official Tom Clancy's The Division

[Razorwing]

[neoadorable]

It makes me laugh that people on Eurogamer comments and elsewhere are complaining that the E3 gameplay demo has scripted and fake voices...how can folks be so stupid? Those are clearly voice actors, like in any other game. This probably has a single player element, with fully voiced characters. Or did Ubi specifically say those are supposed to be "real" people?

[Skiver Veteran]

Agreed, I expect this to be a fairly sandbox environment with little NPC scripting to guide you in the game, you will be completely on your own or playing cooperatively with others.

 

The shooting mechanics don't look right to me for some reason but other than that the game still looks amazing. Happy to wait till 2015 if the game delivers.

[George P Global Moderator]

It makes me laugh that people on Eurogamer comments and elsewhere are complaining that the E3 gameplay demo has scripted and fake voices...how can folks be so stupid? Those are clearly voice actors, like in any other game. This probably has a single player element, with fully voiced characters. Or did Ubi specifically say those are supposed to be "real" people?

 

The game is semi-MMO'ish.   You can solo it but co-op is the idea, and it sounds like there is select areas in the city for PvP to take place though they're still not talking about any PvP details.   You will be able to have clans though, the only question is how the PvP will be handled compared to the PvE (AI) solo/co-op parts.

[neoadorable]

The game is semi-MMO'ish.   You can solo it but co-op is the idea, and it sounds like there is select areas in the city for PvP to take place though they're still not talking about any PvP details.   You will be able to have clans though, the only question is how the PvP will be handled compared to the PvE (AI) solo/co-op parts.

 

That's not what i was referring to: i think there's a SP campaign with voiced characters, unless it was specified that there isn't. It is true that The Division and Destiny are confusing to people, because it hasn't been explained at length how they work.

[George P Global Moderator]

That's not what i was referring to: i think there's a SP campaign with voiced characters, unless it was specified that there isn't. It is true that The Division and Destiny are confusing to people, because it hasn't been explained at length how they work.

 

From what I've seen and what they've said there is no SP in the traditional sense.  You make a character and do missions either solo or co-op and then do PvP as well.    The voices were the players voices, they're co-op demos though they're scripted so much that it makes you think it could be NPC part of some SP mission.

[neoadorable]

From what I've seen and what they've said there is no SP in the traditional sense.  You make a character and do missions either solo or co-op and then do PvP as well.    The voices were the players voices, they're co-op demos though they're scripted so much that it makes you think it could be NPC part of some SP mission.

 

If those were supposed to be "natural" players then i agree they were obviously scripted. So much that i assumed they're meant to be NPC's, as you very accurately said.

[HawkMan]

It makes me laugh that people on Eurogamer comments and elsewhere are complaining that the E3 gameplay demo has scripted and fake voices...how can folks be so stupid? Those are clearly voice actors, like in any other game. This probably has a single player element, with fully voiced characters. Or did Ubi specifically say those are supposed to be "real" people?

 

Well they're not in game voice it was supposed to be voice chat. But I find the whole gamers pretending to actually be in game in voice chat silly. Also I think the guy on stage pretended to play.

[sundayx Veteran]

Yeah everything is perfect so far... except for the fake coop and impossible and unrealistic voice chat...

[Luc2k]

The whole thing was scripted, as was the earlier gameplay video and the Rainbow Six one. Having said that, it would be great if they'd use "Megan" to narrate various parts of the game.

[neoadorable]

Well they're not in game voice it was supposed to be voice chat. But I find the whole gamers pretending to actually be in game in voice chat silly. Also I think the guy on stage pretended to play.

 

Then it's terrible, no one talks like that clearly and beautifully on XBL...seriously. As a demonstration of what the experience might be like it's OK i guess, but what year is this? Just have actual players talk normally. I really thought they were supposed to be NPCs. I agree many of the demos looked like they were pretending to play. AC Unity was also like that, the movement was too smooth - no controller in the real world moves with such fluidity, unless somehow modified. I wish the industry would move on from this Cosmo/Playboy touch up thing and just show us the goods as they are. But i understand showmanship...and it's nothing new in gaming, we remember the backs of boxes showing coin-op screenshots on the C64 version.

