davie jambo
Senior member
- Feb 13, 2014
- 380
- 1
- 0
They want you to buy it on consoleI'm not sure why a software company would want you to buy a new card.
What it does for me is make me not even consider playing the game.
They want you to buy it on consoleI'm not sure why a software company would want you to buy a new card.
What it does for me is make me not even consider playing the game.
How did you come to that conclusion?Seems like they publish these numbers to get people to buy the new nVidia cards. That's it.
Playing this game with a mouse and keyboard sounds awfulThat may be true, but I'm a PC gamer. I like a mouse, and I'm not buying it on console. I've considered getting back into AC, but I will not consider it if will run to poorly that it requires a 680 at a minimum, and may be locked at 30 FPS.
Your i7 should be fine, especially if you overclock.I guess my i7 860 and GeForce 480 just doesn't quite cut the mustard anymore.
Why do you assume it runs poorly because it requires a GTX 680?That may be true, but I'm a PC gamer. I like a mouse, and I'm not buying it on console. I've considered getting back into AC, but I will not consider it if will run to poorly that it requires a 680 at a minimum, and may be locked at 30 FPS.
You won't get a lot of support on this forum, but we all have our preferences. I am fairly certain that most PC users prefer a mouse and keyboard.Playing this game with a mouse and keyboard sounds awful
controller only for me
Experience tells me that a minimum requirement almost always reflects low to medium settings at 30-40 FPS and in many cases, much worse.Why do you assume it runs poorly because it requires a GTX 680?
For all we know, the 680/7970 may be for high settings @ 1080p 60 FPS and the 780/R9 290x for ultra settings 60 FPS..
If the system requirements reflect the game as how the developer intends for it to be played, then they may be fully justified.
Why should the developer list low end hardware that can't even offer a similar experience as the PS4 and Xbox One? And why on Earth would someone with such feeble hardware expect to play such a cutting edge game anyway?
This game is CURRENT gen only, so the bar of entry is much higher than previous games that were designed with last gen in mind.
AC is one of the more difficult games to work with keyboard/mouse, still prefer them though.Playing this game with a mouse and keyboard sounds awful
controller only for me
If they wanted us to buy it on console, they wouldn't waste their time implementing PC technologies such as PCCS, HBAO+, TXAA, hairworks, enhanced surface tessellation etcetera.They want you to buy it on console
It is extremely unlikely that a 680/7970 represents low to medium settings in AC Unity. Both GPUs are much faster than the GPUs found in the consoles which represents the baseline, and should be capable of high settings.Experience tells me that a minimum requirement almost always reflects low to medium settings at 30-40 FPS and in many cases, much worse.
Either they made zero attempt, or they didn't think it was worth the effort. I'm banking on the latter..I will also add that with such a small performance window between the min and max, it suggests they made zero attempt to scale the graphics. As in, they probably put in zero effort for the PC, which may be reflected in the performance. I understand having difficulties scaling CPU usage, but graphics should be much easier to scale.
I am assuming minimum means minimum. That is usually how it works. Things can change, but I'm basing my current desire based on what is given.It is extremely unlikely that a 680/7970 represents low to medium settings in AC Unity. Both GPUs are much faster than the GPUs found in the consoles which represents the baseline, and should be capable of high settings.
The GTX 780 and R9 290x should be for very high/ultra..
Either they made zero attempt, or they didn't think it was worth the effort. I'm banking on the latter..
Again, why would someone with a low end system play this kind of game to begin with? Being current gen only, AC Unity shouldn't be playable on anything less than mid range hardware.
Gamers with low end hardware either need to upgrade, or get a console..
It's probably people from nvidia that do that for themIf they wanted us to buy it on console, they wouldn't waste their time implementing PC technologies such as PCCS, HBAO+, TXAA, hairworks, enhanced surface tessellation etcetera.
How many times are people on this forum are going to repeat this complete nonsense? Comparing console to PC specs is not even remotely close to a 1:1 comparison on what kind of PC you can expect to run a game.It is extremely unlikely that a 680/7970 represents low to medium settings in AC Unity. Both GPUs are much faster than the GPUs found in the consoles which represents the baseline, and should be capable of high settings.
Huh? I play as many games as possible on my controller on my pc. My wrist starts hurting if i play too much on pc with a mouse, w controller no wrist pain.You won't get a lot of support on this forum, but we all have our preferences. I am fairly certain that most PC users prefer a mouse and keyboard.
I find it has a different immersive feel. Joysticks make me feel as if I'm controlling my character by remote control. I press a button and the avatar turns in that direction until I let go of the button. With a mouse, my avatar follows the path of my hand movements.
It is an opinion, but that is mine.
No one seems to get that this is the jump that PCs will need to play next gen only ports. Simple. Your old trash Core 2 and 560 Ti will not play it. At all. Forget about it. If Ubisoft actually did a decent job on the port and it runs beautifully on a 780 with 60FPS solid then everyone moaning will know. You want to game on PC in 2014 you need lots of grunt. Of course if its Watch Dogs v2 - oops?
From what you typically see on a PC forum, you are not the norm, but the exception.Huh? I play as many games as possible on my controller on my pc. My wrist starts hurting if i play too much on pc with a mouse, w controller no wrist pain.![]()
Only exception is fps where precision is needed, but the only one i play is bf4 & even then for 30 min at a time. Assasins creed 4 is awesome on controller!
Right but when programming choices are made such as running global illumination on a CPU instead of using far faster Direct Compute on a GPU, you are left scratching your head. Then there is the fact that these are the highest minimum system requirements out of any PC game I believe but if you looked at gameplay online, this game looks nowhere near as good as Metro Last Light, Ryse Son of Rome or Crysis 3 or Witcher 3. So where is all that CPU/GPU power going to? Look at games like Watch Dogs, Far Cry 3, AC Black Flag. All of them required high end hardware and yet none looks like the pinnacle of PC gaming graphics. In FC3 and Watch Dogs, even with flagship hardware today you can often experience stutter. Based on Ubisoft's track record in the last 3 years:No one seems to get that this is the jump that PCs will need to play next gen only ports. Simple. Your old trash Core 2 and 560 Ti will not play it. At all. Forget about it. If Ubisoft actually did a decent job on the port and it runs beautifully on a 780 with 60FPS solid then everyone moaning will know. You want to game on PC in 2014 you need lots of grunt. Of course if its Watch Dogs v2 - oops?