Assassin's Creed Unity Thread

[Benstamania]

They should. X11 can do 1080 just fine.. The bs excuse that it's too hard should stop. Other devs can and have done it.

 

[Spider-Who?]

I love overreactions.

900 is FINE. It’s far better than 720. Just because one game is running at 1080 doesn’t mean every game can - Ubisot, like everyone else, is working with the FINITE resources of the Xbox and PS4. Everyone (here and elsewhere) has been drooling over the supped up engine, the record breaking crowd numbers/AI, etc. These things eat up those resources, just like everything else. Do you want a game that sacrifices quality, content, AI, etc solely so it can be 1080, or do you want a game that runs smoothly and is a game changer in a number of ways that runs at 900?

I’ll gladly take the game that runs at 900 and 30fps if it means it plays well and as the devs intended. And I have a 60” TV – well above the 47” threshold.

 

[LEVITIKUZ]

I get what you mean but co-op is multiplayer.

I cant remember if revealed or not but does anyone know if horses have made a return?

Well I meant like online matches. Playing through the Assassin's Creed series and I won't get all the achievements to the games with multiplayer fighting in them.

 

[Havok83]

I love overreactions.

900 is FINE. It’s far better than 720. Just because one game is running at 1080 doesn’t mean every game can - Ubisot, like everyone else, is working with the FINITE resources of the Xbox and PS4. Everyone (here and elsewhere) has been drooling over the supped up engine, the record breaking crowd numbers/AI, etc. These things eat up those resources, just like everything else. Do you want a game that sacrifices quality, content, AI, etc solely so it can be 1080, or do you want a game that runs smoothly and is a game changer in a number of ways that runs at 900?

I’ll gladly take the game that runs at 900 and 30fps if it means it plays well and as the devs intended. And I have a 60” TV – well above the 47” threshold.

I want a game that can do it all. They've all but said its possible but arent doing it for the PS4 to "avoid debates". THAT is the issue. If they said nothing and it just shipped as 900p for both, there will be little reaction. To my knowledge, The Witcher 3 is set to release at 900p on both platforms and you dont see a reaction to that bc the devs didnt come out and say they chose to maintain parity between the platforms

 

[Benstamania]

I love overreactions.

900 is FINE. It’s far better than 720. Just because one game is running at 1080 doesn’t mean every game can - Ubisot, like everyone else, is working with the FINITE resources of the Xbox and PS4. Everyone (here and elsewhere) has been drooling over the supped up engine, the record breaking crowd numbers/AI, etc. These things eat up those resources, just like everything else. Do you want a game that sacrifices quality, content, AI, etc solely so it can be 1080, or do you want a game that runs smoothly and is a game changer in a number of ways that runs at 900?

I’ll gladly take the game that runs at 900 and 30fps if it means it plays well and as the devs intended. And I have a 60” TV – well above the 47” threshold.

And I love when people don't understand what the issue really is and act like everyone else is over reacting. It's not a resolution issue. It's not that it's 900p 30fps. People just love to rip on other gamers who like the best quality possible.. This is about the fact that Ubisoft COULD get 1080/60 on the PS4.. They're just gimping it because they can't get it in the Xbox.

THATS the issue. I've said and everyone here and elsewhere have said that if it was simply "you know we tried but after testing we find that 900/30 is the best for the game" no one would care.. Parity is what kills this. It's NOT that they can't.. Or that they've tried.. They just won't do it on one system because they can't do it on another system.

Calling that bull***** is not over reacting. It's logical. Because it is BS. Now magically a day later after a **** storm ensues.. They're trying to cover their tracks by saying "oh resolution COULD go up! It's not set in stone guys!" After just saying that it was set in stone and stating that there would be no 1080p patch on any system.

Personally if "over reacting" gets devs to work a little harder then I'm all for it.

As for Witcher 3.. I think Havok is right, I remember reading CDPR say something about how they shoot for 1080 but 900 May be the best for the game.. And if that's the case I'm FINE with it. Don't force parity on me and then say "we didn't want people to debate which one looks better."

Let's make all cars look and run like crap now.. So my neighbors don't get jealous of my Jeep...

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

I don't understand the fixation on graphical output when we live in a world where Minecraft outsells everything. It's not that big of a deal, now if there was a substantial difference in the gameplay quality on one platform compared to the other, I could see being upset over that.

 

[Benstamania]

Again.. Are you guys just stopping at "it's 900p and not 1080p"? Because no one is *****ing about that. They're *****ing about FORCED parity. A dev can't get 1080 on one console so the other doesn't get it either. The PS4 could handle it.. Ubisoft said they're not doing it because "it would stop debates" about which one looks better.

