Assassin’s Creed: Unity Framerate Is “Atrocious”

dark10x said:
That's presumptuous. Many of us DID care very much. I always found N64 games to be somewhat unplayable due to poor frame-rates which is why I actively hate Goldeneye and Perfect Dark. I've also maintained that Killzone on PS2 was unplayable due to its low frame-rate while the GTA games all ran like shit. To act as if nobody was bothered by that back then is silly especially during the PS2 era when so many AAA games were 60 fps.
Click to expand...

yup. I couldn't play Perfect Dark at all, for example. Shit was a disaster.

I mean people are acting like anyone is asking for some big order. We are now asking for a basic 30fps consistent lock, so the game isn't a framey, stuttery slideshow. This isn't asking for some miracle. It's not asking too much of our poor disenfranchised developers and publishers who are so maligned boo-hoo. It's asking for a simple thing that absolutely beyond any shadow of a doubt should be standard in the PS4/XBO generation at this point. My god. Devs/Pubs, learn to make games around the limitations of the tech you're on. It's pathetic.
 
brandonh83 said:
Infamous is also a first party title on the more powerful of the home consoles, and when it comes to scale and as you said NPC's, it's not really comparable. Infamous felt pretty empty from what I played of it. It wasn't lively at all. Extremely gorgeous, but soulless.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they added npc count to infamous in a patch.

Point being they aren't pushing the gfx as a selling point in unity. It's the NPCs. Which from what we are seeing in videos isn't doing the game any favours.
 
Amir0x said:
I cannot believe now we have legions in this thread saying fuckin consistent sub-30 framerates have not hit the threshold for unacceptable

my fucking god guys. these devs could friggin' ship a flaming turd to you bros and you wouldn't say it was beneath the line. ya'll are paying money for this shit, and the devs are like "this is amazing. They still will buy it." What's the threshold now? 15fps? Is that where we're going to need to be to fucking turn on the alarm?
Click to expand...

Yo chill a bit, I know alot of what's going on is complete BS and the game really runs at an unacceptable framerate, but your starting to blow up on a forum where even if you convinced everyone here the game was shit, it's probably going to sell to the legions of people outside of this forum who don't even follow gaming news. I know it sucks, but I feel these people are gonna start realizing games running like shit like this soon and we will start to see it in the numbers hopefully. But blowing up on here and even convincing the people who (sadly) think the game is running at an acceptable framerate isn't going to magically change how this game sells overall. Who cares what those few say, just say screw this game and screw Ubisofts BS, but's its not always the best thing to blow up on something like this.

I just hope Dev's realize this shit is unacceptable sooner or later. Thankfully it hasn't been too wipespread yet as my PS4 has quite a few games that run at a stable 30 or 60fps.
 
godelsmetric said:
The 'less than 30fps is literally unplayable, wake up sheeple, you're being abused by games companies!' lobby certainly isn't doing anything for themselves with this 'Skyrim PS3' strawman. I didn't play Skyrim on PS3. I wouldn't buy Skyrim on PS3 because it actually stopped being playable after a while, and that's an absolutely unacceptable state to release a game in. Ditto for BF4. Ditto for Driveclub.

?
Click to expand...

I am not in the unplayable wake up sheeple crowd though.
 
The good thing is i have 60€ more in my pocket and more time for GTA 5. :)
Pre-order cancelled. It is important that you vote with your wallet!

Only by letting them know that we are not ok with quality like this we will get better performance and optimization in the future.
 
Drogean said:
Lets pretend for a moment you spent about 2k on your gaming computer that includes an SLI setup of the latest top two graphic cards available so you could play EVERY game with maxed out settings at a good resolution....

and suddenly a game comes out where you're not able to keep 60 fps without dips.. not to mention we have yet to see anything even close to graphical advancement of Crysis compared to anything else at the time of its release

You're saying this is to be expected and totally normal? Because thats exactly the case with this game
Click to expand...

kBK5tvj.jpg


First thing I thought of when you wrote that. It's nothing new, I guess. Not in any way acceptable, and I recall at least some contemporary reviews complaining strongly that the game had been produced for hardware far beyond the current bleeding-edge.

