While Ubisoft has yet to release an official video showcasing the PC version in high quality, one of the early beta tester has shared a couple of minutes of The Division gameplay running on his PC and thankfully it is in 1080p high quality.
it looks so damn average. this is an open world game we got almost two years ago(less budget): http://mediamaster.vandal.n... http://mediamaster.vandal.n... http://mediamaster.vandal.n... this is last year less budget: http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-... http://www.cnet.de/wp-conte... not low budget but wow: http://blogs-images.forbes.... http://img1.meristation.com... Greed and laziness hit the Division, Ubisoft once more you blew it!
Wait until FFXV final footage show up. It will blow it right out of the water. I believe Ubisoft is capable of achieving E3 2013 visuals on the PS4/Xone if games like Witcher 3 and FFXV are capable. I am not sure why they keep downgrading their games like that. And the cloth texture is so awful. The Last Of Us on PS3 has better visuals than this.
Your last sentence is ridiculous! And neither TW3 nor FF XV reach TD E3 levels...if you remember even TW3 had a much better looking E3 trailer. It is simply a difference if a team works hard to show off maximum detail in a small, fixed environment or if they have to build a huge world and make it possible to run on a huge number of different systems. There simply isn't enough manpower to build two or more totally different games.
@Kraenk12 http://images.pushsquare.co... http://www.ff-xv.net/images... http://www.cinemablend.com/... http://www.novacrystallis.c... http://i1-news.softpedia-st... https://jamesdoesthings.fil... I think FFXV looks insane and just as good as The Division E3. And we have yet to see the final version of the game but if the latest leak is any indication then it will look Jaw Dropping.
@DarkOcelot These pics don't really underline your opinion. They are a far cry from the incredible detail modelled in the TD E3 build.
this has nothing to do with the magical "lazy developers" you all love to accuse developers of being. i think it is an asshole comment. you are attacking peoples' worth ethic, and i know damn well you dont know their worth ethic. it has everything to do with parity in my opinion. the PC versions of both WD and TD blew us out of the water, consoles can't come anywhere near replicating what they showed, so we have this product.
at 22fps lol
Graphics looks very average, but on the plus side, the gunplay looks pretty fun.
@solar It's work ethic, and the PC version of Watch Dogs is inferior to the original showing as well, it's like Ubisoft were trying to pull a Crysis and make their games only for the high-end PC market, but then lost faith and ended up disappointing everyone, and the problem is they continue to do it with every game, even after they saw what happened with Watch Dogs. I guess that's because people bought the game(s) anyway. So they really don't care. OT: The problem is the game looks average not only graphically speaking, but from a gameplay (specifically gunplay perspective as well). The Division's hype came from the E3 reveal, and the fact that it was an open-world shooter, set across NY and it's boroughs, with MMORPG elements similar to Borderlands and Destiny. That was the promise of 2013 - 2014. Here we are 2 months before launch, the game looks nothing like the E3 2013 reveal graphically, and honestly is probably the worst looking Ubisoft AAA game this gen, which is a shame. It looks about on par with Watch Dogs which was a launch window / Year 1 game that was cross-platform with last-gen, and here The Division is launching nearly 2 years later, next-gen only, and visually on par with it. It's still on open world shooter, but the gunplay is noticeably less quality when visually compared to the reveal, the destruction is significantly less, and the enemies have gone from taken reasonable damage as human opponents to taking entire magazines of Auto Rifles and then some. The city of New York is still where the game is set, except it's no longer all of New York when there was footage of other boroughs, and now it's simply central Manhattan, which means more than likely the other areas have been converted to DLC in the same shady business practices of Destiny. The only thing that's stayed true is that it's an open-world shooter set in New York, with MMORPG elements, and those MMORPG elements are the only thing that IMO remotely gives this game any kind of standout feature. The abilities and classes seem cool, the weapon system seems good as well being able to combine them and make new and better guns (although it seems to be focused on quantity over quality), and everyone who buys these kind of games love getting loot. The Dark Zone is a cool concept as well, but it's COMPLETELY unbalanced in it's current state with high levels being in the same space ad lower level who can't really deal damage to them. And overall this game doesn't seem like it's meant to be played Single Player at all, even more than Destiny (trying to solo extract loot from the Dark Zone with teams everywhere, on top of the bullet sponge enemies who can tank grenades). The 2013 E3 reveal was a great concept. The 2015 Alpha gameplay and 2016 Beta footage are flawed attempts at bringing the E3 reveal to life. I'm not saying the Division is going to be a bad game, and I don't think anyone is saying that. But there are a lot of "KEY CORE ELEMENTS" to this game that just like plain mediocre or slightly above average at best. The gunplay, the graphics, the bullet sponge and grenade surviving enemies, having to walk everywhere, the cut content forcing central Manhattan to be the only play space, and the Dark Zone being completely unbalanced are all legitimate reasons for people to be concerned about this game. On top of that they still haven't talked about post-game content such as Raids, challenges, or their plans to support the game over 2016 and into 2017 since it's an MMORPG, and the game is launching in a little over a month.
