PDA

View Full Version : [SPOILERS] Having some major doubts



pacmanate
11-07-2014, 10:21 PM
After the IGN/Twitch streams I am actually... disappointed, for the first time.


1. Pop in is horrendous, stuff is popping in the Arno less than 5 metres away from him.
2. Shadow pop, I guess this could be classed as the first one, except shadowing just appears out of nowhere sometimes.
3. Crowd morphing, they seem to have some kind of texture fit.
4. Clipping in the sense that Arno can run THROUGH NPC's? Like their arms and stuff?
5. Parkour seems a bit messed up. Arno grabs things that can't be grabbed or don't make sense


All of this I am sure is because of the amount of NPC's now.

I don't see why there are so many NPC's if the game can't run properly. It's obviously very taxing and the 1-3 points above are killing me.


You guys will probably talk about a day 1 patch. Don't kid yourselves. This stuff has been like this since E3.

Megas_Doux
11-07-2014, 10:29 PM
Although I did not watch the IGN stream, gotta say those issues concern me too.........

Dag_B
11-07-2014, 10:31 PM
4. Clipping in the sense that Arno can run THROUGH NPC's? Like their arms and stuff?
Also happend when choking. His arm clipped a little bit through the neck of the guard. And sometimes the fighting animations also seem a little bit off.

And a few glitches happend, like hovering people and glitching from a roof, falling down.

It also annoys me that the hay stacks do not... bounce. He just slides through them.

Frozenflamekid
11-08-2014, 12:06 AM
I understand this is a new engine and all but ohhh boy are there glitches in this game. I mean, big distracting glitches too. The pop-in in the background is understandable when running at full speed but pop-in next to the character is a big no no. The shadows popping in and clipping through NPCs. I don't remember an AC game that ran so poorly so close to launch.

YazX_
11-08-2014, 12:17 AM
Please use spoiler in the thread title next time, i've updated this one for now.

pacmanate
11-08-2014, 12:34 AM
Please use spoiler in the thread title next time, i've updated this one for now.

Why? There are no spoilers.

Namikaze_17
11-08-2014, 12:45 AM
I understand...

Will_Lucky
11-08-2014, 12:48 AM
You guys will probably talk about a day 1 patch. Don't kid yourselves. This stuff has been like this since E3.

How do I break this to you...IGN were using it.

GreatBeyonder
11-08-2014, 12:54 AM
I don't even own a next gen console, (which makes it so much easier to pick Rogue), but I'm reminded of how Arkham Origins is still kind of unplayable.

YazX_
11-08-2014, 12:56 AM
Why? There are no spoilers.

Since the game has not been released yet, spoilers are not for story content only, its for everything related to the game especially for discussions about what people saw in streams like this one or others. so adding [SPOILER] to the title will let everyone know that this thread has some non disclosed info about the game no matter what it is.

bitebug2003
11-08-2014, 12:57 AM
Why? There are no spoilers.

There could be potential spoilers discussed further in the thread

pacmanate
11-08-2014, 01:05 AM
How do I break this to you...IGN were using it.

Were using what? The Patch? Great, so the patch doesn't fix the stuff then.

ShoryukenMan
11-08-2014, 01:25 AM
Just when I think I can't get any less excited for this game...

Fatal-Feit
11-08-2014, 01:34 AM
5. Parkour seems a bit messed up. Arno grabs things that can't be grabbed or don't make sense

This.

What's with his parkour up? He doesn't kick upwards like in the past games, he just grabs the blank wall and climb as though he's Spider-Man, and he's also way, way, way too floaty.

Sesheenku
11-08-2014, 01:37 AM
Well, wouldn't be the first time they disappointed us.

That said, I'll be buying on steam sale sometime down the line after I build a new PC to even match their ludicrous requirements.

Gonna go back to waiting for KH3, least that won't disappoint.

VoXngola
11-08-2014, 01:39 AM
Thankfully I decided to be pessimistic towards AC after AC3. I've had 0 hype for Unity and right now I'm glad for that.

All of these unnecessary things..this is just so lazy. This shouldn't be ignored.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-08-2014, 01:40 AM
I've noticed all the stuff mentioned by Pacmanate - it worries me too. Also, the parkour seems a lot less realistic in this game - I've seen Arno doing vertical leaps nearly 12ft upwards - it looks ridiculous. Previous games had Assassins making big leaps, but they never looked impossible. This game looks a lot more like an arcade game, and the level of professionalism seems to be missing. I'm not happy about it.

I think mostly it probably has to do with the switch to the new generation of consoles. I recall they had similar issues with AC3 because the graphics engine changed. It's a pity this is all happening with this particular game, because it has so much potential, but I've always been a bit pessimistic since I found Alex Amancio was in charge. Whenever an AC game has had an Alex in charge (AC3 = Hutchinson, Revelations = Amancio), it's always been disappointing.

Sesheenku
11-08-2014, 01:43 AM
I've noticed all the stuff mentioned by Pacmanate - it worries me too. Also, the parkour seems a lot less realistic in this game - I've seen Arno doing vertical leaps nearly 12ft upwards - it looks ridiculous. Previous games had Assassins making big leaps, but they never looked impossible. This game looks a lot more like an arcade game, and the level of professionalism seems to be missing. I'm not happy about it.

I think mostly it probably has to do with the switch to the new generation of consoles. I recall they had similar issues with AC3 because the graphics engine changed. It's a pity this is all happening with this particular game, because it has so much potential, but I've always been a bit pessimistic since I found Alex Amancio was in charge. Whenever an AC game has had an Alex in charge, it's always been disappointing.

If this isn't good when I play it then this series is dead to me.

pacmanate
11-08-2014, 02:01 AM
I've noticed all the stuff mentioned by Pacmanate - it worries me too. Also, the parkour seems a lot less realistic in this game - I've seen Arno doing vertical leaps nearly 12ft upwards - it looks ridiculous. Previous games had Assassins making big leaps, but they never looked impossible. This game looks a lot more like an arcade game, and the level of professionalism seems to be missing. I'm not happy about it.

I think mostly it probably has to do with the switch to the new generation of consoles. I recall they had similar issues with AC3 because the graphics engine changed. It's a pity this is all happening with this particular game, because it has so much potential, but I've always been a bit pessimistic since I found Alex Amancio was in charge. Whenever an AC game has had an Alex in charge (AC3 = Hutchinson, Revelations = Amancio), it's always been disappointing.

What I mean by the parkour is that Arno grabs things wierdly. Like when descending he will sometimes clip into the wall to grab things.

Another example, say a window is this shape ^, and Arno tries to grab it on side view. He wont grab the lower part, he will clip through it and grab the point.

