Ubisoft issues totally convincing response to Assassin's Creed Unity's resolution

Ami flew too close to the sun.

But I thank him for his service in shining even more light on Bruiser. This round the disingenuous one won, but the war for good faith posting is not yet lost.
 
Ami flew too close to the sun.

But I thank him for his service in shining even more light on Bruiser. This round the disingenuous one won, but the war for good faith posting is not yet lost.
Preach it loud, Benny.

image.php
 
I'd imagine the PS4 version will end up dropping frames less and may have improved shadows or other detail, resolution isn't the only way one system can demonstrate more power than another. There's no evidence these games will be identical and I'd imagine with the Digital Foundry gets their hands on it we'll see differences.

Hence the "assuming all else equal". Describing a graphical design goal for two separate SKUs of a game being "seeking parity" due to the desire to prevent "debates and stuff" does not sound like a decision based on technical limits of each individual machine. As such I think the more prudent, logical position at present is to assume Ubisoft simply chose to get both versions up to what they thought was the bare minimum acceptable level of graphical quality for "the first next-gen AC game" and Ubisoft could very well have spent the majority of time getting the XB1 version up to the bare minimum they had the PS4 version at, which would still be an unfair allocation of ubisofts resources for any consumer who owns the PS4. You are right though, time will tell as we see how each version performs and if Ubisoft left resources on the table with the PS4 SKU.
 
Honestly why is everyone wasting their outrage on the resolution?

They're fucking FRENCH developers who gave FRENCH people ENGLISH accents. We should be burning shit.

Priorities.
 
Hence the "assuming all else equal". Describing a graphical design goal for two separate SKUs of a game being "seeking parity" due to the desire to prevent "debates and stuff" does not sound like a decision based on technical limits of each individual machine. As such I think the more prudent, logical position at present is to assume Ubisoft simply chose to get both versions up to what they thought was the bare minimum acceptable level of graphical quality for "the first next-gen AC game" and Ubisoft could very well have spent the majority of time getting the XB1 version up to the bare minimum they had the PS4 version at, which would still be an unfair allocation of ubisofts resources for any consumer who owns the PS4.

I've had "sources" telling me about the game being in quite poor shape during relatively late stages of testing. Wouldn't shock me if they both drop frames like mad even at 30fps.

Honestly why is everyone wasting their outrage on the resolution?

They're fucking FRENCH developers who gave FRENCH people ENGLISH accents. We should be burning shit.

Priorities.

I'm with you on this one lol. I might be playing it in French with English subs if the Australian version lets me.
 
Ami flew too close to the sun.

But I thank him for his service in shining even more light on Bruiser. This round the disingenuous one won, but the war for good faith posting is not yet lost.
True that. I've been following this forum for a couple of years before actually requesting membership and I always recognize Bruiser and Ami when they come into a thread.
More importantly, Ami is right to be upset, Ubisoft has fucked us like never before.
 
PR Guy: "Hey guys, the Holiday was great, what's goi-......WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!"

If the game is really in bad condition, postpone it FFS. I'm not buying a rushed game at 900p and dropped 30fps.
 
I've had "sources" telling me about the game being in quite poor shape during relatively late stages of testing. Wouldn't shock me if they both drop frames like mad even at 30fps.



I'm with you on this one lol. I might be playing it in French with English subs if the Australian version lets me.

My sauces at eurogamer echoed those thoughts
It sounds like a big game, and as you would expect from Ubisoft, it is. In terms of size, the map is bigger than all of Black Flag's land masses joined together. Cramming all of the content in and polishing it up is now where the company is focusing. Unity still needs polish and an awful lot of it, if the amount of bugs we experienced in the preview build were anything to go by. We saw multiple building textures not popping in until we had climbed one side of a house and were already running across its roof. Then there were the falling bugs which caused you to plunge through the floor or become snagged and stuck, floating with jazz hands in thin air. And there were cut-scenes where the speech still needed to be properly lip-synched. There is still time to work on all of this - I'm guessing Ubisoft is willing to recruit most of Canada for the six or so weeks left before launch to get all of this done, but yet again it feels like another Assassin's Creed game that could have done with another few months to iron out all the wrinkles. It'll be very interesting to see the size of Unity's day one patch.
 
I've had "sources" telling me about the game being in quite poor shape during relatively late stages of testing. Wouldn't shock me if they both drop frames like mad even at 30fps.
The previews released last week and some tweets from journalists seem to suggest the game still is in a really bad shape.
I'm on mobile right now so i can't link it but there was a french preview posted earlier in this thread that seems to suggest the build they played last week was in a really bad technical state.
 
I've had "sources" telling me about the game being in quite poor shape during relatively late stages of testing. Wouldn't shock me if they both drop frames like mad even at 30fps.