Interestingly FFXV is game that got upgraded this gen. 24fps that's cinematic, 720p Resolution still looks amazing, because it got Realistic Global Illumination Lighting day and night, outdoor and indoor. Displaying so much polygons ain't a fix to how bad The Division lighting is. That's people like Kojima and Nomura are called Visionary, they made their vision, real.
@ABizzel1 get outta here you Ubisoft apologist.
Nice, you compared single player games to an online only game.
https://www.youtube.com/wat... Keep defending Ubisoft then and thats not my fault.
What the hell does it being an online game have anything to do with the graphics? Like, seriously?
@OoglyBoogly quite a lot actually, you see being an online only game means that it needs to dedicate a lot of it's time to networking tasks and other client side calculations that keep you in sync with the server and other players, the calculations for this are not cheap, this means there is less frame time for the graphics and other stuff. A lot of older games used to display a message saying graphical quality would be diminished in the online portion of the game, it seems they don't do this anymore though.
@masterfox They were showing that before they even knew console specs. Can you blame them ? Two other dev teams did the same that E3. just like WatchDogs. Just like Witcher 3 Those were the 3 graphically impressive multiplats shown in 2013 E3, before console specs were released. Nothinng else came close. What do all three of them have in common ? They all were downgraded. That should tell you something. three separate dev teams. Sure, two of them are Ubisoft, but so what ? What about CDPR then ? I'm not bashing consoles here, I'm just using logic to come to a conclusion. If Ghost Recon Wildlands ends up being downgraded, then we can blame Ubisoft entirely. The Division or WatchDogs ? It's hypocritical to blame them, but not blame CDPR for downgrading The Witcher 3. At the end of the day, the reason Ubisoft gets all the flak is because of WatchDogs not being that great a game, whereas the Witcher 3 was amazing. They get all the shit they do because of all the other crap they do. That, however, is hypocritical and unfair when talking specifically about a graphical downgrade.
@Brich- agreed. @Masterfox- Many teams did this and its not due to trying to lie or deceive. They are not using this footage to market the game RIGHT NOW. The reality is, when consoles are about to come out, many might not have final devkits or only have a idea of what they specs might be. Lamboomington is 100% correct. Its not due to some sort of trick, its actually likely due to them guessing the specs, making it on PC to transfer over later, then showing what they intend to have the game look like in terms of a target render. Its way it happened with Watchdogs, The Division and Witcher 3 along with some other titles. it might overall be due to them not really having a good idea of what it will look like until after all features are finished. They still need to market the game, they are still telling you its NOT THE FINAL BUILD and it subject to change. Ubisoft as actually already released a statement talking about it. Hell even CDPR released one talking about it. Some of you guys can't have it both ways, it can't be Ubisoft EVIL, yet CDPR GOOD yet both apply to the same concept. Its neither publishers/developer's fault. AC Unity only released looking the way it did due to being established and they had a greater idea of what it would look like based on features and other processes. Let me say foremost that its wrong to market a game based on false footage. Neither Witcher 3 nor The Division nor did Watchdogs use those previous footage to market the game prior to its release, they used final build footage. http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... http://www.pcgamer.com/watc... I urge the gamers on this site to legit read what both teams stated regarding those game's development, its an informative read.
