I have a feeling that this game would have been better as a single player story driven game. At least that's the feeling I get for the trailer. From the retail it just looks like an ok multiplayer shooter.
Imagine a full single player experience with AI teammates you could control like the older ghost recon games + some stealth elements. Had they made the Division like that and kept the story, concept, etc.. i feel like people would love it.
@@Nick930 Honestly, even to this day, I still believe - unequivocally - that The Division was originally exactly that; a single player title with a multiplayer component, or perhaps AI teammates like in Ghost Recon. The game was never revealed to be an always-on multiplayer shooter, I genuinely believe this was a decision made at the 11th hour. I still loved The Division, massive downgrade and all, but I only cared to play it solo -- doing solo missions, exploring the city, uncovering the story, but there's no doubt in my mind it would have been FAR better received had Ubi stuck to the SP+MP idea. I'll likely do the same with The Division 2.. if I can ever afford to pick it up >_>
cflame14 I really enjoy this game, but if it was actually a single player game, with realistic damage, more buildings to go in, and realistic stealth I’d absolutely be in love with the game. Multiplayer is great but really limits what a game is capable of.
Exactly, I was sooo excited for the story but was dissapointed by how weak the story was and how it was implemented in the game. Still have quite a few hours in the game but not nearly as many as I would have if this was a story driven single player game.
Matthew Ashworth a ps4 gaming channel what graphic settings do you get on Pro? On the normal ps4 theres brightness, sharpness, contrast, and HDR. HDR looks horrible if turned on.
Just 2 extras the bluring and neutral lighting :) edit thats what i was trying to spell first comment its a great game i allso turn my hud off at times best opt ever 😱😱
The biggest disappointment for me was no the graphics downgrade but the animations downgrade. When I first saw the E3 trailer - I was blown away with smoothness of animations, but unfortunately they didn't make it to the final game...and they're still not there in the Division 2.
Ubisoft has an answer for that: *Consoles* Like, i know that graphics doesn't make the entire game, but seriously, they looks atrocious. And it's not even a fast paced game like Rainbow Six Siege
@Peepo Ain’t dead yeah, but the fact that both PC and Console version look almost the same, it's not like Far Cry 3 (the console version looks amazing, and the PC one has the E3 graphics)
@@firuzmajid4780 You just contradicted yourself. You first said the consoles are the reason for the animation downgrade but then backtracked immediately in your second comment...
The game depicted in the demo looks fucking incredible, and I was wish I could play it. Not only did it look much better than the final game, but the world looked so much more alive and immersive
Why change the car models though ? I live in New York and in the e3 trailer they actually mimicked the cars in real life accurately. That caught my eye. Also the nypd livery in the cop cars
Another difference is the snow on the player model. It looks way better in the E3 demo than in the final game. The E3 version looks more detailed and properly dispersed across the hood, head, and shoulders of the player.
I still don't see why they weren't able to keep these graphical settings! I mean it is all identical in quality and textures, pretty much. They just used worse animations, lightning and less snow effects. I feel like all this could easily be re-created and adapted
See what many people don’t understand is that E3 isn’t really to show off your game, it’s to sell it. You rarely, if ever, get exactly what is shown at E3. For developers/publishers you have to make your game look great. That means boosting the graphics to the max in a way that consoles just might not be able to handle. E3 is like the McDonald’s commercial of video games. You don’t get the burger you see in the commercial
@@michaelmongelluzzo6953 You have a point, I'm definitely not denying that. I just feel that a simple thing such as a colour-filter shouldn't have to be removed. All those cinematic beautiful colours always seem to fade in the final products. I get that the effects impact performance, but shading? Nah..
mud boi yeah I can agree with that. Personally I’m not a game dev so I couldn’t tell you whether or not that stuff actually impacts performance but I would imagine it does at least a little, which is why you can turn off things like shadows on pc. But who knows really? It’d be nice if it looked exactly like it did at E3 but usually I just expect to see the new games at E3 and not final products
@@michaelmongelluzzo6953 DOOM (2014) looked better on release. Metro Exodus looked amazing in E3 and retail. I feel Ubisoft is just making a sad excuse at this point
Its amazing the 2013 trailer is 6 years old now! BTW, amazing video. I'm sure you had a lot of work putting it together. Nice job! Let's see if you can do an IN-DEPTH LOOK at The Division 2 tech, maybe see how it compares to the E3 Trailer. Take your time ;)
I've seen worse down grading...Great work on the video, Honestly the best analysis on RU-vid. I can't wait to see your analysis on The Las Of Us 2 after the game is released on Mother's day this year.
