• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Assassin's Creed Unity -- The graphics "leap" we've all been waiting for.

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Oct 25, 2011
28,715
3
0
indeed in game the characters doesn't hold a candle to the order main characters..it will be fun to see the npc characters on the order vs unity....ahahahahah i already can imagine! :p

Well, ACU is rendering thousands of NPCs at a time, too. The fact that the characters look so good with the scale is very impressive.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,709
4
0
37
Nowhere, PA
I believe the point of the thread is that you can go however far you want to go, you won't find an open world game that looks better than Unity at its best. And I agree with that point.

The point of the thread. The point of the conversation going on the last few pages (of which I did not start, by the way, we were well under way when I joined) is to compare it to inFamous: Second Son, and the reality is in a fair 1v1 console comparison of Unity and Second Son Unity runs like a piece of garbage and is a technical disaster and Second Son understands the limitations of the platform it is on and works within it to deliver clear and smooth gameplay that is far more appealing visually due to this AND it functionally impacts the quality of the gameplay.

If we're going to compare a console game to PC games, there are a billion games in the open world genre alone that can be made to dominate it technically. The shit you can do in PC make it a nonstarter and essentially renders all such comparisons pointless. PC wins again and again.


To the overall point of the topic, I can't even be impressed with Unity on PC given how atrociously optimized it is. Maybe after ten years of patches and tweaks and working with AMD or whatever the fuck they gotta do they'll actually release things in a state that can be appreciated more easily from a technical perspective without having to go through a billion hoops to do so. But I don't know when that'll be. Maybe you'll fix their shoddy work like you do for half the PC ports these days.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Feb 14, 2014
25,271
2
0
Philadelphia

VFX_Veteran

Banned
Oct 13, 2013
1,260
0
440
www.imdb.com
I don't think that we're going to see console games toppling pc games in the beginning of the next-gen console cycle like we did during last gen. The last gen consoles were relatively more powerful than ps4/xbone when compared to the high end rigs of their respective release periods. UC4 will propably have some elements that are unmatched even on PC when it comes but the reality of the situation is that on PC you can brute force the fps past console versions or resolution and AA to provide an image quality that console games can only dream of. I still do expect to be blown away by UC4. I do think that we're going to see games on the consoles that seem more impressive than Unity on pc. Games with better physics, textures, character models, environment interaction etc. I'm talking about exclusives of course that won't see a pc version. Still, even the best looking console games will be more blurry and have more jaggies than pc games. Of course there is the possibility that AC:U is the Crysis of this generation with nothing in the console space coming close to it, but if so I would be markedly disappointed.

I really don't understand this.

Do people really think that Naughty Dog can do something that hasn't been implemented before at other companies and ONLY on the PS4? Like I'm not sure why people think this. The rationale seems to be that ND will produce something on the PS4 that cant' be done on a high end PC. Why? The PS4 *is* a PC albeit a downsized one.
 

VFX_Veteran

Banned
Oct 13, 2013
1,260
0
440
www.imdb.com
To the overall point of the topic, I can't even be impressed with Unity on PC given how atrociously optimized it is. Maybe after ten years of patches and tweaks and working with AMD or whatever the fuck they gotta do they'll actually release things in a state that can be appreciated more easily from a technical perspective without having to go through a billion hoops to do so. But I don't know when that'll be. Maybe you'll fix their shoddy work like you do for half the PC ports these days.

That's just simply a false statement. The game is taxing not because it's atrociously optimized but because of the assets they are trying to reach. And the PC version may not be completely optimized 100% but it's definitely not so unoptimized that it's unplayable on most PCs (like the consoles). I'm averaging 40fps with everything MAX except shadows and AA @ 1440p on a GTX 980.
 

LeleSocho

Banned
Jun 13, 2011
16,020
13
760
Probably it's just me but aside the rose window it really doesn't impress me that much, sure it looks pretty but... meh.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,709
4
0
37
Nowhere, PA
That's just simply a false statement. The game is taxing not because it's atrociously optimized but because of the assets they are trying to reach. And the PC version may not be completely optimized 100% but it's definitely not so unoptimized that it's unplayable on most PCs (like the consoles). I'm averaging 40fps with everything MAX except shadows and AA @ 1440p on a GTX 980.

