HardOCP: Assassin's Creed Unity Performance Video Card Review

[RussianSensation]

It most likely has a lot to do with high popularity of Ubisoft games are and constant stream of annual releases of those franchisees which allows for NV to market their cards annually with ease. NV went for sales and marketing exposure rather than quality and positive brand image when they partnered with Ubisoft. I still don't understand why NV doesn't ditch Ubisoft for Blizzard as Blizzard beats Ubisoft in all areas from game sales, to brand image, to quality of games, to bugs/glitches, etc. I guess it's harder for NV to promote next gen products because Blizzard makes games accessible to older generation hardware.

 

[Carfax83]

you are actually defending ubisoft? seriously? really?

Right, who cares about truth or facts. Lets all turn our "sheeple" mode on and just follow what the next guy is doing D:

BFG10K is absolutely correct. It's not Ubisoft's job to supply SLI or Crossfire profiles.. If Crossfire does not work, blame AMD for failing to implement it in their drivers for the game..

Also, gotta love HardOCP's uneducated rant on game development, complaining that a single GTX 980 isn't enough to max out the game.. If they had bothered to open their eyes, they'd see that AC Unity is basically unprecedented in terms of how much detail is being rendered and put on screen; hence the large performance decreases for things like soft shadows and MSAA/TXAA..

And anyone who doesn't think this game is next gen:

 

[tential]

It most likely has a lot to do with high popularity of Ubisoft games are and constant stream of annual releases of those franchisees which allows for NV to market their cards annually with ease. NV went for sales and marketing exposure rather than quality and positive brand image when they partnered with Ubisoft. I still don't understand why NV doesn't ditch Ubisoft for Blizzard as Blizzard beats Ubisoft in all areas from game sales, to brand image, to quality of games, to bugs/glitches, etc. I guess it's harder for NV to promote next gen products because Blizzard makes games accessible to older generation hardware.

Blizzard doesn't have annual releases.
Ubisoft has annual releases.

So Blizzard isn't an ideal partner.

@Carfax
I've said it's a mistake for HardOCP to make that review without including screenshots. I think it's important for them to show the EXACT settings screenshots are taken under and the performance you're getting for that. Currently, we get screenshots similar to what you've posted, with no idea how playable those screenshots actually are.

 

[Carfax83]

Currently, we get screenshots similar to what you've posted, with no idea how playable those screenshots actually are.

Most of the screenshots I posted were at 2K resolution, which is definitely playable, but would require SLI to get high frame rates if you want maxed settings.

AC Unity is indisputably next gen....perhaps too next gen, as consoles and mid range PCs can't really handle it.

As I've stated many times, I don't think the game itself is un-optimized. It's just the sheer amount of detail that's being rendered (a long with contact hardening soft shadows and HBAO+) which causes performance issues, unless you have powerful hardware.

I dare you, or anyone else to find a game that's out which can match the detail level shown in those screenshots.

 

[Dankk]

Hopefully by the time Unity is worth $5, they will fix the bugs and performance issues. However, with Victory slated for next year, who knows how much longer Ubisoft be working on fixing Unity. FC3 stuttering and Watch Dogs issues are still not fixed and probably never will be.

Protip for anyone who doesn't know this already:

Ubisoft's long-term support for their games is absolutely non-existent. Generally speaking, after they release a new title, the studio enters a brief "fix-up" phase where they begin developing and releasing patches to fix some of the critical issues.

This period lasts for only ~3 months (from what I have seen). Three months after release, they stop. They decide they have no more time; the game is simply dropped. They're done. Doesn't matter what state the game is currently in, or what the current bug situation is. They move onto whatever next project they have and leave their previous project behind in the dust.

So, if you encounter a glitch or a bug in a Ubisoft game, and you're wondering whether it's going to get patched out, you can basically just ask yourself, "Is the game less than three months old?" If it is, then there's a chance it might be patched. Otherwise, don't count on it. They've forgotten about it already and are already working on something else.

I sure hope no one actually thinks that Watch Dogs will continue to receive optimizations and patches. It came out way back in May. It's a done game. No one at Ubi has probably touched it for months.

 

[Silverforce11]

I dare you, or anyone else to find a game that's out which can match the detail level shown in those screenshots.

You are posting cutscenes that aren't playable to justify horrible performance & crap IQ in scenes which ARE playable, scenes that players spend nearly all their time in.

I was expecting you would jump in this thread to defend your beloved Ubicrap, with the same propaganda.

"Ooo... look at these lovelies, next-gen gaming!!" Except not during actual gaming scenes..

It's like in Starcraft 2, the cutscenes look AMAZING, comparatively, on an Intel HD4000. Except it wasn't actually anywhere as good nor playable during actual games at high settings.

