• 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.

Assassins Creed Unity Leaked PS4 version shots (Confirmed 900p / 30fps)

quetz67

Banned
Why do I get the feeling that Assassin's Creed Rogue will be the better game....

Yeah probably they should have gone with another "sharper on next gen" cross gen effort and delayed this a year to give it the polish it needs.

Resolution bitching aside they ran into a huge problem here. Instead of making characters look better they went the route of increasing their number hoping to please people with that idea. NeoGaf is unthankful as ever although they always coped with worse graphics on GTA games (when did characters get discernable fingers?) because of open world.

The excuse seems not valid here. But then, Ubi is not innocent teasing us with prerendered movies that don't show the problems of a realtime rendered world. And the problem is not resolution or missing shadows (many of the screens show the shadow quality is pretty good, they are nice and soft without suffering of low shadow map size).

The problem is low light situation where no visible shadows are cast. While the environment has (25GB?) of prerendered AO (which actually shows) the player misses some basic contact shadow to make him not float. Characters in the shadows look like characters in the sun, just a little darker. They would need much more AO to reflect the ambient lighting situation. Without that they look washed out, which pronounced by their low poly models.

Having mass scenes with hundrets of characters on screen is impressive, but it is a bad idea to use the same low poly models when there are only a few (dozen) people on screen. Yeah, it makes the game look more homogenous, but maybe prerendered mass cut scenes would be a better decision than having those scenes make the game as a whole look worse.

And it probably runs slower because of these. Increasing character count by factor 10 for the mass scenes sure might increase AI and even simple collision detection calculations exponentially bringing the CPU to its knees. But in 90% of the game situations the CPU is probably idling around with a handful of AI calculations.
 
Who to believe here?

After changing computer screens, I stand my ground. Maybe "heavily" compressed is too powerful, but looking at the little things like the gradient on Arno's hair being abrupt and the bushes looking like they have a blur over them make it more evident. Also, I notice no hud. Does the game lack a hud early on or was it cropped out?
 
I'm almost in disbelief at how bad this game looks. If the game actually looks like this upon release, then that's truly embarrassing for Ubisoft. This makes the Watch_Dogs downgrade seem pretty tame in comparison.
 

Coflash

Member
Who to believe here?

Take the following into account:

EightBitNate said:
Just because artifacts aren't easily noticable doesn't mean something isn't really compressed.

Considering that's *exactly* how JPG compression works for images that have been 'really' compressed or 'compressed to hell and back', you can draw your own conclusion.
 

K' Dash

Member
Yes, I've seen the interiors. And they do look good, I will give you that. I'm sure, however that the brunt of the game takes place outdoors. And based on the screens (which is what I'm really going on here, as the discussion of this thread centers around the blurriness/IQ of them) look quite poor.

I apologize that my current member status somehow affected how you felt about my post. No, that was not sarcastic.

I'm sorry, I wasn't talking about you, I meant some of the obvious trolls posting here.
 
Take the following into account:



Considering that's *exactly* how JPG compression works for images that have been 'really' compressed or 'compressed to hell and back', you can draw your own conclusion.

But did I ever say that there weren't artifacts? All I said is that it wasn't easily noticable. And I would expect someone who spends 12 hours a day using Photoshop to pick up on it. Even the slightest compression can ruin a games IQ. It's like that with any detailed image.

People push for Gamersyde footage all the time, so it's a shame that the game is being judged in its current form.

Honestly, can I ask if you think the game will end up with that IQ? Do you think it's fair to look at those screens and write off the games graphics?
 
Called it. Can't believe there were people who thought the game would look as good as the announcement trailer, especially after what happened with Watch Dogs.
 
Game probably looks like ass, but it's not impossible that these could just be cherry picked bad shots. Here's ACIV completely maxed out on PC. 2560x1440P TXAAx4

i2HoNFnPcX0lb.png

From the same session.

 

Ravage

Member
Blurry timeeeee


ACUnity-PS4-Leaked-3.jpg


Oh lord...

Even if i buy their stupid excuse that the number of NPCs is the reason for 900p, i will never understand their decision. What's the point in having all those NPCs if the shallow simulation system will never allow them to do anything meaningful?
 
I still think there is more going on here than people think.

I can't think of one game this generation that has a UI that has been upscaled from the native rendering resolution of the game which makes me think that the day one patch will improve the graphics.

Given Ubisofts track record I can understand why this thread has got to 37 pages but how about we wait and see what happens at release.
 

DOWN

Banned
Kinda seems like people are going overboard with this.

