Asassin's Creed 5: Unity

Played through the first mission while it was downloading. Looks great and I like the fluidity improvements.

Major complaint about not being able to preload. What decade are we in? It's absolutely ridiculous that they didn't allow US folks to preload (unless, of, course, you wen't with their competitor, Steam.
 
Well, even though you couldn't preload, one nice thing is that you could start playing only 1/8th of the way downloaded.

Overall, the game looks really good, and I'm getting a solid 60 fps with every option maxed @1080p. YouTube videos definitely do not do this game justice.
 
vikingod said:
Played through the first mission while it was downloading. Looks great and I like the fluidity improvements.

Major complaint about not being able to preload. What decade are we in? It's absolutely ridiculous that they didn't allow US folks to preload (unless, of, course, you wen't with their competitor, Steam.
Click to expand...

Uplay is a bit behind the times here. I don't understand why pre-loading hasn't been baked in yet. It sounds like it may be coming for Far Cry 4... so it's odd that they couldn't pull it off a week early. Even the consoles have pre-loading despite the fact that their primary focus is still on physical media.
 
LOL stayed up till 3am EST to start the download, it's still running and says 460 hours left. At my connection speed this should take at most 3 hours, but instead of getting my usual 4.3MB/s, I am getting 6.9KB/s. I know I can technically play the game already, but seriously how is it that Ubi doesn't even have enough server bandwidth to max out people's connections on launch day when they knew they weren't even offering a preload. Steam can do it. Even on the worst day of a Steam launch over the past 10 years I have been using it, even if a game had no preload, Steam can give me at least 75%-90% of my max bandwidth, ubisoft can only give me 0.156% of my max bandwidth. It feels like I went back in time and am on my dialup connection.
 
SilverSliver said:
I can't believe people pre-ordered this piece of shit port

Does no one learn?
Click to expand...

I can't believe people post useless posts ;).

Game looks good after playing it for a bit, it's a v-ram hog however. 3900mb+ consistently with texture and environment settings at ultra high (aa at fxaa).
 
interesting that Ubisoft did not send out review copies of Rogue to anyone...seems like it'll be overshadowed by Unity anyway but I hope that I doesn't mean the game is terrible...either way the PC release isn't until early 2015
 
tonyftw said:
I can't believe people post useless posts ;).

Game looks good after playing it for a bit, it's a v-ram hog however. 3900mb+ consistently with texture and environment settings at ultra high (aa at fxaa).
Click to expand...

Reviews are coming out and dual 980s can't even hold 60fps. It's a shitshow port just like the previous ones.
 
I'm getting around 45+ fps with a single 980, at those settings. I'm guessing those "reviews" tested it with older drivers.
 
Not sure if it's just me, but there is serious lag in the controls on this game. I have acceptable FPS, but looking around with the mouse takes forever. I can't even get through a mission because I end up turning into a wall and getting caught.

Glad it was free!
 
I've got a 980 and will test things out when I get home. If I can't get 60fps maxed out, I'll turn the details down until I can. Simple as that.
 
SilverSliver said:
That's not exactly good either?
Click to expand...

Good enough for me. If fps becomes an issue, one can ya know turn down the settings :).

If you have nothing useful to add to this thread outside of "ermahgerd this game/ubi sucks", I would suggest go elsewhere since you don't even own this game.
 
LurkerLito said:
LOL stayed up till 3am EST to start the download, it's still running and says 460 hours left. At my connection speed this should take at most 3 hours, but instead of getting my usual 4.3MB/s, I am getting 6.9KB/s. I know I can technically play the game already, but seriously how is it that Ubi doesn't even have enough server bandwidth to max out people's connections on launch day when they knew they weren't even offering a preload. Steam can do it. Even on the worst day of a Steam launch over the past 10 years I have been using it, even if a game had no preload, Steam can give me at least 75%-90% of my max bandwidth, ubisoft can only give me 0.156% of my max bandwidth. It feels like I went back in time and am on my dialup connection.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling this is with your ISP & Ubisoft. I started the download also @ 3 am, and was averaging 19 MB/s. Still, I agree that there should have been a preload.
 
Nytegard said:
I have a feeling this is with your ISP & Ubisoft. I started the download also @ 3 am, and was averaging 19 MB/s. Still, I agree that there should have been a preload.
Click to expand...
I just tried to quit uplay and start it again to see if it'll speed up. Apparently Uplay doesn't realize that it should continue downloading :eek:. I had to verify the files to get it to start again. It seems to have speed up to my max again. Hopefully it won't slow down to dialup speeds again.
 
