Jimquisition: Ubisoft Talks Bollocks About Framerate And Resolution

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Ubisoft Talks Bollocks About Framerate And Resolution

Sometimes, you don't need a flashy title for your videos.

Watch Video
 

Hoplon

Jabbering Fool
Mar 31, 2010
1,840
0
0
When does ubisoft not talk bollocks? First it was "women are too much extra work to animate as well" and the next making of video shows that not only is all that stuff made but they have set it up to be easy to make. Will some one please take the marketing people out behind the chemical sheds and put them out of our misery.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
Cinematic experience? What are they developing? Heavy Rain Unity? Is Ubisoft's PR department outsourced? Does it have any communication with the developers (or someone who knows about gaming) at all?
 

ryukage_sama

New member
Mar 12, 2009
508
0
0
Jim, why bother making a whole new episode for this topic. Just post a link to an older "Ubisoft are tactless liars" episode and do an episode on literally ANY OTHER sin of video game publishing. Even the choir tires of their preacher if he repeats himself often enough.
 

Westonbirt

New member
Nov 7, 2013
35
0
0
PC MASTER RACE !

But seriously, this is just a console-centric developer jumping through hoops to justify its not taking into account the huge power advantage that gaming PCs have over consoles. They might as well come out with a statement just saying "no, we're not interested in coming onto the superior and more competitive platform, because it makes our dick feel small."

It's alright to stay on consoles and to make games which are made to be there, but just fucking admit that they are underpowered and inferior, don't try to make an artistic statement out of it, cause that's just silly.
 

Madd the Sane

New member
Feb 3, 2011
25
0
0
After doing some research, it seems like there is a female PC you can play as in Assassin's Creed: Unity? If you bought some DLC. Which, no doubt, people will buy just to get said character.
 

Alpha Maeko

Uh oh, better get Maeko!
Apr 14, 2010
573
0
0
As long as the power behind Ubisoft rests in the hands of a "corporation" or board of money grubbers, they'll never be able to talk straight and honest. It's all about the bottom line, and if they've gotta say something stupid to confuse people and get more sales in the short term? Why not.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
Ugh, Ubisoft. I don't care at all about resolution, and while I'd appreciate a higher FPS, I'm perfectly happy with a steady 30.

But I'm still aggravated by this as it's yet another example of you (Ubisoft, not Jim) flagrantly lying to consumer. For fuck sake. Stop. Bullshitting. People! Is it really that difficult? It's nigh-pathological at this point.
 

ExiledCreature

New member
Sep 23, 2014
13
0
0
Westonbirt said:
PC MASTER RACE !

But seriously, this is just a console-centric developer jumping through hoops to justify its not taking into account the huge power advantage that gaming PCs have over consoles. They might as well come out with a statement just saying "no, we're not interested in coming onto the superior and more competitive platform, because it makes our dick feel small."

It's alright to stay on consoles and to make games which are made to be there, but just fucking admit that they are underpowered and inferior, don't try to make an artistic statement out of it, cause that's just silly.
This is not a console issue, it's all over the industry. Games get downgraded and locked at framerates for their PC release, too.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
Not that I disagree, but how does this stack up to the idea that graphics don't matter? I'll admit, I only have a decent gaming lappy, and I play most of the new releases on my apparently old and worthless 360. But when I hear a debate of 30fps and 60fps, or that the resolution is off(whatever that bloody means!) or that the in-game graphics have been downgraded since the last demo.=, I can follow it, and it makes sense. Gaming companies have been hoisted by their own petard so to speak. They sold us on graphics and then didn't deliver, fair. Good. Great.

But then the same people arguing turn around and say Minecraft is fucking amazing and that graphics don't make the game. They praise shitty looking games for 'evoking a sense of nostalgia!' and for not 'buying the corporate line about graphics, man' And I can't help but feel the people are either being two-faced, or just like arguing for arguments sake.

Is it just that Ubisoft promised 60fps and then only delivered 30? Would there be a controversy if they just said 30fps and that graphics shouldn't matter if the game is good? Don't we all believe that? Isn't that a core principle of gaming? Why are AAA games taken to task for the exact fucking pixel count when the indies are purposefully praised for having shit graphics? Is it money? Do we expect AAA games to have a great graphics to backup their absurd bankrolls? If so, aren't we tentatively implying that bad games can be fixed by flinging money at them? Then how can we complain about over-budget games? Shouldn't we all WANT an over-budget game, because it must have solved every problem.

Again, not trying to start a flame war, but how do the two principles exist side-by-side?
 

Seracen

New member
Sep 20, 2009
645
0
0
I just spent a few Benjamins to upgrade my graphics card...all because I didn't enjoy running Skyrim at sub 60 FPS. Yes, I can feel the difference, and no, I cannot imagine a single instance in which I would take 30 FPS instead, given the choice.
 

NRVNQSR86

New member
Mar 29, 2011
26
0
0
Considering Ubisoft talks a lot of bollocks these days (their CM is totally horrendous as is their PR-department), it's not surprising they do it once more.
 