[HawkMan]

I didn't see a problem with the actual gameplay in either game, except it was pre recorded, AC is always generally that smooth when playing, it's how the game is coded. 

[neoadorable]

I didn't see a problem with the actual gameplay in either game, except it was pre recorded, AC is always generally that smooth when playing, it's how the game is coded. 

 

I don't know, if you see me playing it's like an erratic lunatic is at the controls, and then i stare at the vistas for like 20 minutes, so even stuff like Journey takes me five hours to complete. Anyway, let's hope the final releases are close to what we're being shown now.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

I don't know, if you see me playing it's like an erratic lunatic is at the controls, and then i stare at the vistas for like 20 minutes, so even stuff like Journey takes me five hours to complete. Anyway, let's hope the final releases are close to what we're being shown now.

It's pretty sad that some developers show off their game with visuals that can't be achieved in the final version without modding. These are the same kind of developers that show off the PC version and make it seem like it's running on a console.

[neoadorable]

It's pretty sad that some developers show off their game with visuals that can't be achieved in the final version without modding. These are the same kind of developers that show off the PC version and make it seem like it's running on a console.

 

It's just deception and of course unfortunate. I understand the desire to make a good first impression, but it then creates a lot of disappointment and annoyance. While used to it by now, as it's a decades old practice, i still don't like it. It's just like the pictures McDonald's and BK show of their food...and then the actual thing you get.

[George P Global Moderator]

It's pretty sad that some developers show off their game with visuals that can't be achieved in the final version without modding. These are the same kind of developers that show off the PC version and make it seem like it's running on a console.

 

I wouldn't mind as long as the PC version stays the same while the console versions end up lower quality because of their lower spec.  At least then it's not an issue, for all the flack Watch Dogs got, it still looks better on my PC and I'm only running it on High settings not Very High.  I look at some PS4 videos of it and I'm like "yuck" it's like night and day.

 

I think the Division will be no different, the PC is the way to go if you want to see what the new Snowdrop engine of theirs can do.  Though it's also worth noting that this game, like the new AC:Unity, isn't going to support the older consoles so that doesn't mess with what they can do with the new consoles as much.   WD was on everything, I think Ubisoft just took the PS3 and 360 versions and updated the textures a bit, bumped the res and called it a day.  

[Pupik]

And so it begins.

Rumor: The Division Has Already Been Downgraded Visually

Whatifgaming reported that The Division has already been downgraded visually. According to Whatifgaming, a source dev (whose identity cannot be revealed for obvious reasons) told them that the team has already took out ?quite a lot of screen space reflections from the game? and that the final product will not look as good as its E3 2013 reveal.

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/rumor-the-division-has-already-been-downgraded-visually/

I absolutely believe that rumor, after what Ubisoft did to Watch_Dogs, Far Cry 3 and soon to be released The Crew. Only remains to be seen in the final product how much of the downgrade we will receive.

[Dane]

I really want this game.  

[Athernar]

And so it begins.

Rumor: The Division Has Already Been Downgraded Visually

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/rumor-the-division-has-already-been-downgraded-visually/

I absolutely believe that rumor, after what Ubisoft did to Watch_Dogs, Far Cry 3 and soon to be released The Crew. Only remains to be seen in the final product how much of the downgrade we will receive.

 

While I cannot say for sure that Ubisoft won't end up "downgrading" The Division, this whole article reeks of poorly written fake. For instance:

 

Naturally we will also be using online servers and have to produce a synchronization that higher graphics add to the latency so it had to be turned down.

 

Not only is the English poor, but the statement itself makes no sense. Graphics don't have any relation to the latency on an internet connection.

 

While the capabilities of consoles are certainly behind that of the PC, I would sooner point the blame finger at the inclusion of the previous gen consoles in Watch_Dogs. Not the current gen.

[neoadorable]

Far Cry 3 on PC was quite the spectacle and totally different from the 360/PS3 versions, why do people keep bringing it up as an example of some kind of downgrade? And Athernar is right, Watch Dogs suffered from being tied to previous generation devices. The X1 version, as i keep saying, screams 360++.