Do you know the budget of The Division? I would like to know too. The Witcher 3 had development costs of $81 million. Metal Gear Solid V had a development cost of $80 million.
False... The Witcher 3 cost roughly 35 million to make, the rest was marketing costs. Metal Gear Solid V cost 80 million to make excluding marketing costs.
@I3logg- Sully actually isn't wrong on that. MGSV development was rumored, not confirmed. Thus you don't actually know if it was 80 million with or without marketing as we don't even know if the 80 million was even the real cost of its development with or without. The Witcher 3's marketing is still part of that budget as CDPR is still paying for it.
@i3iloggs You do know that marketing costs is also part of a games budget right? TW3 breaks down to $43 million development cost and $35 million marketing costs equaling $81 million total cost with inflation adjusted.
@Kraenk12 The last of us(PS3). really looks good. https://www.youtube.com/wat... unlike The division. All details gone. https://www.youtube.com/wat... The Witcher 3 only downgraded fire,smoke and draw distance but the character texture and environmental details is same as original trailer. https://www.youtube.com/wat...
I would much rather the game be good than be a pretty game. look at Battlefront and The order etc.
I actually really enjoyed The Order but I definitely get what you what you mean, graphics only go so far and are mainly to attract consumers on a first impressions basis. The gameplay is what won me over with The Division when I played the alpha, it was brilliantly addictive fun.
I agree with you in concept, but I feel Battlefront and The Order are still fun games. I would say I would rather the game be functional and do what they want it to do, then to lesson features to push processing on graphics. This is a online only game and they need as much as they can. I feel during development they realized they couldn't do all that all the features they were adding and had to scale back, I'm fine with that so long as it actually plays the way it was promised. I feel sorry for those who are legit not buying the game solely due to this as I feel its such a stupid reason to actually not buy or play a game. I mean...I have more respect for someone who doesn't buy it due to gameplay reasons vs "graphics" reasons. I've seen those who played the XONE alpha and made sure to download a native session to see for myself how it would look like. It looks pretty good and doable, of course not as crisp as the E3 2013 version, but the degree of downgrade isn't even enough to make me suddenly not want it, I want it for what I'm PLAYING not merely graphically how it looks. Shame on anyone to even cast judgement on such a stupid thing. New IPs will go through this, what is important is what your actually playing and if they are properly marketing the FINAL BUILD prior to release vs the E3 2013 footage. Though I don't agree with the strange shaming The Division is going through, I do get its dishonest IF they kept using the E3 2013 build or video to market the game.
Witcher 3, FFXV, MGSV Very bad comparisons. Infamous SS is kind of a bad comparison too... Different types of looks from all those games, with 2 of them largely different type of environment. Also, 2 of them are exclusives. They're going to look better than multiplats. The Division looks great for an open world game. It's one of the best looking open world game multiplats I've seen.
Maybe some of us were kind of excited to see things like the real time deformation/melting/freezing of snow? Or the procedural damage to the environment? Seeing, metal, glass and wood deform in a semi natural way? Siege suffered the same kind of downgrade from it's unveiling to its release too. Don't defend that shit. When you factor in The Divisions Juggernaut esque enemies and boring weapon treadmill, nothing about it seems compelling, or worth my time. Also, E3 is in June. These consoles were released 3-4 months later, Ubisoft and Massive had a far better idea of what the hardware was going to be like than you let on earlier. Watch Dogs- Huge drop in environment and character detail, loss of real time reflections. The infamous gif literally shows the building geometry change from complex buildings to bog standard rectangles. Unity- Loss of real time reflections, Dialed down environment lighting, detail and crowds. Also boy someone really turned down the LoD setting on the consoles. Siege- Dialed down animations, particle effects and damage Far Cry 4 - A loss of more details than I can count, watch the unveiling of the opening of the game and the actual opening side by side. Black Flag - Showed off as something that still looked like a 360 game, BUT! It looked like some work had been done. In the end it looked like the 360/PS3 version with a better frame rate. Metal Gear and Witcher 3 did suffer a downgrade, but the level of downgrade isn't even close to as bad as what Ubisoft has done repeatedly. I wasn't pleased with what Metal gear and The Witcher lost, but the pre release footage and the final game didn't look like two entirely different games either.