And I am certain its the NPC fault. In the Twitch thing they said the AI does change, as in the crowd NPC actually change clothes when you get near, hence the morph. I thought it was just textures coming in but they said that the NPC's go from low level to high and also change apperance by getting a hat etc.

Will_Lucky
11-08-2014, 02:16 AM
I've noticed all the stuff mentioned by Pacmanate - it worries me too. Also, the parkour seems a lot less realistic in this game - I've seen Arno doing vertical leaps nearly 12ft upwards - it looks ridiculous. Previous games had Assassins making big leaps, but they never looked impossible. This game looks a lot more like an arcade game, and the level of professionalism seems to be missing. I'm not happy about it.
.

Indeed, its a problem I don't want another AC3. Revelations stands as my favorite title in the series but thats mostly because the story and atmosphere were just fantastic in my mind. But this is a problem the engine difficulties seem to be too much and this is even worse considering this is the same engine as was with AC3 and 4. I'm going to guess like Pacmanate the sheer number of NPCs is most of the problem, I wouldn't be surprised if trying to maintain any kind of reasonable framerate and I'd judge on that front they've failed as it cannot hold 30fps solidly.

They can't push it beyond 900p on the consoles, yet the leaked screenshots would indicate this game isn't so hot whether from a technical perspective or actual perspective. A game engine can be technically fantastic on the looks and tech front but if it runs horribly its going to be toned down and that might very well be the case here.

A lack of day/night cycle is again a hint of just how many problems this game would seem to have had alongside the clipping, broken parkour and general glitchs around.

Dome500
11-08-2014, 02:25 AM
Well, wouldn't be the first time they disappointed us.

That said, I'll be buying on steam sale sometime down the line after I build a new PC to even match their ludicrous requirements.

Gonna go back to waiting for KH3, least that won't disappoint.


haha, some truth in there.
I at least agree.

You know which games I'll be upgrading for? TW3 and MGSV? If the specs I need for those 2 games (I already know TW3 has actually very low requirements, CDPR said it runs with mid-range cards and MGSV is also on lastgen so it shouldn't need too much either) are high enough to run ACU, fine, then I'll buy it down the line.
If not, well, then not.

My suggestion for everyone still doubting:

Wait 2 - 3 weeks and then decide if you want to get it or if you wait another 6 months until the problems are gone and the price is lower.

Sesheenku
11-08-2014, 02:30 AM
haha, some truth in there.
I at least agree.

You know which games I'll be upgrading for? TW3 and MGSV? If the specs I need for those 2 games (I already know TW3 has actually very low requirements, CDPR said it runs with mid-range cards and MGSV is also on lastgen so it shouldn't need too much either) are high enough to run ACU, fine, then I'll buy it down the line.
If not, well, then not.

Look at their specs dude...

"
quired Specs:



OS: 64-bit Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8/8.1
Processor: Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.3 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or AMD Phenom II x4 940 @ 3.0 GHz
RAM: 6 GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680 or AMD Radeon HD 7970 (2 GB VRAM)
DirectX: Version 11
Sound Card: DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card with latest drivers
Hard Drive Space: 50 GB available space

Recommended Specs:



Processor: Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.4 GHz or AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0 GHz or better
RAM: 8 GB
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780 or AMD Radeon R9 290X (3 GB VRAM)"

My suggestion for everyone still doubting:

Wait 2 - 3 weeks and then decide if you want to get it or if you wait another 6 months until the problems are gone and the price is lower.[/QUOTE]

Recommended Specs:

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

Recommended Specs:

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780

Recommended Specs:

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780


That's insane. Pure insanity. Utter nonsense.

That's anywhere from 500-2000 dollars for a proper PC with that card. You could go with the 970 which is cheaper but it's better in some areas while worse in others.

ACfan443
11-08-2014, 02:57 AM
If this isn't good when I play it then this series is dead to me.

The main issue is lack of polish, I've been watching the co-op sessions on the Ubisoft stream and they were an ungodly glitch fest. Major clipping, clunky parkour and combat, piss poor (at times unresponsive) AI, and the list goes on. On the co-op side of things, an adequate level of refinement simply isn't there.

Graphics look really good though, game has delivered on the visual front.

dxsxhxcx
11-08-2014, 02:59 AM
I think that's the price we pay for having AC every year..

MakimotoJin
11-08-2014, 03:03 AM
I think that's the price we pay for having AC every year..

Wait,was Unity rushed?I mean,they say that they've been working on it for a while,I guessed this year was the one they decided to release,not be forced to.

Fatal-Feit
11-08-2014, 03:06 AM
*cough* Console forum. *cough*

Anyway, the PC requirements for Unity reeks of bogus. Both the minimum and recommended AMD CPUs are an 8350, and the minimum GPU 680 is more expensive than the recommended 780.

I don't trust it all. Nada. Not one bit. They would have purposely, and really, really try hard, to unoptimize the crap out of Unity for PC gamers. But that's very unlikely, considering the fact that they've been constantly improving Uplay and are releasing Unity alongside consoles.

dxsxhxcx
11-08-2014, 03:11 AM
Wait,was Unity rushed?I mean,they say that they've been working on it for a while,I guessed this year was the one they decided to release,not be forced to.

if I'm not wrong they've been working on it for quite some time (since ACB I think but I'm not 100% sure)

HoIcon
11-08-2014, 03:17 AM
Yeah i'm sure they said in one of the trailers that they'd been working on Unity for 4 years, i'll try find it

EDIT: Here you go, 10 studios taking 4 years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rd2bFfwBg0

king-hailz
11-08-2014, 07:59 AM
Well... I was playing acr after watching the stream and realised how much better the kill animations were... I mean whenever ezio stabbed through someone it actually looked like it was in them... and in unity the kill animations look really sloppy like his hand will go through the guard or something...

Wemysical
11-08-2014, 08:41 AM
Guys VolatileGabe is doing a walkthrough of the game and it seems to look a lot more stable than the IGN stream

Pr0metheus 1962
11-08-2014, 09:29 AM
A lack of day/night cycle is again a hint of just how many problems this game would seem to have had alongside the clipping, broken parkour and general glitchs around.

Yeah, the day/night cycle, another example of fixing something that wasn't broken. I don't think any player ever said "You know what Ubisoft, that day/night cycle, can we get rid of that?"

