What the people trying to do nothing but praise the game are failing to understand is that this thing shipped absolutely broken.
Do you honestly want them to keep shipping games like this? Your fun factor as it stood from launch until now relied wholly on two things. The craftsmanship of the story and gameplay, and luck. Luck because as great as the game may be, it's a broken mess. If you were able to experience it without a lot of bugs, good for you. It changes nothing about how broken the game shipped.
If I paid $300 for a lawnmower that didn't work right and had to be serviced 4 times, the 4th time replacing chunks of the lawnmower, no one in their right mind would ever buy that product or the next few from that company.
But just because games can be patched, why is it that gamers aren't allowed to make legitimate complaints about a completely broken product? It makes no sense. Yes, this is a large game, they were under constraints, you may like the story and how after 8 games (not counting DS or mobile) in the series you can finally duck in a game where stealth is a main mechanic, but that's no excuse for shipping a broken product. There is never a good excuse for that.
Diablo III has improved so much since launch, but they're not excused for nearly killing the franchise with how stupidly broke the game was at launch from a mechanics and technical (b.net) standpoint. If the users hadn't repeatedly told them how hard they screwed up, do you think the game would be as good as it is today? And before you try to throw in a tangential retort that would somehow invalidate my main point, I realize that Diablo III is still far from perfect in both mechanics and technical issues.
I'm glad that you like the game. But it was broke. Real bad. And they should feel bad. Customers shouldn't pay full price to alpha/beta test.
But i know there are others in this community that have actual opinions on the gameplay of this game and would rather talk about that than see who can squeeze out the biggest terd.
That's all well and good, so why don't you go make a thread focused on what game developers should ship? This would fit in that thread. Your point has been regurgitated probably 200 times in this thread alone. It does nothing to further an actual conversation about this game.
Hard to talk about it when they can't play it. Because it was broke for so long. That's obviously the point.
Then it was foolish of them to get so far along in the design of the game without knowing what the limitations of consoles were, and not allow enough time to adjust once they did know.
Totalbiscuit screwed up. He didn't use the latest SLI profile for the game which increased performance substantially, and he used the highest MSAA setting which reduces performance by 20+ FPS..Yeah, tell that to Totalbiscuit and his SLI'd 980s.
Yeah, because console and PC hardware are "directly" comparable. You've been here long enough to know that's not the case.Also, the published "minimum" requirements were horrible. GTX 680 and HD 7970 as minimums? The minimum requirement should be at least as low as the power of a console, which would be the R9-270/GTX 660 area. If that's not a sign of a poorly optimized PC port, I don't know what is.
Personally speaking, valid criticisms don't bother me. It's the invalid ones that make my blood boil.You're totally welcome and can talk as you please, we're just not going to change our behavior and what we talk about simply because you want us to...
It seems to me that people don't want to feel bad about paying $60 for this polished turd.
Which I guess I can understand as I'd feel bad if I paid $60 for it too.
I wouldn't even pirate this game for free actually in it's current state. So I guess that's a plus for the game?
Edit: Not even in the top 200 games being pirated so I guess if you release a game broken enough, people will struggle to take it even if it's free. Pirates would rather play Spore, Goat Simulator, Euro Truck Simulator, Farming Simulator, GTA Vice City, literally anything but this. So I guess this is more effective than DRM....
Ubisoft, a great innovator, saves money on development, and gets better DRM protection as well.
Yeah, because console and PC hardware are "directly" comparable. You've been here long enough to know that's not the case.
They didn't quote the exact cards used in the consoles. They are hardware equivalent (and then some) taking into account PC overhead.
One should expect to be able to play at 1080p, 30 fps, and medium/high settings with those cards (R9 270, GTX 660). That's just a hair better than the consoles since they render at 900p. We're talking about the minimum, and you're citing the increased visual fidelity from high end graphics. It doesn't equate. It's a false equivocation.
Citing the last gen's high end as a MINIMUM is never a good sign. At least the 680 is two generations old. So, at a minimum, have a one and a half year old $500 video card. Sounds like it's crafted really well.