Looks like Ubi spent all their effort making these awesome cutscenes and forgot to optimize or fix bugs in the actual gameplay part.

 

[3DVagabond]

I thought Gameworks was supposed to make optimizing easy? Precompiled, simply plug them in and play.

 

[Carfax83]

You are posting cutscenes that aren't playable to justify horrible performance & crap IQ in scenes which ARE playable, scenes that players spend nearly all their time in

LOL, you don't even HAVE the game, and yet here you are trying to tell me what's a cut scene and what isn't

None of those screenshots are cut scenes, but the fact that you think they are, just goes to show how awesome this game looks .

These are screenshots of a cut scene:

 

[Silverforce11]

I've seen your own screenshots of gameplay before, I've also seen plenty of user screenshots and reviews. None looks like the ones you've posted besides cutscenes.

In fact, IF the gameplay looks like the scenes you posted, then its clearly all the reviewers are plain wrong. So which is it, you are wrong or reviewers are wrong?

 

[Carfax83]

Which screenshots were those? Also, like all games, the game has uneven graphical quality. Interiors look much better than exteriors generally speaking..

If you don't believe me, ask someone else who has the game. Those are not cut scene screenshots. I believe they are inside the Palace at Versailles..

 

[DarkKnightDude]

the game has uneven graphical quality

Screenshots look nice, though anything looks nice downsampled. Problem is besides the buildings all the detail is rather mixed meh. I can only use FXAA because anything else tanks the framerate so much its laughable.

And the LOD issues don't help. That new 6 GB patch did squat for my framerate.

Too bad the story and game is kinda bland from what I've played so far. Hilariously bad AI as well.

Ryse actually looks fantastic and runs well for its looks, though its a linear game.

 

[Carfax83]

Screenshots look nice, though anything looks nice downsampled

I've never used downsampling, but wouldn't the screenshots be a higher resolution if they were downsampled?

Problem is besides the buildings all the detail is rather mixed meh. I can only use FXAA because anything else tanks the framerate so much its laughable.

FXAA is the only viable AA in the game if you want good frame rates. Luckily, it's a very good implementation and it looks practically indistinguishable from MSAA. TXAA is the best, but the performance decrease is massive!

And the LOD issues don't help. That new 6 GB patch did squat for my framerate.

I noticed improvements in both LoD and frame rate after the patch. BTW, the patch may have been large, but nearly all of it was overwriting or replacing stuff rather than adding. My disk capacity did not budge at all after downloading and installing it.

Too bad the story and game is kinda bland from what I've played so far. Hilariously bad AI as well.

I haven't progressed far a long the story at all, due to being busy with all the holiday fuss and what not. But when I do play, I just go around killing thugs and picking fights as I love the combat system.

For me, this is the most engaging AC game I've played.. I'm going to start progressing with the main storyline again as soon as NVidia or Ubisoft fix the damn texture flickering when SLI is enabled..

Ryse actually looks fantastic and runs well for its looks, though its a linear game.

Ryse looks amazing, but like you said, it's a linear game. That helps out a lot not only in the looks department, but from a performance aspect as well.

Open world games are the most difficult games to make, especially something of the magnitude of AC Unity..

 

[Silverforce11]

Downsampled from 4K to 1080p for example with max settings (MSAA/TXAA etc) or custom tweaks (sweetfx injects), boost IQ for screenshots but its actually not playable. Often used in friendly screenshot competitions.

I've seen some great user generated screenshots of free-roam gameplay in Watch Dogs, it doesn't mean that game is normally THAT good looking.

I'll wait til ACU hits the bargain bin and will give it a go. As it is, CF is still broken and SLI has fugly bugs. I'm not going to blame NV or AMD, because its Ubi...

 

[Zanovar]

I agree with silver,i will wait until it hits the bargain bin and give it a shot.hell im in no rush ive still not finished risen 3 and alien isolation yet.(both good games btw).

 

[Wild Thing]

Beautiful screenshots Carfax.The level of detail,artistry and the color palettes used is exquisite.
The best I've ever seen.:thumbsup:
I can recall Crysis 1 bringing the best video cards of the day to their knees.
This looks like a repeat and it will take R9 3 series cards or the next refinement of Maxwell to run it like butter.
They do need to code it better tho...UBI's rep just takes a hammering every time they release a bug fest.:hmm:

 

[DarkKnightDude]

alien isolation yet.(both good games btw).

Now there's a game that runs well and looks amazing.

 

[RussianSensation]

AC Unity is indisputably next gen....perhaps too next gen, as consoles and mid range PCs can't really handle it.

No, for the 100th time. Next gen game would mean that it would enter a wave of "next generation of gaming" and thus should match up easily to the future next gen games released around its timeframe (i.e., within 3-4 years).