Groenteman

New member
Mar 30, 2011
120
0
0
Yaknow, I cant help but feel for Ubisoft's actual developers who have these absolute nobgobblers as spokespeople.

Its not even remotely hard to see what happened here. Each new iteration has to be prettier and the frankly somewhat flimsy console hardware cant handle it.

That's a pity, stupid that they went and did it anyway, and so so much more insulting that instead of admitting it they try and sell it with a good shovel full of horsecrap.
 

Demonchaser27

New member
Mar 20, 2014
197
0
0
I don't disagree with the notion that some can enjoy 30fps more than 60fps. I generally do. However, that's for people to decide, not Ubisoft. Ubisoft, just give people the choices and let them decide. If I want to cap at 30fps then let me. 60? Let me. It's not that difficult.

That being said, as Jim stated, they are part of the reason this is a problem in the first place. Does it really matter if something is 60 fps 4k resolution? No. Hell I still use a TV that has native 768p and I'm perfectly happy with it. I actually prefer playing Resident Evil 4 at 30fps. It makes animations feel like they have more "Oomph" when they hit. But it's incredibly cowardly for Ubisoft to pretend like that's what they wanted all along. And even more damning to say that's exactly what all people prefer. Just admit that the hardware your working with cannot handle it.

I have a feeling they are under contract from one or both companies to not talk about it being the consoles fault. Or they're afraid of pissing them off for some other reason. That being said, it's enjoyable to watch them fumble about with a problem that we all knew would be a problem eventually. They got too big for their breeches. They're expectations and concepts ran wild and finally a lot of "AAA" devs and pubs are realizing that optimization isn't for kids. It's a necessity no matter what the hardware. Why did Shadow of Mordor need 6GB of Vram for the Ultra settings? Oh because they just flapped out uncompressed textures. Didn't even bother to compress them, even though it would have had no visual impact since no one can even get close enough to the textures to find out.

Basic fact is that we should ALWAYS strive for code optimization. It makes it cheaper for everyone. If I don't need to spend $600+ on a video card to run high settings at 60fps, guess who's gonna buy more games? Oh yeah, me. It's simple. Optimization allows hardware to have a good life and allows the market to purchase goods more frequently. If we get to the point where a user needs more power every year just to buy games then no one is gonna be buying games anymore other than the most wealthy gamers. Your profits will tank and you'll fall. Optimization is good for everyone. Relearn to do it game industry. Alien Isolation did, and it was wonderful.
 

gigastar

Insert one-liner here.
Sep 13, 2010
4,419
0
0
Well, id say something along the lines of "Oh boy, more beating of the horse that just wont die." if Ubi didnt deserve it this time.

Though that said, did any of the Ubi mouthpieces ever relay anything about delivering superior graphics? Im racking my brain right now and im getting nothing.
 

Demonchaser27

New member
Mar 20, 2014
197
0
0
Silentpony said:
Not that I disagree, but how does this stack up to the idea that graphics don't matter? I'll admit, I only have a decent gaming lappy, and I play most of the new releases on my apparently old and worthless 360. But when I hear a debate of 30fps and 60fps, or that the resolution is off(whatever that bloody means!) or that the in-game graphics have been downgraded since the last demo.=, I can follow it, and it makes sense. Gaming companies have been hoisted by their own petard so to speak. They sold us on graphics and then didn't deliver, fair. Good. Great.

But then the same people arguing turn around and say Minecraft is fucking amazing and that graphics don't make the game. They praise shitty looking games for 'evoking a sense of nostalgia!' and for not 'buying the corporate line about graphics, man' And I can't help but feel the people are either being two-faced, or just like arguing for arguments sake.

Is it just that Ubisoft promised 60fps and then only delivered 30? Would there be a controversy if they just said 30fps and that graphics shouldn't matter if the game is good? Don't we all believe that? Isn't that a core principle of gaming? Why are AAA games taken to task for the exact fucking pixel count when the indies are purposefully praised for having shit graphics? Is it money? Do we expect AAA games to have a great graphics to backup their absurd bankrolls? If so, aren't we tentatively implying that bad games can be fixed by flinging money at them? Then how can we complain about over-budget games? Shouldn't we all WANT an over-budget game, because it must have solved every problem.

Again, not trying to start a flame war, but how do the two principles exist side-by-side?
It's the fact that it was promised, nothing more. It isn't necessarily two-faced. Essentially, if humans see a possibility and then fail to see it realized, they are pissed. Had no one ever mentioned 60fps or resolutions then this stuff wouldn't even be debated. They're would be nothing to debate. Because no one would care. It's still these big publishers fault for pushing it and then cowering away and lying. But had they never tried to hype it this generation, it would have never been a problem.
 

babinro

New member
Sep 24, 2010
2,518
0
0
I hope to day make a game with a 1 frame per minute to make it feel more 'novel-matic'.

Maybe I should apply for a job with Ubisoft...
 

InsanityRequiem

New member
Nov 9, 2009
700
0
0
Every time I hear Ubisoft say these things, all I can distinguish is that they (the company) are unable to develop and code games properly and need to hide their shortcomings as a game developer/publisher through pushing the "Games at 30fps are better via cinematics!" bullshit.