I wasn't excited for this game to begin with, now this? i'll just skip this one. Maybe something interesting will come out next year. I'm just tired of European setting.
Assassin's Creed Unity Runs at 900p Resolution to "Avoid All the Debates" - Updated
- Thread starter Sarah LeBoeuf
- Start date
It's amusing that people believe that bottlenecking your CPU doesn't affect your GPU performance. The PS4 and Xbox One have, literally, the same 8-core AMD Jaguar APU, with the Xbox's running at a slightly higher clock rate.
It doesn't matter if the PS4 has a more powerful GPU if you've bottlenecked the CPU.
Is it because of lazy devs or Microsoft cash? Hardly, it's because 8th-gen consoles are a complete joke.
But ask yourself this: would you rather a game run at 900p and stable 30 fps, or at 1080p and an unstable framerate?
It doesn't matter if the PS4 has a more powerful GPU if you've bottlenecked the CPU.
Is it because of lazy devs or Microsoft cash? Hardly, it's because 8th-gen consoles are a complete joke.
But ask yourself this: would you rather a game run at 900p and stable 30 fps, or at 1080p and an unstable framerate?
This is basically the crux of it. Not the PS thralls part, but the fact that Ubisoft can't optimize worth shit. Have you all seen the things people say about Black Flag? There are people runnin the tippytop of the top line of oced gpu, the best of the best cpu, the best everythin possible and they still can't run Black Flag without performance drops.Revolutionary said:
Ubisoft can't code worth a damn and they refuse to learn how to code worth a damn because they don't need to learn how to code worth a damn because people keep buyin their games regardless of how unoptimized they are.
Modern computing taxes the RAM/GPU well before it hits the CPU. So CPU should seldom be an issue.Supernova1138 said:
There's generally a tradeoff in games. Do you want more numerous or detailed objects or do you want high framerate/resolution? The more complex or numerous the assets get the harder it is to maintain a higher framerate or resolution. Bump Mapping thankfully reduced the demands of object complexity to a degree. But if you wanted to simulate assets with real geometric complexity or if you have a lot of physics and character tracking going on then getting the full frame rate and resolution becomes significantly less feasible.
My guess is that Ubisoft is lying. That they had the opportunity to scale the PS4 higher and decided that it wasn't worth the time to do it just for that console. They probably plan to do it in the future when the method to upscale for the ps4 is in place and easy. They may also just not want to piss Microsoft off.
The Escapist already had an article about how programming AI well is difficult, but processing it is easy. The idea that it's the games NPCs that slow things down is bollox. These lies and half-truths are nothing new, after all, since we're talking about Ubisoft. Hopefully, the Jimquisition will let this pass since he's already beaten this horse to dust.
Not to mention that resolution depends mostly on the GPU. VRAM is also very important for higher resolutions, especially when a game has such high quality textures like Unity. This is definitely the Xbone's fault. PS4 is more than capable of rendering this game at 1080p with it's massive 8Gb of GDDR5. The Xbone still has that retarded low bandwidth DDR3. They can try to spin this as much as they want, but I'm willing to bet that Microsoft had something to do with this.ryukage_sama said:
Could it be that Ubisoft couldn't hit 1080p on PS4 without performance issues, while 900p was the sweet spot? Better not to over reach on one console graphically, and aim for the best possible performance benchmark on both. If the PS4 version had run at 1080p but with frame rate issues, there would have been an indignant outcry over that. Ubisoft may have a tarnished reputation in some respects, but they make some fantastic games. I'd count ACIV, Watch Dogs and SC:Blackilist as some of my favourite games recently. I didn't have issues with any of those, and played them all on 360.Laggyteabag said:
900p is the nail in the coffin? Or is it a Ubisoft issue? I bet Unity would look amazing at 720p.DTWolfwood said:
Performance and gameplay are paramount, and frankly 900 v 1080 is one of the dumbest cause of disputes and outrage imaginable to me. We've been gaming with 720p 30FPS for years! In less than a year, we're expecting life changing experiences?! Resolution isn't the game changer. It should be about ideas, invention, creativity, design, art, mechanics. Great games can be found whether they cost $100 million or $100 thousand (or even much less).
You're an ignorant troll? Because that is what is sounds like if you're responding to my questions with that. No you must have called me a troll as that would make more... "sense". Either way bad juju on your part.KaZuYa said:
I was prepared to go into the specifics of the matter but with your confession I think there is no longer a need.
A 70 dollar 750gtx will run 1080p@60fps with high/medium settings just fine. and dont pretend like consoles even reach such settings. you dont need 800 dollar console to run these games, you just have to, gasp, not pick parts made for tablets for it.pilar said:
Strazdas said:
[HEADING=3]It's Apples to Freakin' Oranges[/HEADING]
The PlayStation costs $360 - $380 to assemble because it's an APU: it's designed for optimization. And it's actually quite brilliantly engineered for what it is and what it allows developers to do.
It was never meant to be compared with a discrete GPU -- that's why I find the PC user argument hilarious. They don't even know the console hardware (not to mention having a clue on what the word APU means).
SONY's exclusives have won the industry-wide Game of the Year award 3 out the last 5 years: so is it more the console's hardware or it's policies that turn you off?