Curious, because I want to play this game, but haven't played a particularly taxing game in at least a year: What sort of system is actually required to run it? Are the system reqs. accurate?

My current rig is an i5 2500K, a Radeon HD 6870, and 8GB of DDR3 memory. The system reqs seem to imply I may need a newer graphics card in order to run it, and especially given that you can get the game for free right now with the purchase of some nVidia cards, I'm hesitant to just go out and buy the game, and then end up getting a second copy free.
 
RazorWind said:
Curious, because I want to play this game, but haven't played a particularly taxing game in at least a year: What sort of system is actually required to run it? Are the system reqs. accurate?

My current rig is an i5 2500K, a Radeon HD 6870, and 8GB of DDR3 memory. The system reqs seem to imply I may need a newer graphics card in order to run it, and especially given that you can get the game for free right now with the purchase of some nVidia cards, I'm hesitant to just go out and buy the game, and then end up getting a second copy free.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'd say your machine is a little weak for the game, but I'd check neogaf or other sites where some people might have similar machines as yours. I have a high end machine, and this is the first game I've played where I can hear my machine working. Mind you, this game looks gorgeous.
 
RazorWind said:
Curious, because I want to play this game, but haven't played a particularly taxing game in at least a year: What sort of system is actually required to run it? Are the system reqs. accurate?

My current rig is an i5 2500K, a Radeon HD 6870, and 8GB of DDR3 memory. The system reqs seem to imply I may need a newer graphics card in order to run it, and especially given that you can get the game for free right now with the purchase of some nVidia cards, I'm hesitant to just go out and buy the game, and then end up getting a second copy free.
Click to expand...

With a 6870 you are probably looking at running 1366x768 on medium or something like that, unless you're OK with 20 fps at 1080p
 
Viper87227 said:
Embargo is up, reviews are starting to pop online. So far, not real impressive
Click to expand...

I was expecting reviews to be better being that this was a new start for the franchise with next-gen visuals...I think people are just burnt out by the yearly release cycles (similar to CoD) and are not grading the game fairly...that being said since I haven't activated my Nvidia 'Pick Your Path' game yet I'm thinking about holding off and using it on Far Cry 4 and picking up Unity for cheap in the For Sale forums...haven't decided for sure though
 
polonyc2 said:
I was expecting reviews to be better being that this was a new start for the franchise with next-gen visuals...I think people are just burnt out by the yearly release cycles (similar to CoD) and are not grading the game fairly...that being said since I haven't activated my Nvidia 'Pick Your Path' game yet I'm thinking about holding off and using it on Far Cry 4 and picking up Unity for cheap in the For Sale forums...haven't decided for sure though
Click to expand...

The game is getting nailed because of poor execution of basic mechanics, including the game being exceptionally un-optimized.
 
Probably not the most shocking numbers. If you like the series (I do) it seems like more of the same with some minor tweaks. If not, there aren't enough outside elements, like the pirate stuff from AC4, to win anyone new over.
I got this one for free via the Nvidia/Ubisoft thing, so if it's a letdown, I can live with that.
They really do need to stop this yearly stuff, though. Even when they do a good job it's hard not to roll your eyes.
 
Hard to believe AC ports could actually get worse, but they pulled it off.
Bonus points: The console versions are even worse, too!
 
I don't get the point of txaa. It looks worse than fxaa with the fps taking a good hit.
 
Assassin's creed is more deserving of backlash then cod for rehashing. Assassin's creed has never done anything well from a core gameplay stand point, it's stealth system and combat has always been mediocre with little to no improvements.

Wouldn't kill them to steal a few ideas from far better games. Hell look at any arkham, it took a few ideas from AC and improved on it far more then anything I've seen from a single AC game.
 
Joystiq:
Another Joystiq editor, playing on PS4, encountered similar bugs. On Xbox One however, these issues were exacerbated by a framerate with less structural integrity than the crumbling roofs of Paris. Whether I ran through the crowded streets or shambled along the rooftops, noticeable drops in framerate almost constantly distracted from the experience.

Kotaku:
The graphics are astounding. They are not without technical problems... some pop-in, some chuggy framerates that will bother you if you have a low tolerance for that sort of thing (my game crashed on my Xbox One three times over the past several days, but Unity has also been patched a bunch already, so it's hard to tell how long-term these issues are). I was nevertheless happy with the game's performance, all things considered and what with the series' historical emphasis on visual detail and strong art direction over smooth, high-framerate performance.

