Top
130°

Assassin’s Creed Unity and Why Frame Rate is Way More Important Than Resolution

CraveOnline: "If you’re the kind of person who lets out an audible groan whenever you see the words “console parity” meet in a sentence, and who sighs heavily when you hear talk of the ongoing struggle for developers to reach that 1080p sweet spot, then I feel for you. It wasn’t so long ago when the term frame rate wasn’t even in our lexicon, but now it seems to be the subject of the most discussion on every gaming website out there."

Read Full Story >>
craveonline.co.uk
The story is too old to be commented.
JonnyBigBoss1127d ago

But one has to be more important than the other.

1127d ago
Ultra1127d ago

Give console gamers options for 1080p and 720p to combat parity.

decrypt1127d ago (Edited 1127d ago )

Maybe a dynamic resolution would work for consoles. 720p in crowded areas, 900p in lesser taxing areas.

However even a dynamic resolution might not help if the game is CPU bound.

I personally think the game is very taxing on the GPU side of things.

Check out the game running on PC with a 7870 (which is slightly more powerful than the PS4 gpu.

A 7870 is doing 20-30fps at 1080p (40% more res than PS4). Which looks about balanced when you consider performance numbers PS4 vs 7870.

Now up the GPU on the PC to a GTX 970 which is 2x as powerful as the PS4 and the frame rate goes between 40-60fps. Again this is a 2x real world gain vs the PS4. This is a big in your face to the people who claim consoles come with super optimization, as this proves PC optimization can be dam close to consoles.

I would think the game is probably GPU bound and for consoles to get higher frame rate Ubisoft will probably have to down the res to 720p.

This is a long term forecast i have been making, as more and more true next gen games role out, expect PS4 and Xb1 to be back at 720p.

Console makers will need another attempt at 1080p next gen.

jebabcock1127d ago

Your logic is flawed decrypt. For your claim to hold any water the assumption that ubisoft did a good job optimizing across the board would have to be made. This is probably the worst candidate you could have picked to make this argument.

decrypt1127d ago

@jebabcock

I can understand Ubisoft not optimizing for the PC, however when it comes to consoles that is their main target audience and as of now PS4 has the highest user base. I dont understand how Ubisoft could just ignore their largest potential user base that would just be self killing.

I would think they have probably made a very resource intensive game and the scaling of the game on PC just shows that. I would reserve further comments until i see the game running if it really offers all the eye candy people say it does then it probably needs the resources too.

IGiveHugs2NakedWomen1127d ago (Edited 1127d ago )

Yes frame rates are more important than resolution, however, we are paying $60 for games. Should we not expect a "standard" resolution? If a game was running at 60 fps but the game has Original Nintendo Entertainment System resolution running on the PS4 or Xbox One would you buy it?

If developers don't want to build games that have a minimum stable 30fps with 1080p resolution, then they shouldn't be charging $60 dollars for the game.

Does anyone think that's fair?

decrypt1127d ago (Edited 1127d ago )

@igiveghugs

Dude i am watching videos of the game running maxed on PC.

It looks bloody amazing.

Check this video running max on PC:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

I think the game is resource demanding, this is not Ubis fault. Consoles just have weak hardware. They need to down the res to 720p for consoles to get stable frame rate.

They are charging 60usd for making the game, its not their problem if console hardware is weak and cant handle 1080p. You want the game in 1080p buy it for a PC.

OB1Biker1127d ago

It always a compromise of course. easy to understand.. must be playable but best possible graphics IMO and of course it also depends on the type of game

starchild1127d ago

That's a nice video, decrypt. You're right about the game being demanding due to having great visuals, at least in my opinion.

To my eyes, and based on what I know about the graphics techniques being used in the game, Unity is probably the best looking game I have played on my PC, period. It looks that good.

That's partially why I'm so baffled by people claiming it is unoptimized. The game is not unoptimized. It is properly multithreaded and scales well with more powerful hardware. It doesn't have the kind of CPU bottlenecking we saw with AC4. It is demanding due to the massive scale and the graphical makeup of the game.