Regarding the number of NPCs, they say there can be up to 5,000 on screen at any time. That's amazing, but is it necessary? It's almost 1% of the city's population in 1789 - that's a lot when we consider that they didn't have social media or the same communication factors that allow modern meetings to draw crowds of people. The thing is, this is Paris in the 1790s, not Paris in 1968. Crowds in the 1790s were not as big as modern crowds - there just weren't that many people around back then. For example, the crowd that stormed the Bastille comprised fewer than 1,000 people. Later, a concerted effort brought together 6,000 for the Women's March on Versailles, but that was an unusually large number (and given Ubisoft's issues with inclusivity when it comes to women, I doubt it's featured in the game). To have the game routinely put that many people in crowds, well it just seems too much. I'd say the game probably overstates the number of people in the streets by a factor of at least 2, and maybe as high as 4 or 5. Some of the crowds I've seen choking the streets of Paris in the game just look too much to me. I was born in a city (Sheffield, England) that is smaller in area and about the same population as Paris in 1798, so it should appear more crowded, but it never looked as crowded when I lived there as the scenes we see in the game.

I think the developers got too enamored with the idea of getting large amounts of people in the game. In the words of Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park, they "were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

D.I.D.
11-08-2014, 11:21 AM
Yeah, the day/night cycle, another example of fixing something that wasn't broken. I don't think any player ever said "You know what Ubisoft, that day/night cycle, can we get rid of that?"

Regarding the number of NPCs, they say there can be up to 5,000 on screen at any time. That's amazing, but is it necessary? It's almost 1% of the city's population in 1789 - that's a lot when we consider that they didn't have social media or the same communication factors that allow modern meetings to draw crowds of people.

The total needs to be that high because we'll be getting high above the city, higher than ever before on some of these buildings, so we'll see more. Plus that maximum number has to be there for the biggest shots - say, a Synchronise sweep or something of that nature.

People might not have had social media, but they had social networks - probably much stronger than yours in your community today. People's lives were far more interconnected, and news really did travel fast. We know this from contemporary records of, for instance, the Great Fire of London. News of the fire spread much faster than the fire itself, and it was the talk of the city within hours. Famously, the danger of the fire was completely underestimated by city officials who received news of the fire, investigated it, and decided it was too small to be a concern.

Aside from relying on their neighbours for everything, and the fact that people spent a lot more time talking than we do today, the evidence of Paris's trend for political clubs is an example of very strong and sizeable social networking. Part of the reason the Revolution happened at all is the existence of the Jacobin club. By 1790, the club had 1200 members who attended regular meetings at a convent on Rue St. Honoré: massive organised gatherings.


The thing is, this is Paris in the 1790s, not Paris in 1968. Crowds in the 1790s were not as big as modern crowds - there just weren't that many people around back then. For example, the crowd that stormed the Bastille comprised fewer than 1,000 people. Later, a concerted effort brought together 6,000 for the Women's March on Versailles, but that was an unusually large number (and given Ubisoft's issues with inclusivity when it comes to women, I doubt it's featured in the game). To have the game routinely put that many people in crowds, well it just seems too much. I'd say the game probably overstates the number of people in the streets by a factor of at least 2, and maybe as high as 4 or 5. Some of the crowds I've seen choking the streets of Paris in the game just look too much to me. I was born in a city (Sheffield, England) that is smaller in area and about the same population as Paris in 1798, so it should appear more crowded, but it never looked as crowded when I lived there as the scenes we see in the game.

Again, I'd disagree with this. It's exactly because it's 1790s Paris that you should expect more pedestrian traffic. There were almost no leisure activities in the home in those days, and people treated their homes completely differently. Home was a place to go to sleep, and not even where most people did most of their eating. They went out, bought their food, and ate it away from home. Most people did not have a kitchen in which to cook, or good storage for food. We know from personal accounts that people spent huge amounts of their day outdoors. We also know that the streets were absolutely thronging, from these accounts.

The thing that really stands out in historical accounts of daily life in cities is how noisy and busy they are. Charlotte and Anne Bronte recorded that, on their first visit to London, they expected to be able to walk from their lodgings to their publisher (Paternoster Row to Cornhill, a distance of a few hundred yards). They "became so dismayed by the crowded streets, and the impeded crossings, that they stood still repeatedly in complete dismay". The walk took them the best part of an hour. You might think they are simply delicate people unused to London, but people born and bred there said the same thing. Henry Mayhew compared the sound of the city to "the awful magnificence of the great Torrent of Niagara... if the roar of the precipitated waters bewilders and affrights the mind, assuredly the riot and tumult of London at once stun and terrify". An American clergyman visiting in the 1820s attended a service at St. Clement Danes, and despite sitting near the pulpit he could not hear the sermon. In 1834, Jane Carlyle (wife of historian Thomas Carlyle) wrote about her new home in a Chelsea side-street, away from the main road: "I have an everlasting sound in my ears of men, women, children, [horse-drawn] omnibuses, carriages, glass coaches, street coaches, waggons, carts, dog-carts, steeple bells, door bells". This cacophony is at once the result of people not being at home and the reason why they cannot bear to spend time at home.

LoyalACFan
11-08-2014, 11:32 AM
I've seen a few demos from leaked retail copies now, and they look much less volatile and glitchy than the IGN one. Don't know why, maybe the review copy was buggy? But yeah, I'm noticing quite a bit less clipping and crowd morphing in third-party leaks.

D.I.D.
11-08-2014, 11:38 AM
I've seen a few demos from leaked retail copies now, and they look much less volatile and glitchy than the IGN one. Don't know why, maybe the review copy was buggy? But yeah, I'm noticing quite a bit less clipping and crowd morphing in third-party leaks.

I've only allowed myself to watch one video, a mission to gather certain items for Madame Tussaud. Like you, I was looking out for glitching and didn't see much wrong at all, and in fact it looks great. The only major graphical error I noticed is that Tussaud's hands and arms were clipping through the table, as though the table was set too high for the animations of her arms, which looked pretty bad when she was writing notes. I can live with that.

As for issues about inaccurate grabs or mistakes in parkour, while I didn't see any I am sure there will be some. I think people forget just how good Ubisoft is at this kind of thing though, and the special challenges of tying and blending these animations. I love Shadow of Mordor, but if I ever needed a reminder of how hard this stuff is to get right then there it is. You have to be almost perfectly at a right angle to the wall if you want to be able to climb it, the protag's body will suddenly snap to positions off from where he really should be, and you can't do things you take for granted in AC, like slinking around a pole obstruction when walking atop a thin wall.

Mr_Shade
11-08-2014, 11:42 AM
*cough* Console forum. *cough*

Anyway, the PC requirements for Unity reeks of bogus. Both the minimum and recommended AMD CPUs are an 8350, and the minimum GPU 680 is more expensive than the recommended 780.

I don't trust it all. Nada. Not one bit. They would have purposely, and really, really try hard, to unoptimize the crap out of Unity for PC gamers. But that's very unlikely, considering the fact that they've been constantly improving Uplay and are releasing Unity alongside consoles.
The PC version is quite demanding on hardware, due to the tech being used..

