You have to read his posts in his own mindset's context. For him, as long as a game runs on his hardware, it's well optimized.
He doesn't make the distinction between a game running on his hardware and a game running well on all hardware.
Did you actually read the article I linked? You are saying all those gamers just made it up that playing in offline mode improces their performance? I guess it's similar to you denying all reports of 970/980 SLI users having issues because you don't...
You know if it wasn't for the honest media reviewed and gamer feedback, and if we all listened to you, Unity sounds like a great game to spend $50 on:
"Assassins Creed Unity buckles in other ways, making for the least stable, worst-performing major release Ive played this year. Its moment-to-moment performance varies between acceptable and abysmal
Source: Polygon
This game is in a much worse state than the already hated WD.
I seriously have to ask:
1) Do you work in the gaming industry?
2) Are you directly or indirectly affiliated with NV, Ubisoft or any other game developer/publisher?
3) Do you own NV or Ubisoft stock?
You have defended this game to no end despite 99.9% of the world seeing how awful this title was on release and still is now. Unity is such a monumental reputation failure / lesson for Ubisoft that this game single-handily is changing Ubisoft's PR and business/development/testing practices (hopefully for the better).
I don't know if it is because I'm only 10% of the way through the game, because I didn't start playing it until a day after release, or because I have a sandy 2500+GTX970, but I haven't seemed to have any problems playing this game. The main negatives I've had are CTRL doesn't seem to always enter windows like it supposed too, moving in and out of cover is awkward sometimes(I often don't bother). I'm really enjoying it so far, the movements aren't as smooth as Tomb Raider, but I still think its very enjoyable.
The graphics are really good in general, there is some of the pop-in people talk about. For a lot of things its not that much more noticeable than other games, but some of the outfits really stand out occasionally when it streams in the higher textures, similar to how the game Rage by ID had noticeable pop-in. Still though, I find the graphics to be very good in general, and I really like the lighting.
I think the difficulty lies in that we haven't seen much next gen stuff yet. Unity is like #2 behind advanced warfare on the release list. When people see far cry, dragons age, and gta 5 then creed will stick out like a sore thumb when it is sitting in the back of the pack with the lowest frame rates.
THey really are. I want to unwrap mine, but after reading the live update of patch 1.2, it covers only arno falling through things issues or stuck in hay bails; no frame rates. Tons of people still having issues and ubisoft in that blog entry asking them for details. It is exactly beta testing that we're seeing here.http://www.gamepur.com/news/16952-w...ps-issues-ps4-and-pc-discovered-put-your.html
As it turns out, UPlay may be responsible for some of the performance issues. Some users report doubling of FPS when playing the game in offline mode on the PC. Also, Ubisoft is working on Patch 2 to resolve some performance issues. Sad that gamers paid $50-60 to be beta testers for Ubisoft's incompetence.
You have to read his posts in his own mindset's context. For him, as long as a game runs on his hardware, it's well optimized.
He doesn't make the distinction between a game running on his hardware and a game running well on all hardware.
It's two things. First and foremost, it's an Nvidia sponsored Gameworks game. Must. Defend. Secondary is the Ubisoft support, but as long as it's Nvidia sponsored, it can be ANY developer.If you followed the Watch_Dogs threads, you will discover that he's a huge supporter of Ubisoft games and will defend them no matter what. It's either illogical or some other alternative motivation.
Did you actually read the article I linked? You are saying all those gamers just made it up that playing in offline mode improces their performance? I guess it's similar to you denying all reports of 970/980 SLI users having issues because you don't...
I never said the game wasn't buggy, just that it wasn't unoptimized to the extent that some people like you who don't even have the game suggest.You know if it wasn't for the honest media reviewed and gamer feedback, and if we all listened to you, Unity sounds like a great game to spend $50 on
You're simply wrong. I have both games, so my opinion counts for more than yours since you don't have either game. Watch Dogs was and still is unoptimized. The resource management in that game was broken, which is why it took them MONTHS to release performance increasing patches.This game is in a much worse state than the already hated WD.
No, no and no. I just call B.S when I see it.1) Do you work in the gaming industry?
2) Are you directly or indirectly affiliated with NV, Ubisoft or any other game developer/publisher?
3) Do you own NV or Ubisoft stock?
What I see are a small group of people with an illogical hatred for a gaming company that consistently puts out good games.You have defended this game to no end despite 99.9% of the world seeing how awful this title was on release and still is now. Unity is such a monumental reputation failure / lesson for Ubisoft that this game single-handily is changing Ubisoft's PR and business/development/testing practices (hopefully for the better).
You have to read his posts in his own mindset's context. For him, as long as a game runs on his hardware, it's well optimized.
He doesn't make the distinction between a game running on his hardware and a game running well on all hardware.
It's two things. First and foremost, it's an Nvidia sponsored Gameworks game. Must. Defend. Secondary is the Ubisoft support, but as long as it's Nvidia sponsored, it can be ANY developer.
If you followed the Watch_Dogs threads, you will discover that he's a huge supporter of Ubisoft games and will defend them no matter what. It's either illogical or some other alternative motivation.
runs fine for me @ 1440pApparently you haven't been reading this thread, and the others. Most people that actually HAVE the game unlike you and several others, haven't been complaining about the performance.
Is there room for improvement? Of course there is. But any game that can consistently maintain 60 FPS (especially given the very high IQ and NPC count in this game) isn't by nature unoptimized. Unoptimized games don't run fast period, regardless of hardware.
And several review websites have benchmarked the game and found that if you turn MSAA off, the game actually performs decently. Sure, it's not forgiving towards low end machines, but we already knew that as the system requirements were fairly high.
So for those that are mad because they can't run it on their toasters, cry me a river.
Apparently you haven't been reading this thread, and the others. Most people that actually HAVE the game unlike you and several others, haven't been complaining about the performance.
Is there room for improvement? Of course there is. But any game that can consistently maintain 60 FPS (especially given the very high IQ and NPC count in this game) isn't by nature unoptimized. Unoptimized games don't run fast period, regardless of hardware.
And several review websites have benchmarked the game and found that if you turn MSAA off, the game actually performs decently. Sure, it's not forgiving towards low end machines, but we already knew that as the system requirements were fairly high.
So for those that are mad because they can't run it on their toasters, cry me a river.
runs fine for me @ 1440p
The problem is that for many people, it does not run fine.runs fine for me @ 1440p
Actually, I don't blame Nvidia/AMD/Intel/Any Third Party at all. The developer is Ubisoft, they made the game, they are responsible for it, they are at fault. Consider all the Watch Dogs nonsense they pulled, I am not surprised that Unity was a horrible launch. Not surprised at all.It's two things. First and foremost, it's an Nvidia sponsored Gameworks game. Must. Defend. Secondary is the Ubisoft support, but as long as it's Nvidia sponsored, it can be ANY developer.
CPU - 5930K @ 3.7GHz all cores in use loaded up, 30%-40% total usage in game
GameGPU benches show the game does use 8 cores and that is at 3.0GHz stock. Honestly, not a bad job Ubisoft (seriously).
Your CPU usage is lower than mine, but I guess that's because you have a single card setup. With SLI the CPU usage increases because more data has to be fed to the GPUs, and there's more overhead as well.
I think the most the engine uses is 6 cores and not 8. The 5960x leads the benchmarks because it has Haswell architecture, and it also has a massive L3 cache.
The PCGH.de benchmarks show the game scales all the way up to 6 cores, but benefits drastically diminish after that.
really impressed with how amazing this game looks.