No one even needs a review for this, its basicly "Ubisoft: The Game", every major mechanic of every other Ubisoft game is in here without much adaptation so you better love climbing spots to have your map updated.
Thank you, Mr. Enraged Panda-Man. That was quite informative, and an easier read than what I got while doing a quick search on screen refresh rates, frame rates and buffering.KingsGambit said:It's been "the standard" as it were since the prevalence of LCD monitors, about a decade or so give or take. CRT monitors generally had higher refresh rates, anywhere from 75-120Hz+ typically (some went much higher). LCD screens however took up less space, had flat screens, etc but lower refresh rates.Kerethos said:SnipRabid_meese said:Snip
Most LCDs, even today, are around 60Hz. Some are 75Hz and there are current (TN only) screen models that refresh at 120Hz (this is mostly so that they can show 3D stuff at 60Hz per eye, though 2D @ 120Hz is also a bonus). The reason for wanting 60FPS in the game is so that it matches the screen's refresh rate. If matched perfectly, a game will look and play silk smoothly with no screen tearing or lag. Lower frame rates means some frames have to be duplicated. Some games go so far as to "step down" completely from 60 -> 30 if 60 can't be maintained as then each frame can be doubled and play can continue, albeit (arguably) less smoothly.
At an in between number of frames, the game will look disjointed and there will be frequent screen tearing. Triple buffering and VSync both help in that regard. In an ideal world, a game's FPS would precisely match the refresh rate of its screen. Since consoles generally can't maintain 60fps, they are stepped down to 30fps with each frame doubled for 60Hz screens (the most common kind). Just know that if one's screen had a 75Hz refresh rate, 60FPS games would also suffer screen tearing and artefacts during fast scenes, so one would want to play at 75FPS ideally. I can only dream of how great games would play at 120FPS on a suitable screen (albeit a TN display), but my most recent screen is a 60Hz IPS monitor.
Last point of note is that it's only really consoles which lock frame rates in games since PC frame rates are essentially "unlimited" and variable, dependant on the power of the PC/graphics card (and obviously the monitors ability to display it). Hence we get graphical settings to tweak for the right balance of visuals vs. performance with the top end cards generally powerful enough to max out everything and still have the grunt to maintain high FPS.
So you can play, great. Now check the webs for 3min and start counting how many AMD user can not play the game.NLS said:What? I have both AMD processor and GPU, no problems. I did have some trouble logging into uPlay the first few tries, but that's because everyone is trying to get in at the same time. It worked again after 10 minutes or so. Been playing it for an hour without any problems.
I suggest you just wait a few days for things to settle down, and it'll probably be solved by less pressure on uPlay and maybe even a patch or two. Pretty much "all" games nowadays have launch issues the first few hours, demanding a refund when the game probably works the next morning is a bit harsh.
A pleasure. And in an interesting case of coincidence, Experienced Points discussed just this subject in today's column [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/experienced-points/11507-The-Great-Framerate-Debate]. There's some more info there that might be of interest also.Kerethos said:Thank you, Mr. Enraged Panda-Man. That was quite informative, and an easier read than what I got while doing a quick search on screen refresh rates, frame rates and buffering.
Also, your forum avatar is quite amusing.
OT: No matter what the reviews say I'm still going to give Watchdogs a long wait, so that AMD might get some decent drivers out and the DLC surge is done, before I give it a try. Because despite all the performance issues being reported right now, the game does look like one I'd enjoy - provided I can get it to run satisfyingly on my PC.
Yeah, the character design + uber generic revenge backstory pushed this from a pre-order to a "maybe if it goes on sale" for me. I'm sick of that shit and if I keep buying it that's all the industry is ever going to make.Zydrate said:Might get it on a sale. Not interested in playing yet another generic white guy. Bit tired of those.
Post on some forums, make some calls. Do what you can to salvage your investment.coppah20HE said:I was really hyped for this game.
Spent $84 on a special editon, waited 9 hours for it to download.
Now I can't even get past the first loading screen without it crashing.
It's completely unplayable.
This. I'm tired of gravelly voiced dudes as the default.Zydrate said:Might get it on a sale. Not interested in playing yet another generic white guy. Bit tired of those.
You actually can't do 1080p/60 on Ultra. A lot of people have been posting benchmarks all over the internets and so far none of them have been able to do it. TotalBiscuit did a video on this as well, and his 5k$ rig couldn't do it either. So nope.Rainbow_Dashtruction said:Thats a bug that can be fixed by using borderless windowed mode. Its got something to do with the Vsync. You should be able to run ultra at 60+AnthrSolidSnake said:Per usual though, the PC port right now is terrible, at least for the majority of people it seems. Playing with my 780ti, I get horrible stutter, significant frame rate drops and screen tearing, making the game pretty much unplayable right now. Looks like I'll have to wait for a patch for a new game...again.
That's racist.penthesilea180 said:This. I'm tired of gravelly voiced dudes as the default.Zydrate said:Might get it on a sale. Not interested in playing yet another generic white guy. Bit tired of those.