Assassins Creed: Unity new hardest game to run?

lukeybash123 · Dec 1, 2014

Is Crysis 3 still the hardest game to run or is it now the third? I was looking at the system requirements for Assassins Creed and for smooth gameplay you need an i7-3770 or an FX 8350 and a GTX 780 or an R9 290X?
And also farcry 4 needs the same graphics requirements but less CPU needs.

random5 · Dec 1, 2014

Err.. wouldn't put it that way. AC:Unity is the hardest game to run on 60FPS,which top settings ofc.

thor220 · Dec 1, 2014

Both those games put up erroneous system requirements. You don't actually need those specs, ubisoft just is really dumb when it comes to computers.

I would avoid unity though. It has major problems on the PC no matter how powerful you computer is.

ModernWarfare · Dec 1, 2014

ubisoft is just a horrible developer what do you expect.

Dunlop0078 · Dec 1, 2014

There is no smooth game play in ac unity the game runs like crap no matter the system another terrible port hopefully they get it running good eventually.

thor220 · Dec 1, 2014

Dunlop0078 :

Black flag had and still has similar issues. They will move on to the next game before the issues are solved.

lukeybash123 · Dec 1, 2014

I have heard online some bad things about ubisoft but will The Crew (which is a ubisoft game) be hard to run? Or is it just AC:Unity

ModernWarfare · Dec 1, 2014

i get an average of 55-60fps on max settings 4k. but there are tons of bugs in the game.

lukeybash123 · Dec 1, 2014

ModernWarfare :

What kinds of bugs?

random5 · Dec 1, 2014

lukeybash123 :

ubi sucks..lets face it..

ModernWarfare · Dec 1, 2014

falling from the ground, missing faces, bad performance , connectivity issues and more.

there will be a patch released soon for all these fixes and hopefully they will fix the framerate because my pc should do 120fps with no problem like the rest of the games except some ubisoft games.

w3ass3l · Dec 1, 2014

lukeybash123 :

My little poor pc runs Crysis 3 everything maxed at 30-40 fps and even on low 30s the gameplay feels smooth.
AC Unity runs at 25-35 fps with everything on low and it feels like a slideshow.
I suppose there are not many companies anymore that actually care to provide an good gaming experience anymore and they just publish known titles just to milk some more cash.

thor220 · Dec 1, 2014

w3ass3l :

It's not every company by far but it's the result of big money into the gaming business. You have suites who only care about making money pushing decisions onto the creative types. The result is repetitive games that capitalize on common money making techniques. Just look at the micro-transactions in Unity if you want an example. It's unacceptable to have paid transactions in an already paid for game.

Too many suites in top gaming companies and we could see the 2nd video game crash. It would be wave after wave of games that are pretty much identical, all looking after the bottom line. If they would simply make a great game, that alone would bring in more money.

Frag Maniac · Dec 1, 2014

It's easily Unity, and we knew it before it even released just by their saying a 680 or 7970 are only bare minimum spec.

That means even if the performance patch they're working on helps improve things, it will still be MUCH more of a resource hog than any other game.

It doesn't help that Ubi are horrible at optimizing and coding in general though. I'm sure a LOT of other devs could have had the content in this game running much better with a different engine and better optimization.

Look at what Avalanche did with Just Cause 2 with such a big map and no loading screens and such a small file size. They are wizards of procedurally rendered textures, which is what Ubi should have done with this title, or better yet, have someone do it for them, because I'm quite sure they wouldn't know how.

w3ass3l · Dec 1, 2014

thor220 :

Exactly my point.I might seem cranky but im sick and tired of same old boring linear repetitive games that are full of bugs and performance issues and in most cases require a pc that most people CANT afford it in order to "enjoy" it.My respect goes to smaller titles and companies that really do care to provide a nice gaming experience.An example? Alien Isolation. For me one of the best games this year.Why? Because it had a great feeling,good looking visuals,no issues at all for me at least and it was something refreshing.

thor220 · Dec 1, 2014

I'm right there with ya w3ass3l. I have yet to play one AAA game this year because they are all pretty much the same stuff. Why play farcry 4 when it's pretty much the same as 3? Dragon inquisition borrows elements from skyrim and Mass Effect. Call of duty literately copies off the sort of innovative Titanfall. Destiny was a major fail. They managed to make the game small and overcharge. It's a good thing they didn't release on PC because many free MMOs are just better than destiny. Overall it's been a terrible year.

The only AAA game I'm looking forward two comes out at the start of next year, The Witcher 3. They've made some huge promises and I hope they don't disappoint. Each game has been a huge step up from the last.

Frag Maniac · Dec 1, 2014

w3ass3l :

Couldn't agree more. That is the title I keep referring to as one of the best coded games this year, and GoTY candidate IMO. Remarkably made by devs that specialize in RTS and have never done horror before.