Curious to see if this gets handled in a similar way, twenty years later.
 
Hugstable said:
Yo chill a bit, I know alot of what's going on is complete BS and the game really runs at an unacceptable framerate, but your starting to blow up on a forum where even if you convinced everyone here the game was shit, it's probably going to sell to the legions of people outside of this forum who don't even follow gaming news. I know it sucks, but I feel these people are gonna start realizing games running like shit like this soon and we will start to see it in the numbers hopefully. But blowing up on here and even convincing the people who (sadly) think the game is running at an acceptable framerate isn't going to magically change how this game sells overall. Who cares what those few say, just say screw this game and screw Ubisofts BS, but's its not always the best thing to blow up on something like this.
Click to expand...

I'm stating a fact. This shit needs to stop. And all the people willing to buy into this shit anyway are directly contributing to the fact devs/pubs know they don't have to live up to any standard. They can just deliver shit in a box and gamers will grin ear-to-ear and take it, because "GEOMETRY" and "CROWDS" in a repetitive open world grindbox. I mean, that's the line for people.

Nobody is blowing up. The reality is this shit needs to stop. These people are buying the games in large number, and allowing devs/pubs to just believe anything goes with performance which directly impacts how good a game is and how well the gameplay works, on top of how it looks.
 
kinggroin said:
They don't deserve anything. They aren't suffering either.

The majority of people still buy it because the majority threshold for what's deemed "unacceptable" has yet to be crossed.

Until then, we will continue to get games from Ubisoft performing at least as bad as this.

This isn't a new phenomena
Click to expand...
No, the majority will still buy it because Ubi embargoed reviews until after release so there was no reliable way to know how poorly the game performed before launch.
 
BlackBuzzard said:
Right now publishers are just looking at how far they can push releasing these unoptimized messes.
Click to expand...

This really is a big part of the problem, created by a short as possible development production-time, as this costs a lot of money and a movie-blockbuster-like sales prediction. Everything has to be sold day1 or it'll probably fail so getting the game out as planned has priority over the actual state of the product.

I could see a lot of people on gaf stepping away from preordering and buying games on release day if the quality goes down any further... but that's me fantasizing and it also wouldn't even matter much in the grand scheme of everything when average joe doesn't care about that and he is in the majority.

But it feels nice to buy a game you look forward to at a later date and get most, if not all, the patches and dlc in and maybe even pay less. The games you can buy day1, knowing they are not half finnished wrecks that need a ton of patches are becoming less and less it seems.
 
I now ubi boasts about the crowds in unity, but maybe that was the wrong direction to take. Or maybe that ambition needed more time.
 
ManThatYouFear said:
And we moaned about the frame rates then. Your point?
Click to expand...

I don't recall anybody at the time saying that their consistently sub-30fps framerates was a sign of terrible, slipping standards and that clearly anybody who enjoys any of them would enjoy 'a flaming turd'.

In fact so many people were unbothered by it that they were among the highest rated games, both of last generation and all time.
Principate said:
If were reaching such bottlenecks a year into this gen that spells of a pretty crappy gen all round...

Unless you were trying to imply something else?....
Click to expand...

Right because there were absolutely no games with dodgy framerates or other visual issues early in the PS3 and 360's life. It was a golden land of only 720p and 60fps and nary a dropped frame in sight.

Unless you were trying to imply something else?....
 
Have to say I'm disappointed hearing about all the problems. I was going to target this morning to do the b2g1 but this ruins my plans.
 
Sodding_Gamer said:
Point being they aren't pushing the gfx as a selling point in unity. It's the NPCs. Which from what we are seeing in videos isn't doing the game any favours.
Click to expand...

Well, the screenshots have at least looked very nice, to me anyway. But I get that visual standards are subjective. I'm not a huge graphics whore so I could be a lot less versed in it all than some of you guys. I'm more about the art direction, gameplay and performance myself. All I was saying, regardless of whether or not the focus is on actual visual splendor or NPC quantity, is that this sort of thing is going to keep happening until developers learn how to actually make games based on the hardware that they're working with instead of going so gung-ho that their products turn out to be a technical mess.

Again this doesn't apply to every huge, AAA game or every multiplat obviously, but Ubisoft is notorious for these huge games that perform like ass and are filled with repetitive game design. It doesn't surprise me that this game turned out the way it did.
 
Canucked said:
I now ubi boasts about the crowds in unity, but maybe that was the wrong direction to take. Or maybe that ambition needed more time.
Click to expand...

Or certain priorities need to be changed. Honestly, in the whole list of things that could of been done better in the AC games, why was larger crowds with better AI at the top of the list? Why not graphical fidelity or maybe some more modes or more content or more places to visit or more kinds of mission types?
 
I'm starting to think Ubi fucked up on the day one patch. Watching more of the unpatched game it doesn't seem to be running all that bad at all. I mean sure, there's obvious dips, but nothing too far from a "console game". This screams "buggy patch" to me.
 
Coins said:
Have to say I'm disappointed hearing about all the problems. I was going to target this morning to do the b2g1 but this ruins my plans.
Click to expand...

Just look at it as a new opportunity.

Almost anything you get will be better than the 174th Assassin's Creed game in 7 years.
 
godelsmetric said:
I don't recall anybody at the time saying that their consistently sub-30fps framerates was a sign of terrible, slipping standards and that clearly anybody who enjoys any of them would enjoy 'a flaming turd'.

In fact so many people were unbothered by it that they were among the highest rated games, both of last generation and all time.
Click to expand...
Erm, if i recall lou at least had shit loads of people moaning about the frame rate..

Wait ignoring that, are you defending this? Like you know.. seriously?
 
Coins said:
Have to say I'm disappointed hearing about all the problems. I was going to target this morning to do the b2g1 but this ruins my plans.
Click to expand...

Massively increase the AI strain on consoles with very poor cpu, gee I wonder who thought that was a great idea.
 
Shinjica said:
I was speaking about Mario 64, perfect Dark, Ocarina of Time.
Click to expand...

I know you were. I was pointing out that you don't have to travel back in time 15 years to find games that don't hold 30fps.

ManThatYouFear said:
Erm, if i recall lou at least had shit loads of people moaning about the frame rate..

Wait ignoring that, are you defending this? Like you know.. seriously?
Click to expand...

Defending what? The idea that sub-30fps isn't an affront to everything that real gamers should hold dear? Why should that need defending? I've been playing videogames for longer than some people on GAF have been alive and a patchy framerate has, to the best of my knowledge, never been a dealbreaker to me (except in those cases when I've bought a game and it wouldn't run playably on the PC I had at the time).

Would I prefer a higher framerate? Absolutely. Is it a dealbreaker? Absolutely not.

What I take issue with is people getting moralising about it. I simply don't consider it to be a moral issue. And the increasingly pointed tones about how 'you people have no standards' rubs me the wrong way. I have plenty of standards, I just don't count this among them.
 
I don't get the tradeoff though. All I can see are thousands braindead npcs bumpin' into each other. Their number is now in the thousands, compared to the hunreads of the previous generation. Bravo ubi, I guess...
 
The game is barely playable on ps4. The fps drop and the glitches... I feel like stop playing this until the patch or w/e
 
Amir0x said:
yup. I couldn't play Perfect Dark at all, for example. Shit was a disaster.

I mean people are acting like anyone is asking for some big order. We are now asking for a basic 30fps consistent lock, so the game isn't a framey, stuttery slideshow. This isn't asking for some miracle. It's not asking too much of our poor disenfranchised developers and publishers who are so maligned boo-hoo. It's asking for a simple thing that absolutely beyond any shadow of a doubt should be standard in the PS4/XBO generation at this point. My god. Devs/Pubs, learn to make games around the limitations of the tech you're on. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...

Best post in the thread IMO. If a game can't hit at least 30fps consistently, it shouldn't be released. I would take 5000 NPCs with a stable 30fps vs. 10000 with sub 20.
 
godelsmetric said:
In fact so many people were unbothered by it that they were among the highest rated games, both of last generation and all time.
Click to expand...

