Watch_Dogs on PS4: Leaked Direct Feed High Quality Screenshots Show that it Looks Nothing Like GTA5

The first footage emerged from the beta of Watch_Dogs caused mixed reactions, mostly because the quality of most of the footage was low. It hasn’t been rare to see people comparing the game to the visuals of Grand Theft Auto V, or even arguing that it looks worse. Things have started to get out of hand when that kind of misconception started to filter over to a few media outlets.

Luckily a reader that opted to remain anonymous took it upon himself to send DualShockers 15 high quality screenshots snapped from the PS4 beta of the game that can help judging how the game really looks.

Read Full Story >>
GarrusVakarian3659d ago (Edited 3659d ago )

It's a shame they didn't hit 1080p, the image doesn't quite have the clarity that games such as Infamous SS or AC4 have...but nevertheless, it's good looking game considering it's on 6 separate platforms. The world looks very detailed and the night-time looks amazing in the rain. I'm impressed.

I also found this GIF from the PS4 version- http://i.minus.com/iEHzfpcZ...

Pretty impressive explosions if you ask me, although they do look a little like baby powder, lol.

Abriael3659d ago

Yeah people always forget that it's a cross-gen game.

GarrusVakarian3659d ago (Edited 3659d ago )

Definitely, people get carried away with their expectations of it, whilst forgetting just how much work Ubisoft have had on their hands with this game.

I got caught up in the silly "DOWNGRADE!" accusations, but footage that ive seen after that and footage that ive seen in the past few days of the PS4 version has removed any doubt i had about the visuals of this game.

And besides, i care more for how it plays and how alive the world feels.

Edit: How the hell could anyone say it looks worse than GTA5? The character models, textures, res, framerate, and effects are ALL better. Some people need to go back to last gen and look at how "bad" some games look in comparison to current gen games before saying things like that.

GribbleGrunger3659d ago (Edited 3659d ago )

I'm taking issue with the both of you! *fake anger*

When judging how well a game plays or looks, it's not a good sign when you have to first offer a reason for it not looking as good as you'd think. 'for a cross platform game' is neither here nor there when you are buying a current gen game.

Those pictures are not inspiring me at all. They look lifeless, insipid and soulless. If a game depends entirely on action to make it look 'alive' then you have a problem because part of the appeal of an open world game is that you can enjoy the feel of the environments regardless of what's going on.

That doesn't look like a world I'd want to visit which is why I'm not buying it. I don't care how much work Ubisoft have put into it. bad is bad and good is good. This (in my opinion) is bad.

GarrusVakarian3659d ago (Edited 3659d ago )


I get what you're saying man, i shouldn't have to say it looks good..."for a cross platform game". But i guess i didn't really have sky-high expectations for the graphics of this game due to playing AC4 on the PS4, so WD looking better than AC4 (imo) has surprised me somewhat.

Here's hoping the next game is current-gen and PC only.

Note: I'm not saying AC4 looks bad, just that you don't expect amazing, next-gen graphics from cross gen titles.

GribbleGrunger3659d ago (Edited 3659d ago )

We are never likely to ever find out why this game has been downgraded so much from the first reveal and something tells me Ubisoft wouldn't want us to know either. I've never expected a game to equal the reveal trailer, that would be setting yourself up for huge disappointments, but this doesn't even come close to my 'lowered' expectations. I feel that there's politicking going on here rather than any real hardware limitation.

If a patch comes out after the reviews have gone out and improves the PS4 version, Ubisoft will never get my money again. Although I doubt there'll ever be a patch that adds 'life' to this game <- bit mean that. *End of fake anger*

ProjectVulcan3659d ago (Edited 3659d ago )

It just doesn't have the crispness and clarity of assets or image quality we saw on earlier builds. Nor that of something like Infamous with more resolution and better AA.

It's a decent looking game but you can see the lower resolution and poor quality anti aliasing hammers image quality. It has to be the low quality AA smearing the game.

One glance at the shot by the water shows a bunch of sub pixel aliasing on the bridge hand rails and the antennas of the skyscrapers in the distance. Lots of pixel crawl and shimmering in the background. http://cdn2.dualshockers.co... look at all the edges suffering this, even the phone text boxes are badly aliased.

