-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Performance Analysis: Assassin's Creed Unity (Digital Foundry)
- Thread starter cb1115
- Start date
Jawbreaker
Member
I think Matt's original post says it all.
I'm not even mad about MS doing nefarious shit anymore.
They clearly want to make their platform as appealing as possible and have the financial clout to make that happen.
Good for them.
Pop
Member
Why do you do this. Do you actually think this is funny.
Maybe you should think before you type.
What sure doesn't make sense is the framerate. It should be more stable on the PS4, parity or not. This game seems to be messed up on the technical side.
iamvin22
Industry Verified
CambriaRising
Member
Ethered. Sign me up.
Sodding_Gamer
Member
Bravo sir. Bravo.
This is one of the shitiest post I have seen in quite a while. Congratulations
WarMacheen
Member
I didn't really look, but is there a micro transaction to unlock the framerate?
This post is cool and all but I'm buying Ass Creed II Brotherhood as soon as it goes on steam sale again. I'm all for bitching loudly and making your voice heard but I'm not throwing down the gauntlet and saying "never again." Especially with as many IPs that I am potentially interested in as Ubisoft has. They need to get their shit together, though.
Zatoichi's Cane
Member
3 fps more is clearly getting the job done.... lol
If Sony allows such shoddy ports to release on their platform, then yea I hold them equally as responsible as Ubisoft.
Amen to that brother.
It really is a great post.
Jesus, the PS4 drops sub-20fps at times. Makes the PC port look like gold
Ye, PS4 version dropping below 20 fps is lol.
Don't forget about the Rayman fiasco...
Are people really basing the PS4's CPU speed from a Ubisoft slide, or did Sony actually announce CPU speeds at some point, because I've seen a few posts on here in the past that had sites benchmarking the CPU on both consoles as being identical.
This game runs like dogshit no matter where you go, glad I had the good sense not to pre-order this mess. Who didn't see this coming, really.
This game runs like dogshit no matter where you go, glad I had the good sense not to pre-order this mess. Who didn't see this coming, really.
marianitten
Banned
Why are you completly ignoring the XB1 performance Issues?
Nah, I love Sucker Punch and ND games too much to sell my PS4.
Where else will I play my console JRPGs?
Isn't the XB1 at 1.75Ghz and the PS4 at 1.6?
This was from months ago, I believe.
demosthenes
Member
Certainly not denutted. Great post.
KyanMehwulfe
Member
i never really buy ubisoft games anyhow... so can't say my level of being affected or 'weight' on the topics matters all that much -- basically all I do is play gta, fft, and mmos. so if i wrote this myself, it would seem rather baseless.
but this basically sums up my emotional reaction to the general ubi news today and how i would hope most consumers would react going forward
JRPGs? There's more than one?
And Metal Gear solid doesn't have a thousand NPCs on screen at the same time. The game is a mess, but comparisons like that make no sense.
Persona 5, DQ:H, KH:3 and FF15 :3
Well you told me to wipe away my tears and asked why i'm so invested in Microsoft and that posts on here are hurting their feelings. It sounds like you were accusing me but if i am jumping to conclusions then i take it back.
Its just this place can be so intelligent at times but when it comes to stuff like this, all logic goes out of the window.
We believe that apparently Microsoft has a slightly faster cpu and UBISoft themselves said the game is very cpu intensive so that one probable reason for this.
The game is obviously rushed out, you just have to look at the bugs and glitches to see that so thats another probably reason for this.
The X1 for all we know may of been the lead platform and because of the tight deadline they couldn't optimize both (especially the PS4 version) in time for launch.
Another reason could simply be thats its UBISoft and most of their game release are terribly optimized, at launch anyway.
All possible and probably reasons but no, it must be down to Microsoft paying them off to gimp the PS4 version. Its just so ridiculous, especially when the X1 version itself is still a mess.
Looks identical to me.I took some more screenshots from the comparison tool:
Maybe I missed that, seems like it would have been a pretty substantial post tho is Sony actually acknowledged a set CPU speed on the PS4.
KefkaPalazzo
Member
You had me until "no value in the community" they have had too many good games released recently to claim that IMO. I know emotions are high and have every reason to be, but ehh. Most of that rant is quite justified though!
mugurumakensei
Member
Well, let's go back to E3 2012.
