PDA

View Full Version : Would you recommend ACU if PC glitches were fixed?



ftlum
11-18-2014, 10:17 PM
I'm debating about getting this game for my PC. If all the major video glitches / game breaking bugs were fixed, would you recommend ACU?
I've read reviews about some people not liking the game in general, techincal problems aside.

Some reviewers mentioned that the stealth system was poorly executed and there were mixed reviews about the control system.
This would be my first Assassin's Creed game, so it wouldn't matter to me if missions seemed similar to past AC games.
However, if those micro transactions are really important, I don't think I'd want to buy the game. You're already paying a lot for it up-front. Having players pay extra is loathsome to me, and I don't really want to encourage this practice.

thanks in advance!

ArnoStalgik
11-18-2014, 10:27 PM
Do not never recommend ACU to anyone. Ubi will crash the savegame a few times and disgust you from playing

confused2425
11-18-2014, 10:49 PM
To be honest if i could go back before i bought this game i would of not bought it its a bad game some things are terrible for example the guards in red will always suspect as soon as Ur seen and im not saying seen a sneaking up i mean seen for just walking past in a none restricted area but they do have a lot of more npcs to hide in the crowd but then again u could stand bout 10ft from the guard in a crowd and they just ignore u all the dogs look the same and i mean seriously they all are the same just copied round it when ur getting chased just jump over a fence and they will just run in a circle and walk off even when they have seen u jump over the wall they wont go over like they did in the other games its basically like they saw everything that made black flag good and then went **** it lets ignore what works and milk the **** out off this game and they don't care there are so many problems the stealth is terrible if u want to win this game just take smoke bombs and u win the end done or if u want the best gear in as soon as possible then just do a so could hard mission and it gives u 25000 for finishing it then there u go in less than an hour u already got the second best sword game over and i love the assassins creed series but this is a joke if u want to go get something that's a bit better then go for assassin creed rouge it has the same mechanics off black flag just on a different side ur not a assassin but a Templar but other wise go buy another game that's not done by ubisoft they honestly knew this game was terrible and like a fat cat company they didn't give a **** just lies everywhere like normal and by the way the co-op is terrible if someone ain't got voice chat one then prepare for the most unorganized assassination ever told this is suppose to be a co-op game but they don't even have typing to chat to ur random team mates so yea save ur money and listen to the reviews and spend it on something worth getting just my opinion but like i said this is just a milked version off assassin creed not worth it at all.

kbbw
11-19-2014, 12:15 AM
I would recomend it yes.

mainly because even thought there are so many bugs right now and Uplay srewing things up, Online COOP noobies who don't comunicate and such its still allot of fun.

Also the most blody game so far lots of seprated heads.. those give a good vide for the game :P

But yea they did not do a couple of promises they had (By example the coop mission they showed) but its stil great if you have a 4 man group that is with you on voice programs like TeamSpeak with proper coordination, respect for each other and wilingniss to listen to the opinions of your team (So no CoD style rushing in and killing everyone) it is allot of fun to play :)

What i especially like about it is that there is either a hard way or a easy way. by example the most heavy missions can be easely stealthy done if you just have a good supply of beserker darts but you can also make it hard by going around and using your hidden blade to cut all there throats. no more sneaking in a corner and trying to wistle the enemy's to you but tactical thinking.

allot of things that will make the gam challeging but not impossible.

then again only if they fix the bugs and Uplay

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-19-2014, 01:41 AM
I'm debating about getting this game for my PC. If all the major video glitches / game breaking bugs were fixed, would you recommend ACU?
I've read reviews about some people not liking the game in general, techincal problems aside.

Some reviewers mentioned that the stealth system was poorly executed and there were mixed reviews about the control system.
This would be my first Assassin's Creed game, so it wouldn't matter to me if missions seemed similar to past AC games.
However, if those micro transactions are really important, I don't think I'd want to buy the game. You're already paying a lot for it up-front. Having players pay extra is loathsome to me, and I don't really want to encourage this practice.

thanks in advance!

