Quality/Performance Issues in Assassin's Creed: Unity [WCCF]

[Carfax83]

I still don't get that just because there are tricks that can be used to limit draw calls, that means that they used such tricks. After all, the game runs like crap, obviously the made some mistakes.

Not that I'm saying it is as such, but when refuting a sites info, you need more than, "it is possible".

The game doesn't run like crap. Maybe on some configurations it does (namely AMD based), but not on mine and many others. I'm actually getting 60 FPS in this game at maxed setting 1440p with FXAA. If the game were truly draw call limited, I would not be able to get such high performance..

The CPU profiling in this game is also amazing. It's one of the very few engines that will scale all the way up to 8 cores, and will use all 16 threads..

Link to screenshots. FPS count in upper left hand corner.

 

[96Firebird]

I bit the bullet and got it tonight, had fun with Black Flag so decided to give this a shot. Played for a little bit and it seems to run fine on my setup. Version 1.02. I have everything maxed out, except shadows on high (no PCSS) and MSAA-2x @ 1920x1200. Runs around 60 on average, dips into the lower 50s on occasion. Not a bad game so far, but I think I'll enjoy Black Flag's scenery a little more than this game.

 

[AtenRa]

This is why Gaming reviews should be published after one or two patches and one driver release are been made available.

Also, this is why NOBODY should pre-order any game until developers learn to release a finished product.

 

[Carfax83]

I bit the bullet and got it tonight, had fun with Black Flag so decided to give this a shot. Played for a little bit and it seems to run fine on my setup. Version 1.02. I have everything maxed out, except shadows on high (no PCSS) and MSAA-2x @ 1920x1200. Runs around 60 on average, dips into the lower 50s on occasion. Not a bad game so far, but I think I'll enjoy Black Flag's scenery a little more than this game.

Are you in Paris yet? Prepare to be stunned when you get there at the immensity, scale and detail of the map. And when you realize that large, exceptionally detailed buildings such as the Palais Du Luxembourg, the Notre Dame etcetera aren't just placeholders, but have intricately crafted baroque interiors that can be entered into and exited from seamlessly with no loading.

Then you'll understand that this game is actually quite revolutionary from a technical perspective..

 

[3DVagabond]

Looks like there IS some truth to Ubisoft's statement:

Check out the performance disparity between AMD and Nvidia GPUs on this game. Especially when you consider SLI vs CrossFire, there seems to be a driver-related issue going on.

That doesn't at all address what they said. They said, "may be adversely affected by certain AMD CPU and GPU configurations." That chart uses an Intel CPU. N/A!

 

[Wild Thing]

Isn't it true though that "crowd debugging" seems to be the only way to get the release candidate perfect?:hmm:
Hard to see why they didn't beta test better tho....:\

 

[RussianSensation]

Crysis 3 is a poor example. It didn't have a fraction of the stuff you have in a typical AC game. Its partially poor optimization and partially the game is just too much for "next-gen" consoles.

You can add 5000 ugly NPCs, doesn't mean it's a wise use of hardware resources. Strictly speaking of technical merit, Crysis 3 blows Unity away in all respects. Just compare the faces in cut scenes of both games. Crysis 3 is 1 full generation ahead of Unity. Unity may be the best looking AC game but it doesn't mean much when compared against the best looking games on the PC. Ryse literally craps all over Unity and yet runs 2-3X faster on a 290X. Unity's flawed shadow/lighting model and low polygon NPCs stand out as a sore thumb. If Ubi chose to have 5000 low-poly NPCs over 500 high quality interactive ones, that's entirely their fault. Should have waited 5 more years to make a game of this idea/scope.

FC4 is getting good reviews but all reviewers commented how it's just a "re-skin" of FC3, very similar graphics, not a next gen leap at all.

Witcher 3 is on another level to Unity and even that game might not surpass Crysis 3/Ryse/Metro LL. It will probably take BF5 or Uncharted 4 to dethrone those games. Having thousands of NPCs like in Total War games has nothing to do with judging graphics. I am not going to add some handicap to Total War or Starcraft 2 because of the number of NPCs on screen. You could aknowledge that Total War looks good for that style of game but not give it some handicap as that's unfair. Strictly when looking at graphics and how realistic the game looks Unity is not in the top 5, but runs way worse than Crysis 3/MetroLL, Tomb Raider, Alien Isolation, etc.

