I don't think I could even play it. I wouldn't consider that kind of framerate to be playable. It looks so stuttery and jittery. If I bought a console game and it ran like that I'd demand a refund.
60fps/1080p max settings is basically a pipe dream with Unity. I have a 4930k/780 SLI and get frequent dips to the 40s. Had to cap it there to remove the stuttering lol
Xbox uses DirectX, correct? Is it possible this game was optimized for it? That could explain differences between the two consoles.
I think both the Xbox One and PS4 versions are 900p. Ubisoft justified that decision with some nonsense about "parity" and "avoiding debates", if I recall.
The game is more CPU heavy due to all of the NPCs and their AI wandering around. The PS4 has a stronger GPU and faster RAM but the Xbone got a CPU overclock before release going from 1.6 (which PS4 is ) to 1.75 which makes it stronger on CPU heavy stuff. Because of Xbones size it has better cooling so they could get away with it. If Sony could get away with ramping up the CPU speed I am sure they would have done in a firmware update by now. I also imagine Unity is very badly optimised due to its poor performance on PC but CPU will explain some of the PS4s extra performance issues. I have completely lost faith in Ubi to bring out a finished game, two patches already and a third in the works. There really is no point in quality testing anymore, no idea how this gots past Sony and M$. Nintendo are said to have the strictest quality control process, maybe that's why Ubi don't want to make Wii U games? Really surprised no one has mentioned the chests in this game. To open Blue chests you have to some shit on the smart phone app and to open Gold there is something you have to do on Uplay. Then there is the fact you can pay real money to get gear from the start. This game really is all about money for Ubi and not for the players, rushed out, badly coded and full of DRM/payed features. I will play it at some point after Xmas to judge it for myself but from the outside it looks a mess.
Nope, they said the issue is the high number of rendered people and the AI just consumes too much CPU. This actually could be true, the number of NPCs visible at one time is enormous, they could easily lower the number by two. Sure, that's odd but you just don't open these few chests. These are not required to complete the game. As for the gear, there is like 20 different kinds of every type of equipment. Collecting enough money in the game to get it all sounds almost impossible. On the other hand, you don't really need all this, you can stick with basic models for the whole game. Someone has just then invented the idea of paid unlocks, this doesn't sound fair and if this idea survives and makes it to next installments this is also because of us, gamers. No single gamer should ever pay real money for such optional content. If they do, they create a strong argument - why NOT to have this in the game if gamers love it and make use of this feature often? Anyway, I tend to defend the game because I actually play it. I am somewhere around 6th sequence and this is so far the best Assassin's Creed. If one really cares whether or not it plays in 25fps and not 30fps, in the same time ignoring the fine plot, great views and refresing side missions, then the question is - what do gamers really seek in games they play? Technical reports on the number of frames per second? Sweet Jesus, I played Wolfenstein 3D 25 years ago on my 80286 with barely 10fps and I would never say "it is unplayable". Assassin Unity on my ps4 running between 20 and 30 fps is not less playable than any previous Assassin on my ps3 running at similar rate. On the other hand, people seem to expect that the early generation of games on a new generation of hardware is just perfect at all levels. 900p is unacceptable, 25fps is unacceptable, optional paid gear is unacceptable, optional chests are unacceptable, thus the game is a mess even though actually it is the best of all previous installments of the franchise. I have no idea on how the pc port performs but if you guys own a ps4 or xbox one do yourself a favour and pick a second hand copy, just to give yourself a chance to see how biased are all these negative opinions.
It would be interesting to throw Unity onto some 6 or 8 core Haswell-E CPUs and see what happens. The performance reviews I've seen were all using quad core Haswell i7s. Still, games that are really demanding on the CPU are almost always extremely poorly optimized. Case in point would be the PC version of GTA IV, which was borderline unplayable on anything less than an i7 920, which was insane for the time. And the weakest aspect of these new consoles are their CPUs, so it just seems like some really shitty programming and design all around.
Yep, that would be interesting. The engine would have to notice additional cores and assume it could spawn additional AI threads on these additional cores. An extra core (=extra thread) would speed up the computation. The intreresting question is - is the engine capable of doing so. An advantage of a console is that most cores can be used by the game as there is almost nothing in the background. On the other hand, Windows has plethora of background tasks that occupy cores from time to time, effectively interfering with game code.
I still play the new Zelda and I share some screens. First one shows the amount of details in interiors. You can see all these paintings, mirrors, chandeliers, candles. This specific place is the Luxembourg Palace and I like it for moments of serenity. The other screenshot shows a cutscene which is actually rendered using the game engine (you can learn this by the customized outfit). This is when the engine shows its potential and one of huge steps forward comparing to the previous-gen engine. The more I play the game, the more I like it.
So Dark Souls II is getting released again for PS4 and XBone with some new content and other improvements. It will be called Scholar of the First Sin. At the moment it is all a bit up int he air but it looks like the PS3/360 will get the content for free in a patch. The PS4/X1 versions will get the 3 DLC chapters included. Also seen something or other about 6 player online from the normal 3. http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/r8h2hm/dark-souls-ii-scholar-of-the-first-sin---debut-trailer The odd thing for me is that it is coming out so close to Bloodborne. DkS II is easily the weakest of the 3 games so I am not sure I am interested in buying it again even with the improvements and added story. It just doesn't hold my attention like DeS or DkS which were far better generally and felt like they had properly built, well connected worlds. The bosses in DkS II were just poor generally, you can really tell a different team worked on it.
I watched some Alpha footage of Bloodborne and it looked surprisingly boring. Reminded me of RE4, with the "infected" townsfolk wandering around. Combat seemed to consist of a telegraphed swing by the NPC, the player diving/rolling out of the way, then some button mashing to take out the NPC.
Did you play Demon's or Dark Souls? I have so much faith in Hidetaka Miyazaki after those 2 games (which are 2 of the best of the generation) that I am sure he will make a fantastic game. You can see how much Dark Souls II went down hill when he took a stop back on that and let others deal with it. His 2 souls games have so much depth and refinement to them that I think he will get it right again with Bloodborne.
I am playing Rayman Legends and I have to say it is the best platformer I have played in many years. So far it is fantastic, the levels and mechanics are varied and it has a nice challenge to it. Monsly may get frustrated with the invasion levels as there is a little trial and error if you are going for 100% teensies. The special level at the end of each world is my favourite part, I always look forward to see what it will be set to. Considering how cheap you can get this, if you see it, you should get it. Also it seems you get all the levels from origins too so 2 games for the price of 1.