Did you work on this game? I ask that because it's not like even Ubisoft hasn't had to fess up to the issues at this point. The game was so poorly optimized that Ubisoft had to make a statement about how it has to "work with AMD" to fix the issue with certain GPU/CPU configurations (this is how bad they are, they didn't realize they should have been working with AMD prior to launch. Like no one stopped the ship and said 'now wait a minute' despite the fact AC: Unity has a development crew of like 14 trillion people). And there have been widespread reports across the internet detailing people with intensely powerful systems that still fail to stick at 60fps even with options turned down much of the time. It fluctuates madly for sometimes no reason.

The game was released in an unfinished state, and only people with truly great PCs can brute force it to function the way we all wish it did most everywhere else.

Shit, Ubisoft even made an embarrassing comment last year which they had to retract (like a million of their other horrendous PR statements and actions this past year and a half) about how PC optimization isn't important. It shows with the majority of PC port they release the effort they're going through (emphasis: extremely little effort).
 

theWB27

Member
Feb 6, 2014
9,147
1
400
There are some making Unity out to be much worse tech wise than it really is. Ten years of patches to become playable...c'mon.
 

luca_29_bg

Member
Aug 30, 2006
2,023
216
1,505
italy
Well, ACU is rendering thousands of NPCs at a time, too. The fact that the characters look so good with the scale is very impressive.

the main characters i suppose you mean ? Because npc are totally crap, at least for me, it's useless to have so much characters on screen with ugly faces, little geometry, and assets repeated (and the pop-in it's wonderful too) and this just because they are too much. This is the limit of the open world games, too much with too little quality and roughness around....every corner! Open world games will never be able to overcome linear games until than we wouldn't have surpassed a certain level of the detail, where the eyes can't see any further improvements. So much distant in the future! I dream an open world game, with the amount of npc of unity and the quality of the main characters of the order for every one of them. God i can't imagine what kind of computational power would be needed to do this.
 

JordanN

Banned
Apr 21, 2012
23,121
18,229
1,335
Brampton, Ontario
I really don't understand this.

Do people really think that Naughty Dog can do something that hasn't been implemented before at other companies and ONLY on the PS4? Like I'm not sure why people think this. The rationale seems to be that ND will produce something on the PS4 that cant' be done on a high end PC. Why? The PS4 *is* a PC albeit a downsized one.
I don't think anyone is saying that.

I think the actual scenario is Naughty Dog has millions of dollars in budget backing them, and some of the best artists and programmers in the industry, to make a game that is one of the most advanced at release.
 

luca_29_bg

Member
Aug 30, 2006
2,023
216
1,505
italy
Did you work on this game? The game was so poorly optimized that Ubisoft had to make a statement about how it has to "work with AMD" to fix the issue with certain GPU/CPU configurations (this is how bad they are, they didn't realize this shit had to be done prior to launch). And there have been widespread reports across the internet detailing people with intensely powerful systems that still fail to stick at 60fps even with options turned down much of the time. It fluctuates madly for sometimes no reason.

The game was released in an unfinished state, and only people with truly great PCs can brute force it to function the way we all wish it did most everywhere else.

Shit, Ubisoft even made an embarrassing comment last year which they had to retract (like a million of their other horrendous PR statements and actions this past year and a half) about how PC optimization isn't important. It shows with the majority of PC port they release the effort they're going to.

with my 7950 oc to 1190 mhz, it stay between 19-24 fps for the majority of the times, and sometimes touch 30 when you're on the roofs, and crash after a while, always. Gpu it's always at 99% even when the character is in front of a door...it's a useless game, totally crap and no downsampling or brute force solution can save the face of ubisoft from this atrocius bad impression. Ubisoft can go to plowing fields, for me, that is their future!
 

SaberEdge

Member
Mar 5, 2014
833
3
475
To the overall point of the topic, I can't even be impressed with Unity on PC given how atrociously optimized it is. Maybe after ten years of patches and tweaks and working with AMD or whatever the fuck they gotta do they'll actually release things in a state that can be appreciated more easily from a technical perspective without having to go through a billion hoops to do so. But I don't know when that'll be. Maybe you'll fix their shoddy work like you do for half the PC ports these days.

Really? What is your setup? Because I get a completely stable framerate with all settings maxed out (minus anti-aliasing simply because FXAA in this game actually looks the best) along with a bunch of downsampling. That's on a GTX 970, but even on my previous card, a GTX 770, I was able to get a stable 30fps with mostly maxed settings.