 

[RussianSensation]

Ubisoft ought to pack it on on PC. They can't release a decent PC game for the life of them. Go all in on console and if they can manage to release a few titles there that aren't broken, then try PC again. Their next-gen skeletor face tech is not going over well.

The amount of defending Ubisoft gets from certain members on our forum is unbelievable, almost as if they work directly or are indirectly related to this firm, or have financial interests in it.

Far Cry 3 all over again -- downgraded graphics for the final game.

Far Cry 4 on PS4 – Bullshots VS. Actual in-game graphics comparison
http://www.psmania.net/2014/11/far-cry-4-on-ps4-bullshots-vs-actual-in-game-graphics-comparison/

While at it, once again Console Parity for FC4, Ubi is not taking advantage of 40-50% extra GPU power in the PS4. What can you expect? Yet another XB1 game + NV supplied GW code made specifically for NV GPUs! This is not at all like Crysis 1 and Crysis 3 that were made to push the PC and all platforms to the max.

Far Cry 4 PS4 Versus Xbox One Video Comparison In 1080p: Both Versions Are Almost Identical
Read more at http://gamingbolt.com/far-cry-4-ps4...ions-are-almost-identical#0lTsDX2EluMOpfb8.99

Again, my comments are not attacking FC4's gameplay. However, Ubisoft proves time and time again that they are a horrible PC developer and do not know how to or won't spent $ to optimize for specific hardware unless someone gives them the code optimizations/features for free (NV). For some of you who have played FC3, you can attest that the game just managed to surpass Crysis 1 in graphics so many years later, but in some areas such as dynamic foliage or physics model, it still failed to beat Crysis 1.

It's obvious that neither Unity nor FC4 represent a true Next Gen technical experience. In Unity, all of the AA modes induce some level of blur and the game fails at producing a realistic shadow/lighting model, so crucial to this style of game or otherwise objects/characters appear floating on the ground.

More importantly, if it wasn't for the criticism put forth against Unity by people like us, Ubisoft would do nothing to improve Unity, and would do nothing to fix how it develops future games. It's really sad to see how others aren't seeing that our critical feedback in the end helps PC gaming.

 

[Ryanrenesis]

AMD is going to die soon anyway, if you purchase an AMD card, there's no guarantee they'll be here next year to replace your then most-likely-broken AMD card.

LOL.

Warning issued for inflammatory language.
-- stahlhart

 

[Carfax83]

Far Cry 4 on PS4 – Bullshots VS. Actual in-game graphics comparison
http://www.psmania.net/2014/11/far-cry-4-on-ps4-bullshots-vs-actual-in-game-graphics-comparison/

Well obviously those "bullshots" were from the PC version. It's not unheard of for developers to showcase their games on PC first, which I agree is a bit misleading to console gamers who think that's what the game is going to look like on their consoles.

Or, they showcase a vertical slice of the game with all the graphical options ticked, but in the retail, some of those options are disabled.

Lots of devs do this, including the ones that are console only like Naughty Dog.

 

[amenx]

This is why Gaming reviews should be published after one or two patches and one driver release are been made available.

Also, this is why NOBODY should pre-order any game until developers learn to release a finished product.

Fully agree. New game benches can change considerably down the road (tomb raider for nvidia, BF3 for AMD, etc). Very patient when it comes to buying games, if it doesnt smell right from a performance perspective, I'll wait. Still havent gotten watchdogs .

 

[RussianSensation]

AMD is going to die soon anyway, if you purchase an AMD card, there's no guarantee they'll be here next year to replace your then most-likely-broken AMD card.

LOL.

As a new member on our forums, you might want to tone down your Anti-AMD rhetoric. Seriously, we get it you didn't do your own research in FX8150 upgrade, but desiring for AMD's bankruptcy due to your own unrealistic expectations of Bulldozer and failing to separate the CPU from the GPU business doesn't exactly portray a well thought out line of thinking. The rest of us want competition to Intel and NV as we have no desire paying $550 for a midrange 980 or $1000+ for Titan II.

