[Q] GTX 770 2gb playing Watch Dogs with Ultra Textures

[narukun]

Hahaha even if i can't put it my case, ill make it work xD in a box case or something, na just kidding. my case is huge, never liked, thanks for the advice.

Edited May 29, 2014 by narukun

[SpikeSoprano]

This is weird, was able to set textures to ultra, uplay did an update, now the ultra is greyed out in textures and can only set to high, wonder if this is due to only having 2gb of vram ? Anybody else with 2gb notice this ?Also any way to undue the uplay update ?

[ClayMeow]

This is weird, was able to set textures to ultra, uplay did an update, now the ultra is greyed out in textures and can only set to high, wonder if this is due to only having 2gb of vram ? Anybody else with 2gb notice this ?Also any way to undue the uplay update ?

I haven't tried yet, but prior to the update, it did state that 3GB VRAM was required, which is why I actually found it odd I was allowed to select it to begin with.

 

While graying out options is frustrating, I kind of agree with their stance here since so many people are bitching and moaning about performance issues and are likely trying to max out the game on mid-range systems. This is this generation's Crysis it seems. As PC gaming has grown in popularity, it seems like it's let in a lot of dumb people that don't actually understand PCs.

[WarWeeny]

 

This is weird, was able to set textures to ultra, uplay did an update, now the ultra is greyed out in textures and can only set to high, wonder if this is due to only having 2gb of vram ? Anybody else with 2gb notice this ?Also any way to undue the uplay update ?

This is this generation's Crysis it seems. 

 

Crysis had the visuals that came with the requirements, watch dogs doesn't have that, so it is not a mystery the people are bitching and moaning.

I mean, an 8800gtx can run crysis on high and it looks way better than watchdogs, and that requires a freaking 780!

 

Ubisoft went on the train that no developer wants to board because Crytek is leading the train.

Un-optimize and code the game bad and say it is demanding so it sells to the higher-end pc people.

Crytek did this with crysis 3 and it seems Ubisoft is following them.

 

I am apparently bottlenecked by a 4GHz i5 because, when i run it at 1080P, it gives me 50fps, and when i lower the resolution to 720P, it still gives me 50fps.

 

Now limiting people to certain settings is even worse, even though they don't have the required Vram or whatever was needed for the setting, people ought to be free to find out if they want to play with this setting or not.

PC gaming is for playing games and have the freedom the platform gives you, limiting options isn't a part of freedom last time i checked.

 

/Rant.

[SpikeSoprano]

I hear you Clay, when I first started the game  on ultra textures it showed needs 3 gb of vram but I could still use ultra with no side effects, so I might uninstall uplay and do a reinstall without letting it update(if possible ) and see if it fixes the problem. Even at ultra textures the max ram it used was 1.8 gb. System memory was about 6 gb.

 

@ ww, I agree, if we want to play at ultra settings even if it looks like crap that should be our choice not the game makers.

Edited May 29, 2014 by SpikeSoprano

[ClayMeow]

 

Un-optimize and code the game bad and say it is demanding so it sells to the higher-end pc people.

 

:smh: I always love this argument from PC gamers. "This game doesn't run well on my system; it's unoptimized!"

 

Comparing WD to Crysis is ridiculous. Crysis looks great, but is predominantly filled with trees. Watch Dogs is an open-world game with a ton of shit going on and absolutely zero loading screens with no texture pop-in. And on the PC version, destruction actually remains for quite awhile - I can't tell if it's time-based or distance-based, but apparently on the consoles stuff disappears almost immediately.

 

I hear you Clay, when I first started the game  on ultra textures it showed needs 3 gb of vram but I could still use ultra with no side effects, so I might uninstall uplay and do a reinstall without letting it update(if possible ) and see if it fixes the problem. Even at ultra textures the max ram it used was 1.8 gb. System memory was about 6 gb.

 

@ ww, I agree, if we want to play at ultra settings even if it looks like crap that should be our choice not the game makers.

You're assuming that selecting Ultra Textures without 3G VRAM previously actually gave us Ultra Textures. Just because we were allowed to select it, doesn't mean they were actually used in the game.

[WarWeeny]

 

 

Un-optimize and code the game bad and say it is demanding so it sells to the higher-end pc people.

 

:smh: I always love this argument from PC gamers. "This game doesn't run well on my system; it's unoptimized!"

 

Only this time, it is actually true lol.

 

How in the world is a 4.0GHz i5 not enough to run this game while the visuals doesn't hold up?

Ubisoft is just lazy to actually optimize their games, look at assassins creed 3 and 4, they do not look anything special and yet demand a high-end graphics cards and CPU to run at 60fps and 1080P.

