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

Kynes on 13 November 2014

I find funny how everyone talks as if they know to develop better than 500 guys at Ubi. AFAIK only Tachikoma has developing experience, and she has said what is the most plausible explanation: Marketers wanted to launch a game that needs much more time to debug and improve. You can search the explanation you want, but it's a shitty game, nothing more, nothing less.

PS: the ps4 and xbox cpus are X86, not ARM.



Around the Network
Dr.Henry_Killinger on 13 November 2014
Kynes said:
I find funny how everyone talks as if they know to develop better than 500 guys at Ubi. AFAIK only Tachikoma has developing experience, and she has said what is the most plausible explanation: Marketers wanted to launch a game that needs much more time to debug and improve. You can search the explanation you want, but it's a shitty game, nothing more, nothing less.

PS: the ps4 and xbox cpus are X86, not ARM.

x86-64 is the Architecture.

ARM is the CPU.

ARM is not an architecture.

x86-64 is not a CPU.

Also: CPU doesn't affect Resolution.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Kynes on 13 November 2014
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Kynes said:
I find funny how everyone talks as if they know to develop better than 500 guys at Ubi. AFAIK only Tachikoma has developing experience, and she has said what is the most plausible explanation: Marketers wanted to launch a game that needs much more time to debug and improve. You can search the explanation you want, but it's a shitty game, nothing more, nothing less.

PS: the ps4 and xbox cpus are X86, not ARM.

x86-64 is the Architecture.

ARM is the CPU.

ARM is not an architecture.

x86-64 is not a CPU.

Also: CPU doesn't affect Resolution.


If you are going to correct anyone, at least please check your facts first. AMD is not ARM. ARM is an architecture, X86 is an architecture, X86-64 is an instruction set. AMD designs X86 and ARM based processors, xbox and PS ones are based on the X86 architecture.



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 13 November 2014
Kynes said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Kynes said:
I find funny how everyone talks as if they know to develop better than 500 guys at Ubi. AFAIK only Tachikoma has developing experience, and she has said what is the most plausible explanation: Marketers wanted to launch a game that needs much more time to debug and improve. You can search the explanation you want, but it's a shitty game, nothing more, nothing less.

PS: the ps4 and xbox cpus are X86, not ARM.

x86-64 is the Architecture.

ARM is the CPU.

ARM is not an architecture.

x86-64 is not a CPU.

Also: CPU doesn't affect Resolution.


If you are going to correct anyone, at least please check your facts first. AMD is not ARM. ARM is an architecture, X86 is an architecture, X86-64 is an instruction set. AMD designs X86 and ARM based processors, xbox and PS ones are based on the X86 architecture.

My mistake, but you responded so fast I couldn't do corrections. Both consoles use x86-64 APUs, with customized jaguar cpu's on the die.

They both have ARM chips as well that are for background tasks.

The Jaguar CPU's target mobiles more or less, which is how I confused it with ARM since ARM cpus are mainly what comes to mind when thinking about mobile device processors.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

chapset on 13 November 2014

cartoony graphics are easier to render because they don't have as much details, the console doesn't have to render as much polygons per second



Bet reminder: I bet with Tboned51 that Splatoon won't reach the 1 million shipped mark by the end of 2015. I win if he loses and I lose if I lost.

Around the Network
JustBeingReal on 13 November 2014
HollyGamer said:
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


Thank you for the kind words. :)



LudicrousSpeed on 13 November 2014
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.

This.

And of course, the fact that it was a stupid conspiracy theory in the first place. Oh noes, MS market partners for Ass Creed, it must be parity monies! MS market partners for CoD, PS4 has higher resolution.



shloob on 13 November 2014

They arent the same at all. First graphically they arent even close. Second they are doing a lot mroe than standing aorund. They are going about everyday lives and having full on conversations.



JustBeingReal on 13 November 2014
RidingMower said:
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.


Thanks, it's what seems to make the most logical sense IMO. Seems pretty obvious that Ubisoft just wanted to get another Assassin's Creed game out and try to make out like their game is some demanding game changer that's already pushing systems as far as they can go because of it's amazing AI.

Reality is AnvilNext is lacking in technology that has been out since 2009 courtesy of AMD.

If they'd put work into overhauling the engine so that it can handle GPGPU coding well enough then everyone would benefit, the fact that Assassin's Creed sells well I don't really understand why they wouldn't just put in the time, whilst developing the game.

Hell Sony clearly chose the right approach for their system, Nintendo and Microsoft have the tech too, PC has it.

 

The most logical answer to the problem is that Ubisoft probably didn't want Montreal to take time to work on the engine, but rather just get the next game out on time and hope it works, it didn't, so what, people will buy the game because it's Assassin's Creed.

 

I'm wondering whether something like AI and Physics compute could be added into the rendering pipeline, so that Ubisoft could provide everyone with a performance update later down the line. Maybe it can, maybe it can't, it's something that's probably fundemental to the the game's design and would probably be a pretty hefty patch.

Hopefully they can do something to eleviate the issues people are having, maybe they can reduce the overhead of that code and streamline things so they run a bit better, otherwise the game will run like a dog, even with people having ridiculously overpowered rigs, with GPU horsepower going to waste on every system that has the game.