I can't comment on the SLI'd 980's. I thought it was assumed you don't get to complain until the profile is available, and just run it on one card until then. In that case, there's still zero reason a 980 shouldn't have the easiest of times.
Totalbiscuit screwed up. He didn't use the latest SLI profile for the game which increased performance substantially, and he used the highest MSAA setting which reduces performance by 20+ FPS..
Just because you're a PC gamer, doesn't mean you know what you're doing when it comes to settings and configuration.
Yeah, because console and PC hardware are "directly" comparable. You've been here long enough to know that's not the case.
Also, the PC runs at a higher visual fidelity and frame rate than the consoles which requires faster hardware. If you want a console like experience, buy a fricking console!
One should expect to be able to play at 1080p, 30 fps, and medium/high settings with those cards (R9 270, GTX 660). That's just a hair better than the consoles since they render at 900p. We're talking about the minimum, and you're citing the increased visual fidelity from high end graphics. It doesn't equate. It's a false equivocation.
You're looking at his from a myopic perspective. Neither the GTX 680 and HD 7970 are high end cards anymore. What they used to be two years ago does not matter anymore, as they have been replaced by much faster cards. That's just technological process, and it is unending..Citing the last gen's high end as a MINIMUM is never a good sign. At least the 680 is two generations old. So, at a minimum, have a one and a half year old $500 video card. Sounds like it's crafted really well
And you know this how? Totalbiscuit was clear that he was getting poor performance without MSAA on.
Yes, but as I explained earlier to sweenish, you have to consider things like API and platform overhead.Actually, 8th gen consoles and PCs are pretty comparable, since both PS4 and Xbox One use AMD's GCN architecture, with the PS4's graphics chip basically being a cut down Pitcairn chip and the Xbox One's graphics chip basically being a cut down Bonaire chip, both at low clock speeds. At best, you should need a full fat Pitcairn or Bonaire graphics card at full speed to match them, not a full fat Tahiti card.
There's only so much scalability you can attain before the developer's vision and intent are compromised. Star Citizen for instance could likely run on the PS4 and Xbox One, but how much downgrading would Cloud Imperium have to do to the game to achieve that?And I said minimum. One of the hallmarks of PC gaming has always been scalability -- you're free to max out settings and improve visual quality if you like, but if you don't have the money for the system to push that, you can turn down settings and still get an enjoyable, playable experience, if at a lower visual fidelity and framerate (and people with the minimum requirements weren't getting higher frame rates at release anyways). "If you want a console like experience, buy a fricking console!" is unacceptable and shows that you only care about your experience and you're fine with Ubisoft fucking over customers who can't afford rigs like that but still prefer to game on PC.
It's likely that Ubisoft were targeting 60 FPS with those minimum specs, and not 30, which would make them far more reasonable. 60 FPS is a hallmark of PC gaming, so it would make sense for developers to list hardware that could achieve that rather than restricting themselves to 30 FPS..It's still just lazy and inexcusable on the technical side that they require a card with twice the FLOPS performance of a PS4 (which is again, pretty closely comparable since they're made with the same architecture) as the "minimum requirement".
Because that's the only possible explanation, given that T.B uses more powerful hardware than myself. I remember what performance was like before NVidia updated the SLI profile; I could not sustain 60 FPS on my rig.
Only with that new SLI profile did my performance improve drastically. Also, dropping MSAA in favor of FXAA had a huge impact as well.
Now after several driver updates and patches, I can easily sustain 60 FPS at 1440p maxed settings, and with V-sync off, frame rate can hit into the low 80s..
It would be something to consider, if not for what we see from next gen console ports from other developers. I can get a good frame rate in Dragon Age Inquisition at 1080p, with all the settings maxed out except for MSAA. If the API was so unavoidably less efficient on PC, I shouldn't be able to do that. Dragon Age Inquisition's recommended specifications are lower than Unity's minimums. Yet both games run on next gen consoles. Unity's minimum requirements should have been lower to begin with.Yes, but as I explained earlier to sweenish, you have to consider things like API and platform overhead.