The fact that Unity performs horribly on everything besides Maxwell's 970/980 series isn't proof that it's a well coded game at all. The opposite is true in this case. Even the developer is working on patches to fix the low performance. Why is that? Gamer and reviewer feedback.

Fully agree. New game benches can change considerably down the road (tomb raider for nvidia, BF3 for AMD, etc). Very patient when it comes to buying games, if it doesnt smell right from a performance perspective, I'll wait. Still havent gotten watchdogs .

I agree. Gaming now is nothing like it was during NES/SNES-Genesis/N64-Ps1/GC-PS2 eras. Now newly launched games are riddles with bugs, performance issues, lack SLI/CF scaling, come with lots of DLC. I pretty much buy most games as GOTY versions now unless it's a must have game from my favourite series. Nowadays paying $50 to be Ubisoft's or EA's beta tester is too much when in 1-3 days you can read more about the game to see if it's even any good gameplay wise.

 

[Ryanrenesis]

As a new member on our forums, you might want to tone down your Anti-AMD rhetoric. Seriously, we get it you didn't do your own research in FX8150 upgrade, but desiring for AMD's bankruptcy due to your own unrealistic expectations of Bulldozer and failing to separate the CPU from the GPU business doesn't exactly portray a well thought out line of thinking. The rest of us want competition to Intel and NV as we have no desire paying $550 for a midrange 980 or $1000+ for Titan II.

The fact that Unity performs horribly on everything besides Maxwell's 970/980 series isn't proof that it's a well coded game at all. The opposite is true in this case. Even the developer is working on patches to fix the low performance. Why is that? Gamer and reviewer feedback.

Seeing as this is coming from someone like you, I apologize... I'll back down a bit. The statement I made about AMD's GPUs a few posts back is really a joke, not serious at all.

 

[sontin]

The amount of defending Ubisoft gets from certain members on our forum is unbelievable, almost as if they work directly or are indirectly related to this firm, or have financial interests in it.

Far Cry 3 all over again -- downgraded graphics for the final game.

Far Cry 4 on PS4 – Bullshots VS. Actual in-game graphics comparison
http://www.psmania.net/2014/11/far-cry-4-on-ps4-bullshots-vs-actual-in-game-graphics-comparison/

While at it, once again Console Parity for FC4, Ubi is not taking advantage of 40-50% extra GPU power in the PS4. What can you expect? Yet another XB1 game + NV supplied GW code made specifically for NV GPUs! This is not at all like Crysis 1 and Crysis 3 that were made to push the PC and all platforms to the max.

Far Cry 4 PS4 Versus Xbox One Video Comparison In 1080p: Both Versions Are Almost Identical
Read more at http://gamingbolt.com/far-cry-4-ps4...ions-are-almost-identical#0lTsDX2EluMOpfb8.99

Again, my comments are not attacking FC4's gameplay. However, Ubisoft proves time and time again that they are a horrible PC developer and do not know how to or won't spent $ to optimize for specific hardware unless someone gives them the code optimizations/features for free (NV). For some of you who have played FC3, you can attest that the game just managed to surpass Crysis 1 in graphics so many years later, but in some areas such as dynamic foliage or physics model, it still failed to beat Crysis 1.

It's obvious that neither Unity nor FC4 represent a true Next Gen technical experience. In Unity, all of the AA modes induce some level of blur and the game fails at producing a realistic shadow/lighting model, so crucial to this style of game or otherwise objects/characters appear floating on the ground.

More importantly, if it wasn't for the criticism put forth against Unity by people like us, Ubisoft would do nothing to improve Unity, and would do nothing to fix how it develops future games. It's really sad to see how others aren't seeing that our critical feedback in the end helps PC gaming.

What a terrible pc developer Ubisoft is - wait. Why do you bring up these console comparisons? :hmm:

Farcry on PC has HBAO+, PCSS, TXAA, better God Rays and better hair simulation.

How many console ports get these pc-exclusive features? Right.

