PDA

View Full Version : AC:Unity "Downgrade" and Better PC Optimization?



Wolfmeister1010
08-14-2014, 09:51 PM
Quite a few Neogafers are complaining about a downgrade shown in the games com gameplay for Unity. They claim that the textures are fuzzier, the global illumination has been removed, that there are worse character models and less npcs, and shadows that look baked instead of real time.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF9bO-tPxKE&list=UUWIstp5bH4vsGQmz4mRzcZg

It is unknown whether this gameplay, or the e3 ones, were on Xbone or PC.

Some things, like the lack of Nvidia effects/ antialiasing, as well as their official statement that it was running on Xbone stats at e3, point towards it being representative of Xbone. It is especially likely when considered that all the other games shown during the Microsoft conference at e3, including the PC centered Witcher 3, were also shown on Xbone specs.

However, some people are calling BS and claiming that we have only seen PC gameplay, and it will only get worse, especially after reports that once again Microsoft lied to the fans by using PC units instead of Xbox ones again at this year's games com.

Either way, people are starting to chant things like "Let the downgrade begin". What are your thoughts? Do you notice any downgrade whatsoever?

Lastly, a new article sees ubisoft claim that with a PC community growing in relevance over the past few years, they will try to do better by PC gamers by releasing PC versions at the same time as Console versions, and to do a better job of optimization for games like AC Unity and Far Cry 4.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/08/14/ubisoft-promises-to-do-better-by-pc-gamers/

Do you believe them? At all?

Feel free to answer one or both of the above questions!


Personally, I am disappointed on the situation with the foliage and hay, and also with the aliasing and fuzzy textures on xbox one version. But I am holding out belief that the PC version will be better optimized.

JustPlainQuirky
08-14-2014, 09:53 PM
I didn't notice a difference.

But I'm used to crappy hexagons on a nintendo 64, so I'm not a reliable source in graphical judgement.

lothario-da-be
08-14-2014, 09:54 PM
Textures looked a little worste to me too, the rest seems the same to me.

m4r-k7
08-14-2014, 09:55 PM
Its a different bloody demo.. how can people say less NPC's when its a different demo that might not be meant to have thousands of NPCs.
In terms of graphics I don't see a difference but I will say the graphics of NPC's is last-gen and the draw distance is pretty meh.
But that was seen in the E3 demo. Definitely no downgrade... although I don't know the technicalities of graphics so I just might not be able to spot it.
Its also really difficult to judge graphics from video's online. When you play the game on your own TV graphics are much better.

Fatal-Feit
08-14-2014, 09:57 PM
But I am holding out belief that the PC version will be better optimized.

But I am holding out belief that the PC version will be better optimized.

But I am holding out belief that the PC version will be better optimized.

But I am holding out belief that the PC version will be better optimized.

But I am holding out belief that the PC version will be better optimized.

you wot m8?

JustPlainQuirky
08-14-2014, 09:59 PM
lel well-optimized AC game.

Shahkulu101
08-14-2014, 10:02 PM
Regarding if there's a downgrade: don't know don't care. It's not ever a 'downgrade' anyway, it's the developers making compromises to make sure performance doesn't take a hit. There may be a few niggles with the graphics but I guarantee if it weren't Ubisoft nobody wouldn't have complained about anything - they like complaining and hating on Ubisoft. I mean, fair enough if Ubisoft were the only company that made their games better in trailers but literally every demo is like that. People are being ignorant and pedantic as hell when it comes to this issue.

About PC optimisation, Ubisoft has assured PC gamers multiple times that they will respect their platform. While Far Cry 3 was an exception, Assassin's Creed IV and Watch Dogs were poorly optimised according to people. If I were a PC gamer, I wouldn't hold my breath.

ACfan443
08-14-2014, 10:36 PM
Lol, there was virtually no mention of the things you listed in the OP, the majority of Gaffers had nothing but great things to say about this demo and praised the visuals in particular (which is admittedly uncharacteristic of them). Only a handful remarked about the graphical defects like pop in, flickering and glitchy NPCs - which are legitimate concerns.

