Jimquisition: Ubisoft Talks Bollocks About Framerate And Resolution

orangeapples

New member
Aug 1, 2009
1,836
0
0
It was like Ubisoft decided to go with the worst possible answer for 900p/30fps. They might have been able to get away with "When we were designing Assassin's Creed Unity we looked at our main vision and goals and made every decision towards that vision and goals. When we set out to make a game with real time missions while simultaneously interacting with your friends we did not want to compromise. Could we get the game running at 1080p 60fps on these consoles? Yes, but because of various network types and speeds we wanted to take some of the load off of the network to ensure that as many people as possible have the same experience."

If that was what they went with I might have said, "yeah, a lot of people have crappy internet so if it makes the game run more consistently across various networks good on them."

But they went with, "oh, we wanted to avoid controversy"? You can't just say you want to avoid controversy by saying that. By saying that did nobody at Ubisoft think, "Think might actually be controversial."
 

DarkhoIlow

New member
Dec 31, 2009
2,531
0
0
"Framerate doesn't matter"

Have a gander here: http://gfycat.com/SaltyGraveAmazondolphin

This applies to most games not only FPS.

Thank you Jim for this video..thank God for you!
 
Jan 27, 2011
3,740
0
0
Can't they just be honest and say "look, we'd love to have it run at 60 FPS. But already, the game will need to sell 3-5 million units in order to break even. If we pushed for 60 FPS, we'd have to not only shrink levels down in size and delay the game for another YEAR, but we'd need to sell 10 million copies to break even. We are not willing to do that for the sake of 60 FPS. We are making the game look as gorgeous as we can, but there are some things that just aren't realistically feasible, and we're sorry reality can't match up to those expectations."?

I think that would be a lot better than the bullshit they're spewing now.
 

Akexi

New member
May 15, 2008
144
0
0
nevarran said:
Akexi said:
With that said, give it time for modders to look through the game code and files; if possible, they'll unlock the framerate just as they restored the graphical fidelity to Watch Dogs. IF you haven't noticed, some gamers will attempt to get all they can out of their games and the PC platform is a good platter for a dissection.
The problem is, that often when a game is developed with 30fps(for example) in mind, crucial aspects of the game are based on that number. And if you unlock the frames, you create a diss-balance within the game. Like Skyrim's physics for example, even a single frame above 60 would cause serious bugs (flying objects, underwater physics activating when not underwater, etc...). The AI, I think, is also refreshed with the framerate.
It's good to have those modifications, but they don't always solve the issue.
An all true circumstance when it comes to altering base code. That said, I kind of wanted to end my semi rant on a good note than concluding on Jim's glaring display of ignorance between the all too well known deficiencies in potential between the current gen consoles and modern gaming PC's. I hold no enmity towards the consoles, don't get me wrong. Jim's lambasting of Ubisoft of having to most likely lock the resolution and framerate for the sake of the console performance and then having to do the same for PC because last time I checked, time frames for any project need to be adhered to and then dropping in his growing interest into PC gaming just shows his lack of knowledge with said hardware. Also, the use of the remastered Last of Us as an example? By that circumstance, Jim should be comparing it to a remastered version of Assassin's Creed 2 instead of a brand new game.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
ghalleon0915 said:
It's too bad the Bioware news blurb didn't make it in time for Jim's video, would have been interesting to see his take on that in correlation to Ubisoft's announcement. I do wonder about Ubisoft though, it seems that everytime they open their rhetorical mouth they get themselves in trouble.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Unity and Rogue come out.

Also, damn Jim your podium is crowded now; I remember when it was just Willem Dafoe now he's got friends.
I shudder if Jim gets the job of reviewing the games when they're finally released. All the bollocks that Jim calls out Ubisoft for might color his opinion of the finished product.

OT: Do Ubisoft's developers and spokespeople live on the same planet? It's like all their programmers and engineers are the cast of Dilbert, but all their press releases are done by the Pointy-Haired Boss.
 

Beliyal

Big Stupid Jellyfish
Jun 7, 2010
503
0
0
Madd the Sane said:
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.
Not really in Unity, but if you buy Unity's season pass, you'll get a completely separate game (a stylized 2D side-scroller set in China) with a female PC. So Unity is still maximum dudeage in the PC section, but at least they made a new game in a new setting people have been begging for a long time. Only it's not a main game and it's an entirely different genre.