Every shot is much the same, low quality post process AA blur smeared about ripping fine detail away. The game would look so much better with higher quality filtering. I really hope that it is better for the finished thing.

I think I'll wait for the reviews, and then if it is good go for the PC version.

GribbleGrunger3659d ago (Edited 3659d ago )

@vulcanproject: Graphics are definitely part of my disappointment but my main complaint is how dead it looks. When it was first shown, it had the lustre of a sultry Caribbean woman's eyes, but now it has the eyes of a corpse.

It's devoid of tender, loving care and instead we have a game that looks 'by the numbers'. A game that needed to be finished and money made.

thorstein3659d ago

People are getting really stupid with this game.

This is a review? Since when. Oh, they got it from a brick and mortar? Did they?

The game ships Monday in the US(because of the upcoming holiday). It will arrive at retailers on Thursday so it can be inventoried and stocked. It will release on Tuesday.

There is no way these guys got a hold of a retail version of the game. Plain and simple. This is such a pathetic "review."

I can't wait for some legit reviews to come in.

Sharingan_no_Kakashi3659d ago

What the heck is up with that belt on the white coat? Is that lazy or am I just trippin...


+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3659d ago
christrules00413659d ago (Edited 3659d ago )

As much as Infamous Second Son and AC4 Black Flag are fun they aren't really a good comparison for Watch Dogs. In AC4 Black Flag and Infamous Second Son they just have a few different types of AI were as in Watch Dogs as you go around every single AI will have an occupation, how much money they have in there bank and for some a possibility of a crime. The game will have to keep generating different AI compared to just putting random AI doing different low key actions. Plus they got 100 different hacks and over 75 different vehicles. Infamous Second Son it's just Delsin, with a select few vehicles AI are driving around and in AC4 Black Flag it's just one ship the Jackdaw you can have. The events in Infamous and AC4 were very limited as well and became kind of boring after a while.

I'm kinda tired with the whole downgrade conversation. But even look at how Crytek did Ryse. They downgraded the main character splitting his polygons in half and the game ran at 900p yet it's one of the best visual games out there.

Then even say they downgraded the resolution in Watch Dogs for the PS4 giving it a bit more power they may have a possibility of running MSAA X2 instead of running no MSAA. We don't know how long ago they made it 900p either so they could've made tweaks like that we don't know about. We only hear about developers downgrading resolution but we don't hear about what better things they can do with the extra power because they don't detail the anti aliasing, texture quality, ect. It leads up to panic party when people don't understand it's not only resolution that affects the game.

Neonridr3659d ago

720p vs 1080p is one thing, when you are talking about 900p vs 1080p the differences become even that much smaller Lukas.

If you are sitting 10+ feet away from the TV, you definitely aren't going to be able to tell the difference. If you are like most kids my days were when we were gaming at the age of 5 with our faces practically into the TV, then sure, you'll be able to notice.. :P

GarrusVakarian3659d ago (Edited 3659d ago )

I most definitely *can* tell the difference 10 feet away from my 42 inch TV. BF4 is 900p on PS4 and i can tell the difference in IQ between that and all of my other 1080p games. Pretty easily too.

Granted, it's not as drastic as 720p vs 1080p, but some people can still differentiate between the two. Those WD screenshots have a 'soft' look to them, typical of an upscaled image, combined with a pretty crappy AA solution and the overall image looks nowhere near as clean as Infamous SS (which is by far has the best IQ ive seen on consoles).

Heck, i can even tell the difference between some 1080p games that use different AA solutions. Infamous SS looks sharper and has better clarity than AC4, for example, due to Infamous using a much better AA solution. Some people, like me, are just really sensitive to things like res and framerate. So for people who aren't sensitive to them, it seems like people like me are BS'ing. Lol.


In terms of WD though, im pleased with the visuals from the direct-feed, beta footage that ive seen. As i said, my expectations weren't sky high for it anyway, especially after the whole downgrade controversy.

Volkama3659d ago

@lukas you really need to be looking at 900p bf4 against 1080p bf4. Otherwise there are just too many other factors influencing image quality across different games (in particular different aa and texture filtering methods).