Please direct me to the posts that specifically mention the things in the OP, cause I don't see any of that in their thread http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=874151

Wolfmeister1010
08-14-2014, 10:49 PM
It may have ben deleted..I can't find it anymore lol. But they put together a bunch of pictures and crap. I swear I am not insane.

ACfan443
08-14-2014, 10:55 PM
Right.

Wolfmeister1010
08-14-2014, 11:15 PM
Why would I lie about this lol.

D.I.D.
08-14-2014, 11:20 PM
The shadows look just like Black Flag shadows on a low setting, which is consistent with what I'd expect for an XBox One open world game until DX12 is complete.

PC players aren't going to notice such a huge leap because we already had our "next gen" from ACIII onwards. I just played Black Flag again at 1440p with most settings maxed, and it was beautiful. I'm not expecting to experience a massive leap on the next game, just the same kind of prettiness in a new place.

Open world games are incredibly tough to make. When we first got them, it was incredible that they existed at all. For years after that, players accepted that open world games simply had to have a different graphical standard. Recently, you've been spoiled with some truly decent-looking open world games, which has led to customers completely losing the understanding that there is a difference between different types of games. I see people all the time comparing the Crysis series and Metro with GTA, and saying GTA is crap because it doesn't match that standard. This is absurd.

The very reason people have such high expectations now is because Ubisoft, United Front, Rocksteady and others have made such great-looking open world games. Could they be even better? Of course, and they will be, but it's unrealistic to expect the best that will ever be delivered to be delivered right this minute. Every one of these games is a step on a path towards something better.

pacmanate
08-14-2014, 11:44 PM
Textures do look muddier
Facial animations sometimes look real bad

I am certain the E3 one was running it on high. This looks more X1 quality.

Megas_Doux
08-15-2014, 12:25 AM
I think it is fair to say that:

E3???? High end PC
Gamescom???? Either XI or PS4.

However the latter does not look bad, though.

AherasSTRG
08-15-2014, 02:28 AM
Downgrade? Definitely not.

Release same date as the console versions? Maybe.

Better optimisation? I 'll believe it when I see it. Until then, if someone asks me, I will reply that the Assassin's Creed franchise suffers from some of the worst optimisation in the gaming industry.

Sesheenku
08-15-2014, 06:02 AM
It looks fine, not worse enough to scream ERMAGERD DOWNGRADE!

Legendz54
08-15-2014, 06:14 AM
I do not notice ANY downgrade at all.. After Watch Dogs the media will start to talk about downgrades on Ubisoft games when they actually aren't even happening to get the public to start talking and panicking.. its just a gimmick..

jayjay275
08-15-2014, 02:11 PM
People on NeoGaf love to complain on every action Ubisoft does, so I couldn't care less what THEY think. They think that Connor is a terrible character because he isn't Ezio.

SpareTheBull
08-15-2014, 04:14 PM
No downgrade here but I bet that PC optimization will be as ****ty as with the past 3 AC titles if not worse. Ubisoft doesn't give a crap about PC afterall.

wvstolzing
08-15-2014, 05:36 PM
No downgrade here but I bet that PC optimization will be as ****ty as with the past 3 AC titles if not worse. Ubisoft doesn't give a crap about PC afterall.

Their track record is a lot better than Rockstar, though.

Assassin_M
08-15-2014, 06:19 PM
what the hell just happened? This thread gets made yesterday and then I wake up today to Rhino's comment about a downgrade having 59 thumbs up on YT...

AherasSTRG
08-15-2014, 06:20 PM
Their track record is a lot better than Rockstar, though.

I totally agree. Back when the Watch Dogs PC version fiasco was revealed, there were people in the comments sections of different sites writing **** like: "Oh, screw you, Ubisoft. I will be getting GTA V for my PC soon".

These brainless idiots have no idea what's expecting them when they buy a Rockstar PC game...