5:48 Not in this specific instance, but in the retail version that particular hanging light asset when reflected in puddles does persist even when the object itself is out of screen space, so it has the same effect as in the trailer, but I believe that is the only exception.
I think the final game was great looking on release, as well as the music, it had a fantastic visual/audio design that still holds up today IMO. Just the gameplay was dull, I was expecting a bit more than a mundane looter shooter with bullet sponge enemies. I guess because of the E3 demo, I was expecting Rainbow Six/Ghost Recon type gameplay but in an MMO like environment where you could encounter many other players anywhere. I learned this from playing the beta, which I actually had a lot of fun with anyway, the highlight being able to get 7 other friends together, and with a lot of perseverance, actually get all 8 of us into the same Dark Zone instance. It was considerable fun romping through the DZ as essentially an 8 man squad (although the game only technically allows 4 player squads). Because of how tedious it was to accomplish that though, and now knowing the game was just a looter shooter, I wasn't interested in paying out for the released game. I was gifted a key for free though so I eventually did play through the entire game and the DZ, but as expected, it just wasn't as fun and the magic we had from the beta simply wasn't there. The Division 2 looked like more of the same so passed on it entirely, looking like DLC for the original rather than a proper sequel, which is fine if you're a fan of the looter shooter style.
To be honest I prefer the hud in the retail as it's a bit more easy for if ur getting shot at u can see who is shooting at you so u can't qwikaly exit from the hud to shoot back then enter back into the hud as the e3 looks really good but it stops ur field of view so u cant see whos shooting at you but maybe if they did a division 3 they may use the e3 hud
I remember getting really excited for this. I remember even getting excited for Watch Dogs. The graphics looked amazing for both titles. I thought that was natural with the new generation. I remember my friend having no idea about this game and I told him like 9-months before release and he got so excited. We did play a fair amount. Bet never the amount me and him invested into BL2 or Destiny. I remember there also being a drone companion for The Division? I believe it was the Division. But this really was when I realized that companies can straight up lie to you and get away with it. Like Watch Dogs. That game they showed at E3 is probably if not definitely possible on current gen consoles. Probably even more so for PC. But there was no way what we got shown at E3 was going to be on the Xbox One and PS4. Consoles that were already underpowered when they were released ( 2013 ) Even more so since they developed WD for Xbox 360 and PS3.
for someone like me who just into the division game. i found some miss information. like how the tutorial world only for single player. it is a miss since after first save house in tutorial. i can play with my friend to all the the way opening scene. aka helicopter scene or NYC intro
dude, RDR 2 didnt feel 8 years apart from the 1st game, more like 4 Consoles are holding back gaming dude, previous gen they were very capable machine for their time: -Compared Assasins Creed 1 with 3, big difference in graphics, same hardware -Compared Uncharted 1 with 3, big difference in graphics, same hardware -Compared Halo 3 with 4, big difference in graphics, same hardware
Charles 8777 I didn’t say it felt or looked 8 years apart, although it completely does. Look at the first few PS3 games VS the last few games before the PS4. Huge difference in graphics so the consoles are very capable, its the game devs that have to figure out how to achieve those graphics. Companies like Rockstar or Naughty Dog know exactly how to use their in house game engine to the absolute max. Massive just built the Snowdrop engine for these Divison games so I’m sure they’re still figuring it out. However the PS4 Pro for example is 20 times more powerful than the PS3. Now that companies have more advanced game engines, amazing graphics should be a standard by now. But instead game companies are focused on making money so they rush games out and then downgrade the graphics in order for them to work instead of taking the necessary time to make a game like RDR2.