I'm being 100% honest, when you get this game running smoothly and you just walk around the city taking in the sights nothing else touches this game. It seems like there is literally an eye-grabbing scene around every corner.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Oct 25, 2011
28,715
3
0
the main characters i suppose you mean ? Because npc are totally crap, at least for me, it's useless to have so much characters on screen with ugly faces, little geometry, and assets repeated (and the pop-in it's wonderful too) and this just because they are too much. This is the limit of the open world games, too much with too little quality and roughness around....every corner! Open world games will never be able to overcome linear games until than we wouldn't have surpassed a certain level of the detail, where the eyes can't see any further improvements. So much distant in the future! I dream an open world game, with the amount of npc of unity and the quality of the main characters of the order for every one of them. God i can't imagine what kind of computational power would be needed to do this.

Yes, I meant the main characters.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,709
4
0
37
Nowhere, PA
Really? What is your setup? Because I get a completely stable framerate with all settings maxed out (minus anti-aliasing simply because FXAA in this game actually looks the best) along with a bunch of downsampling. That's on a GTX 970, but even on my previous card, a GTX 770, I was able to get a stable 30fps with mostly maxed settings.

I'm being 100% honest, when you get this game running smoothly and you just walk around the city taking in the sights nothing else touches this game. It seems like there is literally an eye-grabbing scene around every corner.

There will always be exceptions to the rule. The idea of poor optimization means that you get wildly different experiences from system to system, even amongst platforms that have relatively little difference in their overall technical specifications. Which is exactly what is being reported in Unity. Some people get it to work OK, some people have horrendous fluctuations despite having phenomenal gaming level PCs, others simply can't get it to work at all (see various reports in endless Unity tech topics). The issues with Unity had been especially egregious, which is why Ubisoft like has a running patch list site for Unity now to keep the dialogue open amongst owners of the game and why they've had to release like fifteen statements about its performance, some specifically about Unity's issues on PC. No game that was actually well optimized would require the publisher to do so much damage control :p

I am never buying a Ubisoft game again after the events of this past year and a half (not specific to only Assassin's Creed, there's literally too many insulting Ubisoft issues to go over here from this past year 1/2), but I have been following extensively the reported problems and ways in which Ubisoft are responding to see if they issue an appropriate apology and promise to end their behavior from the past year (to see if it's OK for me to start buying their products again). So I've watched many HQ videos, technical analysis, read aggregate reports of problems. It's crazy the number of problems that have arisen from this game.

with my 7950 oc to 1190 mhz, it stay between 19-24 fps for the majority of the times, and sometimes touch 30 when you're on the roofs, and crash after a while, always. Gpu it's always at 99% even when the character is in front of a door...it's a useless game, totally crap and no downsampling or brute force solution can save the face of ubisoft from this atrocius bad impression. Ubisoft can go to plowing fields, for me, that is their future!

Is this really your experience? I mean I've definitely heard people especially on AMD PCs essentially say the damn game is a complete crapshoot.
 
Feb 13, 2013
9,318
1
470
There will always be exceptions to the rule. The idea of poor optimization means that you get wildly different experiences from system to system, even amongst platforms that have relatively little difference in their overall technical specifications. Which is exactly what is being reported in Unity. Some people get it to work OK, some people have horrendous fluctuations despite having phenomenal gaming level PCs, others simply can't get it to work at all (see various reports in endless Unity tech topics). The issues with Unity had been especially egregious, which is why Ubisoft like has a running patch list site for Unity now to keep the dialogue open amongst owners of the game and why they've had to release like fifteen statements about its performance, some specifically about Unity's issues on PC. No game that was actually well optimized would require the publisher to do so much damage control :p

I am never buying a Ubisoft game again after the events of this past year and a half (not specific to only Assassin's Creed, there's literally too many insulting Ubisoft issues to go over here from this past year 1/2), but I have been following extensively the reported problems and ways in which Ubisoft are responding to see if they issue an appropriate apology and promise to end their behavior from the past year (to see if it's OK for me to start buying their products again). So I've watched many HQ videos, technical analysis, read aggregate reports of problems. It's crazy the number of problems that have arisen from this game.



Is this really your experience? I mean I've definitely heard people especially on AMD PCs essentially say the damn game is a complete crapshoot.