It's sad that Unity is getting all the hate for being demanding when it's really due mostly to the fact that it is one of the first fully current gen multiplatform games we've seen. Most other games are cross-gen games with various aspects of their graphical makeup held back by the last gen roots.

The truth is, Unity might be demanding, but most of the better looking games this gen will be similarly demanding, especially if they are open-wold.

Already we are seeing this. Dragon Age Inquisition, for example, benchmarked at 37fps average on a GTX 770, while Unity was benchmarked at 39fps average. (although DA Inquisition was using anti-aliasing and Unity wasn't). Still, we can see that there isn't a huge difference in their performance.
http://www.pcgameshardware....
http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-...

And we have to remember that Dragon Age Inquisition is a cross generation game, whereas Unity is a fully current gen game. I also thought that Dragon Age Inquisition didn't look as good as Unity when I saw it at PAX Prime.

I think that as more and more completely current gen games get released people will realize that Unity's performance wasn't so bad after all. I predict that games like The Witcher 3, The Division and Batman Arkham Knight will be similarly demanding, if not more so.

freshslicepizza1127d ago

unfortunately most console games don't let you fiddle with settings too much. you get what you get. if i remember correctly bioshock allowed you to turn off vsync which improved the frame rate but you got screen tears.

IGiveHugs2NakedWomen1126d ago (Edited 1126d ago )

@decrypt

"Dude i am watching videos of the game running maxed on PC.

It looks bloody amazing.

Check this video running max on PC:"

That's wonderful, but i'm not talking about this game running on a PC. A PC has ways to adjust frame rates and resolution manually to get the game to run smoothly, PS4 and Xbox One do not. When I buy games for the PS4 I expect the games to look and play better than games that ran on Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, Sega Saturn, PS2, and PS3. Assassin's Creed Unity runs at 900p and an UNSTABLE 30fps on both the PS4 and Xbox One. If an open world game like Infamous Second Son can run at 30fps and 1080p why can't this broken mess from Ubisoft do it? It's not a massive game, it's just filled with useless NPCs. When I pay $60 for a game I want to enjoy looking at it as well as enjoy playing it.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1126d ago
Amuro1127d ago

when frame-rate deeps below 20 the game is unplayable. When resolution goes as low as 240p the game's still playable, thus frame-rate is more important.

timmyp531127d ago

They should release a patch where you can increase or increase npc density in the towns. Problem fixed.

Findingcrybabies1127d ago

Not gonna happen. Ubishit made this game.

RG_Dubz1127d ago (Edited 1127d ago )

Even the PS2 has several games running 60fps, some were also 720p.. Gaming has went downhill so fast.

Elda1127d ago

Possibly you mean PS2 remasters on PS3.

RG_Dubz1127d ago

No, not at all.. I was playing Downhill Domination (PS2) just last week, 60fps..

@DragonbornZ

Yes, technical requirements have went up but the hardware has increased drastically as well.. I agree development effort is nearly nonexistent these days.

Amuro1127d ago (Edited 1127d ago )

GT4 on PS2 was 60 frames and 1080i. There were a few other 1080i games on PS2 too like Tourist Trophy, Beyond Good & Evil and Valkyrie Profile 2. And running at 60 frames there was Zone of the Enders, which IRONICALLY ran at 30 frames on PS3 and later on with a patch it ran at like 45 frames but it could never touch the original PS2 version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

DragonbornZ1127d ago

Gaming & technical requirements have went up, developmental effort has gone down.

BallsEye1127d ago ShowReplies(1)
skulz71127d ago

It has really impressive graphics but the frame rate is the issue. On the one hand Ubisoft were actually right that the consoles can't handle 1080p with those graphics at the moment. I mean the frame rate drops at 900p, imagine what it would have been like at 1080p.

Eidolon1127d ago

Or maybe they just aren't very good at optimizing their games.

seanpitt231127d ago

If this was the case then the pc wouldn't be having problems just the consoles I think they find it very difficult optimizing their games.

Show all comments (36)
The story is too old to be commented.