{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by BandPrehistoric:
5/25/2014 4:48:15 PM
18
"Watch_Dogs PC High settings is the same as Next-gen consoles."
[quote]Typically, when it comes to these comparisons, the PC version of a game universally has the upper hand, but according to Morin's tweet, the PC and new-gen versions of Watch Dogs are equals.[/quote]
It runs the same as next-gen consoles on high setting. But apparently, there is an "Ultra Settings" option, that allows the game to look like that infamous comparison video we've all seen.
Apparently, this was how said video was recorded:
[quote]Ultra specs : Intel Core i7-4770K with a GeForce 780. The PC video was recorded on an Intel Core i7-3930K with a GeForce Titan IIRC.[/quote]
In other news, I hope[url=http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/user/JackmySnack/saved/4LGw] my PC[/url] can run the Ultra specs.
Thoughts?
-
6 RepliesI take this with a grain of salt. I remember reading about how DICE said Battlefield 3 would be this fantastic experience on PC on the highest settings, and the lowest settings would be "console quality" like it was some insult or something. Then the game came out, and it looked the same across all platforms. Crysis 2 was kind of the same way except without the boasting in the lead up to release (at least as far as I'm aware). The game looked the same across all platforms, and like Battlefield 3, one was hard-pressed to find the difference between the game playing on the highest or lowest setting. Maybe 2011 was just an odd year? I know that wasn't the case with the first Crysis: pretty big difference there between highest and lowest graphics settings, and the same with StarCraft 2. So, I'm going to remain skeptical about news like this.