OT: Ubi pls.

Did Microsoft pay them to do this? That wouldn't even be surprising at this point. I mean, there is no other reason why Ubisoft would not utilize the PS4 the best they could, it doesn't matter to them which version people are going to buy. I guess? But it would matter to Microsoft if more people got the PS4 version because of 1080p/60 fps. I don't even know anymore, but Ubisoft should probably stop saying stupid shit if they are so eager to "avoid debate and stuff".
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
I think Ubisoft is trying claim the title previously held by EA, the worst company in America. They're certainly working their way towards replacing them as company most hated by gamers. Honestly I don't care about frame rates or visuals, I just wish they'd stop with the bullshit.
 

alj

Master of Unlocking
Nov 20, 2009
335
0
0
I don't get it, they should make it run stable at 1080p 60fps first and then pump more into the better lighting and textures. And i am sorry but if you cannot get a game to run at a solid [email protected] even on the xbox you are doing it wrong, your engine is just shit or your textures are not optimised or something

PC was running the first half life at 1600x1200 higher than 60fps year and years ago on hardware 100s if not 1000s of times less powerful than an xbox one. Just scale back the lighting a bit or remove a few people from the crowd or have people code more creatively.

People may not know why a game is better but it someone in front of the exact same game at 60 vs 30 and they will feel the difference even if they don't know what that difference is caused by.

I mean come on use your testers better. Ever heard of double blind trials ? Randomly put your testers in a room get them to play at 60 or 30 but don't tell them , don't even tell the people who are running the test and look at the results, i would bet you 200 quid that every single one who plays at 60 will rate the game higher on a scale of 1-10 for how it feels than the ones who play at 30, its not an objective thing it has been proven and tested in a manner similar to the above that 60 is better than 30, its not open for debate its simple testing.

And with resolution, yes on a tv several feet away its harder to notice a lower res but why sacrifice resolution for other graphical enhancements like AA when a higher rest will reduce the need for them. Why have an extra actor in that crowd or some more ground clutter when you can have a higher rest that makes things look smoother, its like making your game look better for free no extra code or new tech just reduce load so you can pump up the res.

Next big debate draw distance!
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
0
0
This frame rate business is really becoming tedious. Honestly having a game at 30 fps is fine so long as it runs smoothly, but across all platforms it seems like Ubisoft is failing to even keep it consistent at 30. Not enough time has passed between the eight gen's beginning and now but it's not a good sign.

60 fps? Not relevant if you can't get your frame rate consistent. Hence why Knack was not celebrated for its frame rate.
 

GloatingSwine

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
So what are you going to do about it Jim?

You're the reviews editor at The Escapist, it should be easy for you to institute a policy that any game which runs at sub-60fps is specifically marked down and that it is mentioned in the review that this is why it's happening.

Hit them in their metacritic scores.

After all, the fact that reviews never have marked games down for failing to be 60fps and will frequently mention that graphical compromises have been made to get to 60 (equivocating over whether it's an overall benefit) is why game developers don't actually chase it as a feature.
 

BlueJoneleth

New member
Feb 8, 2011
78
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
I think Ubisoft is trying claim the title previously held by EA, the worst company in America. They're certainly working their way towards replacing them as company most hated by gamers. Honestly I don't care about frame rates or visuals, I just wish they'd stop with the bullshit.
Well they are still French ,so I don't think they can win that award. :p
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
BlueJoneleth said:
canadamus_prime said:
I think Ubisoft is trying claim the title previously held by EA, the worst company in America. They're certainly working their way towards replacing them as company most hated by gamers. Honestly I don't care about frame rates or visuals, I just wish they'd stop with the bullshit.
Well they are still French ,so I don't think they can win that award. :p
Oh right. I forgot. Well there is Ubisoft Montreal, so worst company in Canada?
 