I think some people seem to be trying to say that the PC version should run on a PC with the same hardware as [for example] a Xbox One - however - it doesn't work that way..


Unity is very ambitous title..

Pr0metheus 1962
11-08-2014, 11:44 AM
... It's exactly because it's 1790s Paris that you should expect more pedestrian traffic. There were almost no leisure activities in the home in those days, and people treated their homes completely differently...

It's a good point. I'm not sure that I completely agree with what you're saying - I still think the game seems too crowded even if I concede all of what you've said. For example, crowding that dismays the Brontė sisters might be a lot different from the crowding that might dismay us. Plus, if streets were more social, I have to wonder how much of the time they spent going from place to place was taken up with buying stuff from vendors, people-watching, sightseeing and (in their home town) chatting to neighbors and friends? Plus, there might be a big difference between Paris in the 1790s (population 650,000) and London in the mid-1800s (population around 2 million).

Anyway, I think it's debatable. I'm willing to meet half-way, but I don't entirely concede the point. I still think the developers got a bit too excited about getting thousands of people on the streets.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-08-2014, 11:47 AM
I've only allowed myself to watch one video, a mission to gather certain items for Madame Tussaud. I saw that one. The thing I noticed was the poor quality of the voice acting on the part of the actor playing Madame Tussaud. Ubisoft usually does better.

Sushiglutton
11-08-2014, 11:55 AM
Yeah, the day/night cycle, another example of fixing something that wasn't broken. I don't think any player ever said "You know what Ubisoft, that day/night cycle, can we get rid of that?"

To be fair though I'm sure they didn't get rid of the d/n-c because they thought having no d/n-c would be better all other things equal. They removed it because Unity has a new, much more advanced, lighting system. And for technical reasons it was hard to get that new system to work in a full cycle. I think that's fair, because the lighting in the city does look very improved. I'm sure they'll bring back the d/n-c for future installments as soon as they have figured out how.

Fatal-Feit
11-08-2014, 11:56 AM
The PC version is quite demanding on hardware, due to the tech being used..

I think some people seem to be trying to say that the PC version should run on a PC with the same hardware as [for example] a Xbox One - however - it doesn't work that way..


Unity is very ambitous title..

What does that make of this then?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49tN_PnpES8

The staff can't possibly mean the said requirements, because that's about twice, if not 3 times, more powerful than the X1. A rig like that can run Titanfall, Dead Rising, and Ryse in max settings with 4k res. :nonchalance:

Mr_Shade
11-08-2014, 12:02 PM
A PC Devkit - isn't the same as a retail PC though.. running windows 8 and a host of other software - so there's differences and also the PC version may use different shaders etc which all add up. ;)

D.I.D.
11-08-2014, 12:09 PM
It's a good point. I'm not sure that I completely agree with what you're saying - I still think the game seems too crowded even if I concede all of what you've said. For example, crowding that dismays the Brontes might be a lot different from the crowding that might dismay us. Plus, if streets were more social, I have to wonder how much of the time they spent going from place to place was taken up with buying stuff from vendors, sightseeing and (in their home town) chatting to neighbors and friends? Plus, there might be a big difference between Paris in the 1790s and London in the mid-1800s.

Anyway, I think it's debatable. I'm willing to meet half-way, but I don't entirely concede the point. I still think the developers got a bit too excited about getting thousands of people on the streets.

I picked examples from the early 1800s only, and that's because of the book I'm reading right now which I had within grabbing distance :)

Seriously, I could go on and on with examples of the noise and thickness of crowds, and prove that it's not just old-timey people who are shocked at the drop of a pin. Their world was noisy. We talk so little compared to them, and make so little use of our immediate environment.

The game may well fail to replicate ebbs in pedestrian traffic, but I'm not sure if it would be good if it did. I think it needs to represent the streets at their typical fullness, since it doesn't serve the player with anything useful to simulate the difference between a Saturday and a Tuesday, or differences in numbers to reflect different times of day that will be meaningless to the player who doesn't know that it's 9am on a Sunday or whatever (although that might be interesting for the future, if the player could plan around specific times - when a target will be leaving their work premises, for example). As players, location is more important than time: we go here, and it's full of shops, street vendors, and thick pedestrian traffic; we go there, and it's a grassy area that's sparse with people, etc.

Fatal-Feit
11-08-2014, 12:19 PM
A PC Devkit - isn't the same as a retail PC though.. running windows 8 and a host of other software

I'm not buying that.

also the PC version may use different shaders etc which all add up. ;)

It still doesn't make a lot of sense. It's as though the PC version is an entirely different game.

It'd be nice if a developer who worked on the PC version could answer a few questions on the forum. It could help clear up a lot of confusion. :p

Mr_Shade
11-08-2014, 12:35 PM
Well that's your opinion - so I can see you don't want to change it:)

But PC games are not the same code as the Xbox / PS4 versions - they are coded differently and consoles have lower overheads compared to PC's - so consoles can achieve the same with lesser hardware.


Also the PC version has tech that the console versions don't - check the Nvidia trailer ;)

Fatal-Feit
11-08-2014, 12:54 PM
Well that's your opinion - so I can see you don't want to change it:)

But PC games are not the same code as the Xbox / PS4 versions - they are coded differently and consoles have lower overheads compared to PC's -so consoles can achieve the same with lesser hardware.

It's not that I don't want to change my opinion, it just doesn't add up. There are things I'd like to add, but it'd come off rude and unappreciative.


Also the PC version has tech that the console versions don't - check the Nvidia trailer ;)

That's Nvidia's exclusive features, not AMD. It doesn't affect the requirements.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-08-2014, 01:00 PM
I picked examples from the early 1800s only, and that's because of the book I'm reading right now which I had within grabbing distance :)

Wasn't the Brontė's first visit to London in the 1840s? I said mid-1800s, so it's kind of splitting hairs.


Seriously, I could go on and on with examples of the noise and thickness of crowds, and prove that it's not just old-timey people who are shocked at the drop of a pin...

Well, I did a quick search for the Brontė sisters' visit to London and found this: in July 1848, Charlotte and Anne Brontė traveled by train to London. George Smith "was extremely surprised to find two gawky, ill-dressed country girls paralysed with fear". So there's that. Again, these were different times, London in 1848 was much bigger than Paris in 1789 and country girls in London would be far more struck with the city's crowding than we would today. This is an example you brought up, yet it illustrates quite well the potential problems of your argument. Clearly, according to George Smith at least, the Brontė sisters were indeed "old-timey people [or rather country bumpkins - albeit literary bumpkins] who are [in effect] shocked at the drop of a pin".