It's not just glitches that are plaguing the PC version, but major performance issues and crashes. I would not recommend AC Unity. And, in addition to the game-breaking issues, so much of the game's content relies on online connectivity, and I'm not confident that Ubisoft will actually get it working or provide some alternative means to access this content.

KLN55
11-19-2014, 02:14 AM
I would recommend it. While AC2 is still my favorite, I feel this one is a great place to start if you haven't played any of them. I'm playing on PC and personally haven't had any game breaking bugs. All AC games have clunky controls. All AC games add weird new features and remove past mechanics. Every time I play a new AC I love some changes and dislike others. With all that, there isn't any series that depicts history in such a captivating way. There is always so much to see and do from cinematic inspired action set pieces to remedial item collecting and deep puzzle solving and intriguing conspiracies. I think you see a lot of negativity on this forum because everybody has a different idea of what they want AC to be. Back to Unity, again its a great place to start. I think it has the best game play in the core story missions of any of them. The side quests are fun and the game is more of a sandbox than recent previous entries. It just says here's your goal and leaves the rest to you. The assassination's haven't been this open ended since AC1 but with more varied locations to make each assassination more of a puzzle to solve. For reference, in AC1 you could pretty much just run in, kill a guy, run out. AC2 had more balance and AC3 removed all of that in favor of heavily scripted extremely linear cutscene style assassinations. I guess my point is these games try to do and be a lot. You will find things you love and things you hate. I for one, am having the most fun playing this since I had with AC2. Final note, per the huge comment above, who cares that the dogs have bad animations? Of all the things to complain about! That alone should prove people want different things from these games. That guy wants super detailed dog AI. I mean that's cool I guess.

Base2Crown
11-19-2014, 02:20 AM
I'm actually enjoying the game (when it works), I haven't been able to play online since patch 2 was released so I'm really hoping patch 3 solves it.

To answer the OP, YES I would recommended Assassin's Creed Unity if all the major bugs and performance issues get worked out and I don't doubt they eventually will, it's just bad news for all of us that have been on board since day 1.

I actually like the new progression system, your character was always a little too overpowered in previous AC games, I like the idea of unlocking skills and having different play styles that adds diversity and tactics into the game rather than just being a 1 man army. Now just imagine if we were able to go up against other human players online.

Looking to the future of this franchise:
I think co-op is a good direction for online modes in this series, the multiplayer in previous creed games was boring at best and didn't take advantage of what people love best about Assassin's Creed. I always thought they could expand on this by adding a Templar vs Assassin multiplayer feature or a "create your own assassin or templar" etc. There's endless room and potential for growth.

Tanyn
11-19-2014, 02:41 AM
In the end, I would recommend it, but I would warn anyone I recommend it to about the one glaring issue that Ubisoft seems to keep going with, further alienating their customers every step of the way. That issue is the sheer amount of content and gear that are locked behind features that either don't exist (I mean, REALLY Ubisoft? Club Competition can be "Coming Soon" all day, but in the mean time ... can we have the 95% of Legendary Gear that requires that feature? Because at this rate, by the time you get around to it ... we will have moved on, and no one's gonna care anymore) or require special apps or programs outside of the game.

My primary complaints:

Almost ALL Legendary Gear is locked behind Club Competition ... which isn't in the game. There is not a single set-type that has every piece of its Legendary gear available.
(That, on a GOOD day, is called a terribly incompetent oversight)

All the Gear that is locked behind the Unite Program
(which "Isn't available in your region" ... my region is the United States, and you've GOT to be kidding if it's not available there.)

Gear / outfits / chests locked behind the total failure, otherwise known as the ACU Companion App.
(Not all of us own iphones, androids, or tablets. Stop locking your customers out of content via out-of-game software ... have you not seen how many of us are pissed about that?)

Gear / outfits / chests locked behind AC Initiates.
(While this is something I, and most of us have access too ... the sheer amount of "Coming Soon" content that litters it, and prevents us from getting pretty much anything, simply reeks of incompetency, neglect, and piss-poor planning)

wolfreon
11-19-2014, 03:07 AM
Yes, I would recommend this game for benchmarking purposes. Specially on crowded areas, like on Memory 10. Here's my FPS with an overclocked GTX 970. Click here for the video link. (http://youtu.be/RpIqTgIfllU)

DavorHnatjuk
11-19-2014, 03:10 AM
I am only wondering when they will fix the frame rate and at least unlock the game to 60 fps.
Cause game with 60 fps works better than 30 fps.
I've purchase r7 240 2gb ddr3 only to play the game and the only thing what i can complain about it is the fps.
But on the question would i recommend it? Yes cause it looks amazing.

Razrback16
11-19-2014, 03:20 AM
No. Only way I'd recommend is if they overhaul the combat system. Put human shields back in and I might recommend it and they need to revamp the enemy firearm programming - sometimes they will run right up to you and shoot you without you having any chance to respond at all. Ridiculous. Terrible combat system.

Eymerich
11-19-2014, 04:57 AM
If they fix the microstuttering i would.

playlisting
11-19-2014, 05:16 AM
I am only wondering when they will fix the frame rate and at least unlock the game to 60 fps.
Cause game with 60 fps works better than 30 fps.
I've purchase r7 240 2gb ddr3 only to play the game and the only thing what i can complain about it is the fps.
But on the question would i recommend it? Yes cause it looks amazing.

I doubt you'd get decent FPS with that card anyway. It's meant for very light gaming at best, and Unity is a beast to run.

RVSage
11-19-2014, 05:24 AM
Without any doubt i will.. It's the beginning of true next gen gaming.. So I will certainly

behindtimes
11-19-2014, 05:27 AM
Honestly, this game is about on par with other games from personal experience with regards to bugs excluding the constant issues with UPlay. Excluding UPlay though, the main issue is that it came out requiring hardware that's just far beyond most people. Had this game come out in 2017 instead of 2014 in it's current state, I honestly think it would have gotten much better reviews.

That said, without the right hardware, it's hard to recommend. And if you're trying to use a budget build PC (if you don't really know enough about PCs, you probably have a budget PC), I'd pass over it. If you do have the right hardware, it's a fun game.

A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n
11-19-2014, 05:55 AM
Honestly, this game is about on par with other games from personal experience with regards to bugs excluding the constant issues with UPlay. Excluding UPlay though, the main issue is that it came out requiring hardware that's just far beyond most people. Had this game come out in 2017 instead of 2014 in it's current state, I honestly think it would have gotten much better reviews.

That said, without the right hardware, it's hard to recommend. And if you're trying to use a budget build PC (if you don't really know enough about PCs, you probably have a budget PC), I'd pass over it. If you do have the right hardware, it's a fun game.

Given the myriad of issues, including major performance issues (funny how some few people think that the only problems with the game are bugs and glitches, usually those who don't have other problems with the game), plaguing this game, things that are outright broken that should've been working at launch, I'd say this is one of the worst launches I've seen, maybe the worst.

behindtimes
11-19-2014, 06:32 AM
Given the myriad of issues, including major performance issues (funny how some few people think that the only problems with the game are bugs and glitches, usually those who don't have other problems with the game), plaguing this game, things that are outright broken that should've been working at launch, I'd say this is one of the worst launches I've seen, maybe the worst.

I haven't played a AAA game on the PC that wasn't buggy in at least 2 decades. And I'm certainly not debating that there aren't bugs, nor performance issues. But one of my pet peeves is the vast misuse of the word optimization. The more complex games get, the buggier they will be. Even on consoles, start of the PSX generation was the start of seeing console games crash. And at least games can be patched now. One game that comes to mind is Fellowship of the Ring on the Game Boy Advance. You literally cannot beat that game if you bought it when it came out. Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall is the buggiest game I've ever played. That game had a ridiculous amount of patches, and we're talking in the days of the dial-up era.

