Tech Analysis: Assassin's Creed 4

Our early analysis based on the presentation given at the Sony E3 event gives a result that appears locked for the most part in the 30fps range, with absolutely no tearing.

I thought it was running at 60fps:(

where is the freaking x1 version at

# M$ get a grip will ya, sort it out

Our early analysis based on the presentation given at the Sony E3 event gives a result that appears locked for the most part in the 30fps range, with absolutely no tearing.

I thought it was running at 60fps:(

where is the freaking x1 version at

# M$ get a grip will ya, sort it out

Cuby_Finest

AC needs a break.

we know is superior on PC and this proves the ''playable 60fps version'' was running on PC :lol:

I had never seen this demo before, is it the e3 one? 

The atmosphere looks amazing, and the foliage... oh my god the foliage.

Does the tech make the series better? No? Then **** Assassins Creed. Becuase the series is not very good.

Seriously. How can they screw up Colonial America?

AC needs a break.

ninjapirate2000

If you want 60fps you go PC for multiplats everyone knows that. It does disappoint me but I it's not that the new consoles lack the power, it's just that the devs don't fully know the consoles yet. tagyhag

Nah, I don't expect any time in the X1/PS4 lifecycle where the majority of games will run at 60 FPS. On consoles, for most games, a rock solid 30 FPS is good enough, it's better to use the extra power for more eye-candy.

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]If you want 60fps you go PC for multiplats everyone knows that. It does disappoint me but I it's not that the new consoles lack the power, it's just that the devs don't fully know the consoles yet. Rocker6

Nah, I don't expect any time in the X1/PS4 lifecycle where the majority of games will run at 60 FPS. On consoles, for most games, a rock solid 30 FPS is good enough, it's better to use the extra power for more eye-candy.

I think the AC games are pretty good. They haven't really made a bad game yet and each one has a new/interesting setting. I thought the character from 3 was kinda boring but the world was pretty cool. I liked building up the homestead and the new characters you met along the way. Not the best AC game but it was fun.

AC4 looks like its going to be great. 

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]If you want 60fps you go PC for multiplats everyone knows that. It does disappoint me but I it's not that the new consoles lack the power, it's just that the devs don't fully know the consoles yet. parkurtommo

Nah, I don't expect any time in the X1/PS4 lifecycle where the majority of games will run at 60 FPS. On consoles, for most games, a rock solid 30 FPS is good enough, it's better to use the extra power for more eye-candy.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="Rocker6"]

Nah, I don't expect any time in the X1/PS4 lifecycle where the majority of games will run at 60 FPS. On consoles, for most games, a rock solid 30 FPS is good enough, it's better to use the extra power for more eye-candy.

tagyhag

Yes, he is... what I just read wasn't pretty! :P

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="Rocker6"]

Nah, I don't expect any time in the X1/PS4 lifecycle where the majority of games will run at 60 FPS. On consoles, for most games, a rock solid 30 FPS is good enough, it's better to use the extra power for more eye-candy.

tagyhag

Our early analysis based on the presentation given at the Sony E3 event gives a result that appears locked for the most part in the 30fps range, with absolutely no tearing.

I thought it was running at 60fps:(

where is the freaking x1 version at

# M$ get a grip will ya, sort it outCuby_Finest

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]If you want 60fps you go PC for multiplats everyone knows that. It does disappoint me but I it's not that the new consoles lack the power, it's just that the devs don't fully know the consoles yet. parkurtommo

Nah, I don't expect any time in the X1/PS4 lifecycle where the majority of games will run at 60 FPS. On consoles, for most games, a rock solid 30 FPS is good enough, it's better to use the extra power for more eye-candy.

[QUOTE="Cuby_Finest"]

Our early analysis based on the presentation given at the Sony E3 event gives a result that appears locked for the most part in the 30fps range, with absolutely no tearing.