Like I said in my previous post, I'm trying to find common ground here - I'm willing to concede some of your points, but you haven't moved. It seems you want unconditional surrender. :p And to be honest, I don't want to spend more time debating this issue - it's just not worth the effort. After all, it's not as if Ubisoft are going to recall the game and reduce the size of the crowds on my account.

D.I.D.
11-08-2014, 02:17 PM
Wasn't the Brontė's first visit to London in the 1840s? I said mid-1800s, so it's kind of splitting hairs.



Well, I did a quick search for the Brontė sisters' visit to London and found this: in July 1848, Charlotte and Anne Brontė traveled by train to London. George Smith "was extremely surprised to find two gawky, ill-dressed country girls paralysed with fear". So there's that. Again, these were different times, London in 1848 was much bigger than Paris in 1789 and country girls in London would be far more struck with the city's crowding than we would today. This is an example you brought up, yet it illustrates quite well the potential problems of your argument. Clearly, according to George Smith at least, the Brontė sisters were indeed "old-timey people [or rather country bumpkins - albeit literary bumpkins] who are [in effect] shocked at the drop of a pin".

Like I said in my previous post, I'm trying to find common ground here - I'm willing to concede some of your points, but you haven't moved. It seems you want unconditional surrender. :p And to be honest, I don't want to spend more time debating this issue - it's just not worth the effort. After all, it's not as if Ubisoft are going to recall the game and reduce the size of the crowds on my account.

Fair point about the Brontes. There were others in my post who knew London well. ****ens talked about the noise of London often, both in his fiction and his journalistic reportage, and also by contrast the thick-walled taverns and mewses as rare oases of quiet (which, in a way, are as much an indication of the general rowdiness as accounts of the noise itself).

Napoleon employed Baron Haussmann to tear down and rebuild Paris's streets to deal with their problem of overpopulation affecting the roads, which directly speaks to the way people clogged the streets in some areas. It was also a security issue, because Napoleon's troops couldn't get around to police the city or deal with crowd control. They transformed a warren of narrow streets, many mutations on a basic planning structure of the medieval style, into vast modern boulevards, open squares, and new parks. ACU is giving us that pressurised, pre-modernised Paris, and I think it's exactly right that it should feel like too much to some people.

I'm not aiming for submission! I'm just stating reasons why having as much as 1% of the city's population in your approximate location, in the busiest parts of Paris, is not that much of a stretch -- same as you're giving reasons for thinking the opposite.

I'm glad they've developed this technology, in any case. I think cities need it, to feel like cities. AC3's cities were weirdly quiet, like some kind of museum reconstruction, and didn't feel real to me at all.


****ens

The writer of Bleak House, Oliver Twist, Great Expectations. Ubisoft, fix your automod!

jayjay275
11-08-2014, 02:26 PM
I'm pretty sure they wouldn't release a game as glitchy as it sounds to be...

Will_Lucky
11-08-2014, 02:37 PM
It's not that I don't want to change my opinion, it just doesn't add up. There are things I'd like to add, but it'd come off rude and unappreciative.

That's Nvidia's exclusive features, not AMD. It doesn't affect the requirements.

Actually those features are not entirely exclusive, some will carry over, things like PhysX for example are available on both they just happen to tank AMD cards by about 20fps because they can't be optimised for it.

And actually these specs are in line with my own predictions, Unity is a next-gen only game and well this is the norm for next-gen only games that didn't have a last-gen game to fall back on. But its become very apparent Ubisoft could have cut down on the NPC Count. The 2500k requirement is overboard though considering the PS4 and XB1 use a netbook CPU.

Dome500
11-08-2014, 05:31 PM
The PC version is quite demanding on hardware, due to the tech being used..

I think some people seem to be trying to say that the PC version should run on a PC with the same hardware as [for example] a Xbox One - however - it doesn't work that way..


Unity is very ambitous title..


1. A warning about the extremely high (minimum) requirements would have been nice
2. To "aim high" and to use "tech" like all the new Nvidia stuff and things like this does NOT mean that Ubisoft shouldn't provide the user with the option to DISABLE this tech on lower settings to increase the performance. If I am creating a PC game I start with LOW settings (about the same or just a little bit better than the console versions, because yes, that IS "how it works") and work my way up by adding all the additional features, higher resolutions and Nvidia exclusives. That is how you do it, because the PC audience is a wide spectrum from people who have mid-ranged graphic cards over mainsteam ones up to high-end ones. ONE does not require high-end cards to even be able to PLAY the game. Other NextGen exclusives such as Shadows of Mordor, The Witcher 3 and Dragon Age Inquisition look gorgeous as well, have a relative Open World and do NOT need such powerful hardware.


But PC games are not the same code as the Xbox / PS4 versions - they are coded differently and consoles have lower overheads compared to PC's - so consoles can achieve the same with lesser hardware.

That might have been right for the old consoles, but the new consoles have hardware very similar to a PC. Also, even if they use different methods and XOne/PS4 can achieve more with less hardware it does not explain the HUGE differences. On top of that, Consoles now run with AMD hardware that is already outdated. You can't tell me you need a high-end GTX 680 to run this game. I believe you the VRAM, but not the rest.


Also the PC version has tech that the console versions don't - check the Nvidia trailer

1. This "tech" should be mainly optional and available for higher graphical settings. That's how a responsible developer creates a PC game.
2. What about AMD graphic cards then? Those who can not use all that Nvidia stuff

All of this is just "graphical extras", things you'd want to add to get the maximum out of your hardware, not to be able to play the game at all.


Actually those features are not entirely exclusive, some will carry over, things like PhysX for example are available on both they just happen to tank AMD cards by about 20fps because they can't be optimised for it.


I clearly remember many games using PhysX having the option to TURN IT OFF to increase the performance/frame rate, why not ACU?


But its become very apparent Ubisoft could have cut down on the NPC Count.

Indeed.


The 2500k requirement is overboard though considering the PS4 and XB1 use a netbook CPU.

Well, to their defense, They got 1,7 Ghz and 8 cores (which is about 18 Ghz (4x 4,5 Ghz)) But we all know they can't use ALL of that yet.
Or do you want to tell me Ubisoft just magically managed to max out nextgen hardware only 1 year after the consoles were released?

D.I.D.
11-08-2014, 08:40 PM
1. This "tech" should be mainly optional and available for higher graphical settings. That's how a responsible developer creates a PC game.
2. What about AMD graphic cards then? Those who can not use all that Nvidia stuff

If it's like previous games, it will be optional. Those special features were either marked switches, or things that only came in on certain level settings.


All of this is just "graphical extras", things you'd want to add to get the maximum out of your hardware, not to be able to play the game at all.