The Driveclub threads went to hell once Share captures were posted because they looked flat and jaggy. Then the game came out and it looked actually gorgeous like the promos
but unplayable online :/

Blowing up a shot on your moniter is different than viewing distance on your TV and a game in motion.
 

Kikujiro

Member
I'm really concerned about all the "framerate is dogshit" comments, I'm gonna skip the game if it's really that bad since I can't stand it (and yes it affects the gameplay), damn Ubi I wanted to visit past Paris.
 
I had the "chance" to play this at PGS, it's far worse than everything you can think of.

- The framerate is absolute horror.

- THE CLIPPING POP UPS, it's just not acceptable to have that much clipping in a game that looks that bad. It ruins any sort of immersion. You walk, turn the camera, see npc textures load up AS WELL as their shadows (when there are shadows), just popping up, you ignore it, walk forward, see everything ahead load up. This is unbearable. If you think infamous was bad, this will make you cry.

- The animations are, I'm sure, nice individually, but holy hell they glitch every chance they can, making this game look worse than AC 2 PC at this point.

- The super Ninja Naruto jumps. I have no words.

- The fights are exactly what you can expect. Shit.

Good points :

- OST

- Atmosphere

Horrible first impressions. That might not make it a bad game tho, maybe the missions and COOP + story can save the game.

I tested the xbox one version.

Played the xbone demo at PAX and can verify that the framerate is indeed dogshit. it felt like a slideshow at times.

But that wasn't my main problem with the game. my main problem was the shitty parkour, which feels like a big step backwards from previous games. movement was unresponsive, and my character kept moving in directions i didnt want him to. dont even get me started on the combat.
After playing the Xbox One demo at London Comic Con, I can agree with all of this. It was 20-25fps, went into 15fps in crowds, pop-up was ridiculous, and just wasn't that good. EVEN if it was a much older build, the fact that Ubisoft thought it was fit to show to the public is astounding. No way the Xbox One version comes out at release like that, otherwise it'll make Dark Souls Blighttown look like a picnic.
 

GreenFear

Banned
Everything max @ 1080P vs Everything min @ 900P
Wow the bottom one actually looks better in some regards. It's not as blurry, the building in the back looks more clear and defined. Foliage looks like crap though. Besides that it's crazy how good the game looks even on low settings.
 

Mohasus

Member
Wow the bottom one actually looks better in some regards. It's not as blurry, the building in the back looks more clear and defined. Foliage looks like crap though. Besides that it's crazy how good the game looks even on low settings.

What is depth of field? A miserable little pile of blur.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Wow, all these details leaking out sound pretty bad. Seems like the game simply wasn't ready.

Wow the bottom one actually looks better in some regards. It's not as blurry, the building in the back looks more clear and defined. Foliage looks like crap though. Besides that it's crazy how good the game looks even on low settings.
Yuck, really? Looks awful to me.
 

Seanspeed

Banned
If the reports of XB1's performance issues show up in the final game, its going to make all the purity outrage possibly look a bit silly if it turns out that there is a performance difference between it and the PS4 version. I'd always considered it possible Ubisoft genuinely couldn't get the game running well at 1080p on PS4 and just made a bad excuse for it to the public.
 

omonimo

Banned
After playing the Xbox One demo at London Comic Con, I can agree with all of this. It was 20-25fps, went into 15fps in crowds, pop-up was ridiculous, and just wasn't that good. EVEN if it was a much older build, the fact that Ubisoft thought it was fit to show to the public is astounding. No way the Xbox One version comes out at release like that, otherwise it'll make Dark Souls Blighttown look like a picnic.
Sounds really terrible for the xbone owners. They pushed too much for the parity, probably res should stay at 768p, now that's clear why run at 900p on ps4.
 

BouncyFrag

Member
If the reports of XB1's performance issues show up in the final game, its going to make all the purity outrage possibly look a bit silly if it turns out that there is a performance difference between it and the PS4 version. I'd always considered it possible Ubisoft genuinely couldn't get the game running well at 1080p on PS4 and just made a bad excuse for it to the public.
I expect meltdowns in the Digital Foundry faceoff thread if this is the case.
 
I'm really concerned about all the "framerate is dogshit" comments, I'm gonna skip the game if it's really that bad since I can't stand it (and yes it affects the gameplay), damn Ubi I wanted to visit past Paris.

A friend of mine who played the game at First Look (Netherlands) also said the framerate was really atrocious. He was not happy about it at all.
The guy is the biggest AC fan I know. (He buys all the possible versions of the game (don't ask me why) and is part of some fan community.) So yeah, this coming from him was kind of disturbing to me.
 