The first "next-gen" demos were shown with Watch_Dogs and SE's Agni's Philosophy demo. These two demos were running on core i7's paired with a 680. It's natural to assume now that the developer's believed that was the class of hardware they were targeting. This would have already been two years into AC: Unity's development.
Likely scenario is they got it running decent enough with a core i7 and 680. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean it will run well on consoles since the console's GPU capabilities are actually closer to the 750 TI in performance than a 680 even in real world scenarios. Along with this, any recent core i7 processor runs laps around the 8-core jaguar in consoles. Unfortunately, they likely didn't realize just how bad it would run til around 9 months back.
Stilton Disco
Member
Bravo sir. A damned perfect post!
seventynine
Member
Like a choice between getting punched in the face or a kick in the balls.
Neither is desirable but one is definitely less painful.
Neither is desirable but one is definitely less painful.
SolidusDave
Member
I would take the 900p and the framerate if the game at least would actually look like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOISIeGvjkc
I would have even ignored the standard AC gameplay because I skipped the latest ones so should not be too burned out. I was only interested in the thought of exploring a true next gen AC setting.
btw how was the performance of the AC games on PS3 compared to the 360? You know, back when Sony was their marketing partner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOISIeGvjkc
I would have even ignored the standard AC gameplay because I skipped the latest ones so should not be too burned out. I was only interested in the thought of exploring a true next gen AC setting.
btw how was the performance of the AC games on PS3 compared to the 360? You know, back when Sony was their marketing partner.
Oh, I completely forgot about Persona and KH:3, lol Maybe there is some JRPG hope after all.
But it's such a shoddy port on XBone too, I guess MS is responsible too.
You're trying way too hard.
what does this mean.
markedbravado
Member
I too am curious about this as well. Especially after that graph was posted on this thread with the relative cpu performance for the consoles. The PS3 had a much higher cpu than the xbox 360.
It's easier to be mad at a company if you make stuff up to be mad about.
UH what?
Are you serious?
Where does Unity look better on X1?It's the same. Frame rate is a mess on both (this is in the XB1 version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YdgnxdzE5g and XB1 is 20ish during cutscenes while PS4 does better in that front).
The game is unfinished on both, but totally unoptimized on PS4 because they were clearly behind schedule with this project and run out of time, all the attention went to their lead sku which was the XB1 for this game.
COD runs at a higher res on PS4 with no tearing and the drops into the 50s during campaign mode aren't really frequent or significant, Evolve runs at a higher res and still is in alpha stage, there's room to gain a few fps.
Also you ask why Sony didn't bother overclocking the CPU but you're making no sense at all, different machines have different specs with different headrooms for changing specs late in the game (just like Microsoft coulnd't change their underpowered GPU when they realized they chose the wrong memory system going with DDR3 and esram too late in the game).
PS4 has a part of its GPU that is usable for CPU computing if it fits developers needs (something the clearly Ubisoft isn't even daring to use with this game).
Ubisoft fucked up with this game, it wasn't ready for this holiday season. With Watch Dogs they downgraded everything, with this they went the 20 fps route with tons of bugs incuded.
It's not like Sony can develop the game on their behalf, they surely can help, but we don't know what happened behind the scenes with this game so the discussion on this matter is pointless.
PHOENIXZERO
Member
Welcome to where I've been with Ubisoft with the AC series since ACIII came out. Though that was less about shitty performance (well aside from the bugs) and more just how underwhelming and unsatisfying that ACIII was as a whole.
Before the edit it said "There are no excuses for this."
So, it means: Ubisoft is a joke and there's zero reason this ended up the way it did.
Its was worse then 360 performance if i remember correctly.
OsirisBlack
Banned
This should be thoroughly embarrassing for Ubisoft next week is going to be very Telling for them as a whole. Farcry 3 will answer a lot of questions that ACU has put in front of me.
Sony never acknowledged the 1.6Ghz speed, it's just that it's the base for both the CPUs in these consoles; they are almost identical.
XB1 received a boost though, to 1.75Ghz.
This is all off memory, so I may be off a bit.
And more to come, I hope!
Better textures and lighting on the XB1 + better frame rate.
marianitten
Banned
He is just trolling us. He will answer always saying something about Sony. Completly ignoring the XB1 issues. Don't fall in that
Edit:
See?