It's a bit more than that. A certain amount has to be done by the GPU, and a certain amount can be done by the CPU, and there are problems to defeat when balancing lots of use of both simultaneously. Not every system is going to be able to stand up to it. There's no comparison between, say, Shadow of Mordor and Unity - you only need to look at a video to see that. The demands of Unity are through the roof. It's a next gen game for consoles, and a next gen game for PCs too.


I clearly remember many games using PhysX having the option to TURN IT OFF to increase the performance/frame rate, why not ACU?

Black Flag and Freedom Cry both did. They had particle clouds and blunderbuss fire that was far too intensive for midrange GPUs, so the option was there to allow it or not, and at different intensities.

AsuraSlash
11-08-2014, 09:22 PM
Check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hvJLX9AIPg

A few graphical and technical glitches are already apparent in this video. Look at 0:49 - 0:51 of the video. As Arno is about to go down from the rooftop of a building, he nearly walks on AIR. A similar glitch is visible from 5:44 to 5:50.

5:25-5:31 is probably the most concerning jump. He literally floats in such an unrealistic manner.

And what the hell happens from 14:01-14:10?

It is also important to note that the gameplay is on XBox One (evident from the buttons at the top right corner).

Will_Lucky
11-08-2014, 11:21 PM
Well, to their defense, They got 1,7 Ghz and 8 cores (which is about 18 Ghz (4x 4,5 Ghz)) But we all know they can't use ALL of that yet.
Or do you want to tell me Ubisoft just magically managed to max out next-gen hardware only 1 year after the consoles were released?

Doesn't quite work like that, just because it has 8 cores running at 1.7 ghz doesn't mean it can equal a Quad Core running at 3.4ghz for example.

The CPU in the PS4 and XB1 is equivalent to a...well two Intel Atoms glued together.

EzioAssassin51
11-09-2014, 02:45 AM
Check this out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hvJLX9AIPg

A few graphical and technical glitches are already apparent in this video. Look at 0:49 - 0:51 of the video. As Arno is about to go down from the rooftop of a building, he nearly walks on AIR. A similar glitch is visible from 5:44 to 5:50.

5:25-5:31 is probably the most concerning jump. He literally floats in such an unrealistic manner.

And what the hell happens from 14:01-14:10?

It is also important to note that the gameplay is on XBox One (evident from the buttons at the top right corner).

Are you serious?

Watching that has actually made me a lot more excited for the game (I've never had any doubts really).
Like sure, there are a couple of glitches, like every game ever, especially with the new free-running system, which I can (and I sure many others can) ignore a couple of glitches like that, it's not like they're gamebreaking... It's not like Ubisoft guaranteed a glitch-free game. They probably fixed a lot over the past 2 weeks too. Just think of that.

Also 14:01-14:10 is a legitimate free-running move (I guess move is the right word), like the scramble from 3 and 4, but obviously I bit better to help you get up higher and further.

But yeah, the game looks amazing, based on that video. Even the combat looks great, but especially the graphics and the gameplay. Wow, like I said, I am so pumped after watching that.

LoyalACFan
11-09-2014, 09:42 AM
Are you serious?

Watching that has actually made me a lot more excited for the game (I've never had any doubts really).
Like sure, there are a couple of glitches, like every game ever, especially with the new free-running system, which I can (and I sure many others can) ignore a couple of glitches like that, it's not like they're gamebreaking... It's not like Ubisoft guaranteed a glitch-free game. They probably fixed a lot over the past 2 weeks too. Just think of that.

Also 14:01-14:10 is a legitimate free-running move (I guess move is the right word), like the scramble from 3 and 4, but obviously I bit better to help you get up higher and further.

But yeah, the game looks amazing, based on that video. Even the combat looks great, but especially the graphics and the gameplay. Wow, like I said, I am so pumped after watching that.

Agreed. People are nitpicking the absolute hell out of this game. It's like they WANT it to fail.

Matt.mc
11-09-2014, 11:00 AM
I have been having some doubts about the game. But I just watched a coop gameplay video, the guys were having an absolute blast, not talking about the frame rate. Plus, majority of the videos are done by people that are absolute piss poor at AC and seem to have no idea how to do anything and the fact that they wouldn't have gotten the day one patch yet.

avk111
11-09-2014, 11:44 AM
Anyone here playing the game ? Can Arno remove his hood like Edward or Connor ?

jeffies04
11-09-2014, 12:14 PM
Agreed, agreed. It's pretty ridiculous how childish the things I've been reading are this week. It looks amazing. They have really done some cool things that are new to the series and will I'm sure only get better in the next iterations. Go watch any gameplay video for any game and you can start nitpicking if you look frame by frame for a hand clipping or an animation that's a little off etc etc. Just play the game or don't. You're just going to set yourself up to have an awful time playing if you're going to boohoo over a hand clipping through something before you've even played it.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2014, 12:31 PM
Agreed. People are nitpicking the absolute hell out of this game. It's like they WANT it to fail.

On the contrary, those who are criticizing want the series to succeed.

Criticism drives improvement. Stifling criticism is what drives stagnation, and stagnation drives failure.

Sushiglutton
11-09-2014, 12:44 PM
What bothers me a little bit is that many critics focus on the wrong things (imo). One issue I have with AC in general is that the projects seem to be too much about engineering and not enough about actual gamedesign. Unfortunately almost all the criticism I've seen are about the engineering aspects (visuals/minor glitches etc) rather than the gamedesign aspects. This means Ubi will focus even more on that at the expense of gameplay.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2014, 01:19 PM
Unfortunately almost all the criticism I've seen are about the engineering aspects (visuals/minor glitches etc) rather than the gamedesign aspects. This means Ubi will focus even more on that at the expense of gameplay.

Well that's because we haven't really seen the game design aspects yet. And the visuals and minor glitches are quite apparent in many of the videos I've seen, and Ubisoft usually gets these things right, to such an extent that it comes as a bit of a shock when I see Arno jumping THROUGH a solid object and walking THROUGH a civilian. When I see this in an Assassin's Creed game, it makes me very worried about the overall quality of the game. So these issues may seem minor to you, but to me these minor issues speak to potentially game-killing problems. And I desperately want this game to succeed. In my view, the franchise cannot continue to prosper if it sustains yet another debacle along the lines of AC3 with its first release of an AC game fully devoted to the next gen consoles.

Dag_B
11-09-2014, 01:23 PM
We can not criticize Gameplay because we did not play yet. At least I find it hard to tell how a game plays, when I just watch videos. I do not know, if the controls are precise or if it's more luck than everything else, that Arno chooses the right cover (which I read in one Demo review). We did not see what the players inputted to achieve what we see on the screen.