I thought it was running at 60fps:(

where is the freaking x1 version at

# M$ get a grip will ya, sort it outhoosier7

I noticed that too, M$ need to sort it out

[QUOTE="Cuby_Finest"]

Our early analysis based on the presentation given at the Sony E3 event gives a result that appears locked for the most part in the 30fps range, with absolutely no tearing.

I thought it was running at 60fps:(

where is the freaking x1 version at

# M$ get a grip will ya, sort it outhoosier7

Umm, because of tech analysis like this? You can bet your fine ass that DF and LoT will be having a field day if the same multiplats were shown on both consoles. The ONE already has tons of bad PR. Everyone knowing that the ONE has vastly inferior multiplats will make everything 10x worse.

[QUOTE="tagyhag"][QUOTE="parkurtommo"] Especially in games like these where the 30 fps can be beneficial for a more cinematic feel. Even as a PC gamer I can admit that 30 fps can be better in some games.parkurtommo

nah you are right it definitely gives it a more cinematic feel, but outside of a few games like heavy rain i dont know if i feel like appearing cinematic adds much to the experience.

The main reason i prefer 30fps for most genres is simply because it lets you bump other graphical aspects. In all my years of PC gaming I have never targeted a steady 60fps unless my hardware was so overkill for the game that it didnt require any visual sacrifices.... and i never cared to spend twice as much on a GPU simply to be able to achieve 60fps in games.

and for the amount of people that claim 60fps is integral to the PC gaming experience, i have never met one of these people that actually try to target a steady 60fps in real life.

Although to be fair, in competitive PC multiplayer, alot of times i will bump up the frame rate and max out the draw distance just to make sure im not at a disadvantage. But if a multiplayer game is frame capped at 30fps and has a locked draw distance such as on many console games, i couldnt care less as long as i know all the other players are on a level playing field.

AC needs a break.

ninjapirate2000

Co-Sign...

Ass creed: Black Booty

The Cloud is making Watch Dogs better and I bet AC4 too! :cool:

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="tagyhag"] You're crazy. :P BeardMaster

nah you are right it definitely gives it a more cinematic feel, but outside of a few games like heavy rain i dont know if i feel like appearing cinematic adds much to the experience.

The main reason i prefer 30fps for most genres is simply because it lets you bump other graphical aspects. In all my years of PC gaming I have never targeted a steady 60fps unless my hardware was so overkill for the game that it didnt require any visual sacrifices.... and i never cared to spend twice as much on a GPU simply to be able to achieve 60fps in games.

and for the amount of people that claim 60fps is integral to the PC gaming experience, i have never met one of these people that actually try to target a steady 60fps in real life.

Although to be fair, in competitive PC multiplayer, alot of times i will bump up the frame rate and max out the draw distance just to make sure im not at a disadvantage. But if a multiplayer game is frame capped at 30fps and has a locked draw distance such as on many console games, i couldnt care less as long as i know all the other players are on a level playing field.

The Cloud is making Watch Dogs better and I bet AC4 too! :cool:

xhawk27

No one except turn 10 and 343i are gonna use the cloud.

[QUOTE="xhawk27"]

The Cloud is making Watch Dogs better and I bet AC4 too! :cool:

CallOfDutyRulez

No one except turn 10 and 343i are gonna use the cloud.

[QUOTE="ninjapirate2000"]

AC needs a break.

parkurtommo

AC needs more development time is more like it. They need to fix their shitty broken game mechanics. ACIII was a mess

Especially in games like these where the 30 fps can be beneficial for a more cinematic feel. Even as a PC gamer I can admit that 30 fps can be better in some games.parkurtommo

That's straight up horse shit

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"] Especially in games like these where the 30 fps can be beneficial for a more cinematic feel. Even as a PC gamer I can admit that 30 fps can be better in some games.seanmcloughlin

That's straight up horse shit

EDIT: But only in games where you would want it to feel cinematic, so LA Noire, Max Payne 3, Tomb Raider, Hitman Absolution, those sort of titles (mainly console ports). 