Charles 8777 Im sorry, I’m not understanding what your argument point is. I think really detailed graphics should be the standard now since games like Far Cry 5, RDR2, God of War, and Uncharted 4 easily stand out from other games. Also theres a big difference between AC1 and AC3. -Textures are better -Better View distance -Better anti aliasing -Better ambient occlusion -larger map size -more in game content like weapons and clothes. Games like AC3, and GTA5 or even the last of us was completely possible from the very beginning but developer technology wasn’t good enough so it wasn’t the consoles holding the capabilities of graphics back. However now game developers have technology better than what the consoles can ran so there shouldn’t be any reason for bad graphics. Also there is quite a difference between AC1 and AC2
@@superdutyzack if you compared a PS2 with a PS3 game from 2007-2008 you would see a huge difference If you compared a PS3 game with PS4 game from 2014-2015 you would see a much smaller difference
The mood. The mood is different. The E3 video looks so desaturated, foggy, snowy, ATMOSPHERIC. The retail version can have more polygons, but the color palette chosen, fog absence etc can't make up for it.
Is it me the only one who thinks the first division looks so much better than the two (playing it right now and amazing too)? Maybe the art direction? Idk but the overall looks much much better the first one. Watching the vid!
It’s hard to say. They both have their pros and cons in terms of visuals. However, the snow in the first one made the game look quite amazing. I’ll give it that lol
Idk guys but the overall image, even the chromatic aberration it has create such a wonderful image. And of course! The snow is the main thing about having this visuals. Im watching right now this video and looking at the retail version still amazes me much more than division 2. The mix between snow, that lighting, the environments and post process effects makes the game more impressive IMO. Cheers guys!
I don't know the exact technical term for it but there's something about the rendering or lighting of the original gameplay trailer that just seems leaps and bounds beyond even what division 2 manages to accomplish at max settings on PC. Pre-rendered maybe....
I think in terms of lighting this game is still one of the prettiest games we've got so far. In my opinion it also looks more coherent than the lighting in TD2.
Originally I was a bit disappointed with the downgrade of the graphics but I grew to love it. To this day I have spent so much time in the game and am already doing the same with the squeal.
I wonder if it’s possible to get it looking close to the e3 look with reshade or ray tracing mods I mean hell they did it with watchdogs I don’t see why it couldn’t be done with the division
I can't believe comments are so shocked by these videos. Any gamer should know that all trailers use a level of CGI that must be downscaled for smoother performance by launch
Would have been better if it was a story based game with just you and you’re friends that play through the story with each other rather than a online shooter.
They definitely reduced the amount of accessible buildings in the game especially in the Dark Zone, with the 1.8.3 meta it’s nearly impossible to get away from rogues when you have a limited places to hide
At that time we didn't have access to ray tracing tecnology. But looking this footage nowadays looks like the E3 gameplay had ray tracing activated. lol
please do a crysis 3 vs division 2 comparison. i just recently played both, and i gotta say, that even Crysis 3 on xbox360 looks better than division 2 on pc. It would be interesting to compare the scenes in both where there is overgrown vegetation over a metropolitan city buildings.
@@abishkarjungshah4539 it's more aesthetically pleasing than division 2 but for raw graphics pc will win hands down but I think the art direction of in crysis 3 looks better even if it's on the 360.
man I was just remembering when Ubisoft did this. I will never understand why they decided to fake the gameplay and graphics like that for the E3 reveal when they had an amazing product.
As a game developer myself i can tell you 3d models and textures are like 10% of the concern. Most impactful thing is lighting, particle effects, reflections,etc
After Star wars outlaws and avatar frontiers of pandora change in ubisoft snowdrop engine. I think 2013 E3 version can be achieved now finally in division 3. That's if Star wars OutLaws is as good as show is 2023 Ubisoft forward gameplay!
