Nvidia, I did not expect this from you!

M

murkris118

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 5, 2012
Messages
467
Is Nvidia supporting the Assassins Creed Unity launch day debacle? Quote taken form the AC Unity Graphics and performance guide from Geforce.com. Do they really think customers would be convinced by their technical explanation of how optimized the game is when really its running like shit on all platforms?.

Next, we come to the hot topic, 'optimization'. Frequently referenced in heated online debates, 'optimization' is commonly and incorrectly used to describe a game's general level of performance, be that good or bad. Instead, optimization should be used to determine a game's comparative performance. "Does the game running on engine x output more graphically intensive scenarios than game y using the same engine?" "Does the new game in a franchise run better than the previous version, and with improved graphics?" "Does a game utilize all available CPU cores, and to a high degree of utilization, in comparison to a similar game or a previous game in the same franchise?" "Is the game in question significantly nicer-looking than another similar game, yet running better?" These are just some of the questions that should be asked when determining if a game is 'optimized'.
Click to expand...
 
What they say is true though. It's like dedicated servers with CoD:AW. Most people are using the term incorrectly. Optimization is a word thrown around when a person's PC can't run a game. That doesn't have anything to do with optimization. A game can just be demanding. The games I've seen used as "optimized" were just really resource light games which could run on a lot of hardware.

That's not to say Assassin's Creed Unity couldn't be better. I'm sure it will get faster with patches, and if you were willing to give them 25 years, it could probably run at 60 fps @ 1080p even on the consoles.
 
I think that you your point illustrates what the article is trying to say. That the game is just very demanding.
 
I think it's just been so long since we've had a really demanding game on the PC that can bring down modern graphics cards that most people have forgotten what it used to be like. Crysis 1 anyone?

Yes, the game could use more tweaking through patches but, if you have the hardware available (SLI 970's and up, and a overclocked i7 3770K or higher) you will get good performance out of this game. I know I am.
 
I am just saying that all the other reports such as

1.) The review embargo that was 12 hours after launch
2.) The 100$ plus microtransactions
3.) The resolution parity and the whole "24 fps is more cinematic" thing.
4.) The Watch Dogs debacle.
5.) The generally poor state Ubi is now midst its fans. This....

Everything points to the fact that the game is clearly not supposed to run the way it is now.Patches might make it better but is that how they were supposed to release this game? (Half baked).More to the point. If this is the case I am suspecting Nvidia is trying to push their graphics cards through people`s throat by relieving the pressure off Ubisoft for their shabby port. the upside?, Nvidia get to sell more GPU`s especially when AC has a huge fan base who would spend thousands of dollars just to play an AC game...
 
pandora's box said:
I think it's just been so long since we've had a really demanding game on the PC that can bring down modern graphics cards that most people have forgotten what it used to be like. Crysis 1 anyone?

Yes, the game could use more tweaking through patches but, if you have the hardware available (SLI 970's and up, and a overclocked i7 3770K or higher) you will get good performance out of this game. I know I am.
Click to expand...

not sure i would classify assassins creed as a game trying to be visually ground breaking in the way crysis was trying.

I don't think we are going to see innovation in that space (pun intended) until Star Citizen rolls out.
 
Wildace said:
not sure i would classify assassins creed as a game trying to be visually ground breaking in the way crysis was trying.

I don't think we are going to see innovation in that space (pun intended) until Star Citizen rolls out.
Click to expand...

I mean, you're right in the sense that Ubisoft wasn't trying to be groundbreaking, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't allowed to be demanding. We've been use to games for almost the past decade that also needed to run on an Xbox 360/PS3, that we've lost site of the fact that a game can do much more than just have more polygons and higher textures. The game is not just GPU intensive, but also CPU intensive, and we haven't had a game in years that stressed CPUs.
 
I was under the impression that BF4 wants a beefy CPU
 
murkris118 said:
I am just saying that all the other reports such as

1.) The review embargo that was 12 hours after launch
2.) The 100$ plus microtransactions
3.) The resolution parity and the whole "24 fps is more cinematic" thing.
4.) The Watch Dogs debacle.
5.) The generally poor state Ubi is now midst its fans. This....

Everything points to the fact that the game is clearly not supposed to run the way it is now.Patches might make it better but is that how they were supposed to release this game? (Half baked).More to the point. If this is the case I am suspecting Nvidia is trying to push their graphics cards through people`s throat by relieving the pressure off Ubisoft for their shabby port. the upside?, Nvidia get to sell more GPU`s especially when AC has a huge fan base who would spend thousands of dollars just to play an AC game...
Click to expand...

I dunno, seems like you're grasping - kind of all over the road without much of a coherent point. Persecution complex, Nvidia conspiracy theories, Ubisoft sux, okay.

But by all means if you want to pace up and down in your bedroom muttering "They lied" for the next decade, by all means. Knock yourself out. But it might help to remember that at the end of the day videogame development is a business.

Enjoy.
 
They're trying to innovate and whether or not that is groundbreaking is always up for speculation. The water physics alone in Black Flag is arousing and the large crowds in Unity are certainly impressive. Now if they can just get a tsunami simulator with those crowds...

Looking at my hardware monitoring logs it does appear to be a very system-intensive game. I think it could run a little better for me AND look better at the same time, as my only real problem with the visual aspect of the engine is the texture draw distance. There are glitches and visual problems, of course, but I don't think this is another Watch Dogs debacle. At least I can appreciate Unity's overall graphic fidelity right out of the box.
 
DPI said:
But by all means if you want to pace up and down in your bedroom muttering "They lied" for the next decade, by all means.

Enjoy.
Click to expand...
hahaha, funny you should say that because I've been muttering bad things about Ubi for the past 14 years shortly after they bought out Red Storm and ruined my favorite franchises :(

(haven't regretted my disdain for Ubi since then, either)
 
I dunno, seems like you're grasping - kind of all over the road without much of a coherent point. Persecution complex, Nvidia conspiracy theories, Ubisoft sux, okay.

But by all means if you want to pace up and down in your bedroom muttering "They lied" for the next decade, by all means. Knock yourself out. But it might help to remember that at the end of the day videogame development is a business.
Click to expand...

This post is not about Ubi FYI... Its about Nvidia supporting Ubi. I am accusing the former rather than the latter.

hat we've lost site of the fact that a game can do much more than just have more polygons and higher textures. The game is not just GPU intensive, but also CPU intensive, and we haven't had a game in years that stressed CPUs.
Click to expand...

You are so wrong.. Its not even using half my CPU while playing. Utilization is around 40% on all cores and mine is a old but still respectable 2500k.
 
AC:U runs just fine for me on PC....maxed out settings @ 1080p
 
I guess it just doesn't bother me as much as it does some others at this point. If it were unplayable, or crashing to desktop every 5 minutes, then I would complain a lot more. In time, I think it will run really well. Is it a shame it didn't on launch? Yes, but lets be honest, we should keep our standards pretty low for launch day (it's not an excuse but lets be real). Used to be multiplayer games and MMO's that were full of bugs, login issues and general gameplay issues on launch, now it's translated over to single player games. All that being said, the game is still beautiful and fun to play and the framerate issues haven't taken away so much that I can't enjoy it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top