Gamesradar:
A few other AC bugs linger; you can be spotted behind cover, enemies will either forget you in an instant or continue to hunt you from afar, and the game’s desperate insistence to not let you interact with mission objectives while your conflict indicator is high is infuriatingly last-generation design. "I’m here," you scream, "isn’t that enough?" It’s worth saying too that frame-rate wise, I experienced things slowing down occasionally through busy scenes, in both review and retail copies. Another unwelcome AC hallmark returning to plague the new generation.

Polygon:
Assassin's Creed Unity buckles in other ways, making for the least stable, worst-performing major release I've played this year. Its moment-to-moment performance varies between acceptable and abysmal, falling toward the latter entirely too often with a framerate I'd ballpark in the teens somewhere or, rarely, the single digits. Worse, I experience a number of hard crashes on the Xbox One version provided for review, and I fell through the ground into formless oblivion seven or eight times in my 20ish hours with the game. Load times are also prohibitively long, often taking a minute or more.

Eurogamer:
Unity suffers from some glaring performance issues, particularly on PlayStation 4, with frame-rates regularly taking a tumble in the same way they did in previous games.
 
who cares about console performance issues...it's the PC version that people care about here at [H]
 
I still really want to play this game, but after seeing both these reviews and those of Dragon Age, I'm really glad I pre-ordered Dragon Age over this. I'll probably wait until this gets a sale price on Steam... hopefully a few months down the road the performance issues will be ironed out.
 
polonyc2 said:
who cares about console performance issues...it's the PC version that people care about here at [H]
Click to expand...

Which has even more performance problems than the consoles. It's pretty much unplayable at any settings for a vast swath of cards except the uber high end.
 
Played for about an hour and a half now. at 1080P max settings with 2xMSAA and shadows on high instead of PCSS and bloom turned off I'm getting 60 to 80fps. Game is using 3.6GB of vram. Game looks ok, Black Flag looked tons better though. I'm glad to see I can set refresh rate to 120hz in this vs. black flag being locked at 60hz and also the frame rate is unlocked in this compared to black flag being locked at a max of 60.

You really need atleast 2xMSAA in this game. FXAA does nothing for aliasing at all.


I'm enjoying the game so far, it's running smooth for me, though I'd like to turn PCSS shadows back on, hopefully with the 1.2 patch I can do that.
 
SilverSliver said:
Which has even more performance problems than the consoles. It's pretty much unplayable at any settings for a vast swath of cards except the uber high end.
Click to expand...

the recommended specs do state a 780 or 290X is required so I hope people are not complaining without meeting the requirements
 
polonyc2 said:
who cares about console performance issues...it's the PC version that people care about here at [H]
Click to expand...

True, but I think the reason it's worth mentioning is that they released a "final" game in that state on consoles. Lord only knows what state the PC version is in, where crashes and performance issues are par for the course. That's just sloppy and inexcusable and doesn't reflect well on Ubi, the game devs, and the gaming industry as a whole.
Too many companies are releasing broken and unfinished games with the promise of eventual patches that may or may not ever arrive.
Every time this happens, people need to harp on it.
 
polonyc2 said:
the recommended specs do state a 780 or 290X is required so I hope people are not complaining without meeting the requirements
Click to expand...

They also put the 970 with higher specs than the 780 Ti which should be reversed. It's another Watchdogs fiasco where the game was purposefully unoptimized to sell console versions where they can say, hey, buy the console because you get just as good visuals as you do if you buy an $800 video card on PC.
 
I don't believe Ubi is sabotaging PC sales so much as they're just flat-out not finishing games and continuing to push them out the door based on their financial schedule.
I wish they were that calculated and there was some huge conspiracy from the Xbox team, but it's much simpler than that. Ubi tells them to push something out they door no later than a certain date and they better do it. If the game sucks or doesn't sell then they can always try again next year...or crank out some quick DLC to make those margins.

EA used to be the posterboy for that kind of thing, but I think they've gotten better and Ubi has gotten much worse.
 
Domingo said:
I don't believe Ubi is sabotaging PC sales so much as they're just flat-out not finishing games and continuing to push them out the door based on their financial schedule
Click to expand...

the PC development team is also probably half the size of the console team which adds to the perception of their games being simple ports
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top