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

[QUOTE="ninjapirate2000"]

AC needs a break.

seanmcloughlin

AC needs more development time is more like it. They need to fix their shitty broken game mechanics. ACIII was a mess

and bring me back my massive cities!

I will be passing on AC4.  Story is finished and beating AC3 felt like a chore.  

What happened to 1080p@60FPS for this game on PS4?

What happened to 1080p@60FPS for this game on PS4?

mitu123

IDK, lemme use my PS3 with it's time travel and figure it out.  

What happened to 1080p@60FPS for this game on PS4?

mitu123

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"] Especially in games like these where the 30 fps can be beneficial for a more cinematic feel. Even as a PC gamer I can admit that 30 fps can be better in some games.parkurtommo

That's straight up horse shit

EDIT: But only in games where you would want it to feel cinematic, so LA Noire, Max Payne 3, Tomb Raider, Hitman Absolution, those sort of titles (mainly console ports). 

The fact that you control the camera and character throws all of what you said out the window.You're in a 3D environment running around yourself controlling the camera. You don't have expertly created shots and transitions like a movie

Why wouldn't they be locked at 24 fps then instead of 30? if 24 is where movies are at?

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]If you want 60fps you go PC for multiplats everyone knows that. It does disappoint me but I it's not that the new consoles lack the power, it's just that the devs don't fully know the consoles yet. parkurtommo

Nah, I don't expect any time in the X1/PS4 lifecycle where the majority of games will run at 60 FPS. On consoles, for most games, a rock solid 30 FPS is good enough, it's better to use the extra power for more eye-candy.

I agree with you, some games just look and feel better at 30 fps, just depends on the type of game.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="Rocker6"]

Nah, I don't expect any time in the X1/PS4 lifecycle where the majority of games will run at 60 FPS. On consoles, for most games, a rock solid 30 FPS is good enough, it's better to use the extra power for more eye-candy.

Clock-w0rk

I agree with you, some games just look and feel better at 30 fps, just depends on the type of game.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

That's straight up horse shit

seanmcloughlin

EDIT: But only in games where you would want it to feel cinematic, so LA Noire, Max Payne 3, Tomb Raider, Hitman Absolution, those sort of titles (mainly console ports). 

The fact that you control the camera and character throws all of what you said out the window.You're in a 3D environment running around yourself controlling the camera. You don't have expertly created shots and transitions like a movie

Why wouldn't they be locked at 24 fps then instead of 30? if 24 is where movies are at?

EDIT: I made some research and projection movie theaters have a different refresh rate (48/72) where as monitors are usually 60hz. 30 fps is an even factor of 60.

But my point about motion blur still stands.

X1 version you say TC? Ubisoft don't want to show off the worst next gen version.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

[QUOTE="ninjapirate2000"]

AC needs a break.

seanmcloughlin

AC needs more development time is more like it. They need to fix their shitty broken game mechanics. ACIII was a mess

AC III had a supposed 3 year development time. I don't know how you can make a game that bad in 3 years, but yeah. I think it's just misdirection or laziness. 

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"] Have you ever seen a movie in 60 fps? I have, it's horrible. And I know what you feel like saying, "Video games aren't movies". But movies feel cinematic because of the standard 24 fps (widescreen resolution being another factor), it makes things feel.... cooler! It adds more impact to each frame, leaves more of an impression.

 

EDIT: But only in games where you would want it to feel cinematic, so LA Noire, Max Payne 3, Tomb Raider, Hitman Absolution, those sort of titles (mainly console ports). 

parkurtommo

The fact that you control the camera and character throws all of what you said out the window.You're in a 3D environment running around yourself controlling the camera. You don't have expertly created shots and transitions like a movie

Why wouldn't they be locked at 24 fps then instead of 30? if 24 is where movies are at?

EDIT: I made some research and projection movie theaters have a different refresh rate (48/72) where as monitors are usually 60hz. 30 fps is an even factor of 60.

But my point about motion blur still stands.