The new beta drivers AMD released have drastically improved performance on Unity. I'm on a 7850 and feel like I gained about 10 frames. Was getting horrible stuttering and freezing before, now that's all but gone and it's perfectly playable now. I just think Ubi was rushed for holiday release and didn't spend the time needed to optimize, I bet if they were given a few extra months it'd be a different story, for all platforms involved.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,709
4
0
37
Nowhere, PA
The new beta drivers AMD released have drastically improved performance on Unity. I'm on a 7850 and feel like I gained about 10 frames. Was getting horrible stuttering and freezing before, now that's all but gone and it's perfectly playable now. I just think Ubi was rushed for holiday release and didn't spend the time needed to optimize, I bet if they were given a few extra months it'd be a different story, for all platforms involved.

That's good to hear. I hope by the time they finally fix everything they can issue that apology and promise to end their behavior from the past year and a half. This way I can get right on and try it out, given that prior to this I had never failed to purchase any AC game :p
 

SaberEdge

Member
Mar 5, 2014
833
3
475
That's just simply a false statement. The game is taxing not because it's atrociously optimized but because of the assets they are trying to reach. And the PC version may not be completely optimized 100% but it's definitely not so unoptimized that it's unplayable on most PCs (like the consoles). I'm averaging 40fps with everything MAX except shadows and AA @ 1440p on a GTX 980.

I agree. When the game first came out and I heard it was poorly optimized I believed it. But since having bought and played the game on both a GTX 770 and a GTX 970, and playing several other big recent multiplat releases, I no longer see the logic in that.

And you're right, there's no way for any of us to know for certain if a particular game is perfectly well optimized. In reality, every game could always be more optimized than it is, on both PC and consoles. But with budgets and time constraints the developers don't have the luxury of continuing to optimize for forever.

The only thing that makes sense to me is to weigh a game's performance relative to its visuals and to the performance of other games releasing in the same time frame or with similar visuals.

And the fact is, I've had more issues with both Far Cry 4 and Dragon Age Inquisition than with ACU. I am unable to achieve a solid 60fps at max settings in any of these games, even on my GTX 970. Moreover, there is still some stuttering in FC4 and DAI that I have so far been unable to resolve, while ACU on the other hand is nearly always free of stutter for me. And beyond all that, although FC4 and DAI are two of the best looking games this year, ACU still easily beats both of them in the graphics department.
 

VFX_Veteran

Banned
Oct 13, 2013
1,260
0
440
www.imdb.com
I don't think anyone is saying that.

I think the actual scenario is Naughty Dog has millions of dollars in budget backing them, and some of the best artists and programmers in the industry, to make a game that is one of the most advanced at release.

But I can say that about a lot of companies.. Ubisoft being one of them that have even more money than ND.
 

JordanN

Banned
Apr 21, 2012
23,121
18,229
1,335
Brampton, Ontario
But I can say that about a lot of companies.. Ubisoft being one of them that have even more money than ND.
But Ubisoft has to spend that money on 3 platforms. They also seem keen on pushing a game out the door before it is finished.

Naughty Dog gets to work at their own pace, while focusing on just getting the best out of PS4's hardware.
 

bearlabored

Member
May 31, 2013
64
0
300
People talking about faces and no Ryse pics?




And this is not prerendered video. Seamless transition between gameplay and hq models.
 

SaberEdge

Member
Mar 5, 2014
833
3
475


Well, I know this isn't a personal screenshot (it's from the Dead Kings DLC trailer), but it looks cool. I really like the atmosphere in this shot.
 

PLASTICA-MAN

Member
Dec 24, 2011
7,129
8
720
I consider a cutscene to be animation which the user isn't in control but yet the game engine is free to render a set path of scripted instructions as fast it can.

In that regard, the Order has several cutscenes..

-M

The order has 100% ingame custscenes and they are even interactive. you won't stay passive in many of them and you can control what the character does like when he is checking his gun, you can move your hand to turn it around in the cutscene to check more angles of it. You can move the scope and zoom in in the part where the character is checking sth far in the cutscene. etc.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/...-cinematics-and-gameplay.html#~oWq3PGmIHzhTpn
 

Holy_Chic

Banned
Jul 16, 2014
181
0
0
Absolutely loving the game thus far. Yeah it has flaws, but I haven't played an Assassins Creed since probably #2, and I think it's a blast.