Well sounds like a mess than even by Ubisoft standards. Black Flag was fine to play on either console last go around so I'd love to see what causes this new game to be so hard to run in comparison. I also wouldn't really find it too surprising if the framerates were fairly close then assuming the XB1 SDK has improved significantly from launch which it probably has as the CPUs are very comparable. I will be very curious to see what both console SKUs end up looking and running like though
 
All cross gen games first of all. Secondly you understand what I meant by "all things being equal" correct? If all effects and image quality are identical there is zero reason the PS4 version should be unless its being held back. The PS4 and Xbox One are not identical in power. This is unarguable in any way shape or form. No current gen only game should perform equal on the platforms for any reason other than the dev holding back.

Destiny I give a pass for a couple reasons. First its cross gen so they aren't going yo put a ton into the current gen versions thats unavailable in the last gen. Secondly because they hit 1080p the internal rendering of the vast majority of current HD televisions.

If Unity has the same resolution, same effects, same fps, same lighting, same image quality on both platforms Ubi is intentionally holding the PS4 version back. There's no way around this.

... that's what I'm saying though, it probably won't considering no game released so far, even stuff like Strider is not the same on both consoles.
 
Honestly why is everyone wasting their outrage on the resolution?

They're fucking FRENCH developers who gave FRENCH people ENGLISH accents. We should be burning shit.

Priorities.

Though I agree with alot of the outrage, I find it funny that this point is the one I shake my head at the most.

I'm waiting to weigh in once we get the response to the response on the resolution choices to end the debate of game parity towards resolutions of game features for responses.

Pontbriand said:
Let’s be clear up front: Ubisoft does not constrain its games. We would not limit a game’s resolution. And we would never do anything to intentionally diminish anything we’ve produced or developed.

Pontbriand said:
As of now, Assassin’s Creed Unity is locked at 900p.

Dramatic-Star-Trek-Scene-Gif.gif


SAME. FUCKING. ARTICLE. I mean, they really can't keep their lies straight about this shit anymore can they.
 
Isn't farcry 4 coming out a week after? Why haven't they announced the resolutions for that game yet?
PS4 version-1080p and is also getting exclusive content. PC version is the lead platform. They haven't announced the resolution for xb1, but apparently the ps4/xb1 version is equivalent to the pc version at ultra high settings. Far Cry 4 has a marketing partnership with Sony, so expect little news about the xb1 version compared to the ps4 version until very close to release.
 
... that's what I'm saying though, it probably won't considering no game released so far, even stuff like Strider is not the same on both consoles.
I've said this multiple times...and it's been completely ignored multiple times, might as well wait for the DF article.
 
Honestly why is everyone wasting their outrage on the resolution?

They're fucking FRENCH developers who gave FRENCH people ENGLISH accents. We should be burning shit.

Priorities.

And their excuse that it wouldn't make sense to give them French accents for an English audience is ridiculous. That certainly wasn't the case for every Assassin's Creed game to this point. I'll bet you can find an example of that in Rogue too.
 
I've had "sources" telling me about the game being in quite poor shape during relatively late stages of testing. Wouldn't shock me if they both drop frames like mad even at 30fps.



I'm with you on this one lol. I might be playing it in French with English subs if the Australian version lets me.


This makes a lot of sense as it was basically the only Ubi game we couldn't go hands on with a few weeks back.
 
So 30FPS is better for cinematic experience, and nothing wrong with 900p either since it's just a number...WTF UBISOFT. Just accept you can't do shit.

And don't do you dare to fuck up PC version.
 
Yeah right, except that this is the PS4 we are talking about, which is quite a bit more powerful than the Xbox One, so this is the lamest excuse I've heard in a long time. Oh well, can only vote with my wallet, no purchase for me. Was on the fence anyway, this bullshit just made my decision easier.
 

I misspoke.

So 30FPS is better for cinematic experience, and nothing wrong with 900p either since it's just a number...WTF UBISOFT. Just accept you can't do shit.

And don't do you dare to fuck up PC version.

Anyone who thinks you won't have to crack the PC version open like a 15 year old clunker to get the engine tuned and working has pattern recognition issues. No offense, one can hope, but they have a track record. It ain't good.
 
I've had "sources" telling me about the game being in quite poor shape during relatively late stages of testing. Wouldn't shock me if they both drop frames like mad even at 30fps.

This makes a lot of sense as it was basically the only Ubi game we couldn't go hands on with a few weeks back.


Interesting. I suspect this game is simply unoptimzed, and thus the resolution outcome. Should be interesting to see when people dig into the PC version.
 
I've said this multiple times...and it's been completely ignored multiple times, might as well wait for the DF article.

Yeah that's what I thought from the beginning too but people like a good mob outrage I guess.. I find it funny that if you're not all up in arms about this whole affair you're labeled as an Xbox fanboy but whatever.

Also on the subject there is no way this footage was from the console versions
 
So 30FPS is better for cinematic experience, and nothing wrong with 900p either since it's just a number...WTF UBISOFT. Just accept you can't do shit.

And don't do you dare to fuck up PC version.

This is what doesn't make sense to me. Since when is AC cinematic compared to Uncharted? AC is about exploring an open world. Uncharted is about a linear adventure with huge set pieces mixed in with cutscenes.