False argument. You have no way to quantify precisely how many people who purchased it were fine with it, how many people still thought it was an issue once they actually played it. And, despite how many people purchased the games, there are vast quantities of gamers who didn't - the majority of gamers, in fact, since there were over a hundred million for games like GTA:SA. You and I both also have no idea how many in that window didn't buy some of these popular games because of framerate.

So, it's not a majority, we have no idea at all. And argumentum ad populum is a terrible framing for such a discussion. Because whether something is popular or not says nothing at all about whether something is a huge problem, which this undeniably is. We're not talking about 60fps. We're talking getting a consistent 30fps now. For PS4 and XBO. Standards evolve as well, so even if some people were willing to accept some horrible framerates in context, we are now in PS4/XBO gen. People want to move on as well. This shit is bonkers.

And it's the same thing. You can't even say you don't care about framerate. Everyone has a line. So what are you saying? 15fps is the line? 10fps? Exactly how miserably atrocious is a framerate going to have to be so you stop coming in here trying to tell us the alarm shouldn't be raised?
 
This amount of pop-in reminds me of racing games on the Sega Saturn.

Thinking about cancelling my PC pre-order too now, Ubi does not deserve my money for an unfinished product.
 
Amir0x said:
I'm stating a fact. This shit needs to stop. And all the people willing to buy into this shit anyway are directly contributing to the fact devs/pubs know they don't have to live up to any standard. They can just deliver shit in a box and gamers will grin ear-to-ear and take it, because "GEOMETRY" and "CROWDS" in a repetitive open world grindbox. I mean, that's the line for people.

Nobody is blowing up. The reality is this shit needs to stop. These people are buying the games in large number, and allowing devs/pubs to just believe anything goes with performance which directly impacts how good a game is and how well the gameplay works, on top of how it looks.
Click to expand...

I reckon there are a lot of people who are happy enough with it though, and they're probably not the types to be reading rant threads on neogaf. Just let them enjoy their game, and don't buy it yourself if you don't like it, that's all you can do. I don't like spray-cheese-in-a-can but I don't go on a crusade against the manufacturers telling them to stop making that shit, just step around it and buy something better.
 
Amir0x said:
yup. I couldn't play Perfect Dark at all, for example. Shit was a disaster.

I mean people are acting like anyone is asking for some big order. We are now asking for a basic 30fps consistent lock, so the game isn't a framey, stuttery slideshow. This isn't asking for some miracle. It's not asking too much of our poor disenfranchised developers and publishers who are so maligned boo-hoo. It's asking for a simple thing that absolutely beyond any shadow of a doubt should be standard in the PS4/XBO generation at this point. My god. Devs/Pubs, learn to make games around the limitations of the tech you're on. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...

There were a few N64 games I just dealt with it because I liked the idea. Perfect Dark was one of them. Conker's Bad Fur Day was another. Those games ran like crap, yet I love them.

I'm willing to "forgive" certain games for mediocre frames if on an older console (PC is my own fault). But it's a 1% forgiveness and probably only a handful of games I'm ok with having sucky frames.

What burns more is the parity issue originally. And not only that, if the Xbox One version was dipping ... no, sorry... more importantly, having stupid pop-ins like this, then they should have rethought what these systems could do and lower the quantity of mediocre NPCs. NPCs getting in my way literally just adds to the annoying issue with the dips and pop-in.
 
Amir0x said:
I'm stating a fact. This shit needs to stop. And all the people willing to buy into this shit anyway are directly contributing to the fact devs/pubs know they don't have to live up to any standard. They can just deliver shit in a box and gamers will grin ear-to-ear and take it, because "GEOMETRY" and "CROWDS" in a repetitive open world grindbox. I mean, that's the line for people.