One question though. How the hell do you access the mini map?
 

SaberEdge

Member
Mar 5, 2014
833
3
475
Absolutely loving the game thus far. Yeah it has flaws, but I haven't played an Assassins Creed since probably #2, and I think it's a blast.

One question though. How the hell do you access the mini map?

The mini map is one of the HUD elements that can be turned on and off in the options. It can also be hidden or enabled as part of the on-screen HUD by clicking in the right analogue stick. I hope this was what you were asking about.

I'm loving the game too. I just played it for a few hours today and I had so much fun.
 

dex3108

Member
Nov 12, 2011
11,545
4
765
Many users here are praising individual parts of games without taking whole picture into the count. Yes sure ND will make beautiful game with amazing environments and characters but it will be linear game. If we look individual parts every game will have their advantage.

For example one of the most impressive face tech is Nvidia FaceWorks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d1ZOYU4gpo

It is amazing tech but it is only one small part in video game. AC Unity is impressive achievement when you look whole picture. From number of polygons to PB Materials, from GI implementation to amount of physics used on places you wouldn't expect. Add to that number of NPCs and huge open world environment and you can't say that game is not currently one of the most visually impressive game on the market.
 

nOoblet16

Member
Feb 1, 2010
15,340
0
915
Liverpool
Unity looks amazing in screens, but in motion it can be mind blowing. Nobody is making this stuff up.

Man I am not making it up either, I have the game so I do know how it looks in motion, it in no way looks mind blowing, there are too many flaws in it with regards to LOD issues with objects and NPCs. You can't just downplay such a significant flaw by saying "yea there are glitches and LOD" when it is the most important factor determining how a game looks in motion, especially for this game as it relies on NPCs for world building.

As it stands it's the worst game out there released this gen as far as LOD transitions are concerned. Visual consistency is what matters when you look at a game in motion and AC Unity is very poor at that. Also the lack of motion blur both camera and per object especially) automatically makes it slightly less impressive in motion. Smooth implementation of per objection motion blur is especially needed for a game to look natural in motion as it is a real life effect and AC Unity completely lacks it. I also personally dislike how overblown Unity's ambient lighting is, this is of course an opinion. And as it stands, despite AC Unity on consoles having the same graphical presets as PC version it still looks considerably worse than Infamous and that is not entirely down to the resolution and framerate differences.

The game has fantastic art style and it is this that you see in the paintings and engravings which makes it look impressive, but that is not technical detail that's artistic. I firmly believe that if AC Unity did not have this stylised environmental lighting (emphasis on the word stylised), people would not think of it this way.
 

Shredderi

Member
Feb 24, 2013
9,302
1
450
I really don't understand this.

Do people really think that Naughty Dog can do something that hasn't been implemented before at other companies and ONLY on the PS4? Like I'm not sure why people think this. The rationale seems to be that ND will produce something on the PS4 that cant' be done on a high end PC. Why? The PS4 *is* a PC albeit a downsized one.

Not what I'm saying. I find it hard to articulate exactly what I mean. An exclusive linear console game often manages to look impressive even amongst pc versions of multiplat games. Maybe it's because of how much can be optimised when only working on one specific hardware. If an AAA game were made for pc only with the budgets that console games (witcher 2 comes to mind) get then no console game would propably touch it, linear or open world. I'm really bad at explaining this and maybe it's the kind of thing that you either get or don't. I'm not saying that ps4 will suddenly do some tech that hasn't been done on pc. On many accounts I agree with you, but I don't want to say that AC:U is the pinnacle for times to come just yet before seeing some of the upcoming console games in action.
 

FeiRR

Banned
May 22, 2013
3,533
6,389
820
Poland
Well I haven't finished either game, but I do own both
Well, I thought you would link to your trophies but anyway thanks for the proof. Which shows perfectly why you have no idea what you're talking about. Streets in Seattle repopulate along the storyline in ISS because you free them from police-like oppression. Also, the arena mode in the DLC offers probably more than a hundred NPCs on screen with a lot of particle and lighting effects at the same time, no significant frame drops. I find it very impressive. Of course it never reaches the level of ACU but why would it. The crowds in ACU are impressive but quite pointless. There could be 10 times less people and sneaking through the crowd would be the same. Not to mention confusion while fighting in such a crowd. Those crowds are a bad design decision, in my opinion.
And I'll say it again, I think SS looks absolutely amazing. And there was nothing cherry pick about that screen, I think it looks great, just not when compared to Unity.
Okay, it's your opinion. Mine is different. The biggest problem I have with ACU is not the resolution on PS4 nor the performance. Textures look terrible in most lighting conditions, especially in bright day and at night. IQ is terrible, probably because of the AA solution they use (which also produces really bad artifacts when models are highlighted). I also don't like models of NPCs. Because there are so many of them, they are low-poly. What I find impressive is the draw distance when you climb high towers to synchronize and Arno's face in cutscenes also looks good (other characters not so much, the girl looks like a plastic doll, for example, I'm not sure why they chose such a bad shader for her skin).