Yet Uncharted is aiming for 60fps, because the ND states they can't go back to 30.

Yet Ubisoft insists on that cinematic experience, when Uncharted is far more cinematic. There is no comparison at all.

Does Ubisoft really take me for a fool? Why can't they just say the wanted to push graphic fidelity over framerate?

What is up with this cinematic nonsense? I feel like they treat me like I'm an idiot who didn't goto school.
 
Interesting. I suspect this game is simply unoptimxed, and thus the resolution outcome. Should be interesting to see when people dig into the PC version.

Its certainly possible and Ive said from the beginning MS may have no part in this. It could be 100% Ubis fault and they've botched their current gen AC engine. A lot of stuff is looking that way especially considering we went hands on with titles that aren't out for 6+ months and yet Unity which is out next month had no live demo.

Who knows the answer for sure at this point but Ubi has dropped the ball on this one.
 
I know it's kind of off topic but considering the talk on this page of the game not being in a good technical state currently. When I was playing AC Revelations, my game glitched bad. I was doing one of those keep up with the guy deals running on the roof tops. I fell off and failed or something, I don't remember, but at any rate next thing you know the game throws me forward in the story. Like I was on chapter 3 or something, next thing you know I am getting a silver trophy for completing a chapter in the animus way later on. And of course the game auto saved so I couldn't go back. I traded the game in the next day I think.
 
Wait a minute.

So first you say "we're locking the game arbitrarily to avoid debates"

Then you say "resolution is not final"

Then you say "900p 30fps just feels better than 60fps and 1080p because its more 'cinematic'"

And now "We did not do that thing we said we did, please buy our game"?



Jesus christ Ubi.
 
Because of fremdschämen. It's awkward to watch.

that shouldn't give them a pass.

i'm sure it'll be awkward in their office for a while too, but considering they've fucked up their single responsibility - knowing and communicating with their market, i'm not going to shed a tear for them.

as people have said, it shows a complete distain for consumers. the video games market is more like the car industry, rather than say that of white goods. you don't want some slick cunt trying to sell you something you know more about than they do, you want someone with a similar and genuine interest in their product.

as much as i'm not a fan of the new forza - the dan greenwalt of PR. you may not like him, but he knows his stuff and is genuinely enthusiastic.

not to be harsh, but this is exactly how it looks imo - a disinterested company using disinterested and/or uninformed PR employees to promote a game franchise designed (firstly and foremostly) to rake in cash. which is why its still the same old game this far through the franchise.
 
This is what doesn't make sense to me. Since when is AC cinematic compared to Uncharted? AC is about exploring an open world. Uncharted is about a linear adventure with huge set pieces mixed in with cutscenes.

Yet Uncharted is aiming for 60fps, because the ND states they can't go back to 30.

Yet Ubisoft insists on that cinematic experience, when Uncharted is far more cinematic. There is no comparison at all.

Does Ubisoft really take me for a fool? Why can't they just say the wanted to push graphic fidelity over framerate?
What graphic fidelity? They can't even get this thing running at full HD, and then have balls to talk about bringing a true next gen game. Who knows, it might even look bad than Black Flag. I don't have high hopes for this game.
 
Really hope it's not an AC3 situation :(

Please be more like Black Flag perf wise.

Never played AC3 but if it's anything like Black Flag it should be good. That game runs like a dream for me (well without the physx stuff).

What graphic fidelity? They can't even get this thing running at full HD, and then have balls to talk about bringing a true next gen game. Who knows, it might even look bad than Black Flag. I don't have high hopes for this game.

Seriously download a high def video of the game from Gamersyde and tell me it doesn't look good, it looks better than Black Flag, from the character faces to their outfits, to the textures of the pavements, etc while pushing a lot more characters on screen.
 
900/30 is fine if they want to focus on gameplay.
But AC doesn't have good gameplay element...so what are they talking about?
They only have square/triangle combat system, no skills combination, and a range weapon.

SoM has 30 orcs on screen at the same time, with different skill animations, fire barrels/arrows/explosion, beasts jumping/stomping on you, just simply chaotic...AC series never have these in the past decade.
And with AC: U gameplay trailer, you don't see anything news. You are still sneaking around, and assassinating 2 guys casually standing at the door. When you are fighting in a large group, only 5 guys come to greet you.

So what is Ubisoft talking about anyway? Playing hide and seek with 100 NPC in the city?
Finding a seat with another 20 NPC? Punching the extra HD graphic out of the next gen beggars?
So I guess this type of gameplay justifies for 900/30?
 
Honestly why is everyone wasting their outrage on the resolution?

They're fucking FRENCH developers who gave FRENCH people ENGLISH accents. We should be burning shit.

Priorities.

I'll laugh if this is explained in the lore as you are experiencing the memories in the Animus through the framework of your mind, whoever "you" are now that Desmond has been replaced by a generic guy starting with Black Flag. Since you are a British individual, the people all speak the language you understand with your native accent.
 
Top Bottom