| curl-6 said: Lighting and surface shaders in general in Watch Dogs U are used so sparsely it almost looks like an original Xbox game at times. Even in indoor settings there's a tiny number of light sources at a time, while it NFS you can race down a street and through a tunnel with dozens of light sources reflecting off your vehicle. (Said vehicle is also much higher poly and better textured and shaded than its WD counterparts) When you leave a tunnel in NFS the HDR effect is lighting based, manifesting as bloom, while in WD it's a cheap white layer over the screen. NFS also doesn't drop to 23fps when there's 2 guys in a bland room with no demanding effects. Even the CPU is no excuse there, that's entirely the fault of the software, not the hardware, which has proven itself far more capable in other games. WDU looks like console GTA4 from 2008, while NFS is a graphical upgrde over one of the better looking console multiplats of 2012, that alone is indcative of how much NFSU obliterates WDU graphically. |
I'm not so sure you can say that there is a scarce amount of shaders used in Watch Dogs when it's applying subsurface scattering, SSAO, and it's own material shading model. Sure the textures and the models for cars in Need for Speed is better but with Watch Dogs there is a higher density of cars which is probably the bigger stress benchmark of the two.
I'm not denying the performance issues found on the WII U version of Watch Dogs but there is more shading going in that game compared to Need for Speed even though some of effects are less obvious and more subtle.
Really ? You sure about that ? Now, I realize that Watch Dogs may have a muddy image quality (most likely due to resolution) but it looks gobsmackingly better than GTA IV. You may think that NFSMWU tops WDU but I think it's the other way around since the textures are lacking in more than one way or the other and it has less graphical effects going on.