ACfan443
08-15-2014, 06:40 PM
what the hell just happened? This thread gets made yesterday and then I wake up today to Rhino's comment about a downgrade having 59 thumbs up on YT...

I saw Rino's youtube comment, but he posted that long before this thread was made. Also, no one on Neogaf complained about a downgrade, claims in the OP are unsubstantiated.

Assassin_M
08-15-2014, 06:43 PM
I saw Rino's youtube comment, but he posted that long before this thread was made. Also, no one on Neogaf complained about a downgrade, claims in the OP are unsubstantiated.
Yeah, the complaints on Gaf are far and few between and even on YT but still, to find it getting 59 thumbs up is a bit discouraging.

ACfan443
08-15-2014, 06:52 PM
Yeah, the complaints on Gaf are far and few between and even on YT but still, to find it getting 59 thumbs up is a bit discouraging.

I think it's just the bandwagoning If-it-looks-good-Ubi'll-downgrade-it folk (plus it's Youtube we're talking about here). The WD debacle seems to have had a lasting impact.

Assassin_M
08-15-2014, 06:54 PM
I think it's just the bandwagoning If-it-looks-good-Ubi'll-downgrade-it folk (plus it's Youtube we're talking about here). The WD debacle seems to have had a lasting impact.
Yeah, maybe i'm putting too much stock on YT

Shahkulu101
08-15-2014, 07:01 PM
Downgrades are never downgrades, they are compromises made for performance. The ignorant sheep fail to comprehend this.

Ignore them.

SlyTrooper
08-15-2014, 07:36 PM
I think it looks great. I don't see any problems; definitely no downgrade. But I'm not as fussy as some people. I thought Watch Dogs looked brilliant on PS4. It wasn't as good as the E3 demo, but it was still really good. I swear everybody looks out their window & then looks at the screen shouting "DOWNGRADE"!!!!!!!

Wolfmeister1010
08-15-2014, 08:12 PM
Ah here we go: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=874151&page=8

I do see a slight drop in texture quality. Perhaps E3 really was PC.

@Shahk: I wish that were true, but Ubisoft has a bit of a history with dropping the quality on purpose on high end platforms in order to compare to the low end ones. I believe they openly admitted this at one point.

A true difference between what next gen consoles and PC can do is BF4. The next gen console versions look wonderful, but the PC one is much sharper, with better textures and a higher poly environment.

Sushiglutton
08-15-2014, 08:15 PM
Visuals will be fine, not worried about them at all. There are other things I'm more concerned about like the buggy crowd, combat and open world content structure.

pacmanate
08-15-2014, 08:36 PM
I do see a slight drop in texture quality. Perhaps E3 really was PC.
.

IT WAS. I have been saying this for ages. I wouldnt come out and say it was on PC if it wasn't.

Wolfmeister1010
08-15-2014, 08:39 PM
Yet you never actually had any proof except for "It's Ubisoft so obviously". Having to game plays two compare actually provides something to go by. So don't act all smug "I have been saying this for ages and I told you so".

pacmanate
08-15-2014, 08:43 PM
Yet you never actually had any proof except for "It's Ubisoft so obviously". Having to game plays two compare actually provides something to go by. So don't act all smug "I have been saying this for ages and I told you so".

Actually, I never once said "it's ubisoft so obviously". It was said by a dev at the show at E3 that if we wanted ACU to look like that, we would need a powerful PC.

Not to mention I NEVER say Ubisoft says something if they don't. I never post information and say its certain if it hasnt been said.

SlyTrooper
08-15-2014, 09:55 PM
If this is on Xbox then that is a good thing for me. I think it looks excellent. Maybe I can just appreciate that consoles aren't ever going to look as good as PC, so I don't care if they're not the same.

pacmanate
08-15-2014, 10:15 PM
If this is on Xbox then that is a good thing for me. I think it looks excellent. Maybe I can just appreciate that consoles aren't ever going to look as good as PC, so I don't care if they're not the same.

I personally think its fine! The difference between X1 and PC isn't as much as people are making out. Sure they look a little bit worse, but it really is just a bit.