Catfood220

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,944
182
68
Or Ubisoft, maybe you should give Assassins Creed a year or two off so that your developers can actually catch up with the technology and make the best experience possible. And to give the people who are utterly burnt out on the series a chance to actually miss the games.
 

themilo504

New member
May 9, 2010
731
0
0
Could somebody please tell me what fps is and how it affects videogames? I honestly don?t know.
 

Brian Tams

New member
Sep 3, 2012
919
0
0
The problem with Ubisoft is that they feel they can get away with trying to shove BS down our throats.

And we let them. Remember when we all bitched and moaned about all the horse crap revolving around Watch_Dogs, and proclaim Ubisoft was on equal footing with EA in terms of how they treat customers? And yet everyone, fucking everyone flocked to their local stores and made Watch_Dogs one of the fastest selling new IPs ever.

Ubisoft isn't going to stop until we stop empowering them.
 

BlueJoneleth

New member
Feb 8, 2011
78
0
0
themilo504 said:
Could somebody please tell me what fps is and how it affects videogames? I honestly don?t know.
Frames per second, so the number of images displayed every second on your screen. Framerate has to be consistent cause otherwise it cause a chopping effect in a game.

Most movies use 24 fps. For games 30 is usually considered the minimum bearable, but 60 has more or less been the standard for pc games for years now. People were hoping the new gen will move consoles up to 60 fps too, even devs announced it, but it seems the xbox one & ps4 are not powerful enough, so now we have ton of PR people telling 30 fps is fine.
 

Kohen Keesing

New member
Oct 6, 2014
40
0
0
Madd the Sane said:
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.
Oh wow, if that's true, then I see now where it was they got off stating it's 'too resource hungry' to create a female protagonist. At the money-draining platform. For fuck sake.

OT: Saying that 30fps is better and more cinematic to someone like me who spends about 2/3rds of my day staring at a 50" TV is just going to make me tell you to fuck off, Ubisoft. Now while it's not a huge-big-hairy (I can play most games that run at 30fps relatively well), I'll quote Shrekfan above:

shrekfan246 said:
game developers and publishers are actively negating one of the inherent benefits of playing on PC in the first place
The 30FPS thing is actually what made me sneer at the announcements for The Evil Within, the upcoming horror, because they said exactly the same fucking thing , that 30 frames is just 'better' and 'more cinematic' and it's part of the 'artist's vision for the game'. I want sixty frames because I like the smoothness and I'm quite a reflex-based gamer, therefore relying on a higher framerate to give my brain the feedback it wants. But now publishers are telling me that i'm "doing videogames wrong", apparently.

This sounds suspiciously like it's following in the vein of The XBOne having to change its name from "Xbox 720" because the thing can't actually reliably play games at 720p. This is showing the fallacy of a graphics driven game industry, where in the field of flashy particle effects and one million polygon faces and 1000 NPC scenes, eventually something has to give way.
 

GloatingSwine

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
BlueJoneleth said:
themilo504 said:
Could somebody please tell me what fps is and how it affects videogames? I honestly don?t know.
Frames per second, so the number of images displayed every second on your screen. Framerate has to be consistent cause otherwise it cause a chopping effect in a game.

Most movies use 24 fps. For games 30 is usually considered the minimum bearable, but 60 has more or less been the standard for pc games for years now. People were hoping the new gen will move consoles up to 60 fps too, even devs announced it, but it seems the xbox one & ps4 are not powerful enough, so now we have ton of PR people telling 30 fps is fine.
It's more than that.

Between 30 and 60FPS there is a noticable increase in the fluidity of onscreen animations because more discrete steps are rendered and thus the motion looks more natural to the brain.

But also there's another element to the frame rate, which is the input delay, because the length of time between the game processing an input and the effects of the input beginning to happen on screen is tied to the frame rate, games with lower frame rates have a longer delay between input and onscreen effect and if the frame rate is low enough, or the input timings demanding enough, this can become perceptible.

In the specific case of Assassin's Creed I'm sure they can actually get away with 30fps because the input timings are famously loose, press X sometime in the same general era as an enemy attack, get an instant kill counter. Slow games get away with it as well, Dark Souls manages to survive 30FPS (if that occasionally) because combat is slow as hell and anticipating attacks and openings is more important than reacting to them.

So whilst 60FPS is always better, it's less worse for some games to be at 30 than others.