are a lot of questions, but looking at everything that happened, it's easy to see that there is a lot of love and detail going into everything that makes me really excited.

Moreover, whether it was being run on a super high-end ZOMG PC or not, I doubt that Ubisoft is going to show that off and then allow the parity of the graphics drop SIGNIFICANTLY on its console release. Beyond that, look at how excellent the look of Far Cry 3, Splinter Cell: Blacklist and Assassin's Creed III is on consoles.

@Coafi said:

@jakob187 said:

When it was revealed that it was current-gen consoles, it forced me to look at all the other games coming along and say "how the fuck do these other games look so janky?"

The game was being played on a PC, not on a console. We still won't know how it will look on consoles.

Right, buy Yves came out and said it will be on current-gen consoles.

Yes thats what they say but we have yet to see it running on the PS3 or 360. It could easily be just a way of saying its coming to consoles without saying anything about next gen.

@MikeGosot: PC is eternally the next gen console just by its very nature.

power of the PC

I was impressed because of the concept and the gameplay. The graphics are pretty cool, but like i said, they weren't the thing that impressed me. And it looks like PC became the new next gen console.

It's not just about the graphics. It's the interaction with everything. It's the flow of his coat, the particle effects flying around, the way the camera focuses, that slow-mo gun shooting and how the rain stops in the middle of it. It was how the woman gets shot in the car. Can I save her? Does she HAVE to die? When he pulled the guy out of the car and the guy scrambled away, could that have happened with both of them?

There are a lot of questions, but looking at everything that happened, it's easy to see that there is a lot of love and detail going into everything that makes me really excited.

Moreover, whether it was being run on a super high-end ZOMG PC or not, I doubt that Ubisoft is going to show that off and then allow the parity of the graphics drop SIGNIFICANTLY on its console release. Beyond that, look at how excellent the look of Far Cry 3, Splinter Cell: Blacklist and Assassin's Creed III is on consoles.

@Coafi said:

@jakob187 said:

When it was revealed that it was current-gen consoles, it forced me to look at all the other games coming along and say "how the fuck do these other games look so janky?"

The game was being played on a PC, not on a console. We still won't know how it will look on consoles.

Right, buy Yves came out and said it will be on current-gen consoles.

I was more impressed by the game play for everyone talking about graphics. Anyway yeah, the only thing that even came close was the Last Of Us Demo.

It was played on a super high end PC if I heard correctly so I wouldn't expect many people to get those kinds of graphics when the game comes out.

I'm still hyped for the game don't get me wrong, I just don't think that the graphics will look that good for me and frankly I don't really care.

@jakob187 said:

When it was revealed that it was current-gen consoles, it forced me to look at all the other games coming along and say "how the fuck do these other games look so janky?"

The game was being played on a PC, not on a console. We still won't know how it will look on consoles.

There are plenty of people that are going to read that title and say "man, fuck you, Watch Dogs looks awesome." That is the problem - Watch Dogs looks awesome.

When the demo was originally played, I thought to myself "if this is where gaming is going in the next generation of consoles, I'm super on-board". When it was revealed that it was current-gen consoles, it forced me to look at all the other games coming along and say "how the fuck do these other games look so janky?"

Sure, graphics don't mean everything. It comes down to tons of other stuff that I care about: gameplay, story, what systems are at play. Whether that entire Watch Dogs demo was scripted through and through or if that was open decision making (something along the lines of Hitman games) is yet to be determined. Nonetheless, it's one of those cases where graphics DO make the difference, where physics and interaction DO make the difference all around. The movements and how varied they are, the particle effects, the overall interaction of your phone-device-thingie to view information about everyone in a damn room...just all of this cool stuff that adds that extra layer of detail...

I tried to watch the Resident Evil 6 demo, and all I could think was "this game should look WAY better". I kept wanting to see more details and less stiffness, but it never happened. In turn, this gameplay demo that looked pretty alright to me instead turned into mediocre mush that I probably won't bother with.

You know what? In general, despite just how goddamn lousy their press conference was (thanks Aisha Tyler and what-the-fuck-ever that guy's name was), I'm pretty sure that Ubisoft has stolen the show for me. The list of games they are showing, the variety that they offer, and the technology behind them are overwhelmingly stout. They are offering a glimpse into the future of gaming without even having most of the new hardware yet. Even then, Zombi U...looks pretty fucking awesome.

Despite everything else, it comes down to Watch Dogs. It's the game that seems to be pushing the boundaries at this year's E3, making gamers look at their hobby with a new set of eyes. Whether they can keep up on the promise that the game shows, who knows. At least I can look at the rest of Ubisoft's line-up (Far Cry 3, Zombi U, Assassin's Creed III, Splinter Cell: Blacklist, Rayman Legends) and say that they are on the right track to making some fantastic games.