Assassin's Creed "Parity": Unity is 900p/30fps on both PS4 & Xbox One

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was alright. It wasn't easy hitting 60 fps on Ultra but it ran well enough at console level settings.

Pretty shitty to be honest. Sometimes it was ok, then it just seemed to bog down for me.
Thought so,From my understanding (not sure about you Mohonky) you got a pretty decent PC
I know alot of got the PS4 version of ACIV due to bad optimisation on PC, if Unity is the same Ubi has really fucked a lot of people over because for some 900p@30fps is gonna be the only other option.
 
I think 576p was the PAL DVD resolution standard.

480p is the best that the original Wii was able to do. There were also PS2 games that could output anamorphic 480p, like SSX3. They were glorious for their time.

Yeah it's why I didn't get the guys posts on the Ubi forum. Why would a person be ok with 480p?
 
I'm not sure why people are freaking out over a mere resolution. Ubisoft specifically stated CPU for both PS4 and Xbox One is the major bottleneck for this game. Yet they completely ignore the technical statement and rabble rabble on parity.

This generation of gamers really is embarrassing to be a part of.
 
Holy shit... 633,600 pixels "is hardly a big difference"? what in the what what? I'll stop reading that right away.

Besides, it won't be pixelmapped.

I know man... it is just ridiculous...

Most amazing is the fact that I simply DONT GET why someone would complain about the community trying to improve the end product?

Wtf is up with that?

You dont care about res? Cool ok, just dont bother writing BS then.

Instead the guys are labeling us "pathetic" for trying to demand that the product is improved...

Scratch my motherfucking head really...!!!
 
... And? What has this to do with my statements in this thread?

Also, I never said our game comes out 2016.
*Shrug* You've brushed off legitimate concern about games being gimped from here on out with a nonsensical hyperbole of your own ("some people only play lines"). An equally nonsensical retort was returned in kind.

I see no problem here. :)
 
It would, but do you see people here talking or wondering about those other aspects here (or anywhere) ?
"Game is sub HD BOOO, lazy lousy devs !" nevermind the game does real time raytracing, radiosity, full anal rendering on two millions npc's (hypothetical scenario, of course).
People won't care. You could give them fucking Avatar in real time, but if it's not 1080p or 60fps then obviously "stupid devs couldn't be arsed to do some more optimization".
A lot of people will stop at those numbers, because they don't have an idea what goes on on the screen besides those.

Microsoft knows very well that most people will only read and make comparisons using numbers. 900p is always > 720p.
the rest, you usually have to dig deeper to find out and most people won't have the chance to compare the two versions directly anyway.

I'm sure you noticed how fast 'resolution' threads move on Neogaf's front page.
Heck, we could post these two threads "Half Life 3 announced, going to be best game ever" and "GTAV: PS4 1080p X1 900p" and see which gets more views.

The resolution drama has gotten beyond ridiculous, and Microsoft knows very well. They will keep asking for resolution parity (but i don't think they'd go as far as asking to boycott PS4 versions, and i doubt devs would agree to that anyway) regardless of what that means in terms of performance or features devs have to cut.
They need to advertise their games as running with the same "numbers" as PS4's.

In AC's case, i'm sure there's going to be disparity in many other areas, just not the kind of disparity that's immediately apparent on fact sheets.
Holy crap, someone with some sense! People see the resolution and nothing more. Ubi announces that the resolution and target framerate are the same and everyone cries out forced parity. We have no idea what sacrifices were made to get the XB1 version up to 900p, and people don't care. The game could be a choppy mess with awful AA, no texture filtering and lower quality shadows, but damn it the game is at the same resolution and reported framerate, so there was forced parity!

I just hope we don't see a downgraded PS4 version to get it to 1080p because of all of the complaining.
 
I'm not sure why people are freaking out over a mere resolution. Ubisoft specifically stated CPU for both PS4 and Xbox One is the major bottleneck for this game. Yet they completely ignore the technical statement and rabble rabble on parity.

This generation of gamers really is embarrassing to be a part of.

Have you really read anything in the thread? I mean sure, most of the posts are kneejerk reactions and pretty hilarious, but it seems like you don't even understand what the problem here is.

How embarrassing.
 
I'm not sure why people are freaking out over a mere resolution. Ubisoft specifically stated CPU for both PS4 and Xbox One is the major bottleneck for this game. Yet they completely ignore the technical statement and rabble rabble on parity.

This generation of gamers really is embarrassing to be a part of.