All in all, gameplay looks ok. Parcour up/down seems to be working well, although in the First Look Stream there was on person who was always like "no, not there, I want to go *there*" and had a little trouble sometimes. I also saw some other jumps which did not look intended but I do not know. And it did not really look worse than in previous games. The parcour controls were never really perfect because to some extent they always included, that the character reacted automatically to objects so you do not need to push too much buttons and of course it can happen that you are too close and the character reacts and you did not want to react him, etc pp.
Fighting looked easier than promised but again - maybe the player just knew exactly how the system works, so that he had no longer trouble and we all will find it more difficult. We also do not know which upgrades Arno already had that made it easier. (And I though it still looked a bit harder than in previous titles so it should be ok).
Medicine is back, that is a nice thing. Customization looks ok. Assassinations only with hidden blade? I guess I can live with that, also something where you have to play to tell if it annoys you or if you have no problem. More stealth is great, again I can not tell yet, how it looks.
I found the err... markings a little bit much. Especially with eagle vision, because the lifts were highlighted too. But I guess one will get accustomed to that and maybe there are some graphic options to reduce the HUD a little bit. (I heard no, but I am not sure of it.)


But I can see that Arnos arms clipped through every NPC when he ran, as if they would no exist. I can see that Arno sometime runs/jumps trough NPCs as if they would not exist at all. I can see that a group of NPCs sometimes is clipping through each other. I can see that Arno grabbed once right through the neck of a guard when he wanted to choke him. I can see, that the fighting animations sometimes seems of, as if they are played slightly a little bit in a wrong direction. I can see that in the Coop-part once Arno fell through the ground and died. And I can tell that all those things annoyed me and that they will annoy me if they will really stay in the game. I did watch between one hour and two hours (not perfectly sure) and saw all these things, some errors more than once. For my personal taste it was just too much which is why I commented about it in different threads. I really hope UbiSoft will fix this.

So no wonder my comments are about clipping errors and not gameplay.
It's really not nitpicking from my side, I do not really care if there is a clipping error every hour. But in the First Look Stream, sometimes there was a clipping error every few minute and hovering peoples and god knows. If you ran through the masses, you clipped through almost everybody who was too near. Normally you would've tackled them but no, Arno just ran right through them or at least his whole arm (sometimes including shoulder) did. In that rate, the clipping errors really broke the immersion for me.

IMRicko
11-09-2014, 01:31 PM
So I've been watching the walkthrough up to sequence 10, and there's a mission in which Arno has to assassinate a Templar named Germain. Germain was doing an execution in front of thousands of NPCs and it was horrendous. The NPCs pop up, shadow pop-up, clipping are just insane. The way they wave their hands and avoiding Arno is just robotic. Not forgetting the crowd morphing, even if the NPCSs are just in front of Arno. I have no idea why would Ubi brag about having 5k NPCs on one screen when it looks like a massacre. Don't the game devs and tester realize that the NPCs are having major issues? Even a non-hardcore gamers can see that the game needs a few more month in the oven. My eyes literally bleed after watching it.

EzioAssassin51
11-09-2014, 01:31 PM
I don't know, I guess it really depends. I've never really noticed shadow pop in or cared about draw distance or the character clipping through things. I tend to care more about the gameplay and small and relatively minor things like that don't bother me. Unless they're game-breaking in terms of the gameplay then it doesn't break immersion for me. I can accept and allow a company, especially one like Ubisoft, to make some minor mistakes like that, especially considering the other amazing things this game has to offer, like the visual graphics, the gameplay, customisation etc. I just think calling the game trash (I know you guys aren't, but in general), based on some clipping is a bit harsh.

GoldenBoy9999
11-09-2014, 01:36 PM
After watching the IGN stream I've been able to see how combat works a little better. The guy playing mostly confronted 2 guards. He'd HB kill the first one then fight the second one. When the guard attacked it seemed like the player used the B+A (Xbox) counter which is to injure. They've removed counter kill from Unity. After that he would build up a combo and hammer away at the enemy since there were no other guards. These were also level 1/2 enemies. So fighting two low level enemies will not be very difficult or anything.

I just thought I'd tell someone in case they were wondering about the combat.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2014, 04:43 PM
I just think calling the game trash (I know you guys aren't, but in general), based on some clipping is a bit harsh.

If you admit we aren't, why do you keep bringing it up?

This is the problem - there's an insinuation there which goes from the premise that someone here is being unfair to the game. Heck, if you see someone being unfair, call it out in that thread. But why say it over and over again here unless you're trying to paint us with the same accusation of unfairness?

I mean, please just stop. No one here is calling the game trash.

Megas_Doux
11-09-2014, 04:58 PM
This is that, from the a technical standpoint considering both graphics and performance, AC II has been the worst, and look at its overall reception.

Farlander1991
11-09-2014, 05:01 PM
AC II has been the worst

The draw distance and character texture quality and physics (all in comparison to AC1 especially) in that game are killing me to this day.... >_<

But, hey, every AC game is pretty riddled with a variety of bugs because, hey, it's an open-world game which, by its nature being an open world game with huge crowds and 'everywhere-you-can go' type of environments which is bound to have bugs. Pop-in, clipping, all the petty criticisms against ACU technological parts - with the exception of civilian morphing (don't think that kind of bug was in any of the AC games, just in ACU) EVERY AC game has that. Each and one of them. The end of the world didn't seem to come our way because of that :p

The most important part is for the game to not have game-breaking bugs... a part that, for example, Liberation HD fails to have :p

Dag_B
11-09-2014, 05:05 PM
I have no memory of this but at least they did not brag with "Next Gen starts here" back then. :rolleyes:
This slogan... it's like they want people to brag about graphics and co (in terms of, people getting high expections because a huge step forward was promised and getting disappointed when reality kicks in).

ace3001
11-09-2014, 05:13 PM
Just finished watching the IGN stream, and I noticed these things too. "New engine" is not an excuse. AC III didn't have this kind of problems.

Oh, well, I'll be holding off anyway, since I don't have a current gen console, and my PC most probably can't handle this at a decent framerate.

Please don't let Rogue end up this way, Ubisoft.

EDIT: I don't remember this kind of issue with AC II either, or any of the previous main AC games for that matter.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2014, 05:20 PM
Just finished watching the IGN stream, and I noticed these things too. "New engine" is not an excuse. AC III didn't have this kind of problems.

Actually, it did:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/709613-Clipping-in-AC3-Forums

However, I agree that it's no excuse. Ubisoft should be better than this, and this issue is part of why AC3 has such a poor reputation.

I'm not a huge critic of clipping - it's not a game killer for me unless it's really bad, but even I noticed it a lot in AC3, and it's looking as if it might be an annoyance in Unity too.

Megas_Doux
11-09-2014, 05:24 PM
How could that be?????? The gift from gods, better and bigger than life AC II had both inferior graphics, performance and even more than glitches than its predecessor???? Again, whereas you could run AC I using directx 10, AC II was downgraded to just directx 9 only, the draw distance was inferior, AC II suffers from way more flickering, object popping - the shadows being particularly cringeworthy- and overall worse quality in both envinronments and character models than AC I,

AC I seems like the sequel, yet AC II is the most beloved and better received game in the franchise.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2014, 05:38 PM
...AC II had both inferior graphics, performance and even more than glitches than its predecessor????...
AC I seems like the sequel, yet AC II is the most beloved and better received game in the franchise.

Yeah, because graphics, performance and glitches, while important, are not everything.

Assassin_M
11-09-2014, 05:41 PM
Yeah, because graphics, performance and glitches are not everything.
I'm pretty sure it's entirely subjective what a person judges a game on.

Megas_Doux
11-09-2014, 05:51 PM
Yeah, because graphics, performance and glitches are not everything.

That was the EXACT response I was looking for when I wrote that stuff in regards of AC II. Because You just made my point valid....

Many are complaining about glitches and performance issues in Unity, seemingly overlooking the many new positive things that game has to offer. And yet that is somehow ok with Unity, but not with AC II..

And no, I dont dislike AC II, it is my third favorite so far in the franchise behind AC IV and AC I.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-09-2014, 06:20 PM
Many are complaining about glitches and performance issues in Unity, seemingly overlooking the many new positive things that game has to offer..

Yeah, I kinda suspected that was where you were going with this, which is why I amended my post to clarify that these issues are still important.

The thing is, you think we're overlooking the good parts. No. We're not talking about them because we're happy about them and there's no point talking about them. Why do so many people need any criticism to be prefaced with praise for the game? It's a waste.

Look, it's like this: I spent a few years working as a picture framer. I built picture frames to the best of my ability and as I was building them I didn't spend any time thinking "Wow! This is a great framing job I'm doing". I knew that already - it didn't need to be said or thought about. Instead, I criticized every step of the way: Is there anything wrong with this? Is the corner tight? Are there any gaps? Are there any specks of dust under the glass? Why? Because that's the ONLY way it gets to be the best it can be.

Then the customer received the frame and I expected him or her to look it over, not to tell me how great it was, but to tell me if anything needed fixing. Why? Because that's what's important. I already know I've done the best job I can - I already know they'll enjoy it - that is, after all, why they got the picture framed, so it goes without saying. What's important is what's going to detract from their enjoyment, so they need to tell me so I can fix it.

If neither I nor the customer looked for flaws - if we only thought about how great it was to build and appreciate the good parts, neither of us would be satisfied. I would never be pushing myself to be better, and the customer would force himself to be okay with a mediocre picture frame.

It's the same with a video game.

EzioAssassin51
11-09-2014, 11:39 PM
If you admit we aren't, why do you keep bringing it up?

This is the problem - there's an insinuation there which goes from the premise that someone here is being unfair to the game. Heck, if you see someone being unfair, call it out in that thread. But why say it over and over again here unless you're trying to paint us with the same accusation of unfairness?

I mean, please just stop. No one here is calling the game trash.

Oh my god, I'm not always having a go at you. In fact, you're having a go at me now. I actually cannot have a discussion with you, I have found, because you never seem to take into account other people's ideas or when they're trying to make a point or clarify things. You always have to repeat your own opinion hoping to get people onside, because your opinion is fact. Whatever.

But yes, stop thinking I'm having a go, I keep bringing it up because it keeps being brought up. By 'you guys,' I meant a few of the recent posters. Yeah, you may not be, but in case you haven't read this thread, or the title for that matter, people are 'having doubt,' about the game and calling it a poor quality product, nearly completely (with the exception of the Pakour point) based on the graphics, based on videos they've watched. That's my point. I'm not 'accusing,' you, I'm just saying.

You say you're not discussing the good things because you're happy with them. Ok, but by the sounds of it, even with the good things, the game is terrible based on graphics, according to some. That's what I think is stupid. I hope this is clear for you so you don't misinterpret me again.

And I'm saying it over and over, like how you keep repeating the 'constructive criticism,' thing in every thread (including this one, just randomly). Practice what you preach and stop putting me down for my posts please.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-10-2014, 12:12 AM
I don't think you're having a go at me. I just think you may be overreacting to the various constructive criticisms that have been made here (which is the same thing you did in the AC:Unity First Review thread). And if you think I think my opinion is fact, that's your own issue. It has nothing to do with me.

Having doubts does not mean the OP or anyone else here thinks the game is "a poor quality product". Yet you seem to think it does. It doesn't! All the OP said was "I am actually... disappointed, for the first time." That doesn't mean he thinks it's a poor quality product. It just means he's disappointed that it's not as perfect as he'd hoped it would be.

There were a couple of people very early on who obviously were just trolling, because they obviously have no intention of buying the game. Are you maybe talking about them? If so, heck, just ignore those bozos!

Again, you say...


...by the sounds of it, even with the good things, the game is terrible based on graphics, according to some.

Terrible? According to whom? Again, no one here has said anything like that. You're creating a straw man. I think you need to stop implying that any of us in this thread have said anything like that, because no one has as far as I can see. I mean, if you're going to keep making the accusation, name names. Let's see quotes. Let's see where this is coming from.

And I didn't "misinterpret you" - I quoted you. And I'm not putting you down. I'm suggesting that your assertion that people are calling the game "terrible" and "trash" don't belong here, because no one here is doing that.

Dome500
11-10-2014, 12:30 AM
I still think they took too much upon themselves.

Sure, some of the environments look GORGEOUS, and then I see more and more that other environments have very LOW res textures which seem like they are from 2010 or so and glitches are happening everywhere, Arno running through people and all that stuff.

I'm really not a graphic snob, I just think the performance might be a little bit better if they would have slightly reduced the people on screen (even if just a little) and tweaked the game a little bit more.
Also, what the hell is that blue smog? Was that normal for Paris at that time?

(Does anybody know if we will be able to manually change time of day and if there is dynamic weather in this?)

Pr0metheus 1962
11-10-2014, 12:41 AM
Also, what the hell is that blue smog? Was that normal for Paris at that time?

I think that's the natural "History Fog" from the 1790s. You get that anytime you get further into the past than the 1960s. First it starts getting a bit blurry and misty as you go through the early 1960s and 1950s, and then you get the fog showing up. It has something to do with the time displacement vortex, or it's pollution from the Flux Capacitor or something.

Just be happy the Animus doesn't present the 1790s in Smellivision. All that horse poop and the sewers - yuck.