I can't say all that. Fox Engine had years in development and Infamous Second Son is an exclusive title, they can do a bit more based on solely working on 1 game that actually isn't online based. I mean...consider all of what you listed are not online MMOs. I can't say "greed and laziness" have anything to do with it. You have to take it from a game by game basis. I feel all games worked on, artiest and designers give it their all, I can't just say "laziness" because it doesn't look like MGS5....I mean consider MOST GAMES won't look like MGS5 though. I personally feel they are unfair comparisons as those titles are not factoring in all the other processes that are going on with The Division, with it being an MMO and all. I don't really care for MMOs and may not even get The Division seeing how it doesn't look to have survival elements I might have wanted, but I can't say due to graphics that hey "blew it". Are you playing it or looking at it? Does the excitement for a game legit boil down to how it looks for you? So all developers besides Kojima Productions, CDPR and Square Enix are just full of "laziness"? I mean at some point we must understand the top tier developers are not making the norm or standard, they are actually merely the exception and its not the norm of the industry in any way shape or form. I mean....everyone won't be as good as Rockstar, Kojima Productions ,CDPR etc. That doesn't mean everyone sucks and are just lazy, it merely means they are not as good as those other teams, but MOST teams in gaming will not be like those teams you listed, its legit a unfair comparison imho.
TD looks nothing like when they showed it the first time. It's a downgrade, you can tell yourself all you want, but it's a fact. The coming closed beta will be 90% of what we will be playing in march, most beta's are. Beta's are nothing more then stress test and marketing. But the game can be fun. I just hope it isn't another destiny
it looks the way it does because of consoles. remember that parity you all hate? well it seeps into the PC world too. again, Ubi has done this. WD, and now this. CD did it with W3, its a pattern now.
What the heck is your point man?
What's going on with the FPS in that video. Are they dropping erratically or what? Damn, I was hoping this game would live up to the hype. Is Ubisoft going to screw up another game?
Say what you want... It looks great for an open world multiplayer game! Keep hating if it makes you happy.
ahh looks great ? ok is your opinion man I respect that.
Gotta press that HD button bro! And you know...I game for 30+ years. Graphics aren't everything. The movement and mechanics look great but I guess that doesn't matter anyway since you have your fixed opinion on Ubisoft, even though countless others do the same.
@Kraenk12 lol the only thing it does since with HD the image is cleaner you realize how flat the world looks in comparison to the original trailer. If the game was going look like this it should be released years ago imo, originally the selling point of the Division was the stunning visuals alongside a online open world game, right now the game was converted to just a another open world game with online elements imo.
The things is Ubisoft looks like they have lied flat out. I do agree that gameplay should speak for itself but the company doesn't have similar beliefs. I don't care how great a game is, if the company has no faith that their actual product is good enough to warrant sales then why should I believe they will deliver.
So did you buy Killzone back then?! Motorstorm?! The Witcher 3?! Because they did the exact same. literally every game these days and in the past gets promoted with touched up footage, sometimes more sometimes less.
Yes, I have bought them but that was years after release either used or from the bargain bin (The Witcher I haven't bought at all). I gave the games breathing room so I can learn their actual pros and cons from real videos or word of mouth. Also it was to see the financial direction they each had for DLC. I'm not going to say that The Division is going to be a bad game but I am not to be jaded and believe gameplay looked exactly like the E3 counterparts.
looks really good
Killing rats confirmed nice
E3 showcased streets that had better lighting, much more activity and was quite congested compared to the gameplay videos we have seen as of late. It may have been a different map that hasn't been revealed yet, but my faith for the visuals has been ebbing for a while.
meaby Brooklyn will have better Lightning when the DLC arrives. Meaby the day that day had better Lightning
because of parity. because the consoles cant handle what they have shown. Like WD. its all a shame.
Graphically it looks mediocre. And ofc nothing like early footage. But it could be a fun game. But so far both graphics and gameplay looks mediocre.
see this guy gets it.
