Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon: Wildlands’ E3 2016 Demo running on NVIDIA’s GTX1080

Ubisoft showcased Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon: Wildlands at this year’s E3, and below you can find a video showcasing the game running on NVIDIA’s GTX1080. Now while the video claims that this footage does not represent the final product, we do have to say that we’re not really impressed with it. Here is hoping that Ubisoft will make enough changes to improve the game. Enjoy!

Ghost Recon Wildlands - My E3 Gameplay

79 thoughts on “Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon: Wildlands’ E3 2016 Demo running on NVIDIA’s GTX1080”

  1. So which do you prefer, bad raw alpha that looks like sh*t like this or polished vertical slices like The Division/Watch Dogs E3?

      1. Yes I’ve seen it but 2015 version was more a trailer, not a walk through and as usual it looks like a different area than the E3 2015.

      1. 2015 version is a trailer though, this is actual early build gameplay footage and yeah it looks awful.

  2. There are some nasty effects in that video omg. At least they don’t lie. as of now i guess.

    1. boring game play? it is a open world coop action stealth game, i mean if that is boring, i dont know what you looking for. We used to bash coop rpgs like destiny and borderlands, now we bash “play your way” games as well?

      What will they have to make next in order to find it impressive? To me this is mgsv with coop.

    2. gameplay looks pretty good idk what game you were watching but if i can attack them bases etc with some friends it will be epic

    1. you will be missing out on quite a few games if that is your stance .. we are still some time from games being built up with dx12 from the beginning imo

      what has dx12 done for us lately ?

      1. Vulkan still is much slower than DirectX – newest benchmarks: Phoronix 18.06.2016. I think that Vulkan always be slower than DirectX because DirectX is internal part of system.

        1. And somehow you think that benchmark represents Vulkans true performance? LOL. That game doesn’t even use Vulkan fully anyway and as said, it’s an early version. Please realised that their DirectX implementation is very mature, it’s all they worked on, it takes time to get another API mature with the same amount of work.

          1. This isn’t “early version” – this results are from 18.06.2016. This is after 6 months of optimization game and vulkan drivers.

          2. And you think 6 months of Vulkan officially being out is mature? The game doesn’t take full advantage of Vulkan, it’s a f*cking puzzle solving game that can run on a potato PC, it’s recommended spec is a 6 year old GPU LOL.

          3. So you think that after 6 months optimization of game and drivers its still “early” stage. Then how much longer we must wait to Vulkan be “mature”? One year? Two years? How long developer must wait before they start using this API

          4. Can’t seem to understand can you? The dev said the game won’t take full advantage of Vulkan and you are making sweeping statements about Vulkan based on one game which doesn’t fully utilise it, a game in which a 5 year old GPU is the recommended spec.

        2. This is real performance of Vulkan after 6 months of optimizations. Benchmark results form 18.06.2016 – Phoronix (site about linux). Newest build of this game, newest drivers. Real performance of current state of drivers and API

        3. Please, collaborate more on this “internal part of system” part.

          I think it’s all down to driver, OS, hardware and game optimization, and it all depends on the willingness of game developers, GPU manufacturers and open source community. In this order.

  3. Its ok guys 🙂 The game is boring anyways. I have never seen anything so dull to watch. Even if this had the most amazing gfx ever.. id still pass it.

    1. idk i seen the gwent showing 45mins for a card game this is at lest 5x more interesting then that

    1. No doubt consoles are the cause of this. Can’t wait for the new console gen to come out so they’ll downgrade just a littttttle bit less :(.

      1. isnt that what we said about this gen of consoles, and yet we are still held back.

        in a year when the “new” consoles are out, where will PC be? Yup still held back by the “new” underpowered consoles.

        1. Pc will always be held back by console. Most pcs gpu cost what a console costs, no doubt they’re much more powerful.

        2. Yeah um when the consoles aim for 30fps and not at even 1080p that equals console restrictions. Most xbox one games run at 720p/30fps. I think most expected 1080p, 60fps consoles. Maybe with native 4K consoles this will all change.

        1. Didn’t microsoft and sony announce xbox scorpio and ps4 neo? By nee gen i was wrong. I meant new iteration? Or console update ? I don’t really know how to call it since i think it’s the first time i see this.

          1. its 4x the resolution of 1080p given the fact the xbox one is only at 720p on the best graphical games it needs a huge huge upgrade. I think the gflops on xbox one is 1.3 a gtx 480 has about the same and it was released march of 2010 well xbox one was released nov 2013. The new scorpio console is suppose to have 6GFLOPS which compares to the very lastest some what high end cards out right now like a GTX 1070. A GTX 1080 has 8.2GLFOPS and a titanx has 10,257 GFLOPS a titan x(pascal) is the only card able to run every game in 4K @ 60fps.

    1. Yeah it does look bad but they claim it’s an early build.

      On another subject, that youtuber The Radbrad has 60fps footage of Deus EX Mankind Divided, he was allowed to play the E3 level at 60fps,

    2. yeah going to be hard to downgrade that anymore this honestly looks like console version of the game. Like they downgraded too much and have not added the extra detail PC gets yet. Oh well looks like i’ll have no problem playing at 144hz/144fps lol.

  4. Same bullsh*** over and over again by Ubitroll, downgraded graphics and boring gameplay.

  5. Wow. This looks… really bad. Ubisoft on a roll with these massive downgrades. I’ve boycotted their games since Farcry 3 and apparently it looks like I’m not missing much.

      1. Fc4 was a good time indeed. I’msure you could get a good deal. Paid it 60$ and imo, it was worth.

        But that new primal crap lol, ain’t worth 60$

  6. I dont understand all the complaints, it dont look as good as it did when shown in 2015 sure that is a given but not just ubi but most developers. If you really though it was going to look like that you are just a sap.

    Gameplay looks kinda like a mgs/gta heist . if all things go smooth it should be a good time a solid 7/10

    The people pretending to play was quite funny tho

    1. Like what Totalbiscuit said, this doesn’t look or feel anything like a ghost recon game. Previous ghost recons were very tactical, slow and methodical. This one is actiony and fast-paced.

      If it was named other than Ghost Recon, it would probably be okay.

      Maybe The Division: Jungle Warfare.

  7. I honestly would do terrible things just for a whisper of a Proper Ghost Recon Game hearkening back to the late 90’s and 2000’s.

    I can understand the downgrade, fine were used to it, but a ghost recon tactical shooter with no cover system, that is supposed to be stealth based.

    @_@

    Seriously, I just can’t.

  8. Again it’s not even the same place, plus the 2015 version was a trailer. Just to be clear, not defending Ubisoft here, just saying that comparison isn’t even near to each other.

    1. I understand, it’s just that you picked two completely different places because as usual their trailer area isn’t shown in the gameplay demo of 2016. You also fail to mention that both have GI, both have green colour bounce on the arms..

  9. Animations are looking like Division in the Jungle. Environment is downgraded af… I’m done with that bullshit.

  10. I know i’m exaggerating but it looks like the last one that came out last gen and looks as bad as that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *