PDA

View Full Version : How Good Will AC:Unity Graphics Be?



RinoTheBouncer
05-12-2014, 12:21 PM
The teaser trailer did imply that this was real-time graphics, which is good news, but I keep wondering if this is going to be true or just another promise that will never be kept. A while before AC:Unity leaked and the official sneak peek, Ubisoft said that the next AC will be more next-gen. So how next-gen is that?

So far, we barely had very few games made for next gen. only and they werenít that impressive. Iíve played INFAMOUS: Second Son and I canít say that itís a ďtrue next gen experienceĒ. I mean ACIV and W_D had the excuse of being cross-gen games or ports from past gen thatís why the didnít look so impressive, but INFAMOUS isnít really that ground breaking. There isnít that much of a difference from great PS3 games in terms of graphics like MGS4 or Beyond: Two Souls or Heavy Rain or FFXIII.

We did get cool effects and much better lip-synching and some nice particle effects but the difference from PS3 games was no where near that between PS2 and PS3 or PS1 and PS2. And tech demos like Agniís Philosophy did show the drastic change and evolution of the current gen. but I keep wondering if weíll ever reach that level of sophistication which is as close to CGI is one can imagine. It is possible but we still havenít seen anything that promising being an upcoming game. The Order 1881 looks cool but I donít know, with the distant camera of AC games, not much can be seen from those fancy effects or facial details, except in the short cutscenes we get.

From the leaked screen shots from AC:U -and Iím well aware theyíre pre-alpha or whatever theyíre called- the graphics didnít really look that impressive. I mean, they werenít so different from ACIV for PS4. I know we havenít seen much and those are early works but how many times have we seen much evolution from pre-alpha in the final product? most of the time, video game developers say ďthis is a footage of a work in progress/game under developmentĒ and the final cut has next to zero differences from pre-alpha screenshots and if anything, itís just some tweaks to shadows or the addition of HUDs.

I know that graphics donít make the game, and a lot of PS1 games still have their appeal and entertainment despite the outdated graphics, but when one buys a next gen console, theyíd expect more than a few fancy light effects or water splashes or the ability to share screenshots with friends on Facebook. For how long are we gonna see sharp edges in circular or oval shapes? how long will the trees look like perpendicular planes that have the texture of leaves? for how long will the hair and the robes and the weapons merge one with another?

Discuss...

ze_topazio
05-12-2014, 12:24 PM
I dare say, the best in the series so far.


:cool:

LoyalACFan
05-12-2014, 12:33 PM
Well, all the hullabaloo about the W_D downgrade turned out to be somewhat justified, and it's not like Ubisoft has never deceived us about graphics before... They're like the crown princes of bullshots.

That said, I'm sure they'll be good, but teaser trailer quality? Lolno.

Mr_Shade
05-12-2014, 12:40 PM
That said, I'm sure they'll be good, but teaser trailer quality? Lolno.

Well the teaser was in game.. since Ubisoft wouldn't release a CGI trailer with errors in texture work in ;)

I would ignore the 'leaked screenshots' - since they are truly dreadful - and Ubisoft admits that - that's why we had the trailer to show what the game REALLY looks like at the same time.


HOWEVER - the game play shown - was at an early stage and not the current build, so somethings change.. however - hopes are high that with it not being cross platform, graphics should please a lot of people - lets not forget that 'next gen' is not only about graphics.. ;)


It's also surprising how many people are now experts at spotting 1080p/60 - or the lack of it ;)


Just to bring up Watch_Dogs - the initial reveal at E3 2012 was from the PC version of the game - running on dual video cards and a lot of ram..and a super CPU


Anyone thinking the PS4 /Xbox One versions would hit that level of performance visually, might have been a little over optimistic, Subsequent trailers, have shown the PS4 dev kit, which might not hit the same level visually - however - it's still a very good looking game, considering the lower hardware - so I think people comparing the PC to the console versions - may have spawn the 'downgrade' stuff - however it's not really much different from the older footage shown on the PS4 dev kit - and in some respects, it's better looking ;)

I'm sure people playing the PS4 /Xbox One version of W_D will enjoy it - it's great looking and very smooth - but like I said 'next gen'*is not just 1080p graphics, it's AI, speed of transitions in areas, instant access to data etc sound, quite a few things..

Farlander1991
05-12-2014, 12:45 PM
2012 was still part of the period when Ubi was INCREDIBLY ambitiuous - with their huge AC3 ambitions (that backfired) and them being sure that they'll make a launch new-gen (well, at the time launch) but cross-generation title look as amazing as their development version and work properly on the final consoles (that also backfired). They seem to have calmed down a bit since then.

Regarding Unity, though, two things have to be kept in mind: a) it's a next-gen only title, b) a big and important part of the production period happens when all next-gen specs are fully known and their tech is successfully adapted to them (so they're have more time to do more tweaks to make graphics look better while not being as power-consuming).

So, while skepticism is always good, there are more chances then less at this point that Unity will look closer to the reveal footage.

Mr_Shade
05-12-2014, 12:48 PM
So, while skepticism is always good, there are more chances then less at this point that Unity will look closer to the reveal footage.

Indeed :)


Plus - that reveal was 'rushed' out - so was older footage, edited quickly to give the community 'something' - so I would be surprised [insert gob smacked] if there's not plenty of other footage coming out closer to release etc :)


BUT, as always - reveals and trailers, should always be considered as pre-alpha [subject to change] - however I have high hopes for a new generation AC game ;)


Having played a certain 'other' 'next gen' title - I have to keep going back to it's not 'all about graphics' - AI and ease and speed of accessing parts of the game - due to the higher amounts of ram and hardware - also add to it - but, as you can see from the reveal - this AC is shaping up to be something special ;)

zhengyingli
05-12-2014, 12:50 PM
I remember the pre-alpha trailer for ACIII looking dreadful compared to its final build. So if Ubi's as honest as they were in 2012, I'd say Unity'll look on par with the released trailer, at the very least. That Unity trailer had too many rough edges for it to look "to good to be true," I think.

Mr_Shade
05-12-2014, 12:52 PM
That Unity trailer had too many rough edges for it to look "to good to be true," I think.
indeed - some seem to forget that.. ;)

NAVID4ASSASSIN
05-12-2014, 12:55 PM
well, i honestly always dreamed about an AC game with the CGI trailers graphics, but.... i dont think we will see this high graphics in the near future, surely not on the ps4 or xbox one, and the only thing that matters for me in case of visual effects is just frame rates, AC U with fix 60 FPS, i will love it.

Mr_Shade
05-12-2014, 12:58 PM
tbh - honest opinion time - I'm not even fussed at it having to be 60 fps..

As long as it's 1080p - with some nice AA, little bit of object motion blur, i'm happy with 30 fps.. - if that allows for more details areas, more AI and 'stuff' - then it's all good to me.


60fps in an open world game, is not that important to me - level of detail etc - is..

If the game was a racing game - or - a first person shooter - then I would want 60 fps - but for 3rd person, 30 fps is fine..

NAVID4ASSASSIN
05-12-2014, 01:08 PM
agreed, i said that because i suffered from a lot of low FPS in AC3 and 4, on ps3, but i absolutely love AC4 on ps4.

Mr_Shade
05-12-2014, 01:24 PM
agreed, i said that because i suffered from a lot of low FPS in AC3 and 4, on ps3, but i absolutely love AC4 on ps4.

Well AC4 on PS4 = 30 fps..

PS3 = could drop a lot.. due to it really pushing the consoles..

Dev_Anj
05-12-2014, 02:45 PM
It will be molto bene. :D

king-hailz
05-12-2014, 03:51 PM
Well AC4 on PS4 = 30 fps..

PS3 = could drop a lot.. due to it really pushing the consoles..

As long as it stays at 30 fps I will be extremely happy... i mean i haven't played a true 30 fps AC game since Assassin's Creed 2... Brotherhood drops quite a lot on my PS3.... to be honest the little parts of AC4 when you go to the islands in the middle of the sea where perfect they didn't drop...;)

Kirokill
05-12-2014, 04:20 PM
ACB was downloaded on my part and lags in the first played hour when landing on ground. And sometimes it misses the landing on ground sound effect.

I guess pre-alpha is always better than the actual release. But the graphics will be close to the sneak peek. I won't argue with that.

RinoTheBouncer
05-12-2014, 04:59 PM
tbh - honest opinion time - I'm not even fussed at it having to be 60 fps..

As long as it's 1080p - with some nice AA, little bit of object motion blur, i'm happy with 30 fps.. - if that allows for more details areas, more AI and 'stuff' - then it's all good to me.


60fps in an open world game, is not that important to me - level of detail etc - is..

If the game was a racing game - or - a first person shooter - then I would want 60 fps - but for 3rd person, 30 fps is fine..

Lets take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVX0OUO9ptU

Most of us have seen Agni’s Philosophy which is a current gen real-time 3D. It is as close to CGI as one can imagine and the best gameplay graphics we’ve seen so far. So given that it’s running on PC, I doubt that it will look drastically less than this on a PS4 or XBOX ONE. So I wonder if AC will be able to pull that off since the technology is present.

I know that games aren’t all about fancy graphics, but I wonder what more will the game take advantage of from the PS4 hardware that will noticeably influence gameplay. Will loading screens be gone or take much shorter times? will there be noticeable elements that the past gen CANNOT provide? I did enjoy ACIV and I liked how some animations looked much better on my PS4 version compared to my PS3 version, but one would expect more than just a fancy moving flag or robe or some nice reflections from a next gen title.

I’ve played INFAMOUS: Second Son, as I said and of course, all AC titles but compared to Beyond: Two Souls, for example, Beyond: Two Souls took the PS3 to it’s maximum with graphics, motion, lip-synching. It’s like a next-gen game running on PS3. It did everything perfectly from 3D models complexity and polygons, to shadows, reflections, animations, visual effects, particle effects, lip-synching, environmental elements such as streets, objects, cars, mountains, trees, animals..etc. I wonder if AC can push the boundaries that far.

There was another leaked screenshot:

http://s.pro-gmedia.com/videogamer/media/images/pub/large/unity_leak.jpg

many have considered this to be a “concept art” or a “painting” but I disagree as it’s obviously an in-game screenshot with the HUDs hidden for some reason. I like the light effects and the reflections and the details here. They look a much more detailed, but I wonder if this is just something that we’re noticing cause we’re staring at a screenshots for a while.

When we actually play through PS3 games compared to PS2, we can tell the big difference whether it’s the motion, the background, the reflections, the complexity of the characters’ bodies..etc. but a lot of ported-to-next-gen/cross-gen games or pure next gen games look really good in screenshots but when you actually play them, you notice that there isn’t much really and the screenshots was all about focusing on the right angle to make it look so beautiful. I’m sure you know what I mean.

So even though I do believe that games aren’t all about graphics but buying a new hardware makes you wanna feel that you’ve evolved into something noticeable, visually and functionally.

AherasSTRG
05-12-2014, 05:17 PM
In my opinion, the next game should focus on framerate and optimization, rather than aiming for the "wow" factor.

Of course, Ubisoft is just doing bussiness, so I am absolutely certain this is not gonna be the case with the next AC. Unity will look spectacular, better than anything we have seen in the series with great effects, worth of gigabytes of screenshots. It will run at 1080p, but at the sluggish and horrible 30 frames per second we have all grown accustomed to.

RinoTheBouncer
05-12-2014, 05:20 PM
In my opinion, the next game should focus on framerate and optimization, rather than aiming for the "wow" factor.

Of course, Ubisoft is just doing bussiness, so I am absolutely certain this is not gonna be the case with the next AC. Unity will look spectacular, better than anything we have seen in the series with great effects, worth of gigabytes of screenshots. It will run at 1080p, but at the sluggish and horrible 30 frames per second we have all grown accustomed to.

I honestly want both the frame-rate and the “wow” factor, because as a pure next gen game, it should present a whole new and a major upgrade rather than just one element. I wonder what stops them from making it 60 fps.

AherasSTRG
05-12-2014, 05:25 PM
I wonder what stops them from making it 60 fps.

Hardware.

RinoTheBouncer
05-12-2014, 05:26 PM
Hardware.

But WATCH_DOGS will be running at 60 fps on PS4, so why not ACUnity?

Shahkulu101
05-12-2014, 05:34 PM
Unity still might be 60 FPS, but that Mr Shade post gives me a bad feeling. I think Unity is probably a bigger game than watchdogs given that they are trying to maximize the new generation's potential. Watch Dogs will be putting less strain on the system, because it's optimized for cross-gen release. Apart from visuals, both versions are the same. Unity will have a lot more features and general technical elements only possible on next-gen, presumably. So, it will squeeze more juice out of the PS4/XONE - toughening the challenge of achieving 1080p/60 FPS.

AherasSTRG
05-12-2014, 05:41 PM
But WATCH_DOGS will be running at 60 fps on PS4, so why not ACUnity?

http://cdn1-www.craveonline.com/assets/uploads/2014/03/dogs4mevz.gif

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/wBGIi9VA_AI/maxresdefault.jpg

http://cdn2-www.craveonline.com/assets/uploads/2014/03/iboqqHgyy5tOsD.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBGIi9VA_AI

Ubisoft announces on October that the game will run at 30 fps for both next gen consoles. The game gets delayed. The aforementioned gifs / pictures / videos come out after the recent trailers. 60 fps is announced for the PS4.

Oh, I forgot (if you are the reading type): http://www.dsogaming.com/screenshot-news/watch-dogs-comparison-latest-build-versus-e3-2012-june-2013-builds/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-watch-dogs-on-ps4-tech-analysis

I have more, if you want me to pm you.

RinoTheBouncer
05-12-2014, 05:51 PM
http://cdn1-www.craveonline.com/assets/uploads/2014/03/dogs4mevz.gif

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/wBGIi9VA_AI/maxresdefault.jpg

http://cdn2-www.craveonline.com/assets/uploads/2014/03/iboqqHgyy5tOsD.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBGIi9VA_AI

Ubisoft announces on October that the game will run at 30 fps for both next gen consoles. The game gets delayed. The aforementioned gifs / pictures / videos come out after the recent trailers. 60 fps is announced for the PS4.

Oh, I forgot (if you are the reading type): http://www.dsogaming.com/screenshot-news/watch-dogs-comparison-latest-build-versus-e3-2012-june-2013-builds/

I have more, if you want me to pm you.

Thanks for the videos and gifs. I appreciate that.

So are you saying that it will take longer to produce AC:Unity in 60 fps? or that they might drop the 60 fps idea for AC:U because it takes longer to produce? I think I’ve read somewhere in the early days of the PS4 launch or before, not sure but they said that making PS4 games is gonna be much easier than making past gen games, so that was good news for devs. Perhaps it means we can get 60 fps for AC:U given that it’s a pure next gen game.

AherasSTRG
05-12-2014, 05:59 PM
Thanks for the videos and gifs. I appreciate that.

So are you saying that it will take longer to produce AC:Unity in 60 fps? or that they might drop the 60 fps idea for AC:U because it takes longer to produce? I think I’ve read somewhere in the early days of the PS4 launch or before, not sure but they said that making PS4 games is gonna be much easier than making past gen games, so that was good news for devs. Perhaps it means we can get 60 fps for AC:U given that it’s a pure next gen game.

It's true that developing for next-gen is much simpler and direct than it was for the past-gen systems. The PS4 and the X1 are going to offer (and have already offered in some cases) tremendous possibilities to the devs.

What I am trying to say with the above gifs, videos and links is that:
1. The cost of time and money to potentially double the framerate of your game is much higher than simply producing visual enhantements and
2. That the hardware in the PS4 and X1 and the current algorithmic techniques used push for compromises in either the framerate or the visual quality department.

That's why it needs a lot of work and clever thinking to make a game that both looks like something we 've never seen before and also runs at 60 frames per second. Visual fidelity is more easily marketed than a higher framerate, so I believe that Ubisoft will choose to focus on that aspect instead of the framerate, or try to balance the 2 factors.

Sushiglutton
05-12-2014, 06:03 PM
Kind of hard to answer :). Not even a month to E3, we can do it!!!!

RinoTheBouncer
05-12-2014, 06:07 PM
Kind of hard to answer :). Not even a month to E3, we can do it!!!!

Come to think of it, E3 is less than a month away!
I’m having butterflies as we speak!


It's true that developing for next-gen is much simpler and direct than it was for the past-gen systems. The PS4 and the X1 are going to offer (and have already offered in some cases) tremendous possibilities to the devs.

What I am trying to say with the above gifs, videos and links is that:
1. The cost of time and money to potentially double the framerate of your game is much higher than simply producing visual enhantements and
2. That the hardware in the PS4 and X1 and the current algorithmic techniques used push for compromises in either the framerate or the visual quality department.

That's why it needs a lot of work and clever thinking to make a game that both looks like something we 've never seen before and also runs at 60 frames per second. Visual fidelity is more easily marketed than a higher framerate, so I believe that Ubisoft will choose to focus on that aspect instead of the framerate, or try to balance the 2 factors.

I agree. Marketing a game that is closer to CGI than ever is much more noticeable and stunning than marketing a past gen-like game that runs at 60 fps. I’ll cross my fingers for both but I hope the game won’t end up being cheaply made in terms of story. Because we have these factors: Graphics, Functionality and Story. One of them usually turns out to be a disappointment, you can add in “Setting/Location” but I guess we can fit that with Graphics/Looks. That’s what really worries me.

pacmanate
05-12-2014, 06:10 PM
Well, this is in game footage, what that means however is anything.

Could be pre-rendered like the AC3 cutscenes.

Doubt the graphics will be like that in the game, almost 100% sure its pre rendered

Ureh
05-12-2014, 06:33 PM
I think they'll be really good. Better than Infamous Second Son. :O

Hopefully they some some night gameplay at e3 (like AC2 venice demo).

Hans684
05-12-2014, 08:35 PM
I think they'll be really good. Better than Infamous: second son. :O

Hopefully they some some night gameplay at e3 (like AC2 venice demo).

My mistake.

LoyalACFan
05-13-2014, 04:56 AM
I think they'll be really good. Better than Infamous Second Son. :O

Hopefully they some some night gameplay at e3 (like AC2 venice demo).

Was Second Son really that good though? Aside from lighting and particle effects? Those were the only two things that felt significantly better than Infamous 2 to me.

Hans684
05-13-2014, 05:02 AM
Was Second Son really that good though? Aside from lighting and particle effects? Those were the only two things that felt significantly better than Infamous 2 to me.

Yes, I tried to play Infamous(1 and 2) and didn't like either of them but Second Son is the only infamous I have enjoyed(and finished).

LoyalACFan
05-13-2014, 05:11 AM
Yes, I tried to play Infamous(1 and 2) and didn't like either of them but Second Son is the only infamous I have enjoyed(and finished).

Well... I thought Second Son sucked but that's another matter. I was talking purely graphically. The game just didn't visually impress me aside from the lighting and particle effects.

BloodHerritage
05-13-2014, 08:08 AM
Well, this is in game footage, what that means however is anything.

Could be pre-rendered like the AC3 cutscenes.

Doubt the graphics will be like that in the game, almost 100% sure its pre rendered

I'll teach you something son, ac3 cutscenes aren't pre-rendered.

The reason they can get better graphics on cutscenes is because the camera is/will be in fixed angles and so they can skip some calculations made by the CPU (the ones that calculate what is seen and what isn't seen) and some calculations made by the GPU (the rendering of out of screen stuff - in gameplay it needs to be rendered because you can flip your camera at any given time).

In Assassin's Creed the only pre-rendered "cutscene" i remember is from AcB when Ezio remembers the thief from Monterrigoni.

Having pre-rendered cutscenes would take a HUGE amount of space, not even 5 Blu-Rays would be enough to host all the cutscenes from Assassin's Creed 3 with the quality we've seen.



I'm more concerned about how will it run on my computer than the graphics it self. I'm getting a i5 4670k and a GTX 770 :D

SpiritOfNevaeh
05-13-2014, 08:12 AM
Well, the game will be Next Gen so the graphics better be outstanding; just hope Ubi doesn't oversell it like they did for AC3 >_>

LoyalACFan
05-13-2014, 08:25 AM
I'll teach you something son

Oh boy...


Having pre-rendered cutscenes would take a HUGE amount of space, not even 5 Blu-Rays would be enough to host all the cutscenes from Assassin's Creed 3 with the quality we've seen.

http://www.fussy.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/obama.gif

ze_topazio
05-13-2014, 12:16 PM
I'll teach you something son, ac3 cutscenes aren't pre-rendered.

The reason they can get better graphics on cutscenes is because the camera is/will be in fixed angles and so they can skip some calculations made by the CPU (the ones that calculate what is seen and what isn't seen) and some calculations made by the GPU (the rendering of out of screen stuff - in gameplay it needs to be rendered because you can flip your camera at any given time).

In Assassin's Creed the only pre-rendered "cutscene" i remember is from AcB when Ezio remembers the thief from Monterrigoni.

Having pre-rendered cutscenes would take a HUGE amount of space, not even 5 Blu-Rays would be enough to host all the cutscenes from Assassin's Creed 3 with the quality we've seen.



I'm more concerned about how will it run on my computer than the graphics it self. I'm getting a i5 4670k and a GTX 770 :D

If MGS4 can be fit on one single Blu-Ray, so would AC3 even if the cutscenes were CGI.

Wolfmeister1010
05-13-2014, 12:49 PM
I don't understand why people think it will be downgraded. The only graphical downgrade in AC history was from the AC4 gameplay reveal ridiculously high polygon count trailer to the next trailer.

In fact, the only full on downgrade I remember occurring in Ubisoft is Far Cry 3.

Of course, I am not sure that consoles will be able to reach that level of graphical quality, but I am sure PC can. I mean, for all of its beauty, it still doesn't look as good as the Division or Witcher 3.

Farlander1991
05-13-2014, 01:35 PM
Could be pre-rendered like the AC3 cutscenes.

Which cutscenes do you mean? Like the in-game ones or the reveal trailer?

At any rate, Unity trailer is not pre-rendered, it's all real-time. It shows a bunch of artifacts (like texture flickering which usually happens when textures from two intersecting models on one plane don't know what to show) that wouldn't happen in a pre-rendered environment.

Dev_Anj
05-13-2014, 02:10 PM
Yeah, the trailer has legitimate in game graphics.

I don't know if the final game's graphics will be that good though.

Ureh
05-13-2014, 04:23 PM
Was Second Son really that good though? Aside from lighting and particle effects? Those were the only two things that felt significantly better than Infamous 2 to me.

I thought it was satisfactory, better than most last-gen stuff and even some current-gen... but SS didn't have anything super duper special. Maybe the people at Sucker Punch didn't have the time and knowledge to harness any remaining powers the ps4 may have (it is still somewhat early in the new gen)? Usually AAA exclusives look better than AAA 3rd party stuff. But somehow I feel Unity will look better than Second Son. I think Unity will have more npcs on the screen, silky animations and better textures cause it won't have to worry as much about all the powers' visual effects. Probably by the time Unity is released, there'll probably be new ps4/xb1 exclusives that look even better than it cause at that point the exclusive devs are getting into the groove.

Megas_Doux
05-13-2014, 05:49 PM
Better than AC IV, not as good as the teaser we saw.

Mr_Shade
05-13-2014, 08:47 PM
FYI - some important information about Watch_Dogs graphics, since it was brought up here:

http://blog.ubi.com/watch-dogs-next-gen-game-resolution-dynamism/

Sushiglutton
05-13-2014, 08:54 PM
FYI - some important information about Watch_Dogs graphics, since it was brought up here:

http://blog.ubi.com/watch-dogs-next-gen-game-resolution-dynamism/

Lol at people saying they won't buy the game when it's 900p instead of 1080p. This resolution thing is seriously getting out of hand.

Shahkulu101
05-13-2014, 09:01 PM
I don't care about resolution, but I'm slightly disappointed over the frame-rate. I want as smooth an experience as possible, 30 FPS is steady but as frame rates are liable to drop I'm anxious over having a sluggish experience. Plus, 60 FPS does feel so much smoother and honestly it should be a given factor for every game. It's just old fashioned, I'm disappointed at how the initial standards for next-gen consoles are so backwards.

Sushiglutton
05-13-2014, 09:12 PM
I don't care about resolution, but I'm slightly disappointed over the frame-rate. I want as smooth an experience as possible, 30 FPS is steady but as frame rates are liable to drop I'm anxious over having a sluggish experience. Plus, 60 FPS does feel so much smoother and honestly it should be a given factor for every game. It's just old fashioned, I'm disappointed at how the initial standards for next-gen consoles are so backwards.

Yeah that's fair and I agree it's a bit worrying. Letting like what 10-20% more or less pixels be a deciding factor I can't really respect lol.

pacmanate
05-13-2014, 09:22 PM
I don't think we should be worried about framerate. Its probably like what happened to Second son, it was variable 30-45 or something but they locked it at 30fps to have it as smooth as possible.

Shahkulu101
05-13-2014, 09:27 PM
I don't think we should be worried about framerate. Its probably like what happened to Second son, it was variable 30-45 or something but they locked it at 30fps to have it as smooth as possible.

You know what's smoother, a solid 60 FPS. Given what year we're in, and the fact these are 'next-gen' consoles, this should be standard to be honest.

pacmanate
05-13-2014, 09:53 PM
You know what's smoother, a solid 60 FPS. Given what year we're in, and the fact these are 'next-gen' consoles, this should be standard to be honest.

They just came out, and its open world.

Zafar1981
05-13-2014, 11:18 PM
On paper both new console are seemed to be a high tech gaming PC, but I don't know if they can support a game having CGI graphics. What I know is that making a whole game on CGI like graphics is nearly impossible. If they make then the price of that game would be more then $100.00.

All I need an AC game with good decent graphics with excellent draw distance and beautiful color scheme. Imagine you climb a tall view point and after synchronization you didn't take leap of faith and start viewing the area that how beautiful it looks from above.

I totally agree with Mr. Shade that 60fps with 1080p looks good for First person shooter and driving games but for an open world game 30fps is good.

I believe that there would be quality difference of graphics between ACU and BF but it would be slightly, max 10%.

Wolfmeister1010
05-14-2014, 01:21 AM
http://cdn1-www.craveonline.com/assets/uploads/2014/03/dogs4mevz.gif

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/wBGIi9VA_AI/maxresdefault.jpg

http://cdn2-www.craveonline.com/assets/uploads/2014/03/iboqqHgyy5tOsD.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBGIi9VA_AI

Ubisoft announces on October that the game will run at 30 fps for both next gen consoles. The game gets delayed. The aforementioned gifs / pictures / videos come out after the recent trailers. 60 fps is announced for the PS4.

Oh, I forgot (if you are the reading type): http://www.dsogaming.com/screenshot-news/watch-dogs-comparison-latest-build-versus-e3-2012-june-2013-builds/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-watch-dogs-on-ps4-tech-analysis

I have more, if you want me to pm you.

This is the most ridiculous comparison... comparing ultra maxed out PC graphics to in development debug mode PS4. It is people like you who blew this whole "downgrade" nonsense out of proportion...

Plus holy crap don't compare ultra maxed out PC footage to that crap Aisha Tyler trailer than Jon Morin said doesn't even look as good as last gen.

RinoTheBouncer
05-14-2014, 08:38 AM
LMAO at ďresolution is just a numberĒ. Yeah, cause a prison cell is just room.

Theyíre literally trying to pick the cheapest options. I mean how hard is it to make the game in 60 fps and 1080? whether the change is major or minor, given the delays, one would expect a drastic change in graphics and resolution along with framerate, not just polygons or weather effects. All games made for both past and current gen. all games having reductive graphics? whatís going on? when is the next gen gonna start?

Sushiglutton
05-14-2014, 11:42 AM
LMAO at “resolution is just a number”. Yeah, cause a prison cell is just room.

They’re literally trying to pick the cheapest options. I mean how hard is it to make the game in 60 fps and 1080? whether the change is major or minor, given the delays, one would expect a drastic change in graphics and resolution along with framerate, not just polygons or weather effects. All games made for both past and current gen. all games having reductive graphics? what’s going on? when is the next gen gonna start?


You are thinking about this backwards. Since the hardware is limited the devs have to make priorities. The more interactivity, effects and assets they put in a scene the less hardware they have left for framerate and resolution. In no way is prioritizing the former "the cheapest option". Ofc you can get the best of both worlds through optimization, but it's really hard for us to judge how difficult this is given the game they have built.

The statement "a 1080p game is more next gen than a 900p game" does not make any sense whatsoever. That would imply that Child Of Light is more next-gen (=technically advanced) than WD, which it's clearly not. Every dev needs to think about what the best use of resources is given the game they are trying to make. Sacrificing interactivity to hit 1080p/60fps could be a terrible decision.

Farlander1991
05-14-2014, 01:33 PM
I mean how hard is it to make the game in 60 fps and 1080?

>_<

Short answer: pretty hard. An open world game? Even harder.

RinoTheBouncer
05-14-2014, 03:26 PM
You are thinking about this backwards. Since the hardware is limited the devs have to make priorities. The more interactivity, effects and assets they put in a scene the less hardware they have left for framerate and resolution. In no way is prioritizing the former "the cheapest option". Ofc you can get the best of both worlds through optimization, but it's really hard for us to judge how difficult this is given the game they have built.

The statement "a 1080p game is more next gen than a 900p game" does not make any sense whatsoever. That would imply that Child Of Light is more next-gen (=technically advanced) than WD, which it's clearly not. Every dev needs to think about what the best use of resources is given the game they are trying to make. Sacrificing interactivity to hit 1080p/60fps could be a terrible decision.

Maybe I don’t know a lot about how game development goes, but I’m sure that the gap between PS3 and PS4 is much narrower than that between PS2 and PS3. In the latter, we went from DVD to BluRay, from Region Locked to Region free games, from SD to HD, from less polygons to much higher polygons, from offline gameplay (mostly, except for a few games) to a fully online experience, from disc based games only to downloadable and disc-based games that can both be updated frequently through PSN.

However, with the PS3 and PS4, I feel like the only upgrade so far is the upcoming PlayStation Now service and some tech demos that presented superb graphics and framerate yet I doubt they’ll ever see the light of day.

With W_D we didn’t get graphics that are of the standard of the next ten, even though I admit the city looks really great and the character doesn’t look bad after all, but that wasn’t something PS3 could not offer. See BEYOND: Two Souls for example, it was a graphical marvel, same goes for FFXIII and MGS4. But here, neither did we get the next gen look (because of the cross-gen release) nor are we getting at least an upgraded resolution.

I find that disappointing even if it’s not too noticeable. I know they need to properly manage their resources and priorities but if Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition could do 1080p, 60fps remaster, then why not W_D especially that they delayed the game about 6 months from it’s original release date.

So the question is “Is the hardware really limited?” I mean this is a new gen console and GTA was a very similar if not much bigger game and it had very good graphics, so why can’t W_D do it?

Farlander1991
05-14-2014, 03:40 PM
I know they need to properly manage their resources and priorities but if Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition could do 1080p, 60fps remaster, then why not W_D especially that they delayed the game about 6 months from it’s original release date.

Because Tomb Raider doesn't have more than 10-15 people on the screen at the same time. Because Tomb Raider being a hub-based game rather than an open-world one has easier time to manage objects - the environments are more constricted. Tomb Raider doesn't have to worry about that market stand a few blocks away that's removed and has to be placed at an appropriate time when we're close enough so we wouldn't see it appear in front of us and so nobody would get stuck in it when it appears, because, hell, we can get to that point at any possible point. Tomb Raider doesn't have to worry about dynamically causing a whole freaking blackout in a huge radius, instantly changing the environment and the AI.

One important thing to understand is one of the reasons for the delay is that Watch_Dogs wasn't freakin' working properly on consoles. Dynamic open-world in 1080p with 60fps and graphic fidelity of the PC 2012 reveal that would ALSO handle the right way everything else that happens in the game - do you realize how freakin' a lot that is?

(Btw, Beyond can have a very high graphical fidelity due to the nature of it being heavily scripted with 0 to little AI, since they have to worry mostly about triggers, and the creators having like 80-90% of the control over what the player sees at any given moment - something Watch Dogs simply cannot have).

PS. Also, one important thing to realize is that Watch_Dogs has pretty amazing graphics. They're not to the level of the 2012 reveal, yes, but they're still top-notch. Have you seen the latest footage? The graphics are very, very good. They're just worse than the set-up two years ago incredibly high expectations.

Dev_Anj
05-14-2014, 03:49 PM
So the question is “Is the hardware really limited?” I mean this is a new gen console and GTA was a very similar if not much bigger game and it had very good graphics, so why can’t W_D do it?

I don't know about too many games, but I'm pretty sure that graphically Watch_Dogs looks better than GTA 5. GTA 5 had many embarrassing textures such as the ones on the ground, trees having obvious low polygon models from afar, rough hills, etc etc etc.

Great post, Farlander1991.

LoyalACFan
05-14-2014, 10:39 PM
I thought it was satisfactory, better than most last-gen stuff and even some current-gen... but SS didn't have anything super duper special. Maybe the people at Sucker Punch didn't have the time and knowledge to harness any remaining powers the ps4 may have (it is still somewhat early in the new gen)? Usually AAA exclusives look better than AAA 3rd party stuff. But somehow I feel Unity will look better than Second Son. I think Unity will have more npcs on the screen, silky animations and better textures cause it won't have to worry as much about all the powers' visual effects. Probably by the time Unity is released, there'll probably be new ps4/xb1 exclusives that look even better than it cause at that point the exclusive devs are getting into the groove.

Oh, sure it was satisfactory, it was definitely a pretty game. But it was hardly the mind-blowing graphical powerhouse the diehard Sony fanboys claim it was. I feel like it was rushed to market just so PS4 could have an exclusive to compete with Titanfall though, and it suffered from that. Had it been released, say, this holiday season, I think it would have been a lot better off for it... graphically and otherwise.

Wolfmeister1010
05-15-2014, 12:30 AM
I am actually surprised how good it looks on PS4, for a cross gen game. The 101 trailer was magnificent, and assured me that PS4 will look as good as e3 2013.

The PC master race will get to bask in the e3 2012 level of graphical quality I suppose lol.

But then again...apparently all smoke and particle effects were taken out of the game LOL so maybe not..

BloodHerritage
05-16-2014, 01:02 PM
If MGS4 can be fit on one single Blu-Ray, so would AC3 even if the cutscenes were CGI.

Dude i know what i'm talking about ok? 1080p of uncompressed video in 60 fps takes 320mbps of bandwidth.....

And guess what? in-game cutscenes are uncompressed videos rendered in real time.

Ac3 had arround 16000 secconds of cut-scenes, that's 5000 Gb of 1080p 60fps uncompressed video. And, in case you want to kno whow much that's in console's 720p 30fps, it's 1640 Gb.

As i said, the only "cut-scene" that was pre-rendered in Ac was the one from AcB when Ezio remembers the thief from monterrigoni.

I didn't want to be rude but you just say whatever comes to your mind first when you clearly have no clue about how much space pre-rendered high quality video takes.

For example, digital movies are sent to theaters in 1 terabytes hard drives.

Farlander1991
05-16-2014, 01:11 PM
As i said, the only "cut-scene" that was pre-rendered in Ac was the one from AcB when Ezio recalls the thief from monterrigoni.

Actually, the first-person spyglass view when Connor's examining the Redcoat army at Bunker Hill is pre-rendered too. You can see the video artifacts there.

Assassin's Creed IV logo intro in Havana MIGHT be pre-rendered. It showed with a different resolution and frame-rate on my PC (let's just say it was so smooth and my laptop can't really handle far-distance Havana THAT smoothly), and then everything switched when it cut to Edward and Bonnet talking (i.e. resolution became different and frame-rate slightly laggy, which on my laptop is normal regarding AC4, still comfortable to watch/play, but noticeable).

ze_topazio
05-16-2014, 01:31 PM
Dude i know what i'm talking about ok? 1080p of uncompressed video in 60 fps takes 320mbps of bandwidth.....

And guess what? in-game cutscenes are uncompressed videos rendered in real time.

Ac3 had arround 16000 secconds of cut-scenes, that's 5000 Gb of 1080p 60fps uncompressed video. And, in case you want to kno whow much that's in console's 720p 30fps, it's 1640 Gb.

As i said, the only "cut-scene" that was pre-rendered in Ac was the one from AcB when Ezio remembers the thief from monterrigoni.

I didn't want to be rude but you just say whatever comes to your mind first when you clearly have no clue about how much space pre-rendered high quality video takes.

For example, digital movies are sent to theaters in 1 terabytes hard drives.

http://ultimatepoker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/we-have-a-badass-over-here.png

STDlyMcStudpants
05-16-2014, 07:56 PM
AC IV to ACU will be ACB to ACR
I think it will even look better than AC3 ;D
Not becuase it doesnt have past gen weighing it down, but because it probably wont be as open world as AC4 was...
An open world the size of AC4 is about as good looking as a game can get lol..
But then again..we've yet to see what witcher 3s final product is like lol... witcher 3 will set the next gen standard for open world

RinoTheBouncer
05-18-2014, 08:44 AM
AC:Unity will be an big disappointment if it lacks any of those: True Next Gen Graphics, 1080p/60 fps and an interesting and connected story.

Sushiglutton
05-18-2014, 09:03 AM
AC:Unity will be an big disappointment if it lacks any of those: True Next Gen Graphics, 1080p/60 fps and an interesting and connected story.

True Next Gen Graphics and 1080p/60fps are not easy to combine. If those things are important to you should def get a PC!!! I would be very suprised if AC:U ran at 60fps on consoles. AC doesn't really have gameplay which requires a high framerate like that. I think that power could be better used for other things.

RinoTheBouncer
05-18-2014, 09:22 AM
True Next Gen Graphics and 1080p/60fps are not easy to combine. If those things are important to you should def get a PC!!! I would be very suprised if AC:U ran at 60fps on consoles. AC doesn't really have gameplay which requires a high framerate like that. I think that power could be better used for other things.

Now I truly feel like next gen. is more of a PS3.5 rather than a PS4. Having to choose between good graphics and 1080p/60fps is really a bad sign cause whether the games need 60fps or not, they have to be a standard since they make animations look smoother and it’s an upgrade from the past. Just like how HD became the norm for everything, frame rate, resolution and graphics should be the norm for the next generation.

AC:Unity is supposed to be a fully next gen game, so it ain’t like WATCH_DOGS which is a cross-gen game. I guess it’s supposed to show an upgrade in all sides, not just some cool water reflections, waves or some nice animations for flags and clothes. I’m like you, I doubt the ACU will be 1080p/60fps but I’m just saying that this gen seems half-a**ed so far and it doesn’t feel like a major upgrade in anyway, at least not the way Agni’s Philosophy and other tech demos pictured it to be.

Will_Lucky
05-18-2014, 12:21 PM
1080/30 and its fine by me. Leave 60 to the genres that actually need it like FPS and Racers, if those genres don't have that then you question the developers.

Were ACU to have 60fps I'd be pleasantly surprised, and disappointed they didn't invest it elsewhere in the graphics department. AC4 was good at locked 30fps, that is all they need for the mass audience to have no complaints.

jayjay275
05-18-2014, 02:10 PM
So long as 30 is locked and solid with no dips, then 60 isn't needed. 1080p is a must though.

LoyalACFan
05-18-2014, 02:31 PM
Now I truly feel like next gen. is more of a PS3.5 rather than a PS4.

Part of this is just the law of diminishing returns, but at the same time you have to realize that it's VERY early in the generation. I mean, look at Uncharted 1 compared to The Last of Us. The same developer, same console, six years later. The difference is astronomical. Graphics improve gradually, not iteratively, and you aren't magically going to get the maximum performance out of a console the first year it's out.


Having to choose between good graphics and 1080p/60fps is really a bad sign cause whether the games need 60fps or not, they have to be a standard since they make animations look smoother and it’s an upgrade from the past.

That's ridiculous, if it's not needed then there's no reason for it to be the standard. If PS5 came with a marshmallow-toaster, that would be an upgrade from the past, but it's not necessary and it's a waste of effort, so why should that become standard? You won't notice the difference between 60 and 30 FPS on an AC game, so why the hell should they have to try to make it 60?


AC:Unity is supposed to be a fully next gen game, so it ain’t like WATCH_DOGS which is a cross-gen game. I guess it’s supposed to show an upgrade in all sides, not just some cool water reflections, waves or some nice animations for flags and clothes. I’m like you, I doubt the ACU will be 1080p/60fps but I’m just saying that this gen seems half-a**ed so far and it doesn’t feel like a major upgrade in anyway, at least not the way Agni’s Philosophy and other tech demos pictured it to be.

If you're expecting a full, open world, early-gen, multiplatform, third-party game to look as good as a pre-launch tech demo, and then have the balls to call it half-a$$ed for not achieving that, then we really don't have anything else to say.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as hostile here, but damn, I am SO sick of people complaining about next-gen graphics. It's like nobody gives half a f**k about gameplay or story anymore, it's all "waah, this game's not 60 FPS, not gonna buy it" or "haha, looool, ur console sux, my mommy bought me the one that runs this game with 108 more pixels, so I'm da best evrrrr"

Shahkulu101
05-18-2014, 02:48 PM
Part of this is just the law of diminishing returns, but at the same time you have to realize that it's VERY early in the generation. I mean, look at Uncharted 1 compared to The Last of Us. The same developer, same console, six years later. The difference is astronomical. Graphics improve gradually, not iteratively, and you aren't magically going to get the maximum performance out of a console the first year it's out.

The thing with this is that the new consoles are basically using years-old PC architecture. There aren't any secrets to discover and exploit like there was with PS3's cellular architecture - titles like TLoU look so good because the developers gradually discovered how best to use the (notoriously difficult to develop for) hardware. There's nothing more to know about mid-end PC architecture.

That's all these consoles are. Un-upgradeable mid-range PC's.

Sushiglutton
05-18-2014, 02:52 PM
I'm sorry if I'm coming across as hostile here, but damn, I am SO sick of people complaining about next-gen graphics. It's like nobody gives half a f**k about gameplay or story anymore, it's all "waah, this game's not 60 FPS, not gonna buy it" or "haha, looool, ur console sux, my mommy bought me the one that runs this game with 108 more pixels, so I'm da best evrrrr"

I feel you :)! Especially the insane focus on the two numbers 1080p/60fps is completely ridicuolus and is drviing me nuts. There are sooooo many more important things to prioritize. Like guard/crowd AI in the cities. Moveable objects to platform on, more complex geometry for the buildings, cloth/fire/water/destructibility. etc etc. I'm worried gamers will push publishers into focusing on 1080p for marketing reasons even if that is not the right choice from a design perspective. In this case gamers really need to trust the designers.


As I said above IF 1080p/60fps is really important to you PC is the way to go. Since most AAA games are designed with consoles in mind a not too powerful PC will run them at 1080p/60fps for the rest of the generation. Further you can turn down other graphical features (if that is what you want) to assure a high framerate.

Mr_Shade
05-18-2014, 02:54 PM
Lets all try and take a deep breath..

LoyalACFan
05-18-2014, 02:57 PM
The thing with this is that the new consoles are basically using years-old PC architecture. There aren't any secrets to discover and exploit like there was with PS3's cellular architecture - titles like TLoU look so good because the developers gradually discovered how best to use the (notoriously difficult to develop for) hardware. There's nothing more to know about mid-end PC architecture.

That's all these consoles are. Un-upgradeable mid-range PC's.

There won't be a jump anywhere near as large as the one from early PS3 to late PS3, but there will be a jump. Maybe I used a bad example, but I went with Naughty Dog because they're a Sony company so presumably they had greater access to develop alongside Sony hardware. But the same can be said even for AC, look at AC1 compared to AC3 (let's say on Xbox this time, since PS3 did admittedly have some wonky architecture that was an obstacle in and of itself).

Shahkulu101
05-18-2014, 03:01 PM
There won't be a jump anywhere near as large as the one from early PS3 to late PS3, but there will be a jump. Maybe I used a bad example, but I went with Naughty Dog because they're a Sony company so presumably they had greater access to develop alongside Sony hardware. But the same can be said even for AC, look at AC1 compared to AC3 (let's say on Xbox this time, since PS3 did admittedly have some wonky architecture that was an obstacle in and of itself).

Yeah there will be a jump of course. I'm just saying why it won't be massive.

And Shade, I'm quite calm actually.

LoyalACFan
05-18-2014, 03:13 PM
Yeah there will be a jump of course. I'm just saying why it won't be massive.

Yeah, of course, that's all I meant. Console graphics aren't just going to stagnate for the next 4-6 years.


And Shade, I'm quite calm actually.

Think he was referring to me :p And he's right, I got a little worked up, but as a person who's just now trying to get started in the games industry, it's disheartening as all hell to see people going insane over resolution (and especially framerate) whilst completely disregarding the things that actually make games good.

pacmanate
05-18-2014, 09:05 PM
it's disheartening as all hell to see people going insane over resolution (and especially framerate) whilst completely disregarding the things that actually make games good.

You'd love the Watch_Dogs forums, having a ball over there.

STDlyMcStudpants
05-18-2014, 10:04 PM
am i the only one that doesnt care about the frames? I dont even notice them going back and laying ps2 games lol

RinoTheBouncer
05-18-2014, 10:13 PM
Part of this is just the law of diminishing returns, but at the same time you have to realize that it's VERY early in the generation. I mean, look at Uncharted 1 compared to The Last of Us. The same developer, same console, six years later. The difference is astronomical. Graphics improve gradually, not iteratively, and you aren't magically going to get the maximum performance out of a console the first year it's out.



That's ridiculous, if it's not needed then there's no reason for it to be the standard. If PS5 came with a marshmallow-toaster, that would be an upgrade from the past, but it's not necessary and it's a waste of effort, so why should that become standard? You won't notice the difference between 60 and 30 FPS on an AC game, so why the hell should they have to try to make it 60?



If you're expecting a full, open world, early-gen, multiplatform, third-party game to look as good as a pre-launch tech demo, and then have the balls to call it half-a$$ed for not achieving that, then we really don't have anything else to say.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as hostile here, but damn, I am SO sick of people complaining about next-gen graphics. It's like nobody gives half a f**k about gameplay or story anymore, it's all "waah, this game's not 60 FPS, not gonna buy it" or "haha, looool, ur console sux, my mommy bought me the one that runs this game with 108 more pixels, so I'm da best evrrrr"

Well you know when you queue for a new console or pay x3 the price because you imported it to your non-US country early after release day and you discover that not only there are only 6 games released, but they all look like ports from PS3, it gets a bit disappointing and then months and months pass and there’s nothing. I know that I shouldn’t blame Sony or developers for rushing to buy the console so early or for a high price but expressing one’s opinion about the matter isn’t such a bad idea after all.

I would’ve been happy if this full open world, multi platform, early-gen, third party game looked closer to next gen than a PS3 game. It doesn’t have to either be Agni’s Philosophy but it can at least have a noticeable difference rather than just some cool water or light effects or some fancy moving flag.

Regarding Uncharted 1, how about comparing it to a PS2 game and discussing the leap it took forward in terms of graphics. I care about the story so damn much and I care about gameplay but there was gameplay and story in PS1, PS2 and PS3 games so it’s supposed to be a given not an option and the graphics should improve with generation. But since AC already half a**ed both, I was hoping that it can at least offer a good-looking game. Sorry, but I’m not sorry for thinking that AC is going downhill and that that developers of this gen have been much lazier than they were with the PS1/PS2 and PS2/PS3 upgrades.

SixKeys
05-19-2014, 12:03 AM
Regarding Uncharted 1, how about comparing it to a PS2 game and discussing the leap it took forward in terms of graphics. I care about the story so damn much and I care about gameplay but there was gameplay and story in PS1, PS2 and PS3 games so itís supposed to be a given not an option and the graphics should improve with generation. But since AC already half a**ed both, I was hoping that it can at least offer a good-looking game. Sorry, but Iím not sorry for thinking that AC is going downhill and that that developers of this gen have been much lazier than they were with the PS1/PS2 and PS2/PS3 upgrades.

Quite frankly, as much as people like to nitpick about framerate and resolution and whatnot, most of the games we have today look damn good already. The reason there isn't a bigger jump between current-gen and next-gen is because there's much less to improve than there was between PS2 vs. PS3. Think about how people were awed back in the day by the graphics in Final Fantasy VII or Ocarina of Time. We look at them today and they're almost painful from a purely visual standpoint, but people genuinely thought those graphics were awesome in 1997. Now compare the difference between AC4 graphics and the Unity trailer. There's not a massive jump there, no. You know why? Because both games look fantastic already. Not perfect, by any means, but there's much less uncanny valley in games today than there was just a couple of years ago. We used to worry about expressions looking lifeless, now we worry about the texture on someone's skin not being high-res enough? Seriously? "Oh no, this new game I bought will only run at 50 fps instead of 60! My immersion is totally ruined! What a ripoff!"

ze_topazio
05-19-2014, 12:53 AM
Between 1080p or 60fps I choose 60fps any day, with 60fps even the graphics look better, not just the animations.

deskp
05-19-2014, 05:13 AM
am i the only one that doesnt care about the frames? I dont even notice them going back and laying ps2 games lol


You might not be aware, but I'm pretty sure your brain and eyes notices bad framerate. Its whenever ia game seems laggy or choppy. More frames per second makes the game look better and mroe smooth. 30frames per second isnt bad. It's when the frames per second is inconsistent it feels weird. Like on old gen ac4 in Havanna.


Frame rate wasn't worse on ps2 btw.

RinoTheBouncer
05-19-2014, 08:20 AM
Quite frankly, as much as people like to nitpick about framerate and resolution and whatnot, most of the games we have today look damn good already. The reason there isn't a bigger jump between current-gen and next-gen is because there's much less to improve than there was between PS2 vs. PS3. Think about how people were awed back in the day by the graphics in Final Fantasy VII or Ocarina of Time. We look at them today and they're almost painful from a purely visual standpoint, but people genuinely thought those graphics were awesome in 1997. Now compare the difference between AC4 graphics and the Unity trailer. There's not a massive jump there, no. You know why? Because both games look fantastic already. Not perfect, by any means, but there's much less uncanny valley in games today than there was just a couple of years ago. We used to worry about expressions looking lifeless, now we worry about the texture on someone's skin not being high-res enough? Seriously? "Oh no, this new game I bought will only run at 50 fps instead of 60! My immersion is totally ruined! What a ripoff!"

I agree that the jump is not big enough, but that’s exactly my point. The jump to this gen is not big enough. Past gen already started with a massive jump and it wasn’t just the graphics, it was everything from online capability to downloadable games to HDD instead of memory cards..etc. this gen introduced only a few new specs and the graphics could’ve been much better and there could’ve been more features but all we got so far was a bit refined PS3 games. Agni’s Philosophy for example or the tech demo of Quantic Dream (I don’t remember it’s name, but it’s the one with the magician) have showed a much bigger jump in terms of graphics, yet so far, all we’re getting is cross gen. games.

If Unity turns out as good as the sneak peek, it will definitely be a large jump forward from ACIV but if it looks like Infamous: Second Son, then it will be disappointing, graphically. I understand we’re only at the start of the gen but to be perfectly honest, I would’ve loved that they gave out dev kits much earlier than they did so that more next gen exclusive games will have been made for launch rather than all of them coming late 2014 to 2015.

STDlyMcStudpants
05-19-2014, 04:25 PM
I agree that the jump is not big enough, but that’s exactly my point. The jump to this gen is not big enough. Past gen already started with a massive jump and it wasn’t just the graphics, it was everything from online capability to downloadable games to HDD instead of memory cards..etc. this gen introduced only a few new specs and the graphics could’ve been much better and there could’ve been more features but all we got so far was a bit refined PS3 games. Agni’s Philosophy for example or the tech demo of Quantic Dream (I don’t remember it’s name, but it’s the one with the magician) have showed a much bigger jump in terms of graphics, yet so far, all we’re getting is cross gen. games.

If Unity turns out as good as the sneak peek, it will definitely be a large jump forward from ACIV but if it looks like Infamous: Second Son, then it will be disappointing, graphically. I understand we’re only at the start of the gen but to be perfectly honest, I would’ve loved that they gave out dev kits much earlier than they did so that more next gen exclusive games will have been made for launch rather than all of them coming late 2014 to 2015.

imo the jump wasnt that big...
Jak 2, Jak 3, and both the god of war games looked just as good or even better than all ps3 games until 2009 when killzone 2 set a new standard (many games that came out in the past couple of years dont even look as good as KZ 2)
But oddly enough i havent cared about graphics since i was in middle school... my fav thing on ps2 was to get the new WWE game ever year and see how much better the graphics got from last year. It was SO exciting for me.
Now that im more matured and actually appreciate video games rather than just a casual gamer that liked to play wwe and create new characters every year just because i was obsessed with pro wresting.. what gets me excited is game types...
Look at minecraft..
I dont care if we get a game that looks like super mario 64 on ps4 as long as its size, world style, and capabilities justify the visual quality...
Skyrim isnt beautiful on console...but for its size it is.... .
As long as we dont see laziness... I want to see the size of a world or how filled it is..then look at textures and be like this is amazing.....
If the map is smaller than skyrim..it better look as good if not better than AC4..
if the map is larger than just cause 2 or as big as a minecraft world.... i dont mind ps1 graphics.....

ACfan443
05-20-2014, 12:33 AM
am i the only one that doesnt care about the frames? I dont even notice them going back and laying ps2 games lol

That's because PS2 games ran at or above 30FPS, which is the archaic industry standard we've been used to with the majority of consoles titles for years. The PS2 was actually capable of outputting at 50Hz/60Hz in PAL/NTSC format respectively, and a handful of titles even ran at 60FPS.

I personally don't have much of a problem with open world games running at 30Hz, from a gameplay perspective refresh rate isn't as crucial to the experience as it would be for, say, arcade racers/simulators, first person shooters and fighting games. I'm not surprised that WD, Unity(most likely) and a few other OWs this gen aren't native 60Hz, and I'm certainly not expecting it to be an industry standard for OWs in the future either. That's not to say it's impossible, MGS5 is expected to run at that refresh rate, and looks pretty darn good for a 1080/60 open world game.

ze_topazio
05-20-2014, 12:40 AM
The PS2 had several games running at 60fps.

BloodHerritage
05-20-2014, 12:58 PM
Actually, the first-person spyglass view when Connor's examining the Redcoat army at Bunker Hill is pre-rendered too. You can see the video artifacts there.

Assassin's Creed IV logo intro in Havana MIGHT be pre-rendered. It showed with a different resolution and frame-rate on my PC (let's just say it was so smooth and my laptop can't really handle far-distance Havana THAT smoothly), and then everything switched when it cut to Edward and Bonnet talking (i.e. resolution became different and frame-rate slightly laggy, which on my laptop is normal regarding AC4, still comfortable to watch/play, but noticeable).

Might be. I don't remember getting that compression feeling as when i saw that horrible cut-scene in acb tho.

But as far as my point stands, most, and i still believe all, cut-scenes from Ac3 are NOT pre-rendered.

BloodHerritage
05-20-2014, 01:01 PM
1080/30 and its fine by me. Leave 60 to the genres that actually need it like FPS and Racers, if those genres don't have that then you question the developers.

Were ACU to have 60fps I'd be pleasantly surprised, and disappointed they didn't invest it elsewhere in the graphics department. AC4 was good at locked 30fps, that is all they need for the mass audience to have no complaints.

The amount of Eye Candy added by cutting of fps by half ain't worth it. If we were discussing 60 vs 120 fps i'd agree with you, but 60 fps vs 30 fps is like a no-brainer for 60 fps.

For the small portions of the game that i had 60 fps my eyes rolled over and over again at those smooth badass animations from connor :D

Locopells
05-20-2014, 01:08 PM
But as far as my point stands, most, and i still believe all, cut-scenes from Ac3 are NOT pre-rendered.

Pre-rendered no, but they do use HQ textures - which is why the costume options don't show in them - they didn't have space for HQ versions of all of them.

RinoTheBouncer
05-20-2014, 07:03 PM
imo the jump wasnt that big...
Jak 2, Jak 3, and both the god of war games looked just as good or even better than all ps3 games until 2009 when killzone 2 set a new standard (many games that came out in the past couple of years dont even look as good as KZ 2)
But oddly enough i havent cared about graphics since i was in middle school... my fav thing on ps2 was to get the new WWE game ever year and see how much better the graphics got from last year. It was SO exciting for me.
Now that im more matured and actually appreciate video games rather than just a casual gamer that liked to play wwe and create new characters every year just because i was obsessed with pro wresting.. what gets me excited is game types...
Look at minecraft..
I dont care if we get a game that looks like super mario 64 on ps4 as long as its size, world style, and capabilities justify the visual quality...
Skyrim isnt beautiful on console...but for its size it is.... .
As long as we dont see laziness... I want to see the size of a world or how filled it is..then look at textures and be like this is amazing.....
If the map is smaller than skyrim..it better look as good if not better than AC4..
if the map is larger than just cause 2 or as big as a minecraft world.... i dont mind ps1 graphics.....

I personally do care about the graphics but not in exchange for quality and I believe a lot of games managed to score both the quality of gameplay and storytelling and the looks of them. I’ve been a gamer since I was 7 but since day 1, I played games like Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Final Fantasy..etc. so I was always immersed into games that focus on story telling, exploration, dialogue, puzzles...etc.

To me and I believe to everyone as well, the evolution of consoles is about what new features they can add and how good and realistic will the games look because PS1 games had games with great stories, entertaining gameplay and interesting concepts and not to mention the puzzles and levels that some of them are still very challenging to this day and much more than any other PS3 and PS4 game, so far.

So I believe a great story and gameplay should be a given rather than an option, unless the game is just about gameplay like fighting or racing games which don’t really have any stories. and I believe that graphics should evolve significantly cause otherwise, why are we having a new generation? whether we care a lot about graphics or not, what is a new console doing if all it’s offering is indies with cartoony graphics? why does anybody need a PS4 to play an indie game that can be made for PS2 or PSVita, an iPad or even a Facebook game? and one must wonder why am I buying a new console if the games look as good as they do on the one I already have. That’s my main point here, my friend.

I’m sure many of us don’t mind graphics and I personally still play PS1 games on my PS Vita and own many HD remasters of PS2 games, but it frustrates me to see that the next gen that I’ve waited for, for so long has been the most half-a**ed gen by far.

Shahkulu101
05-20-2014, 07:38 PM
It's not half-assed they just literally cannot meet high expectations as of yet because we're just getting started with this generation.

Hans684
05-20-2014, 07:40 PM
Said it before say it again, these things take time. Just like everything else let it evolve, the graphics will get better.

RinoTheBouncer
05-22-2014, 09:27 AM
It's not half-assed they just literally cannot meet high expectations as of yet because we're just getting started with this generation.


Said it before say it again, these things take time. Just like everything else let it evolve, the graphics will get better.

I’ll clarify my point again to you both: I’m well aware that graphics improve drastically from the start of the generation to it’s final days but what I’m saying is that this generation hasn’t really jumped very far from the past one. It’s almost the same with a few cool effects or cloth animations or water reflections. Nothing major changed, that’s why I’m worried. One would expect a huge step forward that keeps evolving. Compare Tomb Raider 1,2,3, 4 and Chronicles to Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness and compare that to Legend, Anniversary, Underworld and Tomb Raider (2013).

You’ll see differences between the gen’s games but there’s a huge step forward between each gen.
Do the same with Resident Evil 3 and Resident Evil: Code Veronica or Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy X. There’s a huge step forward, regardless of how early into the gen these games took place. That’s what I’m trying to say here. While ACIV isn’t much different from ACIII and Infamous Second son is on the same level of Beyond Two Souls and The Last of Us.

Farlander1991
05-22-2014, 12:37 PM
You know what, let's make the cross-gen comparison fair. Let's look at first-person shooters that were really popular, which were also always usually the most graphic-intensive.

Year 2000 - Release of PS2
Playstation 1: Medal of Honor: Underground (the image is TV quality so it's not as clear as some other ones in this post)
http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2000/10/13/mohu3_17-189033_640w.jpg

Playstation 2: Unreal Tournament
http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2000/09/27/unrealt_7-185630_640w.jpg

OMFG, look at that... uhm.... slightly recognizable jump? O_o I mean, sure, the textures and models have both improved, but the difference isn't THAT big.

Year 2006 - Release of PS3
Playstation 2: Call of Duty 3 (which was a multiplatform cross-gen release, for PS3 as well)
http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2006/12/15/call-of-duty-3-20061215045530418-1768370_640w.jpg

Playstation 3:
http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2006/09/05/call-of-duty-3-20060905103809588-1657315_640w.jpg

Yes, Playstation 3 version does look better, but there's not a big difference in textures and only a slight difference in models: the big difference comes from the shading effects and some other things that for some reason when it comes to PS3 vs. PS4 are not considered a big leap? Huh? Of course, 'better' is not as big a leap as 'absent' and 'existent', but it's not like there are so many things now that can go from 'absent' to 'existent'.

And look at it from another perspective: strict visuals are not everything that matters. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time on PS2 can support only 8 characters on screen at a time. AC games on PS3 can support hundreds (now, I know technically AC3 can support thousands, but talking full models - it's still hundreds, AC3 makes smart use of VERY low-poly models and sprites for showing big crowds and distances), and PS4 can do a lot more than that. And I mean SUPPORT. So they can all think, behave, and do things that they should be doing. Draw distances.

And the statement that AC4 on next-gen isn't that much different from AC3 is silly.
Here's AC3 viewpoint synch on PS3:
http://images.eurogamer.net/2012/articles//a/1/5/2/4/5/2/7/PS3_032.jpg.jpg/EG11/resize/1280x-1

Here's AC4 viewpoint sync on PS4:
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/3/8/6/0/5/PS4_026.jpg.jpg/EG11/resize/1920x-1

Look at the view distance, the quality of the buildings, the fact that you can see ACTUAL game models roaming around far-far away on the streets rather than a few replacement sprites (and in a bigger number as well), that even far-distanced objects have shadows (look at AC3, no shadows in a far distance), the fact that no stuff like market stands is removed. Look at the same thing on PS3.

http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/3/8/6/0/5/PS3_026.jpg.jpg/EG11/resize/1920x-1

Look how all buildings farther than a certain distance have suddenly removed their little details, became plain, how water is just plain blue texture rather than being water, how there are no shadows, and tons of street objects are removed and there are less people as well, and how there are no shadows.

Yes, generally speaking that still looks similar (being cross-gen, you can't make the game look TOO different, too much resources), but do you realize how actually HUGE deal that is? And these are just screenshots, things look even better in motion.

EDIT: Also, comparing open-world games to non-open world games is ********. Of course Beyond looks great: not only it's released at the END of a cycle, the devs have almost full control of what the player sees and what happens there, almost nothing systemic. You can't possible make an open-world game with Beyond graphics on a PS3.

murphdawg1
05-22-2014, 04:28 PM
tbh - honest opinion time - I'm not even fussed at it having to be 60 fps..

As long as it's 1080p - with some nice AA, little bit of object motion blur, i'm happy with 30 fps.. - if that allows for more details areas, more AI and 'stuff' - then it's all good to me.


60fps in an open world game, is not that important to me - level of detail etc - is..

If the game was a racing game - or - a first person shooter - then I would want 60 fps - but for 3rd person, 30 fps is fine..


Just curious but why isn't Ubisoft hyping AC Unity? I mean yeah I know Watch Dogs comes out next week so once that game is out will we then start to see more? Just seems odd to not see Ubisoft hyping up an Assassin's Creed game especially since this one is truly next-gen.

Kirokill
05-22-2014, 04:41 PM
Just curious but why isn't Ubisoft hyping AC Unity? I mean yeah I know Watch Dogs comes out next week so once that game is out will we then start to see more? Just seems odd to not see Ubisoft hyping up an Assassin's Creed game especially since this one is truly next-gen.

To buff Watch Dogs sales. They wouldn't even give anything by now if not for the leaked screenshots.
Watch Dogs was delayed strictly so it would be bought rather than AC4. It's all for the money.

Sushiglutton
05-22-2014, 04:47 PM
Yeah Ubi is burning through miilion of marketing dollars for WD atm, so it make sense that they don't want to divide their attention. At the same time people complain about franchise fatigue for AC. So I think it's a goood strategy to have a few months of total silence each year to build some anticipation. Last year AC4 was in full marketing mode before all the DLC for AC3 was even out (at least I think so).

murphdawg1
05-22-2014, 04:50 PM
To buff Watch Dogs sales. They wouldn't even give anything by now if not for the leaked screenshots.
Watch Dogs was delayed strictly so it would be bought rather than AC4. It's all for the money.


I would have bought both at launch:cool:

Will_Lucky
05-22-2014, 05:25 PM
You know what, let's make the cross-gen comparison fair. Let's look at first-person shooters that were really popular, which were also always usually the most graphic-intensive.
.

Cross-Gen is just that though, they a base to work from and improve on what already exists. The engine for example is exactly the same just improved for one platform.

Unity won't have that drawback, and hopefully the engine has been improved further to take advantage of more modern technologies. The devs have the XB1 as the base instead of the PS3 and those two compared are a world of difference. Black Flags was good, but not exactly brilliant, so much more potential exists.

Locopells
05-23-2014, 12:39 AM
Yeah Ubi is burning through miilion of marketing dollars for WD atm, so it make sense that they don't want to divide their attention. At the same time people complain about franchise fatigue for AC. So I think it's a goood strategy to have a few months of total silence each year to build some anticipation. Last year AC4 was in full marketing mode before all the DLC for AC3 was even out (at least I think so).

It was, yes, but partially because that leaked as well...

RinoTheBouncer
05-26-2014, 11:37 AM
You know what, let's make the cross-gen comparison fair. Let's look at first-person shooters that were really popular, which were also always usually the most graphic-intensive.

Year 2000 - Release of PS2
Playstation 1: Medal of Honor: Underground (the image is TV quality so it's not as clear as some other ones in this post)
http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2000/10/13/mohu3_17-189033_640w.jpg

Playstation 2: Unreal Tournament
http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2000/09/27/unrealt_7-185630_640w.jpg

OMFG, look at that... uhm.... slightly recognizable jump? O_o I mean, sure, the textures and models have both improved, but the difference isn't THAT big.

Year 2006 - Release of PS3
Playstation 2: Call of Duty 3 (which was a multiplatform cross-gen release, for PS3 as well)
http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2006/12/15/call-of-duty-3-20061215045530418-1768370_640w.jpg

Playstation 3:
http://assets1.ignimgs.com/2006/09/05/call-of-duty-3-20060905103809588-1657315_640w.jpg

Yes, Playstation 3 version does look better, but there's not a big difference in textures and only a slight difference in models: the big difference comes from the shading effects and some other things that for some reason when it comes to PS3 vs. PS4 are not considered a big leap? Huh? Of course, 'better' is not as big a leap as 'absent' and 'existent', but it's not like there are so many things now that can go from 'absent' to 'existent'.

And look at it from another perspective: strict visuals are not everything that matters. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time on PS2 can support only 8 characters on screen at a time. AC games on PS3 can support hundreds (now, I know technically AC3 can support thousands, but talking full models - it's still hundreds, AC3 makes smart use of VERY low-poly models and sprites for showing big crowds and distances), and PS4 can do a lot more than that. And I mean SUPPORT. So they can all think, behave, and do things that they should be doing. Draw distances.

And the statement that AC4 on next-gen isn't that much different from AC3 is silly.
Here's AC3 viewpoint synch on PS3:
http://images.eurogamer.net/2012/articles//a/1/5/2/4/5/2/7/PS3_032.jpg.jpg/EG11/resize/1280x-1

Here's AC4 viewpoint sync on PS4:
http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/3/8/6/0/5/PS4_026.jpg.jpg/EG11/resize/1920x-1

Look at the view distance, the quality of the buildings, the fact that you can see ACTUAL game models roaming around far-far away on the streets rather than a few replacement sprites (and in a bigger number as well), that even far-distanced objects have shadows (look at AC3, no shadows in a far distance), the fact that no stuff like market stands is removed. Look at the same thing on PS3.

http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/3/8/6/0/5/PS3_026.jpg.jpg/EG11/resize/1920x-1

Look how all buildings farther than a certain distance have suddenly removed their little details, became plain, how water is just plain blue texture rather than being water, how there are no shadows, and tons of street objects are removed and there are less people as well, and how there are no shadows.

Yes, generally speaking that still looks similar (being cross-gen, you can't make the game look TOO different, too much resources), but do you realize how actually HUGE deal that is? And these are just screenshots, things look even better in motion.

EDIT: Also, comparing open-world games to non-open world games is ********. Of course Beyond looks great: not only it's released at the END of a cycle, the devs have almost full control of what the player sees and what happens there, almost nothing systemic. You can't possible make an open-world game with Beyond graphics on a PS3.

Of course there are slight differences in shadows or stands or the likes but really, how important is that? If we need comparison videos and to the spot the differences then the difference is neither essential nor noticeable, therefore it’s not really feasible. I’m not trying to blame my spending on Ubisoft of Sony but I’m saying that with this generation, they’re not really trying hard enough but more like “lets package every game for PS3 and PS4 and lets remaster all PS3 hits to PS4 and call it a new gen”. That’s basically what’s happening.

With PS2, developers were so motivated to create new and original contents and many classics originated on the PS2 and the PS3 and HD remasters only happened in the last 2-3 years of the PS3 rather than early with it’s launch. The fact that everything is being ported to both gens so early with launch titles, clearly proves my point that the next gen is either not yet worth one’s money that everybody’s still holding onto their PS3s or that the developers are treating the video game industry as a way to make money rather than impact.

I know that Open-World games can’t be as good as Beyond on PS3 but now we’re on PS4 and I don’t understand where there hasn’t been a PS4 exclusive, an original game that takes full advantage of the new gen like for example Shadow of Memories. It wasn’t such a hit but it was a great game and it happened early with the launch of PS2. It had a new concept, ideas, storytelling and it was a bit open-world as well since you could travel in time anytime you want and explore most of the city early in the game.

I love my PlayStation 4 and if I could go back in time to the day I bought it, I wouldn’t change my mind but I’m just disappointed that it’s being treated as a money-making machine only and nothing more. Remember how original AC1 was and how it look very good, graphically and was still early in the the PS3 cycle? remember Metal Gear Solid 4 which also came early in the life cycle of the PS3 and how it looks as good as Beyond Two Souls even though it’s not an interactive movie like Beyond?

It’s good to have improvements like shadows or people moving in the distance, but to call it a next gen game just for that is ridiculous cause nobody’s gonna go up a viewpoint and stare for 3 minutes to stop the differences while running the PS3 version on an adjacent screen.