[Pupik]

Not only is the English poor, but the statement itself makes no sense. Graphics don't have any relation to the latency on an internet connection.

 

While the capabilities of consoles are certainly behind that of the PC, I would sooner point the blame finger at the inclusion of the previous gen consoles in Watch_Dogs. Not the current gen.

That's not the article you quoted. That's the developer from Ubisoft that leaked the information. Unknown which division of Ubisoft, but perhaps the Swedish one (Ubisoft Massive) that works on the game? But doesn't matter. English was perfectly understandable to me.

And graphics actually play a roll in the latency. If your computer can't handle the graphics, you'll get much higher latency to the server compared to what you'll get if you got a steady FPS. And if the server is too weak to handle the graphics of the game, you'll get much higher latency to the server even if your own computer can handle the game just fine. A perfect example to such cases you can see in game like Battlefield 3 where if the server couldn't handle the big map, you'd get a lot of graphical glitches and interruptions in the game as the result of the netcode compensating. And in ArmA 2/3/DayZ you can actually get better frame rates in the game, depending on the power of the server. In the same location and in the same time of day, you can get more FPS by just switching to a more powerful server that handles the game better.

 

 

Far Cry 3 on PC was quite the spectacle and totally different from the 360/PS3 versions, why do people keep bringing it up as an example of some kind of downgrade?

Because you're blind if you don't see that the game was downgraded graphically.

[neoadorable]

What settings is "retail PC"? Anyway, i don't care about this YouTube video and don't remember the E3 demo, i know it looked great on my PC and much better than the console versions. These downgrade videos usually are total BS. Anyway, this is all immaterial - we don't know what The Division will look like. And it's not news that buyer beware. If you actually believe everything they show you at E3 it's on you.

[Pupik]

Yeah, let's all praise false advertising and say how awesome and legal it is :rolleyes:

[neoadorable]

Praising? I like my kool aid but not that much :D

Not praising it, but in the case of FC3 i really don't remember any big deal with the graphics. I don't like the deception any more than you do when it comes to showing off stuff that won't be available to us, i was just saying for FC3 it wasn't an issue. That's not praise, that's being honest.

 

Sadly what they're doing is legal, i don't think we'll find a court on the planet that will sanction a game publisher for showcasing graphics that gamers then think were downgraded somehow. It's no different from BK showing you a whopper the height of a skyscraper in the photo, and the actual thing more closely resembling a pancake. If they can get away with that, then Ubi can get away with slightly less detailed water and grass or fire dynamics.  

[Athernar]

That's not the article you quoted. That's the developer from Ubisoft that leaked the information. Unknown which division of Ubisoft, but perhaps the Swedish one (Ubisoft Massive) that works on the game? But doesn't matter. English was perfectly understandable to me.

And graphics actually play a roll in the latency. If your computer can't handle the graphics, you'll get much higher latency to the server compared to what you'll get if you got a steady FPS. And if the server is too weak to handle the graphics of the game, you'll get much higher latency to the server even if your own computer can handle the game just fine. A perfect example to such cases you can see in game like Battlefield 3 where if the server couldn't handle the big map, you'd get a lot of graphical glitches and interruptions in the game as the result of the netcode compensating. And in ArmA 2/3/DayZ you can actually get better frame rates in the game, depending on the power of the server. In the same location and in the same time of day, you can get more FPS by just switching to a more powerful server that handles the game better.

 

Yes, that's the entire point - the so called dev and the original source article are quite clearly fake. If you go to said source and read articles from the same author and compare the "dev leak" you'll see they both have the same style of broken English.

 

The rest of your post is technically incorrect. To reiterate, graphics do not play any part in the latency of an external connection, a client not being able to promptly deal with entity updates from the server (and relay user input to the server) is not an issue of latency. Networking should be operating on it's own independent thread.

 

Secondly, the statement "server is too weak to handle the graphics" is also flawed. All a dedicated server does is perform the basic world simulation, the rendering component is completely absent.

 

If you read up on client/server architecture in games, you will not only see why your previous statements are incorrect, but also why the so called "Ubisoft Dev" is a fake.