As to the PC version of ACU, the improvements in graphics aren't that impressive considering what hardware it requires to run smoothly. My i7 chokes on those crowds almost as badly as "the netbook CPU" in PS4, which it really shouldn't (devbox differences, my ass, what devbox did they have for my PC?). I know I have a very basic GPU (GTX 660) but it should at least be able to run the game at 20-ish FPS, not 5-10 with high settings in just 1080p. No other game runs so badly and if I ever wanted to play it on PC, I'd have to spend €350 on a new GPU.

Those fluctuations also say how badly optimized this game is. Frame drops don't happen only because of crowds (in fact that one scene with 10k NPCs runs not so bad). There's nothing impressive about overshooting your design assumptions and making a game only the high end hardware can run well, just for the sake of checking off some bulletpoints. Games are made to be enjoyed through gameplay and eyecandy is only a bonus. If they wanted to make a game for enthusiast PC users, they should have done so. Why they didn't? Because fuck you, give me your money, to quote a well-known youtuber. When they aim for closed platforms with known specs, I expect them to deliver exactly what they should. If I wanted to admire realtime graphics on high-end hardware, there are much better places for that than the gaming industry. Because there's always a more powerful PC that the one you have at home so you've already lost before you even entered the race.
 

elyetis

Member
Dec 4, 2011
3,146
0
490
Really? What is your setup? Because I get a completely stable framerate with all settings maxed out (minus anti-aliasing simply because FXAA in this game actually looks the best) along with a bunch of downsampling. That's on a GTX 970, but even on my previous card, a GTX 770, I was able to get a stable 30fps with mostly maxed settings.
What do you call "stable" and "mostly maxed" ? the only way for me not to get any dips below 30 fps on my 780, is to be on high ( not very high, not ultra; I think I even need to have shadow on low ) that's with SSAO and FXAA.
 

SaberEdge

Member
Mar 5, 2014
833
3
475
Man I am not making it up either, I have the game so I do know how it looks in motion, it in no way looks mind blowing, there are too many flaws in it with regards to LOD issues with objects and NPCs. You can't just downplay such a significant flaw by saying "yea there are glitches and LOD" when it is the most important factor determining how a game looks in motion, especially for this game as it relies on NPCs for world building.

As it stands it's the worst game out there released this gen as far as LOD transitions are concerned. Visual consistency is what matters when you look at a game in motion and AC Unity is very poor at that. Also the lack of motion blur both camera and per object especially) automatically makes it slightly less impressive in motion. Smooth implementation of per objection motion blur is especially needed for a game to look natural in motion as it is a real life effect and AC Unity completely lacks it. I also personally dislike how overblown Unity's ambient lighting is, this is of course an opinion. And as it stands, despite AC Unity on consoles having the same graphical presets as PC version it still looks considerably worse than Infamous and that is not entirely down to the resolution and framerate differences.

The game has fantastic art style and it is this that you see in the paintings and engravings which makes it look impressive, but that is not technical detail that's artistic. I firmly believe that if AC Unity did not have this stylised environmental lighting (emphasis on the word stylised), people would not think of it this way.

Actually, the whole LOD thing is highly exaggerated in my opinion. Yes, in certain very specific situations you can find relatively poor LOD on some distant buildings. But the vast majority of the time it's the exact opposite: I find that the density of objects around me and the quality of the LODs even at quite a distance is extremely impressive.

The pop-in on NPCs is a real thing and it's certainly a bit of a blemish, but honestly it feels like you are making it out to be more than it is. It would be like a person saying something like, "the fact that Infamous Second Son has pixelated, blotchy shadows just ruins the game's visual consistency". In both cases they're flaws that I notice, but they don't take me out of the games or destroy the otherwise lovely visuals.