For example, Crysis 1 achieved next gen status as hardly any games for 3-4 years after looked 1 gen beyond Crysis. The same thing with Crysis 3. You cannot say that AC Unity is 1 generation ahead of Crysis 3, Tomb Raider, Metro Last Light. AC Unity is current generation, not next gen.

If AC Unity is truly next gen, it wouldn't be blown away by Witcher 3, Uncharted 4 and Project CARS, all 3 games that are looking much better than Unity and are launching less than 12 months from now.

Making statements such as AC Unity has high level of detail can't hide its poor textures, LOD issues, primitive lighting/shadow models, unrealistic physics and most importantly -- it has completely failed to achieve NEXT gen level of realism compared to current gen games like Crysis 3. It's not even at Crysis 3 level.

From a graphics stand-point, if AC Unity is Next gen, what in the world are Project CARS and Star Citizen then? 2020 games?

Judging realism of graphics is irrelevant if the game is linear, racing game, shooter, platformer, flight sim, fighting game. Otherwise, you'll start making ridiculous statements such as amazing graphics games in racing games don't matter as much since it's easier to make a good looking racing game than Skyrim. Ya, but that takes nothing away from how realistic the racing game actually is.

Technical graphics is about real life realism and AC Unity, while ambitious, fails to look like a realistic game set in Paris. It still looks like a videogame. Essentially the hardware is still 10 years away from realizing realistic graphics for a type of game that AC Unity is, which is why it looks so poor in so many places. When discussing realistics/technical graphics, not artistic graphics (Zelda U, Trine 2, Mario Kart 8), the emphasis is how realistic does the game look vs. real world.

What does realism mean? It's about you feeling like the virtual world is as close as possible to real life. For example, Star Citizen presents a game made in space and it's achieving a damn good version of that idea. Project CARs is shaping to be a great version of a racing game. AC Unity set out to recreate realistic Paris and 100s of people, an insurmountable task given the current level of PC hardware - the end result is a good looking, but not spectacular game. No need to defend it just because it's an open world game.

High number of NPCs and taking 2 years to develop buildings in Unity obviously failed to accomplished next gen realistic graphics or otherwise almost everyone on our forums would be picking up their jaw off the floor, but it's the opposite, more like the majority isn't impressed. When Crysis 1 and Crysis 3 came out, our forum almost universally agreed those were the best looking PC games at the time, regardless of genre.

What looks more realistic Star Citizen or Unity? You don't need 500 spaceships in 1 scene to create realism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJJ9TcGxhNY

If someone decided today to make a game with 1 billion planets and stars, they would have failed. It's about setting realistic expectations, which Ubisoft was clearly clueless about when making Unity. AC Unity decided to include 5000 NPCs and all of them look primitive in-game. It doesn't matter at that point if there are 5000 NPCs or 500,000 NPCs. It's better to have 200 NPCs that look like cut scenes in Crysis 3 than 5000 NPCs that look like a 2009 PC game in 2014. Posting screenshots without the main character in them isn't a fair portrayal of actual gameplay for 99% of the game. Worse, every single screenshot Ubisoft posted of the game before release for marketing materials was fake as not one of them represents real world gameplay.

Beautiful screenshots Carfax.The level of detail,artistry and the color palettes used is exquisite.
The best I've ever seen.:thumbsup:

Too bad it has nothing to do with how the game actually plays. Why didn't he bother posting real life gameplay in Unity?

Shadows, lighting, character polygon complexity, tessellation and LOD in far draw distance are nowhere near a true next generation game.

The usual Ubisoft hype.

 

[PPB]

It most likely has a lot to do with high popularity of Ubisoft games are and constant stream of annual releases of those franchisees which allows for NV to market their cards annually with ease. NV went for sales and marketing exposure rather than quality and positive brand image when they partnered with Ubisoft. I still don't understand why NV doesn't ditch Ubisoft for Blizzard as Blizzard beats Ubisoft in all areas from game sales, to brand image, to quality of games, to bugs/glitches, etc. I guess it's harder for NV to promote next gen products because Blizzard makes games accessible to older generation hardware.

And blizzard makes games every 3 years rather the yearly cadence of ubifail.

Also, a game needs to be realistic in motion. Leave the static photorealism to actual renderers.

 

[RussianSensation]

And blizzard makes games every 3 years rather the yearly cadence of ubifail.

Funny because Diablo 3 likely sells more on the PC than all of Ubisoft's PC franchisees combined in those 3 years. Not to mention how many people continue to play those Blizzard titles for years to come and how much positive publicity can be had by partnering with Blizzard. Sales of FC and AC on the PC are abysmal compared to games like Starcraft, WOW and Diablo. Heck, Valkariya Chronicles outsold AC Unity on Steam.

