Assassin's Creed Unity thread

[chimaxi83]

Reviewers are reviewing gameplay/story though and not just graphics/FPS Dips (Which eventually get fixed). A Reviewer will just turn down the settings and play the game.

That right there is the root of this BS. Everybody seems to be ok with this. Ubisoft is one of the worst offenders, right along with Dice. Why is it ok to release buggy CRAP?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

really impressed with how amazing this game looks.

The game looks like it needed some more time for polish. I mean, the textures look pretty good up close. Just look at the texturing on that shirt; it's like you can reach out and feel the starchiness. But then you look at the bottom of the shirt and it's a blurry, pixelated mess. Similarly, the architecture looks really impressive, but anything even remotely distant starts to look terrible in a hurry with extremely low resolution LOD textures. And big crowds? Cool! But if you start to look closely, 95% of them have no facial features at all. At all. They look worse than the blockheaded enemies in Goldeneye. And the majority of them aren't casting shadows. It's little things like that that make you feel like the development cycle was rushed to meet a deadline and deliver an experience that current systems weren't quite equipped to handle.

 

[cbrunny]

I was thinking about this, and about the blog post by buddy at Ubisoft. http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.ph...ds-Compatibility-with-Assassin-s-Creed-Unity?

and about AMD in the consoles, and about this being an nVidia sponsored title.

I don't know that much about hardware companies sponsoring software companies like TWIMTBP. I know it exists but I don't really know what it means. Does this mean that the game was coded with intention of being played on nVidia hardware rather than AMD? Or put another way, was the game coded on nVidia hardware with little to no thought about how AMD hardware might handle it?

Seems like Ubi screwed up big time if that's the case, especially since the consoles are AMD. If the game is tuned (better) for nVidia cards, why would we not expect the consoles to run like garbage and AMD gpu's have issues while nVidia has better framerates and a better experience.

I have to think that as long as AMD is in consoles, any company that is going to port games from consoles to PC would want AMD sponsoring, not nVidia, in order to tune the game to the platform that most will buy it on. nVidia must line Ubi's pockets deep.

I don't know. like I said, I don't know much about game sponsorship and even less about development. And I'm speculating. So this is probably an irrational/irrelevant train of thought.

 

[escrow4]

Honestly, screw the Steam surveys - a lot of those "gamers" won't be maxing out games from 2012, never mind 2015. Yes if you have a gaming box you want 16GB RAM and an i7 in 2015 if you want it to last and keep the minimums up. Those with those specs (minus bugs) are keeping the game at a higher framerate than poky old consoles. Its equally unreasonable to expect to max this out with TXAA/MSAA.

Look at the CPU load:

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...Action-Assassins_Creed_Unity-test-ac_proz.jpg

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...ction-Assassins_Creed_Unity-test-ac_intel.jpg

I'd bet $100 that a lot of the moaners are complaining that their Core 2 and old Core i5's can't keep up. They are a hitting a CPU wall.

I might give this a shot and see how my 5930K fares but I'm way more interested in Inquisition.

 

[tential]

That right there is the root of this BS. Everybody seems to be ok with this. Ubisoft is one of the worst offenders, right along with Dice. Why is it ok to release buggy CRAP?

Yes, EVERYONE is ok with this, that's why there is MASSIVE backlash for this game?

Try to read what I said in context(I was responding to RS's quote) rather than just by itself in a bubble.

The reviews for this game aren't a graphics engine review but a GAME REVIEW. So get over it if the game doesn't receive a 5/10 review score. It's a game review site, IGN, GAmespot, etc. their readers would be utterly lost if a game received such a low score based on graphics optimization/bugs alone, and the review score wouldn't remotely reflect the game performance 5 months down the line. IGN/Gamespot/etc. are supposed to now update their review score after every patch?

Try to actually understand my post in its context....

I've been posting continuously about how it is RIDICULOUS that to run this game you essentially need a SLI setup and how it's ridiculous that posters on this forum seem to think it's the NORM to have an i7, 16 GB of ram, and the latest SLI setup from Nvidia. The only people who AREN'T complaining about this game are people who have SLI setups or are running LGA2011 platform setups. Poster above me is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

 

[escrow4]

Yes, EVERYONE is ok with this, that's why there is MASSIVE backlash for this game?

Try to read what I said in context(I was responding to RS's quote) rather than just by itself in a bubble.

