An attempt to understand Watch Dogs' graphics downgrade
While it’s fantastic that Watch Dogs has a new release date at last (May 27th), the story trailer that accompanied the announcement yesterday is drawing a fair bit of criticism from those who think the delay has made the game look worse, rather than better.
Forum posters on NeoGAF specifically have laid into the game after posting side-by-side comparisons of the most recent footage from what we were shown at E3. In the specific scenes highlighted, the difference is undeniably noticeable.
There are a few explanations for this. The first suggestion is that the story trailer yesterday was using Xbox 360 or PS3 graphics, as the game is debuting on those platforms as well. While Ubisoft hasn’t commented on that, it would explain the disparity, but it would also be an extremely odd choice for them as they would have to know what sort of scrutiny that would bring. If the PS4/Xbox One versions weren’t ready, the release date would have been news enough and they could have delayed the trailer.
Rather, the more likely explanation is that the game simply has been stripped down a bit since its premiere at E3. This often happens with games debuted there, most famously with Uncharted, Killzone and Ubisoft’s own Far Cry 3.
This happens with certain developers more often than others, and Ubisoft seems guilty of this sort of thing somewhat often. What happens at E3 is that a very specific portion of gameplay is rendered to the max capability of the console’s specs. While it functions well and good for that specific bit of gameplay (sometimes called a “vertical slice”), it’s simply not sustainable to keep those kind of graphics for a wider game, particularly one as large in scope as Watch Dogs.
Speaking to Eurogamer about the delay of the game, Watch Dogs’ Creative Director Robert Morin had this to say about the issue.
“I think we’re delivering,” Morin said. “Are we delivering the movie [style vision] of every single person on Earth who saw that? Probably not, that’s not possible. But are we delivering on this fantasy of being a hacker, controlling everything and approaching things in different ways – yes.”
While it’s understandable that Ubisoft may not be able to deliver the exact same product shown at E3, they would be wise to avoid purposefully overdressing their footage if they know they can’t possibly hope to replicate its quality in the final product. Perhaps they believed they could, and then it just didn’t come to pass, but other developers seem to do a bit better of a job at managing visual expectations.
In the end, graphics will not make or break a game, and as Morin says, delivering on the core premise of the game is more important than the visuals. Watch Dogs was delayed so they could deliver on that promise, not trying to force the game into looking how it did at E3, sacrificing core elements in the process.
Still, showing that sort of footage comes with certain expectations, and it’s better to deliver consistently than to wow initially and disappoint later. Many games show footage on par with the final product, and some even improve things by release. In this case there shouldn’t be a “movie version” shown that was “not possible.” The way that’s phrased, the process sounds like it’s meant to be misleading from the beginning.
I’m expecting Watch Dogs to be a great game, but I think the pushback on the visual downgrade is somewhat warranted as well. There’s still time until the end of May, so perhaps the final product may bridge the gap between the two versions. We’ll have to wait and see.
Follow me on Twitter, subscribe to my Forbes feed, and pick up a copy of my sci-fi novel, The Last Exodus, and its sequel, The Exiled Earthborn.
Currently Online 