I guess because I'm use to games pushing the boundaries when I was growing up, which is something people are fortunate to not really have to worry about. Take Origin. Any time they released a game it felt like it was time for a brand new $5000 computer, be it Ultima or Wing Commander. When I purchased System Shock on CD, it wasn't for 3 years until I could play the game in SVGA at an acceptable frame rate (we're talking 640x480 and 20 fps). And that was on a high end machine.

We as gamers are spoiled because a few marketing geniuses figured out that if you cater to the budget crowd rather than pushing technology to the limit, it will sell more. If you label the graphics as High, Super High, and Ultra High, it will sell better than labeling things as Low, Medium and High, even if Ultra High is really the equivalent to Low. That's why you get all these threads of "But I can run game X at 60 fps on 1080p! Why can't I run Assassin's Creed Unity at more than 30 fps?" Because Assassin's Creed Unity isn't game X.

For a few years, people have been complaining about how consoles have been holding PCs back. Why wouldn't companies just push technology? Well, the consoles have finally been updated, and you now have a few games pushing technology, and people are upset that their 3 year old computer just isn't top of the line.

I admit, there are quite a few things I think Ubisoft got wrong. And if you're an AMD user, yes, you got the short end of the stick. But things really wouldn't be so bad if they were just willing to sacrifice visual fidelity and admit to themselves that they just need to play low or medium at 30 fps, that Ultra Max is out of the question.

MojoW040
11-19-2014, 07:26 AM
I haven't played a AAA game on the PC that wasn't buggy in at least 2 decades. And I'm certainly not debating that there aren't bugs, nor performance issues. But one of my pet peeves is the vast misuse of the word optimization. The more complex games get, the buggier they will be. Even on consoles, start of the PSX generation was the start of seeing console games crash. And at least games can be patched now. One game that comes to mind is Fellowship of the Ring on the Game Boy Advance. You literally cannot beat that game if you bought it when it came out. Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall is the buggiest game I've ever played. That game had a ridiculous amount of patches, and we're talking in the days of the dial-up era.

I guess because I'm use to games pushing the boundaries when I was growing up, which is something people are fortunate to not really have to worry about. Take Origin. Any time they released a game it felt like it was time for a brand new $5000 computer, be it Ultima or Wing Commander. When I purchased System Shock on CD, it wasn't for 3 years until I could play the game in SVGA at an acceptable frame rate (we're talking 640x480 and 20 fps). And that was on a high end machine.

We as gamers are spoiled because a few marketing geniuses figured out that if you cater to the budget crowd rather than pushing technology to the limit, it will sell more. If you label the graphics as High, Super High, and Ultra High, it will sell better than labeling things as Low, Medium and High, even if Ultra High is really the equivalent to Low. That's why you get all these threads of "But I can run game X at 60 fps on 1080p! Why can't I run Assassin's Creed Unity at more than 30 fps?" Because Assassin's Creed Unity isn't game X.

For a few years, people have been complaining about how consoles have been holding PCs back. Why wouldn't companies just push technology? Well, the consoles have finally been updated, and you now have a few games pushing technology, and people are upset that their 3 year old computer just isn't top of the line.

I admit, there are quite a few things I think Ubisoft got wrong. And if you're an AMD user, yes, you got the short end of the stick. But things really wouldn't be so bad if they were just willing to sacrifice visual fidelity and admit to themselves that they just need to play low or medium at 30 fps, that Ultra Max is out of the question.

Lol i get 35 fps avg on 1080p with low or ultra settings, unplayable for me.
I have a I7 4770K and 2x R9 290 Tri-X crossfire so don't tell me i have to play on low or medium with 30 fps.
I would NOT recommend any ubisoft games for AMD users as they only cater to NVIDIA users.
I mean almost half of the GPU's out there are AMD, so if you want customers to recommend your games make it run well on both sides.
Don't get me wrong i luv the AC series because they are great games, thats why it's disappointing.

Nogeaux
11-19-2014, 08:06 AM
With the right rig, absolutely!