The reviews for this game aren't a graphics engine review but a GAME REVIEW. So get over it if the game doesn't receive a 5/10 review score. It's a game review site, IGN, GAmespot, etc. their readers would be utterly lost if a game received such a low score based on graphics optimization/bugs alone, and the review score wouldn't remotely reflect the game performance 5 months down the line. IGN/Gamespot/etc. are supposed to now update their review score after every patch?

Try to actually understand my post in its context....

I've been posting continuously about how it is RIDICULOUS that to run this game you essentially need a SLI setup and how it's ridiculous that posters on this forum seem to think it's the NORM to have an i7, 16 GB of ram, and the latest SLI setup from Nvidia. The only people who AREN'T complaining about this game are people who have SLI setups or are running LGA2011 platform setups. Poster above me is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

Its not ridiculous. Weren't the same complaints made back in 2006 with 360 and PS3? 128MB and a P4 not enough anymore? When consoles jump forward (or backward heh) PCs will need a fat adjustment to handle the ports. Now you NEED quads and you NEED a fat slab of memory.

 

[tential]

Its not ridiculous. Weren't the same complaints made back in 2006 with 360 and PS3? 128MB and a P4 not enough anymore? When consoles jump forward (or backward heh) PCs will need a fat adjustment to handle the ports. Now you NEED quads and you NEED a fat slab of memory.

HD 7950, Core i7 CPU 2600k @ 4.5 ghz, 8GB of Ram, All Settings on LOW
And the person manages 38-48 FPS?
http://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/2lypdl/so_whats_the_verdict_on_assassins_creed_unitys/

So the GTX 600 series and the HD7950 (and it's equivalent R series brother) are obselete?

You're essentially saying that unless you own a GTX 970/980, R9 290/x, i7 processor, and 16GB of ram, that you shouldn't be playing new games...

Lol.... only on a hardware forum where users upgrade yearly since hardware is part of their hobby is this "acceptable".

Edit: Again, like I said, the only people that defend this reasoning are HEDT platform users with SLI setups that purchase hardware as part of their hobby. For the regular user that doesn't upgrade their GPU every year, this is extremely unacceptable performance.

For a point of reference, see how in DA3

You can max out settings and still at least his a 30 fps "Cinematic" view on a R9 270x. Turn down that MSAA and you'll get to almost 60 FPS I bet. Or, I can play AC Unity on all LOW settings and barely get to 50 FPS....

Do you see the difference?

 

[Fire&Blood]

As a 7950 owner, I have known my GPU is on it's way out. Unity is a bad example, I'll take Ryse instead since it looked impressive to me and it's vegetation is the best I have ever seen. It can't get to 60fps at 1080p and it's not the first game that forces compromises. It's been a while since it was able to hit 60fps without compromising and that's with moderate AA. I don't know what kind of port we'll get with GTA V or how well Witcher 3 will run but I pretty sure it will crawl in the 30's.

On the CPU side, Sandy to Ivy to Haswell, hasn't been too dramatic and CPU's tend to stay relevant longer anyway. i5-2500k are ok to go into 2015 but not to get out of it, asking a 2500k to keep up with broadwell and skylake is unrealistic.

I got my 7950 in 2012, it did well for me, it's been over 2 years now but I don't think it's realistic to expect it to stay relevant in 2015.

1080p/60fps is not an idling milestone that once achieved, we can expect to keep hitting:

 

[escrow4]

7950 is barely minimum settings for one, for two, you can see what happens when you run it. It ain't enough. Too bad. I already posted the AC unity cpu benches, a 2600K can crack 60, but that GPU is holding them back. At least in this game.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Under 15% of gamers on Steam have over 12GB of ram....
I guess we're only making games for the top 15% of gamers then and screw you if you don't have 16GB of ram.

Why stop there? Don't have SLI/CF configuration? Then don't play our games!

Why bother making a game capable of running on AMD and Intel Cpus? Afterall, we all know Intel CPUs perform better so lets just target the 4770k as a bareminimum to play games. Don't own a 8 threaded intel CPU? Too bad!

Come on man.....


Reviewers are reviewing gameplay/story though and not just graphics/FPS Dips (Which eventually get fixed). A Reviewer will just turn down the settings and play the game.

According to game.gpu, any higher end intel quad will give 60 FPS minimum at 1080p, and even a Haswell i3 is close to that. Doesnt seem too bad to me. Doesnt seem like such a cpu hog to me, although AMD cpus do poorly.