You realize the cpu doesnt do much for res right, its mainly gpu, so the cpu excuse (because thats what it is) wont fly and people are calling them out on it.
 
The terms 1080p and 900p kind of give a false impression as to the magnitude of the difference between resolutions. "Its only 180 more P's!"

1920x1080

1920x800 (The Order, not to be confused by 800p which is 1400x800)

1600x900
 
Holy crap, someone with some sense! People see the resolution and nothing more. Ubi announces that the resolution and target framerate are the same and everyone cries out forced parity. We have no idea what sacrifices were made to get the XB1 version up to 900p, and people don't care. The game could be a choppy mess with awful AA, no texture filtering and lower quality shadows, but damn it the game is at the same resolution and reported framerate, so there was forced parity!

I just hope we don't see a downgraded PS4 version to get it to 1080p because of all of the complaining.

Apart from this line "We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff". It doesn't really sound like them sacrificing much.
 
I think a lot of people don't understand why 60fps is important. I also think a lot of people don't understand why reaching the meager goal of 1080p is also important.

If I can get the right words I hope that I can sit down and explain that to console owners who don't understand. :/
 
Of course it is.
No it's not, because you haven't played the game. Period. You can't compare Shadow or Mordor's depth to an unreleased game. If Unity comes out and turns out to have less depth or a more shallow open world than you can say so, but as of right now, the game is unreleased.
 
Your post about the cloud helping XB1 in 2016.
Where exactly did I write that other platforms won't profit from cloud supported gaming? Oh ... And still no context. People keep mixing statements together without any relation to each other. I just found it strange that people are cancelling pre-orders because of this. Because I expect people pre-order a game because of its unique gameplay elements and features. This was my statement. This is my personal opinion on this. ZERO context to our game, clouds or whatever. Zero.

Ya well, I simply ignore threads like this in future. I think that's better.
 
I'm not sure why people are freaking out over a mere resolution. Ubisoft specifically stated CPU for both PS4 and Xbox One is the major bottleneck for this game. Yet they completely ignore the technical statement and rabble rabble on parity.

This generation of gamers really is embarrassing to be a part of.

Did you bold it so we can laugh at you?
Yeah I'm embarassed by people like you who can't even understand the point of the discussion, which is not about the resolution. Try to read the thread before posting and thinking you're above everybody else.
 
How embarrassing.
Truth be told, there is just one person in the entirety of this circus who ought to be embarrassed.

It's the Ubi bloke who first claimed that anything had been done in the first place. Be it locking down resolutions and frame rates, preventing disparity or whatnot.

If that dude had kept his mouth shut, we would be none the wiser. This thread would not exist. Six weeks from now, when the first copies of the game are to be released, DF or someone else would count the pixels and point out that yes indeed, the game runs at 900p or thereabouts.

And then we'd be unhappy, but not pissed off.

This is another PR statement gone awry.
 
Holy shit... 633,600 pixels "is hardly a big difference"? what in the what what? I'll stop reading that right away.

Besides, it won't be pixelmapped.

Someone even said it's only a couple of pixels.

I remember when i was little and I would ask my mum for a couple of pounds to get some sweets, I thought £2 was the upper limit of what she would've gave me not £633k. She fucking scammed me.
 
... And still no context. People keep mixing statements together without any relation to each other. I just found it strange that people are cancelling pre-orders because of this. Because I expect people pre-order a game because of its unique gameplay elements and features. This was my statement. This is my personal opinion on this. ZERO context to our game, clouds or whatever. Zero.

Ya well, I simply ignore threads like this in future. I think that's better.

We do, and a game running at 1080P which should be a standard for this generation is a feature. It's not Sony's fault MS released a gimped product, why should third party games suffer on the PS4 because the XB1 is not capable? That is exactly what the dev said and what we have been talking about in this thread. They CHOSE to not use the extra horsepower of the PS4. It's shameful.

I don't understand why they're talking about dvds, both consoles support blu-ray now.
It was a response to some dumb asses saying they are perfectly fine playing games in 480P if they are fun. It's just stupid. We aren't living in 1996 playing PS1 on our 20" Funai CRT televisions anymore. Comments like that are ridiculous.
 
Ubisoft just shot themselves in the foot.

I don't know how much the rest of you know about fanboy culture (I'm an expert) ...

Etc
 
I think a lot of people don't understand why 60fps is important. I also think a lot of people don't understand why reaching the meager goal of 1080p is also important.