That's a faulty comparison, as, unlike Star Citizen, Unity's vision and intent already had to be adjusted to fit the Xbox One/PS4. Decent scalability and optimization on PC down to hardware roughly on par with the consoles would not have affected that.There's only so much scalability you can attain before the developer's vision and intent are compromised. Star Citizen for instance could likely run on the PS4 and Xbox One, but how much downgrading would Cloud Imperium have to do to the game to achieve that?
...this is still Ubisoft we're talking about here, right? The same company that tried arguing that 30 frames per second provides the better gameplay experience in a game like Assassin's Creed? Nevermind that 60 frames per second is ridiculous as a minimum. As the recommended, sure, but not as a minimum. If you're trying to turn the "hallmark" reasoning back around at me, I already said that lower visual fidelity and framerate are part of PC game scalability. So no, I reject the idea of 60 FPS being a reasonable minimum requirement, and I don't think Ubisoft would have targeted that as the minimum, either.It's likely that Ubisoft were targeting 60 FPS with those minimum specs, and not 30, which would make them far more reasonable. 60 FPS is a hallmark of PC gaming, so it would make sense for developers to list hardware that could achieve that rather than restricting themselves to 30 FPS..
60 FPS is much harder to achieve than 30 FPS, and would require significantly faster hardware..
It's not as simple as that. Consoles have far thinner APIs than PCs do, even if you use Mantle and not DX11 which has way more abstraction. Plus certain low level performance enhancement techniques that would not be usable on the PC as it's an open platform, are implemented on the consoles on a regular basis.
It would be something to consider, if not for what we see from next gen console ports from other developers. I can get a good frame rate in Dragon Age Inquisition at 1080p, with all the settings maxed out except for MSAA. If the API was so unavoidably less efficient on PC, I shouldn't be able to do that. Dragon Age Inquisition's recommended specifications are lower than Unity's minimums. Yet both games run on next gen consoles. Unity's minimum requirements should have been lower to begin with.
The 60 FPS target comment does seem a bit silly in hindsight. But, for current gen only games, we can expect the hardware specs to be higher than for last gen and cross gen titles...this is still Ubisoft we're talking about here, right? The same company that tried arguing that 30 frames per second provides the better gameplay experience in a game like Assassin's Creed? Nevermind that 60 frames per second is ridiculous as a minimum. As the recommended, sure, but not as a minimum. If you're trying to turn the "hallmark" reasoning back around at me, I already said that lower visual fidelity and framerate are part of PC game scalability. So no, I reject the idea of 60 FPS being a reasonable minimum requirement, and I don't think Ubisoft would have targeted that as the minimum, either.
Yeah but you're assuming that DAI and AC Unity are even remotely similar. DAI is a cross generation game, whilst AC Unity is current gen only.
Also, DAI isn't completely seamless, while AC Unity is. There's just no comparison really.. AC Unity is rendering FAR more detail than DAI.
I have both games, so I know.. DAI doesn't have nowhere near the density and scale that AC Unity has..
The 60 FPS target comment does seem a bit silly in hindsight. But, for current gen only games, we can expect the hardware specs to be higher than for last gen and cross gen titles.
A GTX 680 and HD 7970 minimum only seem unreasonable in light of the fact that they used to be high end cards. But now those cards are what I'd consider midrange..
It is as simple as that, as explained above. Those cards (R9 270 and GTX 660) are still more powerful than what's in current gen consoles. And yes, that does include PC overhead, which I had already mentioned. Thanks for ignoring that.
So? I paid over 500 bucks a piece for my GTX 580 cards 4 years ago. Now the GTX 580 can barely handle current games; or not at all if you have the 1.5GB model.They're still saying at a minimum, I had to have owned a $500 video card, and that's still wrong, despite their age. A 770 is what? $400? That's already a considerable cost savings on the barrier to entry.
Now this is a good question. The GTX 680 and HD 7970 are both phased out pretty much, and they should not have been listed in the system requirements..I see zero reason that any game on PC can't run on today's mid-range cards, at a MINIMUM. And it's possible they can. A 680 still beats out my 760 most of the time, but they are close. So why not cite the $250 card? It's completely backwards.
OK it was a dumb suggestion I admit..And then you speculate that the MINIMUM requirements are targeting 60 fps. First, it's a baseless assumption made on your part with no information to back it up. Second, why should the MINIMUM spec on PC render twice as fast as the consoles? As Redhawk said, Ubisoft themselves said they chose 30 fps on consoles specifically for their "vision." So, at a MINIMUM, I should be able to render their vision twice as fast as they intended?
I would disagree with this. AC Unity to me is technically and graphically superior to Crysis and BF, just by virtue of the fact that the game is completely open world and is rendering an obscene amount of detail in a totally seamless manner, whilst achieving high frame rates on current hardware.This game is pretty. The series has looked pretty decent for a while now. But this is no Crysis or BF. It's not that pretty.
I agree 100% with this. Whilst I do enjoy AC Unity and I think it's a technical marvel, the amount of bugs it shipped with is a disgrace. Patches and driver updates have done much to fix these problems, but the game should never have been released in such a state to begin with.For the record, I have liked the majority of AC games I've played. But Ubisoft has got to get called out on this, and they should not be allowed to let this happen again, ever. If this board is as heated about this, I can only imagine what their official forums are like.
No it's not as simple, because it's not just about GPUs. The CPU is the other half of the equation. And then you have the PC's discrete architecture, which adds to the inefficiency by drastically increasing latency.. The PC is potentially a fantastic gaming machine overall, but it does come with severe drawbacks.
Both games target 30 FPS on next gen consoles, that's the similarity.
You're right, it's not a convincing argument. The only thing I can say is that you have to play the game yourself to understand what I'm talking about.Proof? ACU doesn't even do tessellation. "I have both games, so I know" isn't a convincing argument.
Extrapolating performance between PCs and consoles is tricky at best, and absolutely futile at the worst. There are just too many variables and none of us have the background necessary to navigate them successfully.Sure, we can expect the minimums to be higher than cross-gen games. But whether or not the 680 and 7970 are considered high end anymore is irrelevant. The point is how they compare to the hardware of the PS4 and the Xbox One, which ACU was ultimately designed to be able to run on. The stated minimums have almost three times the theoretical processing power of an Xbox One. There's no excuse for them to be the minimum and hardware in between to be below what's necessary to run the game. The logical minimum requirement for the game would be something like a Radeon HD 7790 or a GTX 650 Ti w/Boost.
And that's about the only similarity they have. Also, AC Unity runs at 900p on the consoles, and the 30 FPS frame rate isn't solid by any means.
You're right, it's not a convincing argument. The only thing I can say is that you have to play the game yourself to understand what I'm talking about.
The most impressive things I find about AC Unity, are the scale, detail and seamlessness. For example, many of the famous Paris landmarks were designed on a near 1:1 scale, and are extremely detailed, both exterior and interior.
And you can seamlessly enter and leave these large and complex structures with no loading screens or delays of any sort.
As for tessellation, the game doesn't support it currently, but it will once NVidia releases their update.. The tessellation patch will make the tessellation in DAI look like child's play supposedly, as it will be used extensively.
Extrapolating performance between PCs and consoles is tricky at best, and absolutely futile at the worst. There are just too many variables and none of us have the background necessary to navigate them successfully.
The GTX 680 and HD 7970 are undeniably much faster than the GPUs in the consoles. But if I had to guess, Ubisoft didn't formulate their system requirements to replicate the console experience on PC..
Really, why would they do that, when the PC version can potentially look much better and run much faster than the console versions?
Like I said earlier, if you're (and I don't mean you specifically) looking for a console like experience, buy a console.
As for tessellation, the game doesn't support it currently, but it will once NVidia releases their update.. The tessellation patch will make the tessellation in DAI look like child's play supposedly, as it will be used extensively.