 

I made the comparison, not for game vs game, but for the optimization thing.

Crysis looks great on a low end machines this time around, while watch dogs doesn't look as good, yet it requires a ten times stronger GPU to run decently.

 

Not to mention, low vs high has barely an impact on visuals, the only thing that is noticeable are the textures (and some leaves on the ground), but once you set those to high, that will disappear as well.

Crysis 3 did the same thing Watch dogs is doing now. When you play crysis 3 on low with high textures it looks almost exactly like ultra, except you run it with 120fps instead of 30.

Watch dogs is no different, and this is what i mean with un-optimizing a game.

 

Developers are just getting lazy overall, it is not just Ubisoft, A lot of games look exactly the same when set to low vs high.

When you set crysis 1 to low, you could tell immediately, it looked like garbage, but once you set it to medium, high, or very high, you could tell right away that it was a higher setting than before.

 

 

@ultra settings of textures, there was a difference between high and ultra, even though i didn't have the 3gb, i could see that there were minor differences between them.

Not as big of a jump when you go from medium to high, although most texture changes were when it was night time and it rained, otherwise, you wouldn't know any better.

[ClayMeow]

I really don't understand you.

 

Your four-year old i5 only has four threads, while the recommended is eight.

You only have 8GB RAM, while I told you my usage was greater than 8GB (for the game alone; that doesn't count background processes, nor Uplay itself).

 

You can complain about un-optimization all you want, but yes, I fully believe both your CPU and RAM are bottlenecks.

[WarWeeny]

 

 

You can complain about un-optimization all you want, but yes, I fully believe both your CPU and RAM are bottlenecks.

 

And that is the problem with the "optimization" of watch dogs, both elements shouldn't be bottlenecked in the first place.

Unless it has the visuals that matches the requirements (witcher 3 anyone?), it should not demand that much of a pc.

 

This is what i was on about in the first place

 

But what ever, let's bury ze topic and move on with our lives.

There are games to be played and that is a much better investment of time than to rant about games.

[ClayMeow]

 

 

 

You can complain about un-optimization all you want, but yes, I fully believe both your CPU and RAM are bottlenecks.

 

And that is the problem with the "optimization" of watch dogs, both elements shouldn't be bottlenecked in the first place.

Unless it has the visuals that matches the requirements (witcher 3 anyone?), it should not demand that much of a pc.

 

This is what i was on about in the first place

 

But what ever, let's bury ze topic and move on with our lives.

There are games to be played and that is a much better investment of time than to rant about games.

 

Your problem is that you think visuals is the only thing that dictates requirements

[WarWeeny]

 

 

 

 

You can complain about un-optimization all you want, but yes, I fully believe both your CPU and RAM are bottlenecks.

 

And that is the problem with the "optimization" of watch dogs, both elements shouldn't be bottlenecked in the first place.

Unless it has the visuals that matches the requirements (witcher 3 anyone?), it should not demand that much of a pc.

 

This is what i was on about in the first place

 

But what ever, let's bury ze topic and move on with our lives.

There are games to be played and that is a much better investment of time than to rant about games.

 

Your problem is that you think visuals is the only thing that dictates requirements

 

 

 

If the game doesn't show anything that would resemble the requirements, why does it need the requirements that is asks?

 

Example: if there would be advanced AI (which WD doesn't have), or interactive environments (which is minimal in WD), this should be noticeable when playing and would indeed show why a game would have heavy requirements as WD has. This is not the case with WD and therefore it shouldn't require such heavy specs.

 

Or even better, if a ps3, which has 256mb of ram, can run WD, why in the love of the lord does the PC version needs 8gb+? (even though it only eats 5gb of my machine, even at ultra settings, excluding background processes) THIS is why i am bitching about the optimization of games and why developers are lazy.

 

I can run the game fine and i am not ranting because i can't run it, if i would have a core 2 duo and an  ATI 4850 and it would run bad AND complain about optimizing, then you would have a point.

But i do not have a low-end system and it should not have any bottlenecks to begin with in a game of this magnitude. If it was a fully next-gen game, which it clearly isn't, i wouldn't be ranting about the optimizations because it would actually show it, be it AI or environmental destruction/interactivity.

 

My ranting or opinions won't be heard by developers anyway, so it is basically a waste of time, but i just needed to vent my opinion about this.

You went all serious about it (which i don't mind), but just take it with a grain of salt

[ClayMeow]

Again, it doesn't sound like you understand what components affect what in a game. Sorry, but I'm not going to get into get into game development with you. If you don't understand what a CPU does or RAM does within a game, you should do some research.