Starcraft 1 has so far sold 28 million copies. AC Unity sold just 250,000 physical copies on the PC as of early December 2014. Even if you add 1 million of online sales (I don't think it even got that), that game will be lucky to ever crack 2 million sales on the PC in its lifetime. Ubisoft probably has to make 10 AC games for the next 10 years to match sales of Starcraft 2.

"PC juggernaut Diablo 3 has sold over 20 million copies since its 2012 launch, according to a press release expounded upon in Activision Blizzard's second quarter earnings call today. That number includes expansion and digital sales, and is accurate as of June 30, 2014."
http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/5/5972671/diablo-3-activision-blizzard-pc-sales

"Assassin's Creed Unity is the game of 2014, and that's not meant as an honor or a compliment."
http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/24/7445427/assassins-creed-unity-glitches-broken-free-dlc-problems

Ubisoft's marketing of AC Unity is a disgrace because after criticism of downgrading FC3 E3 vs. the final game, instead of fixing their mistakes, Ubisoft completely fabricated Unity's graphics vs. what the real game ended up:

"Assassin’s Creed: Unity – Bullshots Versus Real In-Game Screenshots Comparison"

The main reason Ubisoft is still alive is because of console players are supporting their games. If Ubisoft was an exclusive PC game developer, they would be bankrupt based on the type of unoptimized and glitchy garbage they released on the PC in the last 3 years.

 

[monstercameron]

RS, you make it sound so easy, has blizzard ever partnered with an ihv?
I dont get why some think that because it doesnt run good that it is because it is next gen...crysis didnt run good because of many things but mostly its forward thinking design and heavy performance load. In asscreed's case, it just isn't design good from the ground up.

 

[SirPauly]

They have, early on:


NVIDIA and Blizzard Entertainment Team Up for World of Warcraft

http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_15691.html

 

[tential]

The thing Carfax that leads many people to be suspect of your posts is quite simple.

You own Assassin's Creed Unity. Yet you don't post your own screenshots. You post ones that are heavily circulated on Neogaf. Most of the times I see them posted on Neogaf, it's by the same fanboy users of Ubisoft games.

As an owner of this game with an HEDT platform and GTX 970 SLI you would think you'd be the perfect canididate to create those screenshots/detail while displaying your frame rate (Without cherry picking).

Instead, you repost other people's screenshots (which we have 0 clue what frame rates they had, whether the shots were downsampled, photoshopped, etc.).

It essentially says to users here: This game can look great, but even a user with a rig in the top 1% can't create his own screenshots of the game looking this good and instead has to find them.

I won't deny Assassin's Creed Unity CAN look amazing. But the fact that that level of detail isn't fathomable without SLI(and ONLY SLI currently as CF doesn't work) and that that level of detail isn't throughout the game and is only in certain areas, that makes the whole experience useless.

We see gameplay of Crysis 1 lookiing great. We've only seen Gampelay of ACUnity looking horrendous. THe only time we see nice screens of AC Unity are the SAME screenshots posted over and over again.

In short, if you want people to take your claims more seriously, take some screenshots of your own.

 

[rgallant]

shots in post 27 is petty much what I see when I play the game. ips 60 [capped]fps @ 1440. I stop all the time to look at the details of the pictures on the walls.
on custom not ultra as per the game review in this thread,

ultra seems to be a reds flag for the kiddes[or reviewers] with their machine that played old gen. ports maxed and now can't play in ultra lol.

also after patch 1.4 the game had issues using 1.3 game saves/settings that went away with 1.4 saves.

also

Assassin's Creed Initiates ​

needed rejoining. not sure if that caused issuse with some peeps , I just happened to walk up to a gold box that told me to join again.

I have 80 hrs in game .

 

[escrow4]

I've posted screenshots before and the game looks nowhere as good. The game actually runs worse with more hitching now in Patch 1.4. And its dull. You fill the city with boring mini-quests, those stupid bell towers (whatever you call them now), a ridiculous number of chests (except the ones that require online or something) and the same old plot. And no I have a 5930K @ 3.7GHz and a 780 Ti GHz @ 1215MHz and performance is still piffling @ 1200p.

 

[tential]

I've posted screenshots before and the game looks nowhere as good. The game actually runs worse with more hitching now in Patch 1.4. And its dull. You fill the city with boring mini-quests, those stupid bell towers (whatever you call them now), a ridiculous number of chests (except the ones that require online or something) and the same old plot. And no I have a 5930K @ 3.7GHz and a 780 Ti GHz @ 1215MHz and performance is still piffling @ 1200p.

Yup this. I've seen your screens and others and no one's in game screens match what was posted. People claim they look good, yet when you ask them to post screens they disappear.

Your experience mirrors not only the actual review, but what I've seen posted by the majority of high end users.

@rgallant
Would love to see some screens then of in game game play then.