Your bias against Ubisoft is not normal anymore.

/edit: And here are screens from the option menu of FC4: http://imgur.com/a/jxf27
Yeah, what a terrible pc developer Ubisoft really is. They give us so many options - why Ubisoft, why?

 

[boozzer]

Looks like there IS some truth to Ubisoft's statement:

Check out the performance disparity between AMD and Nvidia GPUs on this game. Especially when you consider SLI vs CrossFire, there seems to be a driver-related issue going on.

that is bs. I know for a fact that 980 sli is getting 30 to 40 fps. hell, someone even tested it with quad 980 sli and still get redacted fps. and yes I am talking about max or almost max settings. why bother with anything if you got 980 sli. if a gamer got 1200$ of gpus, he will be expecting max in 1080p at the least.





Profanity isn't allowed in the tech forums.

You were warned previously, so this is an infraction.




esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[StereoPixel]

 

[Silverforce11]

LOL, terrible performance for a crap looking game.. heck, at least WD had a massive area and crazy draw distance and it didn't run THAT bad.

 

[Carfax83]

that is bs. I know for a fact that 980 sli is getting 30 to 40 fps. hell, someone even tested it with quad 980 sli and still get shit fps. and yes I am talking about max or almost max settings. why bother with anything if you got 980 sli. if a gamer got 1200$ of gpus, he will be expecting max in 1080p at the least.

Screenshots of my rig with G1 GTX 970s getting 60 FPS at 1440p max settings with FXAA

So I suppose whoever it was with the 980 SLI that got 30 to 40 FPS just didn't know what they were doing :whiste:

 

[Carfax83]

LOL, terrible performance for a crap looking game.. heck, at least WD had a massive area and crazy draw distance and it didn't run THAT bad.

I have both Watch Dogs and AC Unity, and there's no comparison between them. Watch Dogs runs like crap and stutters because of poor resource management. AC Unity on my rig is at near constant 60 FPS with no stuttering.

AC Unity is also rendering WAY more than Watch Dogs, and at a near 1:1 scale. Many of the buildings in Watch Dogs cannot be entered, but in AC Unity, you can enter a lot of buildings, including many of the famous landmarks like Palais Du Luxembourg, Notre Dame etcetera.

The interiors of these buildings are ridiculously detailed, and just goes to show how powerful the engine is to be able to enter these buildings from the outside and exit them with no loading screen.

 

[raghu78]

I have both Watch Dogs and AC Unity, and there's no comparison between them. Watch Dogs runs like crap and stutters because of poor resource management. AC Unity on my rig is at near constant 60 FPS with no stuttering.

AC Unity is also rendering WAY more than Watch Dogs, and at a near 1:1 scale. Many of the buildings in Watch Dogs cannot be entered, but in AC Unity, you can enter a lot of buildings, including many of the famous landmarks like Palais Du Luxembourg, Notre Dame etcetera.

The interiors of these buildings are ridiculously detailed, and just goes to show how powerful the engine is to be able to enter these buildings from the outside and exit them with no loading screen.

Since you are on 1440p with GTX 970 G1 SLI and running at 60 fps can you mention what MSAA you are running. Its useless to make statements on performance without mentioning settings at which you achieved it. I am assuming you are running maxed with FXAA and not MSAA. here are a couple of reviews

For 1600p GTX 980 scores 36.9 fps with FXAA
http://www.computerbase.de/2014-11/...diagramm-grafikkarten-benchmarks-in-2560-1600

For 1440p GTX 980 SC scores 43.8 fps with FXAA
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Assas...436/Specials/Test-Technik-Benchmarks-1142550/

So even with GTX 970 SLI , running the game even at MSAA 2x or 4x and maintaining constant 60 fps is not going to be possible. It might require a GTX 980 overclocked in SLI to get close to 60 fps with MSAA 2x. These are not impressive framerates on a top of the line card in multi GPU .

btw you have to blame Nvidia's SLI drivers for poor performance in WatchDogs. :whiste:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014...x_980_sli_4k_video_card_review/9#.VGdfDWes98E

"This is the game we really wanted to look closely at in terms of efficiency. Here we are running at 1440p with the highest possible in-game settings. Adding a second GeForce GTX 980 video card does not improve performance by a lot. However, it does add a lot of erratic and inconsistent framerate behavior. You can see the line goes from smooth with one GTX 980 to erratic with two GTX 980 cards.SLI efficiency is a miserable 14%! That's bad, real bad. This is why GeForce GTX 980 SLI does so poorly at 4K, not because GTX 980 isn't fast, but because SLI is failing the GPUs potential."