If I can get the right words I hope that I can sit down and explain that to console owners who don't understand. :/

You did a great job in the new vid , I found it via a link on twitter, you really have a way with words and explain things well.
 
The Cloud™

That´s what he is probably referring to. The time when MS will strike back and all the superior vision of multiplat games will engage only on Xbox One ! Yehaw

in your dreams lol

To be fair the cloud can't possibly make much difference because developers would probably want to avoid debates and stuff on how the cloud made XB1 better.
 
Imagine if when mortal kombat 1 Co e out for consoles the devi said


"We took the blood out of the genesis version so we wouldn't have to deal with system comparisons"
 
I don't understand why DVD resolution was brought up, but let's roll with it. Would the defenders be fine if they bought a BluRay movie only to find that the movie was 480p because the studio wanted to avoid controversy and stuff? That's the level of idiocy we are dealing with.
 
GAF isn't for you then.
Turn in your badge and your gun at the door on your way out.

Oh you guys got a gun? Is this only for members? I have not gotten one. Should I file a complain?

OT: The parity argument is quite weird especially with the statement that the CPUs are two slow. Because of a slow CPU they need to decrease the resolution....
 
I don't understand why DVD resolution was brought up, but let's roll with it. Would the defenders be fine if they bought a BluRay movie only to find that the movie was 480p because the studio wanted to avoid controversy and stuff? That's the level of idiocy we are dealing with.

Some guy on the Ubi forums said he would be happy with it.
 
Oh you guys got a gun? Is this only for members? I have not gotten one. Should I file a complain?

OT: The parity argument is quite weird especially with the statement that the CPUs are two slow. Because of a slow CPU they need to decrease the resolution....
Dude, what?
 
Apart from this line "We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff". It doesn't really sound like them sacrificing much.

That´s because today only resolution counts.

Same with digital cameras => 15 MP > 12 MP (regardless the image quality) ... :)
 
Even if the PS4 version would have been optimized for 1080p otherwise, we are still talking about only 16% more "p". Missing 180 lines of pixels doesn't make this subpar quality, nor worth what's happening now in GAF.

And as a customer, I buy games that seem interesting and fun. If a game looks like shit - sure, I'm not likely to buy it then. But I don't think "looks like shit" applies here. You're basically just talking about a bad publisher not taking extra steps to polish the game for a specific platform and just releasing a version that looks the same on all platforms, potentially ignoring the potential for a slightly better version on your platform of choice. It sucks, I get it. But is it really important enough to be discussed like this?

What?
 
Have you really read anything in the thread? I mean sure, most of the posts are kneejerk reactions and pretty hilarious, but it seems like you don't even understand what the problem here is.

How embarrassing.
I'm more annoyed and shocked that they are openly admitting they unnecessary gimping one version to match the other, not only is the question "Who would do such a thing" but "what developer,creator, artist, etc would do that"
This is the problem with the industry.
 
900p wouldnt be that bad if they used better AA and texture filtering.

Watch Dogs is a muddy mess. It gives me GTA4 on PS3 flash backs of 640p and QXAA. From the looks of recent footage AC:U has alot of the same issues.


What did Battlefield 4 use for AA? That game didnt look horrible but then maybe the 60fps smoothness compensated
 
Did you bold it so we can laugh at you?
Yeah I'm embarassed by people like you who can't even understand the point of the discussion, which is not about the resolution. Try to read the thread before posting and thinking you're above everybody else.

Thank you for proving my point. By now you are just whining for the sake of whining.

GAF isn't for you then.
Turn in your badge and your gun at the door on your way out.

A badge and a gun. This is just getting better and better.

You realize the cpu doesnt do much for res right, its mainly gpu, so the cpu excuse (because thats what it is) wont fly and people are calling them out on it.

You do realize GPU alone can't run a game correct? Here's an experiment I want you to do. I want you to use a Core2Duo processor and pair it with a 660TI, test out a few games, then do the same with an i5 and come back to me with the result.
 
Oh you guys got a gun? Is this only for members? I have not gotten one. Should I file a complain?

OT: The parity argument is quite weird especially with the statement that the CPUs are two slow. Because of a slow CPU they need to decrease the resolution....

NO, read it again. They are CPU bound with the amount of AI they are running. The resolution of the game has NOTHING to do with the CPU. It's bound to memory and the GPU which one console has vastly superior specs. The CPU's are identical in both boxes, the GPU/Memory configs are not even in the same ballpark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom