Watch Dogs Graphics and Gameplay: PC Vs. Xbox One, With Surprising Results

MojoKid writes: Normally, the question of whether a game runs better on the PC or a console is a no-brainer, at least for PC users. Watch Dogs, however, with its problematic and taxing PC play, challenges that concept. And since the gap between consoles and PCs is typically smallest at the beginning of the console generation, HotHardware decided to take the Xbox One out for a head-to-head comparison against the PC with this long-awaited title. What was found may surprise you. Depending on just how much horsepower your PC has, the Xbox One (and possibly the PS4 though that wasn't compared) might be the better option. There's no question that the PC can look better, even before you factor in the mods that have been released to date, but unless you've spent $300 or more on a fairly recent GPU, you're not going to be able to run the game at sufficiently high detail to benefit from the enhanced image quality and resolution. If you have a Radeon HD 7950 / R9 280 or an NVIDIA card with greater than 4GB of RAM or a GeForce GTX 780 / 780 Ti, you can happily observe Watch Dogs make hash out of the Xbox One — but statistically, only a minority of gamers have this sort of high-end hardware. This comparison should be viewed in light of the recent allegations that the PC version's graphics were deliberately handicapped.

Comments

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU...

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget 2007. The game is not even much of a topic. Bland enough to not make as much of an impact as it was advertised to do. Watch_Dogs and Titanfall are both disappointments. Happy I didn't get caught up in the hype for them. Need to be wary of Dragon Age next.

$300 for a GPU

[Khyber]

Meanhile, the end result doesn't look THAT much better than the PS3, with its measly GeForce 7900 series.

Say what?

[djupedal]

Why does this work so hard to sound organic, when it seems more like a boldfaced ad for xbox?

Re:Say what?

[rwven]

Yeah, pretty much. Watch Dogs doesn't look nearly as good as plenty of PC games out right now, and runs worse than most.

This is nothing more than a deliberately handicapped, badly ported console game. The author is being a shill for the XBone, but the truth of the matter is that he's hiding Ubisoft's dirty downgrade of the game.

PCs were capable of far more than these machines a year before they were released. Now the comparison is just a bad joke.

Bad Ports

[wisnoskij]

This is not new or unique. The PC is full of games that have ridiculously bad console-to-PC ports; With shitty controls, poor graphics, bad performance, and with absolutely no configurability.

Slashdot degrades further and further

[Jahoda]

So this is where we're at now? Not just pay-to-play and inflammatory nonsense, but straight-up government-grade XBOX propaganda where we hear complete garbage like "statistically, only a minority of gamers have this sort of high-end hardware", when your bog-standard $200 R9 270x or Nvidia 760-whatever *smokes* the current console generation in terms of image quality. FPS, and resolution?
Not to mention the hilarity of this all centering around "Watch_Dogs", a game that is a textbook example of publisher bait-and-switch and making promises that are never delivered upon. Ubisoft is the Comcast of gaming.
This isn't even my opinion, this stuff is in wide discussion anywhere on the internet that cares about gaming in-general.

Re:because it fucking is

[rtb61]

Let's check the differences. On a PC I can still watch a DVD on my big screen at the same time. Note the appear equally as large as my PC screen is far closer to me than my big screen TV. On my PC I can play a full range of FTP MMO, free flash games on the internet. I can browse the internet while watching TV. Never to forget I have a fully functional upgradable, dual bootable Computer and not just a games console. I can also buy much cheaper games without having to pay a quite expensive console tax and games discount sooner. With PC at a lan party everyone has their own screen so far better multi-player gaming. I have found every console port to be not that good games pretty much dumbed down PC games with clumsy controls.

When comparing a console to a PC, you are really only comparing the additional cost of turning a PC into a gaming machine versus the console and the loss of use of your TV or a second TV (youch, you have just paid for your PC gaming rig). Gaming consoles of course do suit a particular IQ range of the video gaming market, there is not doubt about that and I'll stop there.

Re:Unless you've spent $300 on a GPU...

[L4t3r4lu5]

Really? Games published by Ubi (Watch Dogs) and EA (Titanfall) didn't live up to their hype?

I am Jack's total lack of surprise.