Also, you have to edit a lot of special effects in movies. Having 60fps is ridiculous since you have to edit each frame over and over again. 24fps is less work and is still good enough, but there have been 48fps movies like The Hobbit. I've never seen it in 48fps though so I can't say how it feels. With KB/M you really need more precision and 60fps, but with analog sticks 30fps is more than enough.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]Man idk, if the game looks that good... I don't think it needs a break. A franchise needs a break when the developers aren't adding anything new, each AC game adds a lot of new ideas, new settings, new characters. The only thing that stays the same is the name and the core controls.

XVision84

AC needs more development time is more like it. They need to fix their shitty broken game mechanics. ACIII was a mess

AC III had a supposed 3 year development time. I don't know how you can make a game that bad in 3 years, but yeah. I think it's just misdirection or laziness. 

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

The fact that you control the camera and character throws all of what you said out the window.You're in a 3D environment running around yourself controlling the camera. You don't have expertly created shots and transitions like a movie

Why wouldn't they be locked at 24 fps then instead of 30? if 24 is where movies are at?

XVision84

EDIT: I made some research and projection movie theaters have a different refresh rate (48/72) where as monitors are usually 60hz. 30 fps is an even factor of 60.

But my point about motion blur still stands.

Also, you have to edit a lot of special effects in movies. Having 60fps is ridiculous since you have to edit each frame over and over again. 24fps is less work and is still good enough, but there have been 48fps movies like The Hobbit. I've never seen it in 48fps though so I can't say how it feels. With KB/M you really need more precision and 60fps, but with analog sticks 30fps is more than enough.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

AC needs more development time is more like it. They need to fix their shitty broken game mechanics. ACIII was a mess

parkurtommo

AC III had a supposed 3 year development time. I don't know how you can make a game that bad in 3 years, but yeah. I think it's just misdirection or laziness. 

Agh, I'm on a mac right now so I can't really copy and paste the link, but the CEO of Ubisoft said himself that the game was under development for 3 years. It was one of the reasons why I was hyped for the game.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="XVision84"]

AC III had a supposed 3 year development time. I don't know how you can make a game that bad in 3 years, but yeah. I think it's just misdirection or laziness. 

XVision84

Agh, I'm on a mac right now so I can't really copy and paste the link, but the CEO of Ubisoft said himself that the game was under development for 3 years. It was one of the reasons why I was hyped for the game.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"] 3 years? Wasn't ubi asking people what they would want AC3 to take place in, in 2011? Plus with all of the resemblance in terms of gameplay mechanics, animations, etc. to Brotherhood, I seriously doubt it was in development for more than ... perhaps 2 years.parkurtommo

Agh, I'm on a mac right now so I can't really copy and paste the link, but the CEO of Ubisoft said himself that the game was under development for 3 years. It was one of the reasons why I was hyped for the game.

Well he could have included the time it took for them to think of the concept of the game and all of the pre-development stuff. I don't know. All I know is I'm not trusting Ubi ever again with Assassin's Creed games.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="XVision84"]

Agh, I'm on a mac right now so I can't really copy and paste the link, but the CEO of Ubisoft said himself that the game was under development for 3 years. It was one of the reasons why I was hyped for the game.

XVision84

Well he could have included the time it took for them to think of the concept of the game and all of the pre-development stuff. I don't know. All I know is I'm not trusting Ubi ever again with Assassin's Creed games.

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"] 3 years? Wasn't ubi asking people what they would want AC3 to take place in, in 2011? Plus with all of the resemblance in terms of gameplay mechanics, animations, etc. to Brotherhood, I seriously doubt it was in development for more than ... perhaps 2 years.parkurtommo

Agh, I'm on a mac right now so I can't really copy and paste the link, but the CEO of Ubisoft said himself that the game was under development for 3 years. It was one of the reasons why I was hyped for the game.

Consolites trying to rationalize subpar frame rates. Movies aren't filmed at 24 fps because it's magically better than higher frame rates. It was minimized to keep costs down and has become a standard.

Ginosaji