That's what people are complaining about. Ubisoft is more or less gimping the PS4 version. That's BS. That's the complaint. Come on guys we're not *****ing about a game that is coming out that's 900p and the devs tried for 1080.. This is more of a parity debate then a graphics debate. If you read none of us are saying boo 900p! We're saying "well that's ******** that they're forcing us into a locked parity."

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

If the gimp doesn't effect the gameplay, why does it matter?

 

[X Knight]

If the gimp doesn't effect the gameplay, why does it matter?

it matters in the sense that one version ( PS4 ) may in fact have been held back because the other version ( X1 ) is "weaker."

and if you are a PS4 owner, I think you have the right to be concerned and angry about that to a degree. You paid money to get the console that is supposed to be technically more powerful, and now you find games are starting to be held back from their full potential because of the X1 version.

 

[Drz]

Yeah this is about Ubisoft's treatment of their consumers.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Fair enough, other than that, how is this game shaping up? I lost interest in the series after it became a yearly release and I'm looking to get back into it.

 

[Marvolo]

Aaaaaand now Ubisoft is in full on damage control, hahaha!

Ubisoft says resolution not finale. Could "go beyond" 900p.

But..but what about the debates Ubisoft?! Think of the chil'rins!

 

[Spider-Who?]

And I love when people don't understand what the issue really is and act like everyone else is over reacting. It's not a resolution issue. It's not that it's 900p 30fps. People just love to rip on other gamers who like the best quality possible.. This is about the fact that Ubisoft COULD get 1080/60 on the PS4.. They're just gimping it because they can't get it in the Xbox.

THATS the issue. I've said and everyone here and elsewhere have said that if it was simply "you know we tried but after testing we find that 900/30 is the best for the game" no one would care.. Parity is what kills this. It's NOT that they can't.. Or that they've tried.. They just won't do it on one system because they can't do it on another system.

Calling that bull***** is not over reacting. It's logical. Because it is BS. Now magically a day later after a **** storm ensues.. They're trying to cover their tracks by saying "oh resolution COULD go up! It's not set in stone guys!" After just saying that it was set in stone and stating that there would be no 1080p patch on any system.

Personally if "over reacting" gets devs to work a little harder then I'm all for it.

As for Witcher 3.. I think Havok is right, I remember reading CDPR say something about how they shoot for 1080 but 900 May be the best for the game.. And if that's the case I'm FINE with it. Don't force parity on me and then say "we didn't want people to debate which one looks better."

Let's make all cars look and run like crap now.. So my neighbors don't get jealous of my Jeep...

My point still stands - the difference between 900 and 1080 is not worth complaining about - whatever the reason is. Ubisoft couldn't get 1080 on the xbox, so god forbid they want to give ALL players - regardless of the system - equal experience.

I seem to recall people complaining all the time about how much it sucked when crossplatform games looked better on the 360 than the ps3 or vice versa, but now that a company is saying "screw that - we're going to try and give everyone the same quality game" and people are pissed because of that. Gamers.

 

[Marvolo]

Just read this on another forum:

PS4 advantages are all in memory bandwidth and GPU, so in a CPU locked situation both systems will perform certain tasks at the same FPS. However that means dick all for the GPU, and by locking the resolution of the game to what the Xbone can handle Ubisoft is just letting the PS4's GPU idle during those frames once its rendering tasks are finished (which it handles faster then the Xbone, so it is guaranteed to be idling).

Frame rate parity is understandable on these machines, game logic and physics are going to resolve basically at the same speed on both machines (minus small variation in OS overhead and a 150mhz advantage on the Xbone). Resolution makes zero sense unless the engine is doing a **** load of post processing on the CPU side, which isn't exactly the best way to split tasks on these systems.

Which brings me to what I asked last night. Why should the PS4 version be held back because the XBox cant keep up? The answer: it shouldnt. And while 1080p and 900p arent a huge difference if we allow this now then then Ubisoft will continue to make weaker PS4 versions of their games "to avoid debates and stuff". The gaming community needed to tell Ubisoft "hell no!" and thats exactly what it did.

 

[Benstamania]

My point still stands - the difference between 900 and 1080 is not worth complaining about - whatever the reason is. Ubisoft couldn't get 1080 on the xbox, so god forbid they want to give ALL players - regardless of the system - equal experience.

I seem to recall people complaining all the time about how much it sucked when crossplatform games looked better on the 360 than the ps3 or vice versa, but now that a company is saying "screw that - we're going to try and give everyone the same quality game" and people are pissed because of that. Gamers.