The lighting in the demo was much better and more realistic. It had more indirect and direct lighting sources, as well as many missing post processing and particle effects.
i think the biggest issue with this generation of gaming was the lack of understanding the hardware and what the xbox one and ps4 were actually capable of. i recently went back to play these games and honestly visually they look better then most games coming out in 2022 for the xbox series and ps5 next generation. the difference between the last generation and this is less about visual fidelities and more on optimization witch im all for. because honestly my ryzen 5 3600 and rx 6600 struggle to run these games in 1440 where newer titles run 1440 just fine. i would love to see a simple next gen update for both these games with console 60 fps and higher resolution and support for dlss frs and ray tracing although id never be able to run the latter lol. i started playing for the first time ever and other then the slight performance issues i cant honestly understand why ive owned both these games for years and never played them. im honestly having a blast especially where the first game was set like a week ago
Let's not forget that one of the reasons that games at e3 look much better than retail is because its alot easier to render 10%of a game than it is to render the whole thing
It was a huge downgrade, apart from the things mentioned here like animations, that were mindblowing on the trailer and ended up being generic at retail (dat bottle grab), many things that made that trailer jawdropping were missing in the final game: the high quality smoke effects and its erratic movement, shadows (those bottles again cast incredible shadows in the trailer), ambient occlusion (giving a lot of depth blending everything on screen in a believable manner, completely missing in the final game), motion blur, depth of field, lens flare effects, everything that made that cinematic vibe was gone. It looked pretty good at the end, but the trailer made it look like a breakthrough in visual fidelity, and that didn't happen.
I was definitely impressed with the final result, it's still a great looking game - and at least I have the hardware now to run it completely maxed out, unlike back in 2015 :D However... I have to say, the downgrade is - was - stark and extremely noticeable. It's not just about the assets in use, with the debris or the models, but the overall lighting, texture, and animation quality. You downplay a lot of that but I feel that's the primary examples of the downgrade and it's really hard to NOT see how stark the differences are. The lighting and animation quality in the 2013 reveal is magnificent - even for a game released today in 2019 - but none of that was present in the game at launch. Lighting, reflections, textures, animation, flame/spark/fire effects... all of it. Kinda like The Witcher 3, to be honest. That E3 reveal was utterly jaw-dropping, showcasing texture and lighting work that seemed utterly impossible, mindblowing even. The final release build is certainly still the best looking open world game to date (though GR Wildlands is a close runner up) but it pales in comparison to the E3 reveal and still ran like a dead dog with no legs on launch. To say I'm more than a little worried about the upcoming Cyberpunk 2077 is definitely an understatement :(
Man I cant quite figure out why but something with divison 2 just looks bad. The light Ray's are too bright. I hate that the menu is so bright and transparent. It's hard to see everything. The textures are nice but it just feels off
I think its pretty close to the E3.... when I first played it I was impressed and even though the game changed slightly I wouldn't say its a case of downgrade.
vibez, its not really a downgrade, the demo is a source/reference material for the developers, the e3 build is not really a playable version. its just a d e m o... im still impressed of the retail tho, still enjoying it till this day
How about reduce your contrast? The E3 demo has better lighting reflex, yes. The gameplay got composed to have "movie mode", it looks dimmed. Despite all the props added.
why do they go through the effort of remaking environments when they could be making new ones? is it just so playing through it feels different from the trailer?
It wasn’t so much the removed details or visual downgrade, it was the change in gameplay. The demo essentially implied that the whole map would be populated by players that you could randomly encounter; that the city was an open and ongoing multiplayer session. It was the idea of a narrative within an online game that really made The Division a game to be excited for. Now, it’s just about the loot; no longer about the potential social interactions which is ironic considering what the game is about.
This was just a misunderstanding on your side. In the E3 demo, the intro area was actually further into the game, and is a Dark Zone. It's clearly marked as a Dark Zone, and as the view pans out at the end of the trailer you can see it is clearly marked as a special zone on the map, with other areas of the map not functioning that way. The Division does have a fairly massive Dark Zone in it that functions exactly the way you are describing.
