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

Forums - Gaming - Digital Foundry vs Far Cry 4

Dallinor on 16 November 2014
NiKKoM said:
It just because it doesn't have 5000 ai elephants... It would run worse if it had it.. Damn you cross gen devlopement..

Just imaging that cracked me up :)

Elephants popping out of the sky, walking through trees and their trunks dissapearing.



 

Around the Network
justiceiro on 16 November 2014
HollyGamer said:
If this games is good how Assassins Creed U run so bad?


There is a big difference between making a game for 2 years and making 2 games in a year. Besides, it seems that the game is more a Full Hd version of a game for last generation thana full fleged current gen experience.



"Hardware design isn’t about making the most powerful thing you can.
Today most hardware design is left to other companies, but when you make hardware without taking into account the needs of the eventual software developers, you end up with bloated hardware full of pointless excess. From the outset one must consider design from both a hardware and software perspective."

Gunpei Yoko

Locknuts on 16 November 2014

Fuck this 30fps garbage. Also, the Himalayan setting has nothing on Rook Island. I'll get it when it's at a budget price and on PC too so that I can run it at 60fps.



Locknuts on 16 November 2014
HollyGamer said:
If this games is good how Assassins Creed U run so bad?

Ubisoft don't build very well optimised engines for some reason. Far Cry games have always run on Crytek, or a slight variation of Crytek, and so run like a dream on everything including PC.



VanceIX on 16 November 2014

Sounds great, I'll pick it up when I'm done with my current catalog :D



                                                                                                               You're Gonna Carry That Weight.

Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC

Around the Network
Pemalite on 16 November 2014
Locknuts said:
HollyGamer said:
If this games is good how Assassins Creed U run so bad?

Ubisoft don't build very well optimised engines for some reason. Far Cry games have always run on Crytek, or a slight variation of Crytek, and so run like a dream on everything including PC.


I think you mean CryEngine*

And you are correct, FarCry 1 used the CryEngine 1 game engine, whilst FarCry 2 used the Dunia engine which is based upon CryEngine.
However FarCry 3 and 4 use the Dunia 2 engine, which is a variation of Dunia 1.
So although there will be some similar code in all those engines, they're still different beasts, which is to be expected, there is almost a decade long gap between CryEngine 1 and Dunia 2 engine.

It's like comparing the latest Call of Duty to Quake, Call of Duty uses a variation of the Quake engine, but today they're a night and day difference.
Same goes for the source engine which has roots in Quake 2.

However, what I personally think Ubisoft needs to do is... Fire all their game engine development teams and re-assign them under one roof to develop a single engine, then they can also cancel any engine licensing contracts.
They could save a fortune.

Then because there is suddenly a significant upkick in terms of man power working on a single engine, there should be less bugs and added efficiency gains resulting from more development time and bug testing on the engine itself, as it's no longer used for just a single title.

The PC would also benefit massively as AMD, nVidia and Intel can target their respective drivers for better performance and image quality.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

HollyGamer on 16 November 2014
Pemalite said:
Locknuts said:
HollyGamer said:
If this games is good how Assassins Creed U run so bad?

Ubisoft don't build very well optimised engines for some reason. Far Cry games have always run on Crytek, or a slight variation of Crytek, and so run like a dream on everything including PC.


I think you mean CryEngine*

And you are correct, FarCry 1 used the CryEngine 1 game engine, whilst FarCry 2 used the Dunia engine which is based upon CryEngine.
However FarCry 3 and 4 use the Dunia 2 engine, which is a variation of Dunia 1.
So although there will be some similar code in all those engines, they're still different beasts, which is to be expected, there is almost a decade long gap between CryEngine 1 and Dunia 2 engine.

It's like comparing the latest Call of Duty to Quake, Call of Duty uses a variation of the Quake engine, but today they're a night and day difference.
Same goes for the source engine which has roots in Quake 2.

However, what I personally think Ubisoft needs to do is... Fire all their game engine development teams and re-assign them under one roof to develop a single engine, then they can also cancel any engine licensing contracts.
They could save a fortune.

Then because there is suddenly a significant upkick in terms of man power working on a single engine, there should be less bugs and added efficiency gains resulting from more development time and bug testing on the engine itself, as it's no longer used for just a single title.

The PC would also benefit massively as AMD, nVidia and Intel can target their respective drivers for better performance and image quality.

Yeah you are right

EA is much better for this with DICE, one engine to rule them all



Remedy on 16 November 2014
NiKKoM said:
It just because it doesn't have 5000 ai elephants... It would run worse if it had it.. Damn you cross gen devlopement..

 

I prefer 5 elephants/30 fps, not 5000 elephants/20fps



Locknuts on 16 November 2014
Pemalite said:
Locknuts said:
HollyGamer said:
If this games is good how Assassins Creed U run so bad?

Ubisoft don't build very well optimised engines for some reason. Far Cry games have always run on Crytek, or a slight variation of Crytek, and so run like a dream on everything including PC.


I think you mean CryEngine*

And you are correct, FarCry 1 used the CryEngine 1 game engine, whilst FarCry 2 used the Dunia engine which is based upon CryEngine.
However FarCry 3 and 4 use the Dunia 2 engine, which is a variation of Dunia 1.
So although there will be some similar code in all those engines, they're still different beasts, which is to be expected, there is almost a decade long gap between CryEngine 1 and Dunia 2 engine.

It's like comparing the latest Call of Duty to Quake, Call of Duty uses a variation of the Quake engine, but today they're a night and day difference.
Same goes for the source engine which has roots in Quake 2.

However, what I personally think Ubisoft needs to do is... Fire all their game engine development teams and re-assign them under one roof to develop a single engine, then they can also cancel any engine licensing contracts.
They could save a fortune.

Then because there is suddenly a significant upkick in terms of man power working on a single engine, there should be less bugs and added efficiency gains resulting from more development time and bug testing on the engine itself, as it's no longer used for just a single title.

The PC would also benefit massively as AMD, nVidia and Intel can target their respective drivers for better performance and image quality.

Yeah that's what I meant. But it does seem that engines built on a solid foundation, such as Source or Dunia, seem to be a lot more stable and have fewer compatibility issues.