The only thing that is bugging me so far is the crowd morphing/flickering, that really needs to be fixed. No point saying there are 2000 npcs on screen if they are glitching the hell out

dandins
08-15-2014, 10:24 PM
there is no doubt that the shown version is a downgraded version compared with previous videos.

When i listen to the words of the developers in the technical diarys from Ubisoft on ign and then look at this actual gameplay - i feal cheated.

The global illumination was the major technical improvement - now its gone? Or is it only not on XBox One?

I expect that developers will fullfill their duty and bring out the best of every single platform - and if this means that ps4 will look better then it has to be.

But to cut out features or technical improvements that were advertised before the release the game is deception.

SlyTrooper
08-15-2014, 10:34 PM
there is no doubt that the shown version is a downgraded version compared with previous videos.

When i listen to the words of the developers in the technical diarys from Ubisoft on ign and then look at this actual gameplay - i feal cheated.

The global illumination was the major technical improvement - now its gone? Or is it only not on XBox One?

I expect that developers will fullfill their duty and bring out the best of every single platform - and if this means that ps4 will look better then it has to be.

But to cut out features or technical improvements that were advertised before the release the game is deception.

We don't know that anything has been cut.

dandins
08-16-2014, 09:30 AM
guess it will be 720p on xbox and 900p on ps4 again. Actually i can live with 900p and stable 30fps as long as the light effets are stunning.

Fatal-Feit
08-16-2014, 10:04 AM
792p*

Sesheenku
08-16-2014, 10:31 AM
792p*

Wurt breh?

Fatal-Feit
08-16-2014, 10:59 AM
The truth has been spoken.

AherasSTRG
08-16-2014, 01:11 PM
Imo, sub-1080p resolutions and non-60 framerates are unacceptable for a generation of consoles that is supposed to stay on the frontlines for 6 more years.

Unless you want a new gen of consoles every 2 years to catch up, which is fine by me.

dandins
08-16-2014, 03:09 PM
Imo, sub-1080p resolutions and non-60 framerates are unacceptable for a generation of consoles that is supposed to stay on the frontlines for 6 more years.

Unless you want a new gen of consoles every 2 years to catch up, which is fine by me.

agree, but stay realistic. Last gen runs on 720p and unstable 30fps. You have to choose for next gen - want to use the additional power for 1080p and 60fps? then there no power left for new effects and stuff.
Better choose a good balance with 900p and stable 30fps and deliver some cool new effects like realistic realtime lightening/ global illumination and "better models.

But if ubisoft doesnt even deliver that and even stays on 720p then its official that they are unable to use the potential of the ps4. this would be sad and kill the title sooner or later.

pacmanate
08-16-2014, 03:26 PM
Imo, sub-1080p resolutions and non-60 framerates are unacceptable for a generation of consoles that is supposed to stay on the frontlines for 6 more years.

Unless you want a new gen of consoles every 2 years to catch up, which is fine by me.

Give them time. Compare launch PS3 games with what we got at the end of the cycle. Heck, even with Uncharted 3 that game out in 2011.

It's the start of the console cycle, you can't expect perfection.

AherasSTRG
08-16-2014, 04:37 PM
@ Pac and Dand
I agree, but I cannot but feel a bit disappointed by the launch of the next-generation consoles. By the time Unity launches the new generation will have been in the market for a full year and we will have not seen anything impressive yet.

Since (I believe) I am known in the forums by now, many people know that I am a PC gamer and they might think that I shouldn't care. But truth is, that consoles set the production standards for video games and there are not many things the PC can do to progress, if consoles do not step up their game first. A game that is designed to run at 30 FPS exclusively is difficult to be made to run at 60. But, if the game would be designed to run at 60 from the get-go, then, it would be piece of cake to do it on the PC as well.

Shahkulu101
08-16-2014, 04:55 PM
@ Pac and Dand
I agree, but I cannot but feel a bit disappointed by the launch of the next-generation consoles. By the time Unity launches the new generation will have been in the market for a full year and we will have not seen anything impressive yet.