I'll give Ubi kudos for good game concepts, but they're horrible at the development.

w3ass3l · Dec 1, 2014

I mentioned this game because after a year of getting games then spending hours googling for a solution to this problem and that problem and then waiting for a patch to fix other problems only to get to play the game a couple of days later and be dissapointed that its nothing but eye candy that i cannot enjoy because im playing on a budget PC,Alien Isolation was exactly the opposite.Got it,installed it,played it,loved it.End of story. And now im just curious,what exactly games like AC Unity offer that requires from me an expensive PC and 2 days salary to buy the game?

Chemeng Lee · Dec 2, 2014

Ive been seeing comments of how poorly this game was optimized, Im gonna assume its a no. D:

Frag Maniac · Dec 2, 2014

w3ass3l :

The main problem with Unity is it didn't get enough development time for the eye candy they crammed into it. There's tons of large detailed buildings and many open windows and accessible interiors with lavish furniture, walls, etc, and LOTS of civilians. It needed about 1 year more optimization and testing time, which would have also made it release when hardware is more powerful and eliminate most of the bugs.

What's strange though is it's not just obvious lack of optimization. There are clearly HUGE oversights. I encountered 15-20 FPS even in the training room with only two NPCs.

Ubi clearly aren't getting the message though. They actually think the solution is having simultaneous releases for ALL their tiles now. If anything it's clear by now that they need more time for PC development, esp since they're cramming so much into their games.

If you have a decent CPU and two 970s you can run Unity at 1440p and get pretty much a solid 60 FPS. THEN the somewhat AC2-like gameplay can be enjoyable because there's no 20,000 lb elephant in the room slowing you down. Then again, $700 worth of GPUs in itself is a 25,000 lb elephant for many.

thor220 · Dec 2, 2014

^^
With is funny, one 970 is enough to run the witcher 2 on max at 1440p with 60fps. Again though, the only ones surprised at this are people who've never played a Ubi game on the PC before. It's standard to expect this from Ubisoft.

Frag Maniac · Dec 2, 2014

thor220 :

I don't feel that's a very good comparison. We've already seen titles similar in graphics to TW2 if you use certain mods with Skyrim. Unity with 1440p graphics is no comparison. There's a lot of textures in medieval games that are just cloned, such as trees, grass, etc. Cloning objects is easy now. In Unity there are vast amounts of intricate details and uniquely designed buildings.

I'm not saying Unity is well optimized, it's just a poor example because there is in fact a LOT more detail to Unity than TW2. Ubi have a history of inefficient engines and poor optimization, so they get targeted a lot and in the process people tend to exaggerate.

I remember AC1 being the first game where I started to understand why some people pirate games. Sure it had pretty good graphics for it's time, but it was a resource hog. A lot of people torrented it just to see if their system could handle it. Far Cry 1 was even more revolutionary graphics wise for it's time and ran WAY better, and that was before it was common to clone objects.

w3ass3l · Dec 2, 2014

I believe that they really have the technology to optimize their games to play better and be less demmanding.
As i said in my first post i find it ironic that i can play Crysis 3 maxed out and even when i was playing at 30 fps it was so smooth that i thought my FPS counter wasnt working or something.

thor220 · Dec 2, 2014

Frag Maniac :

I don't find your argument very compelling. Skyrim can only look so good with enb and it requires more than to run the witcher 2. I've modded skyrim to hell and back and would say the with RealEnb, it looks about as good as the witcher 2. Not many other games can compare to the witcher 2. Only now with next gen consoles out are we finally starting to see better looking games.

I definitely would not call unity an upgrade over the witcher 2 though. I've been playing it on my 1440p dell ultra wide and it isn't a graphical leap over the previous titles. The only difference between it and the older titles is that they added in more filler and started using newer directX effects for cloth and such. The graphics engine on the witcher 2 is much better.

Your point on textures doesn't make much sense either. The big cites in unity use just as much repetitive textures as the witcher 2, if not more. Not really a surprise though as Unity is still using a very similar Anvil graphics engine that was used in black flag and rouge. Unlike ubisoft, CDProject update the graphics engine each time a new game is released.

Frag Maniac · Dec 3, 2014

thor220 :

Saying 1440p without saying what settings you're playing on means nothing. I've seen multiple screenshots of Unity from a sys that uses two 970s playing at 1440p at 60 FPS and it looks WAY better than any previous AC, esp considering the somewhat higher level of detail.

And I wasn't saying Skyrim with mods equals TW2, but it comes pretty close and is very resource intense, so it's a fair comparison, just due to the latter.

We could argue this all day, all week, all month, but if you don't even get that cramming WAY more architectural detail (and NPCs) in a game and how it has a domino effect with AO and shadows and reflections, etc, you'll still think a medieval game with somewhat good textures is equally challenging to the hardware, even though it doesn't come close.

There's a reason the first graphically advanced game (Far Cry) was mostly non architectural and environment based. It's easier to render.

Assassins Creed: Unity new hardest game to run?

Reputable

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Titan

Splendid

Reputable

Splendid

Reputable

Distinguished

Splendid

Reputable

Splendid

Illustrious

Reputable

Splendid

Illustrious

Reputable

Reputable

Illustrious

Splendid

Illustrious

Reputable

Splendid

Illustrious

Share this page