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

Forums - Gaming - Assassin's Creed Unity Parity Excuse Debunked

Tachikoma said:
What REALLY debunked the parity excuse, is the fact that its simply a terribly optimized game and runs like shit on ALL platforms, even PC.

sounds like XB1 ver. is the best so far... maybe its the lead platform rather than PC... 



Around the Network
Tachikoma said:
What REALLY debunked the parity excuse, is the fact that its simply a terribly optimized game and runs like shit on ALL platforms, even PC.

Or.....it was terribly optimized for XBone (or XBone "couldn't handle" the game?) and since MS paid for parity (from the marketing deal), Ubi wasn't allowed to make the other versions better, lest the XBone version, which they paid a ton of money for marketing, gets horribly outsold. Imagine there's a 5 foot brick wall. XBone is 5 feet tall, but PS4 and PC are 7 feet tall. They could easily just jump over the wall, but XBone has a ball and chain attached to them (parity).



HokageTenshi said:
Tachikoma said:
What REALLY debunked the parity excuse, is the fact that its simply a terribly optimized game and runs like shit on ALL platforms, even PC.

sounds like XB1 ver. is the best so far... maybe its the lead platform rather than PC... 

The best platform to play this game on is no platform, we shouldn't be supporting companies putting out such bad software.



The fact is that GPU can handle AI compute just fine, AMD has been showing this since with the Froblins demo on their HD4800 series of cards and that was back in 2009, it may have been possible before that.

Ubisoft even showed the differences between PS4 and XBox One when it comes to GPGPU related tasks like physics cloth simulation in their benchmarks a short while back. GPGPU is absolutely capable of being used on AI as well, because of that PS4 should be almost twice as capable as Xbox One in those areas when they're moved over to the GPU.

Ubisoft said themselves they have plenty of overhead left over on the GPU, if they they can run ACU at 100FPS, that means they could shift AI code over to the GPU, bump the resolution up to 1920X1080 and at the very least lock the game to 30FPS, with tonnes of GPU time for the AI code, but considering that the AnvilNext Engine has been used on every Assassin's Creed game since AC3 it's probably not been updated to run AI code on the GPU, or the updates for that didn't make it into the Engine early enough to include those updates in ACU, hence why the game is limited by the CPUs of both consoles.

As others have said Resolution has nothing to do with the CPU, so their comments about CPU effecting res are absolute bull.
IMO maybe XB1's GPU can run the game at 720p 100FPS and PS4's at 900p 100FPS, if they had no AI to worry about on both systems, but because of the marketing deal they're keeping parity between the two consoles.
In this case Xbox One can obviously be bumped up to 900p no problem, frame rate goes down to 60FPS, PS4 would be 1080p 60FPS and XBox One gets the lesser version of the game again. Seems obvious why Ubisoft would limit the PS4 version in this case, because they have to answer to Microsoft after being paid for the marketing deal, MS doesn't want the lesser version of the game.

Another thing IMO having 10,000 NPCs all with individual AI is ridiculous, when you could cut those numbers in half or even quarter them, 2,500 people still makes for a huge crowd, hell even a thousand is still a crowd to wade through. If Ubisoft Montreal had lowered the numbers of NPCs they would have had no problem running significantly better frame rates across the board.

Seems like some stupid decisions were made for this game because Ubi wanted to have ridiculous numbers where it doesn't really count. The graphics could have still looked as good as they are right now, they could have made the game 60FPS on both consoles to please the performance Nazis, but they chose to go with what doesn't make sense and thus the gameplay suffers.



Mr Puggsly said:
Its a nice looking game, but it doesn't have the level of detail as AC:U.

well duh if you talked about Ai and CPU there is no direct connection with graphic, unless if they mentioned physics and particel.



Around the Network
JustBeingReal said:

The fact is that GPU can handle AI compute just fine, AMD has been showing this since with the Froblins demo on their HD4800 series of cards and that was back in 2009, it may have been possible before that.

Ubisoft even showed the differences between PS4 and XBox One when it comes to GPGPU related tasks like physics cloth simulation in their benchmarks a short while back. GPGPU is absolutely capable of being used on AI as well, because of that PS4 should be almost twice as capable as Xbox One in those areas when they're moved over to the GPU.

Ubisoft said themselves they have plenty of overhead left over on the GPU, if they they can run ACU at 100FPS, that means they could shift AI code over to the GPU, bump the resolution up to 1920X1080 and at the very least lock the game to 30FPS, with tonnes of GPU time for the AI code, but considering that the AnvilNext Engine has been used on every Assassin's Creed game since AC3 it's probably not been updated to run AI code on the GPU, or the updates for that didn't make it into the Engine early enough to include those updates in ACU, hence why the game is limited by the CPUs of both consoles.

As others have said Resolution has nothing to do with the CPU, so their comments about CPU effecting res are absolute bull.
IMO maybe XB1's GPU can run the game at 720p 100FPS and PS4's at 900p 100FPS, if they had no AI to worry about on both systems, but because of the marketing deal they're keeping parity between the two consoles.
In this case Xbox One can obviously be bumped up to 900p no problem, frame rate goes down to 60FPS, PS4 would be 1080p 60FPS and XBox One gets the lesser version of the game again. Seems obvious why Ubisoft would limit the PS4 version in this case, because they have to answer to Microsoft after being paid for the marketing deal, MS doesn't want the lesser version of the game.

Another thing IMO having 10,000 NPCs all with individual AI is ridiculous, when you could cut those numbers in half or even quarter them, 2,500 people still makes for a huge crowd, hell even a thousand is still a crowd to wade through. If Ubisoft Montreal had lowered the numbers of NPCs they would have had no problem running significantly better frame rates across the board.

Seems like some stupid decisions were made for this game because Ubi wanted to have ridiculous numbers where it doesn't really count. The graphics could have still looked as good as they are right now, they could have made the game 60FPS on both consoles to please the performance Nazis, but they chose to go with what doesn't make sense and thus the gameplay suffers.

what a great comment



HollyGamer said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Its a nice looking game, but it doesn't have the level of detail as AC:U.

well duh if you talked about Ai and CPU there is no direct connection with graphic, unless if they mentioned physics and particel.


I doubt that game is using the same amount of resources on physics as well.

That's where the cloud can help!



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

kupomogli said:

Again, I only listed that because that's how they explained their comment.  They were coming off the previous 900p parity comment straight into "the reason why we said that blah blah CPU blah blah."  I'm aware the CPU has nothing to do with resolution, I'm merely explaining for, what is it, two or three times now(?) that I even inferred resolution because their bullshit comment.  Even in what you quoted I stated the only reason for the reply was because of what Ubisoft stated.


I was just posting again the same explanation I'm using since Ubi started saying that crap, I wasn't trying to say that you agreed with that, I was just posting the info for the thread, my bad :)



JustBeingReal posted 7 hours ago. I like your post. That's what I believe to be the case also. There is that and then trying to spin some excuses and bost some stuff for the game because in no way could they of overhauled it in time.



I would say it's debunked by the fact that the game runs as poorly as it does. The signs point to the devs simply running out of time if you ask me.



4 ≈ One