Since (I believe) I am known in the forums by now, many people know that I am a PC gamer and they might think that I shouldn't care. But truth is, that consoles set the production standards for video games and there are not many things the PC can do to progress, if consoles do not step up their game first. A game that is designed to run at 30 FPS exclusively is difficult to be made to run at 60. But, if the game would be designed to run at 60 from the get-go, then, it would be piece of cake to do it on the PC as well.

Well define 'impressive'.

Because so far there have been many games that's I'd say look a significant step up compared to last-gen - just nothing that blows our heads off. The reason being, that we are early in the console cycle. Looking at The Last of Us Remastered, it's simply the PS3 game touched up a bit - it looks according to some 'cross-gen', so a game like The Last of Us which was the best looking console game of its time now looks disappointing to next-gen consumers. That's just shows you there has been a step up, look at Infamous Second Son. That game surpasses the graphical fidelity of The Last of Us, despite being open world.

Unity looks amazing in my opinion, everything in that game looks absolutely impossible for last gen consoles. Surely even by PC standards that is a fine looking game?

AherasSTRG
08-16-2014, 05:10 PM
But they are both console exclusives. What about third-party games, which interest the majority of the audience?

I will just wait and see. Hopefully, in 2 years' time, my hopes will have come true.

pacmanate
08-16-2014, 05:52 PM
But they are both console exclusives. What about third-party games, which interest the majority of the audience?

I will just wait and see. Hopefully, in 2 years' time, my hopes will have come true.

Third party games, exactly the problem. The consoles have power, first party games show that. Remastered TLoU and Infamous are great examples. They are significantly better than last gen already. Its third parties you have to blame

dandins
08-16-2014, 06:31 PM
the devs are working under extreme time pressure,.. its amazing that they actually get that game running and full with content. there is nearly no time for optimization - not if ubi wants to deliver yearly gaming fast food.

By playing AC you will allways notice the lack of these tiny and brilliant little details that actually fill a big open world game. ( like gta - which takes triple time to develop) I think they just dont get the time to make it.. "better" (technical and content)

Jexx21
08-16-2014, 06:42 PM
I think that 30 FPS is perfectly acceptable...

and I am a PC player...

AherasSTRG
08-16-2014, 06:58 PM
I think that 30 FPS is perfectly acceptable...

and I am a PC player...

In some games yeah. For example Need for Speed Rivals and Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm 3 Full Burst run locked at 30 FPS and noone complains. However, I believe that Assassin's Creed calls for 60. I had the chance to experience Black Flag both in 30 and 60 FPS due to the fact that I found out about D3DOverrider well after the initial release of the game. I enjoyed the parkour much more at 60 FPS.

Wolfmeister1010
08-16-2014, 07:02 PM
by playing ac you will allways notice the lack of these tiny and brilliant little details that actually fill a big open world game. ( like gta - which takes triple time to develop) i think they just dont get the time to make it.. "better" (technical and content)

lol

SlyTrooper
08-16-2014, 10:34 PM
the devs are working under extreme time pressure,.. its amazing that they actually get that game running and full with content. there is nearly no time for optimization - not if ubi wants to deliver yearly gaming fast food.

By playing AC you will allways notice the lack of these tiny and brilliant little details that actually fill a big open world game. ( like gta - which takes triple time to develop) I think they just dont get the time to make it.. "better" (technical and content)

4 years isn't long enough for you?

@Aheradrim - You are way too picky. I've never had an issue with 30 FPS. Even when I played Destiny I didn't have a problem. Everyone was complaining, but I didn't care. Even in past ACs when I've noticed it dropping below, I rarely cared about it.

Fatal-Feit
08-16-2014, 11:15 PM
I think that 30 FPS is perfectly acceptable...

and I am a PC player...

I'm down for 30-45 fps when it comes to sacrificing performance for TXAA, but 720p/900p at 30fps? That's a waste of 400$, IMO. And as Aheradrim explained, these things will continue to hold back the standards for video games in this industry.