By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - DF Performance Analysis: Assassin's Creed Unity

Intrinsic said:
curl-6 said:

Obviously it doesn't explain resolution, but Xbone being the lead doesn't explain it, because it's virtually the same architecture as PS4; you shouldn't have to re-optimize. There's likely a good dose of flat out incompetence involved too, but no conspiracy, just a CPU bound engine performing better on the console with the faster CPU.

As for PC, that's probably just good old fashioned Ubisoft laziness.

I don't know what you are getting at, but its sounding more and mrore like you don't have a handle on what ou are talking about.

 

  • The PS4/XB1 do not have "practically the same architecture". The have the same hardware set (exact same CPU/GPU chips). But that has absolutely nothing to  do with an actual systems architecture. For that you should be talking about how the CPu+GPU communicates with eachother and system memory and factor in whatever other unique features that the overall system has. And the PS4/XB1 is vastly more different than most think.
  • And you keep saying "faster cpu" The XB1 CPU has a 10% clock advantage over the PS4, that does not automatically mean its faster. However its been said that the PS4 programming APIs are all round more efficient and straight forward than the XB1 so they overall perform better. This exact reason is why MS even upclocked their CPU (and GPU) to begin with. Unless you really believe that a 10% faster CPU will result in a 40% boost in overall game performance.
  • And the XB1 being the lead explains a lot. First off, even at that ubisoft did a ridiculously crappy job on the XB1 too, the game averages 25fps for crying out loud and suffers from every glitch the PS4 version suffers from. But it runs better because being the lead platform means that platform gets development priority. If you don't know what this means or entails then I honetly lack the will to try and exlain it to you. But look at it this way, the lead platform of any game should be the best running version of that game. Just look at how ACU runs on the XB1 and that should tell you all you need to know about ubisoft.
  • Its not a conspiracy, its all pretty simple. Ubisoft had the game running on a ridiculously powerful debug/development Rig. Then eventualy they started porting it over to consoles. After their marketing deal with MS, they pretty much were locked into making the XB1 the lead platform. They found it it wasn't as easy as they thought it would be and kept on trying to make the game work on the XB1. Eventually, they started porting the game over from the XB1 to the PS4. Ran into a myriad of incompatibility issues and locked the performance of the game on the PS4 to limit how much optimization they would have to do essentially using the extra power in the PS4 to bulldoze through some bugs. Eventually, they just ran outta time and couldn't optimize any of the games.
  • And you really need to stop being so gullible and listenning to the nonsense ubisoft are saying even after all this. Use your own eyes and look at how the game performs. Like seriously, do we really need 5000 npcs on screen that we aren't seeing half the time cause we are on rooftops? Didn't they see their game was broken during play testing? Why didn't they just scale back someo f the unnecesary things and improve overall performance. Please....

 

Yup this!!!



Around the Network
Scoobes said:

That still doesn't explain the shoddy, over-speced PC version where CPUs are ridiculously overpowered compared to the consoles. It just looks like the whole engine is a mess so I don't think you can point to a single component.


If they didn't take time to optimize for consoles, it's clear they didn't optimized for PC too. DX puts overhead on CPU so things went out of control again.

Reality is: Ubisoft had to use a lot of resources on Black Flag. And then they only had 1 year to deliver a game with a renewed engine for 3 platforms. To make things worse, they decided to make Rogue for 3 platforms too. When the game had to go gold, instead of delaying it and fixing it they just went "f*** consoles, let's put it at 900p and almost 30fps, f*** PC, just pump up the specs".

At least they are helping us to see how reviewers sucks. The game has 74 on Meta even if it's barely playable, while games like Ryse and Knack don't have it. I know these two games have their issues, but they at least work.



Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

The disparity between the consoles is why there is a need for optimization on both sides.

The lack of optimization is a result of developing for a single platform. Even if it was developed on PC and downported, we would see higher res on PS4 better more consitent framerate on XB1 like we did at the beginning of the generation. 

The game engine has to built on a platform, it can't just be built on the cloud. If the lead platform outspeced both of them, then that would still mean a higher res in the ps4 version, the only way we get resolution parity is if the extra gpu is not utilized, a scenario which doesn't make sense on a development PC.


I reckon the X1 version receive a little more attention, but even this version is bad. The run out of the time and didn't delayed the game.

The interesting is that EA delayed BF Hardline for extra polishment and confirmed that BF5 will take more time to be done to avoid issues like BF4. I think Ubi is really trying to get the title of most hated publisher from EA.



curl-6 said:
Materia-Blade said:
irstupid said:

Lets just hope they don't use those trailers for commercial footage.

They should make that illegal.  It's like seeing a commercial for a funny movie, and you go to the movie and a couple of the funny scenes in the commercials aren't even in the movie.  It's like "WTF"

hopefully, low sales will help our cause.

That's the sad thing though, I bet this still goes on to sell really well.

looking at preorders, it's at a decline from AC 4. considering the larger bases than last year, it's a good sign if it sells less. and the legs might be cut off because of the crappy quality.



FightingSmile said:
I think I saw ps4 version at 18fps.....

Maybe there are places or cases that happenes even worst...

Polygon (that reviewed the Xbone version) is saying the game goes down to single-digit fps.

There is a bit of overexageration too but the performance is really crap no matter how you look at it.



Around the Network

Hey let's develop a new gen engine. Where should we focus it? On loading the cpu since it's the slowest part on modern setups.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Hey let's develop a new gen engine. Where should we focus it? On loading the cpu since it's the slowest part on modern setups.


Eh, the stuff you want to do decides on where the load is going... But feel free to make a new engine! Please tell us if you are doing it open-source and share the github-link to us. Thanks!



walsufnir said:
DonFerrari said:
Hey let's develop a new gen engine. Where should we focus it? On loading the cpu since it's the slowest part on modern setups.


Eh, the stuff you want to do decides on where the load is going... But feel free to make a new engine! Please tell us if you are doing it open-source and share the github-link to us. Thanks!


So you agree with the development phylosophy? Good for you. Tell me how good is an engine that even on top tier pc runs like crap?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Yeah, this is sounding worse the more I read:

http://www.ign.com/blogs/jdavisign/2014/11/11/8-real-things-i-experienced-in-assassins-creed-unity/

If Assassin’s Creed Unity represents the future direction of AAA video games, I seriously question the future health and legitimacy of this industry.

These are 8 real things I experienced within Assassin’s Creed Unity’s first 2-3 hours:

I tried to open a treasure chest, but was told I needed the Assassin’s Creed companion app to open it, with no additional information or context.

I tried to open another treasure chest, and was told I needed to sign up for Assassin’s Creed Initiates to open it.

I tried to open a third treasure chest, and was told I needed to upgrade Arno’s lockpicking skill.

I upgraded Arno’s lockpicking skill, and was told my skill level still wasn’t high enough to open that chest. I gave up.

When I paused the game, the second option in the pause menu is an eStore that lets you spend real money on time-saving boosts, bonus in-game currency, and so-on.

I saw a woman floating through the air.

I heard the same line of dialogue 5 times during an early-game chase mission.

I experienced my character flip all around on the side of a building instead of climb through the window like I wanted.

None of the above includes subjective elements I found troublesome, including confusing and uninteresting “modern day” moments, trial and error mission design, and soulless NPCs.



My question is that if the PC version with all its insanely high requirements will run as bad as these versions.

Also, I've been fearing this for a while. Open-world and highly detailed graphics don't mix.