Agreed. This is a huge downgrade visually. And realistically, I didn't want this game to be like damned multiplayer-centric at all. When I say the initially footage of the world, especially the insane level of detail given to the crumpled sheet metal on cars, and the gas steaming up from the manholes, I saw something that was intimate and ambitious. I saw something that combined the best efforts of The Last of Us with with Freedom Fighters. I don't know where it went so very wrong, but all I know is that Ubisoft wants to push this game out as quickly as possible, and it is really showing.
This comment sums it up^
It just looks so boring. I really don't know how they are going to make this kind of loot based game work on in this setting. Usually these kind of games have a fantasy element that gives you wide selection of races, enemy types, different character builds, bosses and levels. The Division has human enemies in New York. What are they going to do to keep enemies even remotely fresh? Use human enemies seen a million times in shooters like heavy armor enemies, flamethrower enemies, greanadier enemies etc. Doesen't sound very long lasting entertaiment.
Have you ever played DayZ?! DayZ never was about Zombies..it was about looting and teamwork and fighting other players. This game could offer exactly that in a fresh and more polished environment.
I've been a fan of Tom Clancy games for years, but don't get the hype surrounding this game.
they released badass screenshots, that is why there is hype. now, game got WatchDog'ed.
How is it that the guy in the beginning, the one going through the boxes, is clearly an animated event but yet his legs are still clipping through two of the boxes that are some how magically below him? Hmmm... Otherwise I have to say that I'm not that impressed. It looks rather...bland. Sure it's "beta" as everyone keeps saying (as if these graphics are somehow going to get a lot better on launch) but man...the downgrade is goddamn for real on this one. I mean, I know it's just Ubi doing what Ubi do but for real...this compared to the previous showings is like a world of difference. Graphics that once had me ecstatic now are making me question my purchasing decision. Well, I only paid $30 for it so I guess that might be worth it.
I must disagree actually...sure, it looks a lot worse than the first E3 presentation but all live gameplay they showed in the last 1,5 years or so looked exactly like that or even worse tbh.
Nah, not really. Not to this degree. I will admit that the graphics go down hill every time they've shown it but even the 2014 demo looks at least twice as better. The 2015 demo gave us a taste of the dumbing down but I still think it looked better than this video...and the 2015 demo was supposedly running on the X1.
game looks superaverage sure not the last scream of nextgen online multiplayer fps/rpg/whatever ..I've seen quite much better in 2015 if this is the max out graphics of the division ..
Damn I can't stand you pixel pixies. DON'T buy the damn game then if the lighting and shadows aren't up to snuff for you pixies. Every freakin article we have to listen to your incessant whining about the game not being shiny enough for you. Nobody is forcing you pixies to buy the game or even show interest in it. If I'm a dev I wouldn't show you clowns ANYTHING until release because all you're going to do is bitch and moan anyway. Fallout shows average graphics and it takes flak not for showing uber graphics. Division shows uber graphics and all you care about is the game living up to what you saw, regardless of how it might affect other parts of the damn game. Just GTFO already.
The game looks fine, im more upset at not being able to play in the ALL of Manhattan (like only midtown? wtf) and Brooklyn
Downgrade even on PC. I thought that was just a console excuse. After Watch_Dogs I gave up on Ubisoft.
i thought it was a joke ..really-.. the downgrade is massive ( to my eyes , at least ) i want to see it final but if this is final on maxs settings man it is looking quite poor to be 2016/next gen title
I did enjoy parts of watchdogs, but graphically it was a letdown in many area's. Huge Downgrade. It was never going to look like the reveal on consoles in the first place. But should look decent in final build. Ubi need to focus on getting framerate rock solid. Will need to see more gameplay. People waffle on about destiny, I found the game BORING. ok graphics, bland gameplay, bland sounds of weapons and not sure why people love grinding. It's ZZzzzz
another fail for ubi. enjoy that expensive game whoever buys it.
I enjoyed the hell out of the Alpha so im sure im gonna enjoy the full release. Thank you
expensive? just 25euro.pretty cheap.
At least he played good, everybody played like a moron in most vids till this.
agree on that :) no messing around.at last someone has some skills.
p.s. and enemies are not like sponges what we saw before.
Psssstttttt...He was hitting the head
I wish this game was a single player game like The Witcher 3 and it covered all of New York City..
That would have been much, much better.