Is Assassin's Creed Unity worth playing now? (PC)

[Boricha]

Hey guys,

I remember when ACU first came out last year and the PC port was horrendous. I haven't played the game since then but I know there's been 4 or 5 patches to fix performance and graphic bugs. Is the game worth playing in it's current state?

[Tech614]

There was never anything wrong with the performance of the PC version.

It's hard to get 60 fps in it maxed out without a monster system, but the game is also the best looking and most demanding game I have yet to see as well. On recommended specs you can easily get over 30 fps, usually over 40 on ultra and 1080p.

Now the PS4 version on the other hand, that was the one with the shit performance and drops to sub 15 fps have no idea how it performs after the million patches.

[zealo]

There was never anything wrong with the performance of the PC version.

Surely there wasn't.

How the game is issuing draw calls in the tens of thousands on PC when the directx version its running on is optimised for 10,000 at its max is just details. This is hardly surprising though, Ubisoft doesn't have a good track record for optimisation on the PC.

[Tech614]

Surely there wasn't.

How the game is issuing draw calls in the tens of thousands on PC when the directx version its running on is optimised for 10,000 at its max is just details.

It's not ubisoft's fault that you chose shit AMD hardware in your rig.

Game runs perfectly fine on Intel/Nvidia setups, the complaint you list was exclusive to AMD hardware at launch. No idea if it was fixed nor do I care.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Hey guys,

I remember when ACU first came out last year and the PC port was horrendous. I haven't played the game since then but I know there's been 4 or 5 patches to fix performance and graphic bugs. Is the game worth playing in it's current state?

The game is a blast for me. Most of the issues are now fixed, though there are some lingering problems. Nothing major however.

I genuinely don't get all the hate this game received. It just seem utterly biased and made from people who wanted to get revenge on someone for whatever reason.

[Remilia]

It's not ubisoft's fault that you chose shit AMD hardware in your rig.

Game runs perfectly fine on Intel/Nvidia setups, the complaint you list was exclusive to AMD hardware at launch. No idea if it was fixed nor do I care.

Has nothing to do with what hes saying, and you assuming he has ____ hardware.
He has an SLI GTX 780 with an i7 4770k...

What hes saying in an object heavy orientated game, as is what Assassin's Creed Unity is, it requires a lot of draw calls from the CPU. DirectX has a lot of CPU overhead which makes it less efficient. What draw calls do is essentially the CPU telling the GPU to draw an image. More draw calls, the more taxing it is on the CPU. Not to mention the game is utterly fucked up optimized. SLI and Crossfire both have issues in Unity, so it's not even a great solution.

It ran like shit, this was well known pretty much everywhere during the release period.

[zealo]

It's not ubisoft's fault that you chose shit AMD hardware in your rig.

Game runs perfectly fine on Intel/Nvidia setups, the complaint you list was exclusive to AMD hardware at launch. No idea if it was fixed nor do I care.

You have an interesting definition of what constitutes a PC but regardless I do not use AMD hardware. Its hardly AMD's fault that ubisoft is shit at adhering to PC programming standards. This is much less of an issue on consoles in general because developers do not need to go through an API as much, and thus have access to a far higher amounts of draw calls natively than what a PC version of the same game does.

Mantle/DX12 will fix that limit but it is a large part of the reason for why a object heavy open world game can run good on consoles while still bringing a PC to its knees.

[Tech614]

Has nothing to do with what hes saying, and you assuming he has ____ hardware.
He has an SLI GTX 780 with an i7 4770k...

What hes saying in an object heavy orientated game, as is what Assassin's Creed Unity is, it requires a lot of draw calls from the CPU. DirectX has a lot of CPU overhead which makes it less efficient. What draw calls do is essentially the CPU telling the GPU to draw an image. More draw calls, the more taxing it is on the CPU. Not to mention the game is utterly fucked up optimized. SLI and Crossfire both have issues in Unity, so it's not even a great solution.

It ran like shit, this was well known pretty much everywhere during the release period.

Except it didn't run like shit. I am right at recommended specs with a 3770k and a gx 780 and the game has ALWAYS ran over 30 fps for me. Usually over 40.

- - - Updated - - -

why a object heavy open world game can run good on consoles while still bringing a PC to its knees.

Except Unity brought the PS4 and XBONE to their knees running at high equiv settings, 900p and NEVER being able to maintain a solid 30 fps. At launch the average frame rate on XBONE was 24 and PS4 was 22. I have never seen the game drop below 30 on pc, on ultra at 1080p.

Best looking game on the market doesn't run at 60 fps SHIT OPTIMIZATION- Your logic.

If anyone should be complaining about shit optimization in this game, it was the console users. The game wasn't designed for low clock cpu power in them, and it shows.

[Remilia]

Except it didn't run like shit. I am right at recommended specs with a 3770k and a gx 780 and the game has ALWAYS ran over 30 fps for me. Usually over 40.

Actually, yeah it's not that good. You also have to remember not everyone has high end GPUs.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8738/b...-creed-unity/2
280x/770, mid to high range cards, at 1920x1080 at medium runs at 40 FPS with high minimum frame deviance downwards of 14 FPS. Frame stability is terrible. And the recommended settings for 780 are only at High.

Best looking game on the market doesn't run at 60 fps SHIT OPTIMIZATION- Your logic.

Anything and everything can be screwed with shit optimization.

If anyone should be complaining about shit optimization in this game, it was the console users. The game wasn't designed for low clock cpu power in them, and it shows.

Consoles actually have less CPU overhead and are capable of more draw calls than PCs can.

[Korgoth]

Got it for free with a GTX 980, and on it at 1440p it seems to run fine at max settings. Not quite 60fps fluid, but for a single player game its good.

That said the game itself is quite a let down after Black Flag. Paris is boring. I miss my boat.

[Deleted]

There was never anything wrong with the performance of the PC version.

[zealo]

Except Unity brought the PS4 and XBONE to their knees running at high equiv settings, 900p and NEVER being able to maintain a solid 30 fps. At launch the average frame rate on XBONE was 24 and PS4 was 22. I have never seen the game drop below 30 on pc, on ultra at 1080p.

Best looking game on the market doesn't run at 60 fps SHIT OPTIMIZATION- Your logic.

If anyone should be complaining about shit optimization in this game, it was the console users. The game wasn't designed for low clock cpu power in them, and it shows.

I haven't denied the problems on consoles but really, it was borderline retarded by Ubisoft to even attempt that large crowds on a cpu which equals an intel atom in IPC. It ran like shit on all platforms.

[Tech614]

I haven't denied the problems on consoles but really, it was borderline retarded by Ubisoft to even attempt that large crowds on a cpu which equals an intel atom in IPC. It ran like shit on all platforms.

Crowds had nothing to do with it. Ubisoft even stated they tested reducing the crowd population to make the game run better and it did jack shit.

It's the geometry and texture streaming that kills the game, not rendering 100s of NPCs that all use the same assets.