Image is a .jpg. Thus i can dismiss it outright as compression artifacts diminish quality from the start. Secondly, the image resolution is only 768x432. not even something as stupid as IGN does comparison on so bad resolutions. If you want a comparison start with this even at horrible compression [http://www.digitalstormonline.com/unlocked/images/articles/Nav/Articles/Watch-Dogs-Xbox-one-PC-1.jpg]. ALso funny how you picked Watch Dogs, the game that is known to be intentionally gimped for PC to make it look worse.pilar said:
How about we try shadow of mordor? PC [http://i2.wp.com/gearnuke.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/shadow-mordor-2-pc.png] PS4 [http://i0.wp.com/gearnuke.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/shadow-mordor-2-ps4.png]
Yes, PS4 and Xbox Done uses an APU. and that is their downfall - the APU they use does not allow them to meet even the minimum requirements for modern games. Its not brilliant, its underclocked tablet GPU. its off-the-shef hardware from AMD that they actually put in other products (Tablets) too. Well maybe except the Xbox Ones memory channel that MS invested a billion on and that seems to be useless in real world).
Oh, we know console hardware and we know just how awful it is. using APU for gaming is the worst thing you can do, and they went on and did it.
there is no industry wide game of the year award. there are many different sites giving their awards. there are no "oscars" for videogames.
Modern software development does not target the CPU for processing except for very specific and minor things. It will always hit RAM and GPU first. If your CPU is getting taxed by software then it's likely because the GPU/RAM have maxed out performance. The CPU simply isn't all that good or specialized for video processing. SoDDR3 is specialized at transferring smaller amounts of data (keeping track of a large number of small objects) and GDDR5 is specialized for transferring larger amounts of data. Sony did something interesting by reducing the latency GDDR5 usually suffers in order to make it competent at performing both functions. If programmers lean heavily on the GDDR5 RAM as video ram then the performance of the GPU can be greatly augmented.Strazdas said:
The CPU portion of the APU? The laptop bit that you're complaining about? That really shouldn't get hit and should not matter except as the method to direct traffic.
Not sure about how the XBO is going to cope.
Those are the nails on the coffin. Any and all "controversy" that comes out of PR is just icing on the cake. If i want to play an Assassins Creed game, i'll play Shadows of Mordor. That game does assassination better than Assassins Creed.svenjl said:
They set a target for their games, graphically speaking. Then they reached the target, without going any extra mile in any case. I know nothing about coding, how hard or easy it might be, and I don't care. Good for you, business people, for achieveing your business targets. I hope the game is fun.
Infamous Second Son cheated on NPCs and AI, It only bothered to render NPCs and process their AI in bulk when you hit the ground, where your visual distance is much shorted and it's a much slower way across the map, and it gave them the room they needed for those specs. Which is why when you go across the city on rooftops you only see a tiny amount of non combat NPC's and once you hit the ground you see a lot more, most of whom start wandering into your immediate area implying they were just rendered off screen for your immediate environment. Assassin's Creed has always been fully populated no matter where you are in the world with a full set of NPCs in your immediate area. What people often forget is that Sucker Punch flat out stated they had basically hit the roof of what the ps4 was capable of doing even with those tricks.Whatislove said:
The fact is if you have a cpu bottleneck, then the power of the rest of your hardware doesn't really matter. The cpu is basically the brain of the APU.
For a metaphor, consider that someone is a clinical vegetable, the heart (gpu) and the spinal column (ram) are still working, and yet the person is incapable of doing anything.
No matter how powerful the hardware is, the moment you hit 100% load on the cpu all hardware takes a major hit. So while I know a lot of people won't listen or comprehend this very real limitation of modern computing technology. CPU bottlenecks are very real and can cause exactly the issues ubisoft ran into. Furthermore, the ps4 relies on asynchronous processing tech on the gpu to relieve stress on the cpu, however AI is exactly the wrong type of computational calculations to take advantage of this.
I know its fun to rant and rave, but basic research into this would have revealed all this. Is Ubisoft telling the truth? I don't know, but their statements actually fit with how computing technology works, the technology inside the ps4 and its very real limitations and make far more sense then them purposely not making the best game they could, in a era where studios and IPs fail all the time because there is always someone else work who did spend all the time and energy to make the best game possible to take your place.
Uncharted was not a launch game nor a launch window game. The launch games actually had worse rendering but were brighter and clearer.BrotherRool said:For some comparison, check out a screenshot of a PS3 launch title vs a PS3 game that came out at the end of the lifespan.
See the difference between a launch game and a real 'next-gen' looking game?
You don't know what their custom APU does. [http://youtu.be/0ruo84asvQo]Strazdas said:
Digital Foundry's written analysis of the three platforms [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-shadow-of-mordor-face-off] on Shadow of Mordor. Their 760 2GB managed a stable High Textures (like the PS4) @ 1080p30 locked; they needed a $400+ 780ti to max the game out.
Hmm... A $400 GPU to max out + $60 Shadow of Mordor, which isn't really saying a lot beyond a double frame-rate and High vs Ultra Textures.
I'm never convinced when PC users say that it's cheaper in the long run: sure it is, if you're willing to hold off another 6 months on the games you've been excited about for two years.
And look at all the games coming out next year: MGSV: Phantom Pain, Order 1886, Uncharted 4, Witcher 3, Bloodbourne, Final Fantasy XV, The Division, Until Dawn, Dying Light, No Man's Sky, etc...
Cite this please. Sucker Punch IS Sony. I could see non-Sony entities stating that they'd hit a wall on Sony hardware but I don't think any Sony employees are that keen on losing their jobs.igor2201 said:
I will say this, though, inFamous Second Son looked absolutely beautiful. I've got no regrets if that's the pinnacle. Then again, I can always just wonder over to my PC for any graphiophilic needs that crop up. But from what I've seen there's still plenty of work to be done to take advantage of the GDDR5 and some of the other non-traditional hardware. We won't see the kind of optimizations we saw in the past with proprietary hardware but the should be plenty meat left on the bones than a comparable pc thanks to standardized hardware, the API, and the particularities they decided to go with.