Lucent

Member
Even if i buy their stupid excuse that the number of NPCs is the reason for 900p, i will never understand their decision. What's the point in having all those NPCs if the shallow simulation system will never allow them to do anything meaningful?

Exactly what I've been saying. If they do little more than walk around then there's no point.
 

DOWN

Banned
Why you dense fuck, I meant Unity is better looking than AC4, the laugh is on the lot of you that can't read.
Well, it's also pretty obvious why multiple people thought you had a misconception about what you had quoted. In a series of so many game entries, it's entirely possible your quote of a previous entry followed by a curt response saying it just looks better, the poor context was easy to misinterpret.

Anyway, I agree that Unity looks the best of any entries yet.


Not sure if serious...dat first point...
While I think the top pic is better, I reply wish they'd do away with most of the distance haze down the street so it would be clearer like the bottom shot.
 
J

JoJo UK

Unconfirmed Member
Voxel are making a comeback?!?

364.jpg


yes I know, it was a joke

I honestly bought into those 'alpha' shots, i have this on digital pre order and I'll still (hopefully) enjoy playing as I do with almost all the AC games however I really do prefer Black Flags look over this, but then pirates so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ , what ya gonna do?
 
I had the "chance" to play this at PGS, it's far worse than everything you can think of.

- The framerate is absolute horror.

- THE CLIPPING POP UPS, it's just not acceptable to have that much clipping in a game that looks that bad. It ruins any sort of immersion. You walk, turn the camera, see npc textures load up AS WELL as their shadows (when there are shadows), just popping up, you ignore it, walk forward, see everything ahead load up. This is unbearable. If you think infamous was bad, this will make you cry.

- The animations are, I'm sure, nice individually, but holy hell they glitch every chance they can, making this game look worse than AC 2 PC at this point.

- The super Ninja Naruto jumps. I have no words.

- The fights are exactly what you can expect. Shit.

Good points :

- OST

- Atmosphere

Horrible first impressions. That might not make it a bad game tho, maybe the missions and COOP + story can save the game.

I tested the xbox one version.

I dunno why I get the feeling that Ubisoft are pushing this out when it needs at least another 3 months in the oven. Big publisher chasing the money that a Holiday-season release could bring.

But I think this will back-fire hard.
 

Conduit

Banned
After playing the Xbox One demo at London Comic Con, I can agree with all of this. It was 20-25fps, went into 15fps in crowds, pop-up was ridiculous, and just wasn't that good. EVEN if it was a much older build, the fact that Ubisoft thought it was fit to show to the public is astounding. No way the Xbox One version comes out at release like that, otherwise it'll make Dark Souls Blighttown look like a picnic.

So, from technical standpoint, game will be shit?
 

UnrealEck

Member
Game probably looks like ass, but it's not impossible that these could just be cherry picked bad shots. Here's ACIV completely maxed out on PC. 2560x1440P TXAAx4

I'm struggling to think that's completely maxed out. Those don't look as good as I recall the game being. Is that with contact hardened soft shadows and HBAO+ ? The shadows don't look maxed out there.
I haven't played the game for a while though so maybe I'm wrong.
 
So, from technical standpoint, game will be shit?
No fucking way they release the game like that demo. Ubisoft aren't that stupid. I bet for the last month they've been working their crunch time ass off to polish that framerate. 200 guys out of 1000 working on just that :p And then we'll be less freaked out when it's more 28-30 at release.
 
Game definitely has shadows, why are people saying it doesn't
As soon as characters or objects are not standing directly in the sunlight, all light and self shadowing effects seem to get turned off. This ambient occlusion problem is what causes everything to look as flat and lifeless.
The female NPC's all seem to have mud smeared in their necks. Is it supposed to be mud or are those just painted shadows?
 

NBtoaster

Member
M°°nblade;136857283 said:
As soon as characters or objects are not standing directly in the sunlight, all light and self shadowing effects seem to get turned off. This ambient occlusion problem is what causes everything to look as flat and lifeless.
The female NPC's all seem to have mud smeared in their necks. Is it supposed to be mud or are those just painted shadows?

Not true at all.
 
No, they are saying the game doesn't have shadows in unlit areas -- not the lit areas. For example, look at

http://abload.de/img/tlou2ybja4nxio0.gif[img]

[img]http://abload.de/img/tlou18bksuirekp.gif[img]

[img]http://abload.de/img/tlou-3silr699u89.gif[img]

In those gifs, you are in an unlit area and there is still shadows. Not so in AC:Unity.

-M[/QUOTE]
Naughty Dog showing Ubisoft how it's done. Also can't believe they did on PS3 :o
 
Top Bottom