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2014...980_sli_overclocked_gpu_review/4#.VGdfWmes98E

"We do have the latest patch installed, which brings this game up to version 1.06. This new patch has made some big changes to the game that address "Ultra" textures and better CPU multi-threading. You can read the updates here.

In Watch Dogs we are comparing at 3840x2160 with Temporal SMAA, "High" textures and "Ultra" settings with HBAO+ High enabled.

First, we had to use "High" textures because "Ultra" textures caused this game to be very choppy on all three video card configurations at 4K. This new patch that just came out may have made some big changes to the game, but "Ultra" textures at 4K on 4GB video cards is still a big no-go. Second, SLI is definitely broken at 4K in this game. The performance we got out of 980 SLI overclocked and 780 Ti overclocked compared to R9 290X CrossFire overclocked is simply bad. It clearly shows that SLI has a problem. AMD's CrossFire is working well in this game and gives us great performance at 4K. However, NVIDIA's SLI is not working well, if at all, in this game and gives us poor performance with two cards. As if this game needed another negative checkmark, you can add poor SLI to it."

 

[Silverforce11]

Screenshots of my rig with G1 GTX 970s getting 60 FPS at 1440p max settings with FXAA

So I suppose whoever it was with the 980 SLI that got 30 to 40 FPS just didn't know what they were doing :whiste:

Then clearly they have a problem with terrible MSAA implementation.

Normally 4x MSAA loses ~25-30% performance compared to none, but here it seems like its losing half or more.

And your screenshots are terrible considering its running maxed, washed out textures (probably not helped by blurring of FXAA) and extremely bad LOD cutoff/distance.

So in conclusion, Ubisoft needs to license Frostbite and continue on making "grand" games that is actually optimized. No really. Imagine WD and AC with Frostbite.

 

[KaRLiToS]

Screenshots of my rig with G1 GTX 970s getting 60 FPS at 1440p max settings with FXAA

So I suppose whoever it was with the 980 SLI that got 30 to 40 FPS just didn't know what they were doing :whiste:

Something you must not understand .Not because you don't have issue means that nobody has them or should not have issue. There are like billions of different PCs on the planet. And maybe you should provide a video of your settings then show the in-game quality. Because your screenshots look like Assassin Creed 1.

But what is even more shocking is that there is a single PS4 and Xbox one and they are full of bugs.

Also, their stock hasn't drop of 10% for nothing.

What is all the black CRAP on the ground? SEE !?!?!?!?! You can't even see the bugs in your screenshots.

 

[Eric1987]

I have both Watch Dogs and AC Unity, and there's no comparison between them. Watch Dogs runs like crap and stutters because of poor resource management. AC Unity on my rig is at near constant 60 FPS with no stuttering.

AC Unity is also rendering WAY more than Watch Dogs, and at a near 1:1 scale. Many of the buildings in Watch Dogs cannot be entered, but in AC Unity, you can enter a lot of buildings, including many of the famous landmarks like Palais Du Luxembourg, Notre Dame etcetera.

The interiors of these buildings are ridiculously detailed, and just goes to show how powerful the engine is to be able to enter these buildings from the outside and exit them with no loading screen.

You're the only one on the planet managing 60 FPS then. Any 1.3 patch coming soon?

 

[Silverforce11]

What is all the black CRAP on the ground? SEE !?!?!?!?! You can't even see the bugs in your screenshots.

Apparently Ubi is working closely with AMD to resolve these bugs (literally!!), because according to their PR guy, these bugs only occur on AMD and thus should not affect MOST gamers.

 

[el etro]

Will be on the immediately next Techpowerup review.