I mean, a few of you keep chirping about the LOD levels in ACU, but I don't get it. What are you comparing it to? ACU has the greatest density of assets I've ever seen in a game. Typically when I'm on a high point in ACU there is an absurd amount of detail every direction I look.




Views like those above are more typical of what I see when I'm on rooftops and high points in the game. The level of detail in the environment is generally very high, especially considering the amount of stuff being rendered on screen. It makes no sense to criticize ACU for something that similar games like Infamous Second Son do no better, or are perhaps worse at.




Oh, and ACU doesn't have the same graphics settings on consoles as on PC. Go read the digital foundry face off, the console versions are mostly equivalent to the "high" settings on PC. The PC version has higher quality textures, shadows and effects, as well as more advanced ambient occlusion (HBAO+) and anti-aliasing. The PC version will also be getting a patch to add tessellation.

"With the addition of HBAO+, PCSS, TXAA, and DirectX 11 tessellation, the PC edition of Assassin’s Creed Unity extends its advantage over other versions, having already topped them with higher-quality textures and effects, and sharper detail all round."
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/guides/assassins-creed-unity-graphics-and-performance-guide
 

TGO

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Sep 5, 2007
12,054
13,857
1,820
UK
in game or cut-scene when they talk ?
What's the difference? Have you played Unity?
Cut-scenes are seamless like in MGS, the hud disappears and that's it, it don't magically load in super high details and lighting and replace the model's while we blink for everything, there's probably a few adjustments for the cut-scenes but nothing major like people are making out, Unity looks good regardless of Platform, I wish it was 1080p@30 on PS4 because it's already a beautiful game even at 900p and the framerate isn't as bad as AC1, in fact after the 2nd patch I haven't had any problems on PS4 other then the stain windows areas.
I can't wait to see what future AC's will be like.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Feb 14, 2014
25,271
2
0
Philadelphia
Those screenshots from ingame, and not from prerendered video.
You can see texture quality changes in them, if you are playing PC version.
Those specific frames though, at least the first one is from a cutscene, the scene where Marius gets knocked down during the Saving Private Ryan inspired beach scene.
 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,811
4
850
Those specific frames though, at least the first one is from a cutscene, the scene where Marius gets knocked down during the Saving Private Ryan inspired beach scene.

The first one when you get up on the beach there after being knocked out is real time. Same with the bridge collapse at night time scene.

The ones that are not real time have macro blocking artifacts and stuff (are also quite obviously rendered at 900p).
 

OsirisBlack

Member
Feb 7, 2014
3,092
5,624
840
I really don't understand this.

Do people really think that Naughty Dog can do something that hasn't been implemented before at other companies and ONLY on the PS4? Like I'm not sure why people think this. The rationale seems to be that ND will produce something on the PS4 that cant' be done on a high end PC. Why? The PS4 *is* a PC albeit a downsized one.

I think you're taking peoples statements about Naughty Dog the wrong way. The thing is they have a very talented group of programmers and artists and the same can be said of many studios. Unlike some of those other studios they tend to Optimize their games to an absurd degree and don't generally rush a product out every year like its some factory production line. If they took an extra year between Assassins Creed games or COD games they would be much better for it.

In my opinion there are entirely too many people working on Assassins creed games and that tends to lead to disconnects and limited cohesion as is evident in the final product that is Unity. If Quantic Dreams/Sucker Punch/Naughty Dog/Ready at Dawn or Sony Santa Monica can do what they did with the PS3 and are currently aiming to do on the PS4 I can only imagine what they could do if they shifted their focus to PC only. They actually take pride in their final product something every developer/studio should do.
 

CozMick

Banned
Sep 28, 2009
6,347
1
0
S-O-T
I really don't understand this.

Do people really think that Naughty Dog can do something that hasn't been implemented before at other companies and ONLY on the PS4? Like I'm not sure why people think this. The rationale seems to be that ND will produce something on the PS4 that cant' be done on a high end PC. Why? The PS4 *is* a PC albeit a downsized one.

They did it with Uncharted 2, 3 and the last of us.
 

elelunicy

Member
Nov 20, 2012
829
0
545
Ryse cutscenes have been confirmed to be pre-rendered, but they share the same models as the gameplay.

The pre-rendered scenes in Ryse look way worse than the real-time scenes and it's not even funny.