It's not fair to give everyone an "equal" experience when one system has the ability to take it further. That's like giving the kid who came in last a trophy that's just as big as the kid that came in first because it wouldn't be fair if only ONE got a trophy.. I hate this outlook.. Let's make it fair for eeeeeveryone. No. ********.

Parity sucks and I don't understand the mindset of anyone that thinks it's an OK practice.

Forced parity is ok.. But God FORBID they don't put a female Assassin in. The ground will shake with our wrath!

 

[Benstamania]

Just read this on another forum:




Which brings me to what I asked last night. Why should the PS4 version be held back because the XBox cant keep up? The answer: it shouldnt. And while 1080p and 900p arent a huge difference if we allow this now then then Ubisoft will continue to make weaker PS4 versions of their games "to avoid debates and stuff". The gaming community needed to tell Ubisoft "hell no!" and thats exactly what it did.

But dude.. GAAAAMEEERRRZZZ

 

[Havok83]

My point still stands - the difference between 900 and 1080 is not worth complaining about - whatever the reason is. Ubisoft couldn't get 1080 on the xbox, so god forbid they want to give ALL players - regardless of the system - equal experience.

I seem to recall people complaining all the time about how much it sucked when crossplatform games looked better on the 360 than the ps3 or vice versa, but now that a company is saying "screw that - we're going to try and give everyone the same quality game" and people are pissed because of that. Gamers.

I was a PS3 gamer and it would have been STUPID to gimp 360 games just because the PS3 had technical difficulties. People are supposed to be happy bc that's what they are doing this gen?

 

[TheVileOne]

there are 3 components involved. The tv, the hardware (system) and the software (game). Having a 1080p is the first step but if you don't have the other two which are capable of it, then you wont get a 1080p game. For example even though the PS3 could output in 1080p, few games actually supported that due to technical limitations rendering at a higher resolution, which is why 720p was the standard Some games even dipped below that to 576p and upscaled to 720p

Why is it so important though?

 

[Andrew Lucas]

You guys are now playing graphics?

Good to know.

 

[Havok83]

Why is it so important though?

what important?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I love overreactions.

900 is FINE. It’s far better than 720. Just because one game is running at 1080 doesn’t mean every game can - Ubisot, like everyone else, is working with the FINITE resources of the Xbox and PS4. Everyone (here and elsewhere) has been drooling over the supped up engine, the record breaking crowd numbers/AI, etc. These things eat up those resources, just like everything else. Do you want a game that sacrifices quality, content, AI, etc solely so it can be 1080, or do you want a game that runs smoothly and is a game changer in a number of ways that runs at 900?

I’ll gladly take the game that runs at 900 and 30fps if it means it plays well and as the devs intended. And I have a 60” TV – well above the 47” threshold.

I agree.

But, Ubisoft shot themselves in the foot because of the comments of one of the Unity producers. I think had it not been for that, there'd be alot less made over the 900 specifically. I think most people don't care about the fps.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Just read this on another forum:




Which brings me to what I asked last night. Why should the PS4 version be held back because the XBox cant keep up? The answer: it shouldnt. And while 1080p and 900p arent a huge difference if we allow this now then then Ubisoft will continue to make weaker PS4 versions of their games "to avoid debates and stuff". The gaming community needed to tell Ubisoft "hell no!" and thats exactly what it did.

Based on what?

 

[X Knight]

I agree.

But, Ubisoft shot themselves in the foot because of the comments of one of the Unity producers. I think had it not been for that, there'd be alot less made over the 900 specifically. I think most people don't care about the fps.

yep. pretty much.

Based on what?

based on that dev's original comment - about keeping both systems locked to 900p to "avoid debate and stuff."

that's an indirect/implicit way of suggesting that perhaps the X1 version was holding the PS4 version back.

now, it may or not be the actual case. but it certainly can be inferred from that original comment.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No that isn't what I am saying. I am saying where is it written that both games released on the two next gen systems shouldn't simply be the same?

 

[X Knight]

No that isn't what I am saying. I am saying where is it written that both games released on the two next gen systems shouldn't simply be the same?

I'm not sure I follow.

the article doesn't say they shouldn't be the same.

in fact, they say they are going to be the same.

and I think they should be. both consoles should be pushed to their max limits - well, as far as they can go without sacrificing performance/quality.

ideally, both the PS4 and X1 versions should get to 1080p. we know that both consoles are capable of it ( with the PS4 seemingly being easier to get there ).

but, if 900p is the number that the devs found gave them the best balance of visuals and performance, then that's what the max should be.