Nobody is blowing up. The reality is this shit needs to stop. These people are buying the games in large number, and allowing devs/pubs to just believe anything goes with performance which directly impacts have good a game is and how well the gameplay works, on top of how it looks.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the major press sites will still give this game good scores and will brush aside the technical shortcomings the game has. I know, cause I was deceived when AC1 released. They mentioned it had a few problematic areas here and there, but nothing major, especially given the scope and whatnot. I insert the disk, start playing and the fucking game crashed on the first loading screen. Then,when I got to play it in jerusalem, it was a fucking choppy mess. Most sites, while mentioning there are problems, usually make them seem insignificant. The average joe might not frequent NeoGaf of other gaming forums but will certainly read the reviews, see glowing 8s and 9s and decide, it's good enough. The media doesn't care for performance, especially if it's a big game. They will brush it under the rug, assuming the average joe doesn't care. I think he does, they simply mislead people into thinking it's not a huge deal. AC3 was horrific and still got great scores.

The best reviewer is definitely yourself, thing is, there are no demos to try the game. You have to rely on your peers or a few select reviewers in which you trust. But most just get swept away in the hype and exclusive coverage deals and sugar coat the sad truth that some games run real, real bad. I might eat crow if this game gets shitty reviews, but that would be the first time I would gladly eat it. It would be a sign that someone cares about minimum performance standards.
 
godelsmetric said:
I don't recall anybody at the time saying that their consistently sub-30fps framerates was a sign of terrible, slipping standards and that clearly anybody who enjoys any of them would enjoy 'a flaming turd'.

In fact so many people were unbothered by it that they were among the highest rated games, both of last generation and all time.


Right because there were absolutely no games with dodgy framerates or other visual issues early in the PS3 and 360's life. It was a golden land of only 720p and 60fps and nary a dropped frame in sight.

Unless you were trying to imply something else?....
Click to expand...
Of course not but your examples are awful, below 30 isn't all that rare but sub 20 is or at least I'd hope it was personally played most of the big AAA games on pc.
 
Bennicus said:
I reckon there are a lot of people who are happy enough with it though, and they're probably not the types to be reading rant threads on neogaf. Just let them enjoy their game, and don't buy it yourself if you don't like it, that's all you can do. I don't like spray-cheese-in-a-can but I don't go on a crusade against the manufacturers telling them to stop making that shit, just step around it and buy something better.
Click to expand...

If I buy spray cheese in a can, press the nozzle, and the cheese doesn't come out at a fluid frame rate I am taking that shit back to the store.
 
Principate said:
If were reaching such bottlenecks a year into this gen that spells of a pretty crappy gen all round...

Unless you were trying to imply something else?....
Click to expand...

Its not a bottleneck. Its a developer making a choice to forego great performance in favor 10,000 NPCs.

The hardware is capable of what folks in here are asking, Ubisoft isn't willing to give it to them however.
 
Bennicus said:
I reckon there are a lot of people who are happy enough with it though, and they're probably not the types to be reading rant threads on neogaf. Just let them enjoy their game, and don't buy it yourself if you don't like it, that's all you can do. I don't like spray-cheese-in-a-can but I don't go on a crusade against the manufacturers telling them to stop making that shit, just step around it and buy something better.
Click to expand...

They can enjoy what they want. Me saying this needs to stop doesn't prevent anyone from going out there and buying it anyway. That goes without saying. So it doesn't even require saying.

The fact is, though, this deserves a crusade. So I won't stop.
 
The Souls series has a horrible framerate, yet it is not held to the fire like this. From what I have seen, there is nothing that approaches Blight Town levels of bad. So as long as it does not constantly perform worse than that, then I will be fine.
 
As a european, this is possibly the only time I can ever remember been thankful for having rolling regional releases.
Basically, thanks to the US-based martyrs who saved me 60 euros. Your sacrifice is appreciated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

'Assassin's Creed' no saviour for struggling Ubisoft
2
92
736
K' Dash replied
Assassin's Creed full universe infographic
27
1K
Cyberpunkd replied
  • Poll
Prince of Persia VS Assassin's Creed
Opinion 
17
259
HYDE replied
2 months on, who finished Assassins Creed Shadows?
2
85
777
Grildon Tundy replied
  • Poll
Assassin's Creed: Shadows | Review Thread
Analysis Review  18 19 20 21 22
1K
73K
Ocean Dweller replied
Top Bottom