 

[ibex333]

Just wanna chime in and say how it's completely ridiculous and crazy how they pump out one Assasin's Creed after another. I think one would have to play ONLY Assasin's Creed to keep track of every single game that came out and beat every one of them.

They released so many AC games that I honestly lost count and I don't know what is what anymore. As someone who loves PC games I am trying to play all the best games and not miss any of them, so I didn't even get to the 1st Assasin's Creed yet, not to mention Unity... I think the devs are hurting themselves, because they could probably sit on their success a bit longer before releasing the next installment.

Still, in the end, perhaps someone like me wins either way, because at some point in the future I'll buy all the AC games in the series for like $20 and play them from the 1st to the last.

It seems to me AC must be one of the longest running series I ever seen... Maybe Splinter Cell can match it.. or Call of Duty... But I cant think of much of anything else.

 

[tential]

As a 7950 owner, I have known my GPU is on it's way out. Unity is a bad example, I'll take Ryse instead since it looked impressive to me and it's vegetation is the best I have ever seen. It can't get to 60fps at 1080p and it's not the first game that forces compromises. It's been a while since it was able to hit 60fps without compromising and that's with moderate AA. I don't know what kind of port we'll get with GTA V or how well Witcher 3 will run but I pretty sure it will crawl in the 30's.

On the CPU side, Sandy to Ivy to Haswell, hasn't been too dramatic and CPU's tend to stay relevant longer anyway. i5-2500k are ok to go into 2015 but not to get out of it, asking a 2500k to keep up with broadwell and skylake is unrealistic.

I got my 7950 in 2012, it did well for me, it's been over 2 years now but I don't think it's realistic to expect it to stay relevant in 2015.

1080p/60fps is not an idling milestone that once achieved, we can expect to keep hitting:

Vastly missing my point then. No one said I expect the HD7950 to play a game at the maximum settings at all or even close to that. However, AC Unity turning EVERY setting to it's lowest setting possible and not being able to hit 60 FPS is ridiculous.

Again, refer to the Dragon Age Inquisition chart. That chart is max detail and if you turn down a "couple" of settings you can hit 60 fps. I'm perfectly fine with turning down settings, I don't use Ultra/Max settings on any game with my HD 7950. I usually use High/Very High with no AA and get great frame rates.

If you seriously believe that the HD 7950 should need all the settings lowered to the bare minimum, and still not hit 60 FPS, well I guess you have zero expectations from games. Thankfully at LEAST the game I actually will purchase now, DA3, will have decent frame rates for my card at the level I will play it at (Max detail, no AA 1080p or maybe 2x AA at most).

 

[RussianSensation]

^ It's not even about HD7950. It's about how the game looks for a next gen game vs. the hardware required to run it smoothly.

Let's move up 1-2 tiers. 770/680/7970Ghz/280X run at 20-23 fps with sub-20 minimums at 1080P. If that wasn't a joke enough, 780/290X are all below 40 fps, with Titan just at 40 and 780Ti at 43!!! Those were $700-1000 GPUs and 780Ti came out just 1 year ago.

Let's talk about context. All of these cards run Crysis 3, Metro LL, Tomb Raider much much faster and those 3 games look way better than Unity. I don't care about 1 billion NPCs with no life-like character movement, low polygon composition, missing faces/facial animations, broken static lighting/shadow model, blurry/washed out textures, unrealistic looking straw hair, poor level of detail in draw distance. Give me 10-20 NPCs onscreen with Crysis 3 or better graphics and I will accept that you need 780Ti SLI for 1080p. Even in cut scenes AC Unity still looks average but runs like a dog.

Next, as has already been mentioned by posters above me, it's ludicrous to expect people to upgrade every 1-1.5 years. That's top 5% of gamers. Now if someone bought $650 780, $700 780Ti, $1000 Titan, $550 290X, all of those run slow at 1080p and basically chug fest at 1440P. That means if you were a gamer who purchased dual 780, dual 780Ti, dual Titans at launch, you will have spent $1300-2000 on GPUs to run a broken console port at barely 60 fps at 1080p. WTF!!! That's a joke right? Don't forget in a lot of places in the world top cards don't cost anywhere near US MSRP.

You guys don't get it. When Crysis 1, 3, Witcher 2, Metro games came out and they required demanding hardware, it was because they looked amazing. AC Unity does not look graphically amazing, except in the eyes of the few defending it. By far the vast majority think it's a good looking game but not next generation at all. Any cut scene in Crysis 3 looks better and runs faster any 7950/7970/290X/770/780/780Ti than AC Unity's cut scenes. That's the problem. Even when you have low NPC count, AC Unity still doesn't look good, and runs like crap!! That's why everyone can see that this game is terribly broken.

For the level of graphics this game has, it should run at 60 fps avg on a 680/7970 all day and 780Ti at 60 fps at 1440p. The graphics are simply unimpressive vs. the hardware requirements.

Ubisoft already issued a statement acknowledging that Unity was rushed. From now on, there will be 2 teams working on AC games.

When the development team admits they were rushed with Unity and the publisher says from now on ALL AC games will have longer decelopment and testing time, there is no need to try and defend the failure that Unity is. The source of the game acknowledges that it was!
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/252...ure-assassins-creed-games-2nd-lead-developer/
And
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/252...dates-to-fix-issues-ubisoft-working-with-amd/

This is not the first broken console port this year. Watch Dogs, Titanfall and Evil Within were poorly optimized and had garbage graphics to boot too. It's just a common theme in 2014.

 

[brianmanahan]

If you seriously believe that the HD 7950 should need all the settings lowered to the bare minimum, and still not hit 60 FPS, well I guess you have zero expectations from games. Thankfully at LEAST the game I actually will purchase now, DA3, will have decent frame rates for my card at the level I will play it at (Max detail, no AA 1080p or maybe 2x AA at most).

i play on a single 7950 at 1440p with most settings on high

not 60fps, but somewhere between 30 and 50. i'm ok with that.

 

[Fire&Blood]

Vastly missing my point then. No one said I expect the HD7950 to play a game at the maximum settings at all or even close to that. However, AC Unity turning EVERY setting to it's lowest setting possible and not being able to hit 60 FPS is ridiculous.

Again, refer to the Dragon Age Inquisition chart. That chart is max detail and if you turn down a "couple" of settings you can hit 60 fps. I'm perfectly fine with turning down settings, I don't use Ultra/Max settings on any game with my HD 7950. I usually use High/Very High with no AA and get great frame rates.

If you seriously believe that the HD 7950 should need all the settings lowered to the bare minimum, and still not hit 60 FPS, well I guess you have zero expectations from games. Thankfully at LEAST the game I actually will purchase now, DA3, will have decent frame rates for my card at the level I will play it at (Max detail, no AA 1080p or maybe 2x AA at most).

I should have clarified better. I don't think Unity is performing as well as it should, I think there is more to get out of a 7950. I have a 1440p monitor, I have been gaming at native resolution with minimal or no compromises ever since I got the card. Unity is the first game to drop me into the teen fps, it looks good but it doesn't look absolutely amazing for me to conclude "I guess it does need better hardware". I'm absolutely convinced that if other studios had the money and manpower that Ubi had, they would meet or beat Unity's visuals without tanking on less than stellar hardware.

I want to point to Rockstar as the one to show Ubi how it's done but I am bouncing back and forth between remembering MP3, which was a good port and GTA4.

I guess what I tried to convey in the previous post was that while Unity is not an efficient port by any means, I am also aware of my card's decline from high end to mid range.

 

[Erenhardt]

Guy, the kepler optimization is here. The mighty nv architecture is showing its greatness. Little David (gtx660, or even better - gtx750) beats the Goliath (7970GHz).

That is 75Watt passive card vs almost 300 Watt monster:

It ain't rigged and/or GameWorks GPU_vendor check.... surely.

 

[Carfax83]

Hilarious gif is hilarious :awe:

 

[tential]

I should have clarified better. I don't think Unity is performing as well as it should, I think there is more to get out of a 7950. I have a 1440p monitor, I have been gaming at native resolution with minimal or no compromises ever since I got the card. Unity is the first game to drop me into the teen fps, it looks good but it doesn't look absolutely amazing for me to conclude "I guess it does need better hardware". I'm absolutely convinced that if other studios had the money and manpower that Ubi had, they would meet or beat Unity's visuals without tanking on less than stellar hardware.

I want to point to Rockstar as the one to show Ubi how it's done but I am bouncing back and forth between remembering MP3, which was a good port and GTA4.

I guess what I tried to convey in the previous post was that while Unity is not an efficient port by any means, I am also aware of my card's decline from high end to mid range.

EXACTLY. Look, I'm fine with our card being a midrange card. But just look at the most RECENT benchmark posted right here. We have a GTX 750Ti beating an HD 7970 now. There CLEARLY is more performance to be had the game is not well optimized.

It's acceptable to me to have to turn down settings on an HD 7950. But to run a game on all low settings and still dip below 30 fps? That's unacceptable. The fact that some users believe this to be acceptable shows that we have low expectations of developers and I don't want PC Gaming to head down that dark path.
Edit: The fact that they were able to get a performance boost this quickly and of this magnitude after launch just again shows how little developers cared about getting the game to be able to run on all RECENT hardware efficiently.

 

[RussianSensation]

Guy, the kepler optimization is here. The mighty nv architecture is showing its greatness. Little David (gtx660, or even better - gtx750) beats the Goliath (7970GHz).

That is 75Watt passive card vs almost 300 Watt monster:

It ain't rigged and/or GameWorks GPU_vendor check.... surely.

5 fps gain from 270 to 7970GE, 2X the performance for 290X over 7970GE and 750 beating 7970GE -- all unheard of in any game ever made on the PC!

Ubisoft stated that they are working with AMD to fix the major performance issues. Hopefully some sites will revisit this turd of a game. Giant Bomb gave it a 4/10. I can't wait for Witcher 3 to destroy this game in everything. Dragon Age Inquisition is at least getting amazing reviews despite being demanding too. With Unity, you get a weak story, boring gameplay, avg graphics and horrible performance for $50. Yuck.

 

[Eric1987]

5 fps gain from 270 to 7970GE, 2X the performance for 290X over 7970GE and 750 beating 7970GE -- all unheard of in any game ever made on the PC!

Ubisoft stated that they are working with AMD to fix the major performance issues. Hopefully some sites will revisit this turd of a game. Giant Bomb gave it a 4/10. I can't wait for Witcher 3 to destroy this game in everything. Dragon Age Inquisition is at least getting amazing reviews despite being demanding too. With Unity, you get a weak story, boring gameplay, avg graphics and horrible performance for $50. Yuck.

I love how people tell you how good the game is like its their opinion, too. IMO Unity has great gameplay, One of the best third person graphics out and yes it does perform terribly. Worse than watch dogs.

 

[cbrunny]

According to game.gpu, any higher end intel quad will give 60 FPS minimum at 1080p, and even a Haswell i3 is close to that. Doesnt seem too bad to me. Doesnt seem like such a cpu hog to me, although AMD cpus do poorly.

Perhaps with a nVidia GPU. I have a 4790k & 2 x 7970. Framerates are mid 40s, but lots of stutter.

 

[cbrunny]

I love how people tell you how good the game is like its their opinion, too. IMO Unity has great gameplay, One of the best third person graphics out and yes it does perform terribly. Worse than watch dogs.

This. But I didn't play Watch Dogs so I don't know anything about that.

 

[cbrunny]

5 fps gain from 270 to 7970GE, 2X the performance for 290X over 7970GE and 750 beating 7970GE -- all unheard of in any game ever made on the PC!

Ubisoft stated that they are working with AMD to fix the major performance issues. Hopefully some sites will revisit this turd of a game. Giant Bomb gave it a 4/10. I can't wait for Witcher 3 to destroy this game in everything. Dragon Age Inquisition is at least getting amazing reviews despite being demanding too. With Unity, you get a weak story, boring gameplay, avg graphics and horrible performance for $50. Yuck.

Spoken like someone who has no idea what they're talking about. Have you played this game? If not, move along bud.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Anyone else see a big performance improvement yesterday? Not sure if it was patched, but my system seemed to run the game a LOT better yesterday than it did before.

Also - for the PC version is it possible to actually select the hidden blade? Or is it only used when you have a stealth kill opportunity? In all the other games it was easy to select (left or down on the dpad) and I used to enjoy fighting with it as a primary weapon. But for the life of me I cannot figure out how to equip it in AC unity.

 

[tential]

Anyone else see a big performance improvement yesterday? Not sure if it was patched, but my system seemed to run the game a LOT better yesterday than it did before.

Also - for the PC version is it possible to actually select the hidden blade? Or is it only used when you have a stealth kill opportunity? In all the other games it was easy to select (left or down on the dpad) and I used to enjoy fighting with it as a primary weapon. But for the life of me I cannot figure out how to equip it in AC unity.

There apparently was a patch that fixed Nvidia performance according to Erenhardt's new GPU performance charts on AC Unity that is posted on post #141.