AC:U's is just unreal and wonderful. But it's not at the point where I can't appreciate Far Cry 4 and Dragon Age.

I've been playing both of these games and yeah they're very impressive on PC.

I don't know why people here keep mentioning PS4 exclusives like UC4, ISS and The Order though. Just the mere fact that they are on PS4 only should be enough to exclude them from any discussion of the best graphics. 1080p is just embarrassingly low after you experience games like Ryse and AC Unity in 5160x2160.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Feb 14, 2014
25,271
2
0
Philadelphia
The first one when you get up on the beach there after being knocked out is real time. Same with the bridge collapse at night time scene.
The ones that are not real time have macro blocking artifacts and stuff (are also quite obviously rendered at 900p).
No, you are wrong.

I cant even argue about this, just play the game on PC.

The pre-rendered scenes in Ryse look way worse than the real-time scenes and it's not even funny.
Just checked, you guys are right. I stand corrected.
 

MickeyKnox

Member
Jul 21, 2006
11,816
2
1,040
New York City
www.inkandpressure.com
The pre-rendered scenes in Ryse look way worse than the real-time scenes and it's not even funny.



I've been playing both of these games and yeah they're very impressive on PC.

I don't know why people here keep mentioning PS4 exclusives like UC4, ISS and The Order though. Just the mere fact that they are on PS4 only should be enough to exclude them from any discussion of the best graphics. 1080p is just embarrassingly low after you experience games like Ryse and AC Unity in 5160x2160.

Not that 1080 isn't piddly by this point, but you are not playing those games at that resolution even with a Tri-SLI setup.
 

luca_29_bg

Member
Aug 30, 2006
2,023
216
1,505
italy
There will always be exceptions to the rule. The idea of poor optimization means that you get wildly different experiences from system to system, even amongst platforms that have relatively little difference in their overall technical specifications. Which is exactly what is being reported in Unity. Some people get it to work OK, some people have horrendous fluctuations despite having phenomenal gaming level PCs, others simply can't get it to work at all (see various reports in endless Unity tech topics). The issues with Unity had been especially egregious, which is why Ubisoft like has a running patch list site for Unity now to keep the dialogue open amongst owners of the game and why they've had to release like fifteen statements about its performance, some specifically about Unity's issues on PC. No game that was actually well optimized would require the publisher to do so much damage control :p

I am never buying a Ubisoft game again after the events of this past year and a half (not specific to only Assassin's Creed, there's literally too many insulting Ubisoft issues to go over here from this past year 1/2), but I have been following extensively the reported problems and ways in which Ubisoft are responding to see if they issue an appropriate apology and promise to end their behavior from the past year (to see if it's OK for me to start buying their products again). So I've watched many HQ videos, technical analysis, read aggregate reports of problems. It's crazy the number of problems that have arisen from this game.



Is this really your experience? I mean I've definitely heard people especially on AMD PCs essentially say the damn game is a complete crapshoot.

i have an i7 860 oc 3.7 ghz and 8 gb ram, yes run in this way on my pc, and crash every time i play for some time, maybe 15 minutes ? Oh and there is not so much difference between settings, low, high or ultra, only switching from hbao to ssao do something for perfomance. I refuse to play in state, and i can't understand how a gpu stay at 99% all the fucking time!
 

luca_29_bg

Member
Aug 30, 2006
2,023
216
1,505
italy
The new beta drivers AMD released have drastically improved performance on Unity. I'm on a 7850 and feel like I gained about 10 frames. Was getting horrible stuttering and freezing before, now that's all but gone and it's perfectly playable now. I just think Ubi was rushed for holiday release and didn't spend the time needed to optimize, I bet if they were given a few extra months it'd be a different story, for all platforms involved.

for me they do nothing, i'm on the latest beta driver too.
 

TGO

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Sep 5, 2007
12,054
13,857
1,820
UK
The pre-rendered scenes in Ryse look way worse than the real-time scenes and it's not even funny.



I've been playing both of these games and yeah they're very impressive on PC.

I don't know why people here keep mentioning PS4 exclusives like UC4, ISS and The Order though. Just the mere fact that they are on PS4 only should be enough to exclude them from any discussion of the best graphics. 1080p is just embarrassingly low after you experience games like Ryse and AC Unity in 5160x2160.
LMFAO.....no