I have bf4 on the xbox, and also on the PC. Both are hooked up to the same 4k TV, and my PC can push whatever resolution I want. I won't say resolution makes no difference, but I will say anti-aliasing implementation has a much bigger impact on the clarity of the image than native res does.

3659d ago
GarrusVakarian3659d ago (Edited 3659d ago )


You think im BS'ing? What possible reason would i have to come onto the internet and lie about being able to spot differences between resolutions? Think about that. If you don't believe me then whatever, but im telling you i can easily tell the difference in image quality, on my TV, between games with different resolutions. Just because YOU can't, it doesn't mean everyone who says they can is BS'ing.

I'm sorry that my Bald Eagle eyesight makes you doubt me, bro.

SilentNegotiator3659d ago

Any PC gamer, including myself, can tell you that there IS a difference between 900p and 1080p.

lemoncake3659d ago

On my newer 55 inch tv I have a hard time sometimes even seperating 720p from 1080p. I can see that there is a difference on my much older 48inch, but I am also much closer to this one, about 7 feet away as its at the bottom of bed. From my experiance in general there is alot more to it than just the native res of the game.

Dynasty20213658d ago

Sorry, but anyone that says they don't see any lack of AA (aka "jaggies"), at 1080p, is flat out lying.

Only at 1440p and above do you need less AA, and even then you still need it to produce clean, sharp lines.

Infamous SS had a weak-hardware version of AA implemented, and even then there were still jaggies and very very noteable framerate drops.

1080p 100% needs AA, otherwise objects look terrible when in motion. A screenshot does no justice at all.

If 1080p needs it, 900p CERTAINLY needs it.

Neonridr3658d ago

@Lukas - well the fact that you say you can notice it goes against all proven science, but if it makes you feel better then go nuts. Your eyes can only see so much fidelity and at distances of greater than 10+ feet, the pixels become so small that no added pixels give you any added benefit because your eyes can't differentiate the difference at that distance. It's more of a placebo effect. If you wear a Q-ray bracelet and think to yourself that you feel more balanced, guess what, you feel more balanced.


here's a simple article on the matter.

While I will give you the softness as opposed to sharp images, if the game is rendered in 900p and 1080p from that distance you are fooling yourself to believe you can actually notice the extra pixels.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3658d ago
Arkardo3659d ago

Nonetheless, harsh times for a *so so* open world game

Matt6663659d ago

who cares about the graphics as long as you enjoy the game, like myself I can not wait to play this

Aussiebeachbabe3659d ago

I shall get my magnifying glass and i'll tell you the difference mat.lol. No seriously after you have been playing a game at lower res for a while your eyes adjust and it no longer becomes a problem. I should know because after playing pc 2k and above then coming back to console you do notice at first but after a while the res doesn't become a problem. Your eyes adjust, believe me. If you don't believe try it yourself.

LordMaim3659d ago

While I am also somewhat concerned about the graphics we're going to get in a week, my theory is that the game still looks like a lot of fun.

Sleeping Dogs wasn't terribly graphically intensive, and yet it was still a ton of fun. One of my favorite open world games of all time Saints Row 2 was painful on the eyes at times, and yet was still more fun than it's better looking sequel.

I'll wait to see how fun it is before being disappointed, but still think that Ubi may have bitten off more than they can chew. Hopefully they sort out their issues for the sequel.

uth113659d ago

Well the devs DID say everything in the game is hackable.

So, I'll just hack in 1080p/60fps from Aiden's phone :P

3-4-53659d ago

Hopefully it's a better game that GT5.

GT5 was hugely disappointing. I tricked myself into thinking it was awesome for like 4-5 day and then I realized I was just making fanboy excuses, and it just hit me "This game isn't that good".

I'm hoping Watch Dogs avoids doing that.

SneakyDoo3659d ago

Yeah, I also thought Gran Turismo 5 was hugely disappointing. I hope the driving in Watch Dogs is better than the driving in Gran Turismo 5.

3659d ago
3659d ago
gameslayer24113659d ago

All of these screens are from the Beta, It says so in the article, I wouldn't knock the visuals just yet.