Ubisoft on 900p: "Ubisoft Does Not Constrain Its Games"

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I guess Ubisoft is still in the denial stage to their fuck up. Hell, the Wii U version of Watch_Dogs isn't even out yet and we know it's in shambles compared to the One/PS4 version and the PC/360/PS3 versions are just either poorly optimised or trimmed down to accommodate their inferior-to-Rockstar sandbox producing abilities.

We know it's bullshit, Ubisoft, you don't have to explain why you've fucked us if it doesn't explain why you fucked us.

The scale of the buildings does NOT affect framerates. It is the same textures and same poly count. Scale of buildings is more of an aesthetic issue. 1:1 scale can look too big in a game so often they are scaled down to be visually more pleasing.

Maybe I've been a pc gamer for too long now but surely if you can't achieve 1080p at 30fps theres something seriously wrong with these consoles? I thought the entire point of this generation was to make it easier to develop for by being as close to pc as possible, so why is it so hard to even achieve a basic 1080 30fps spec when a pc of similar spec could easily achieve this.

I'm in no way a graphics whore but come on this should be a basic thing by now, especially for something as closed as an environment as a console, there's nothing to take into account like operating systems, hardware differences, software or anything like that.

Fine Ubisoft, you don't constrain your games...you just gimp them a little bit.

smithy_2045:

Strazdas:

major_chaos:
I don't understand why this is an issue, why did they even need to make a statement about this. I guess its because I gamed for years on a shitty hand-me-down Compaq that was never meant for gaming so 30FPS/900p seems wonderful compared to my childhood of 15FPS/240p. Or just that I don't give a shit about graphics or framerates as long as they hit a stable 30. But it seems a very large part of the site is either upper middle class PCMR or part of the graphics and FPS obsessed crowd I refer to as "the Biscuit Mafia".

Just because you are indifferent of framerate and resolution benefits does not make them somehow unimportant. however your insults makes me think your just jealous rather than indifferent, otherwise why go to such lengths as to invent insults against groups you disagree with?

I've never refused to play a game because it didn't have enough pixels. I've never decided to not buy a game because it didn't run at enough fps. As long as it runs at a constant frame rate and you can see what's going on, neither of those things matter all that much.

Once again just because you chose to be indifferent does not make the benefits dissapear. jesus, do you even read what you quote?

major_chaos:

No, but the fact that they have no impact on the overall quality of the game does.

You laughable "Facts" Severely lacking citation.

The very idea that you think I'm so small and bitter that I would be "jealous" over marginally better graphics on PC is a far more venomous insult then anything I intended to convey with my post.

why else would you try to belittle everyone that thinks graphics are important then?

. Because all the publishers care about and all the majority of players see is the continuing effort to make things shinier and make up new lighting effects for me to instantly turn off. I would rather see a game look like its from 2009 than see anything that could effect gameplay in any way sacrificed.

heres the thing: why not both?.

Your "1200 dollar gaming set up" is more than capable of doing both.

Strazdas:

You laughable "Facts" Severely lacking citation.

Enlighten me as to how SSAO or DoF have ever made for a better game on any level other than the visual one.

why else would you try to belittle everyone that thinks graphics are important then?

Because they are silly, their goals are directly opposite mine, and I like to shout contrary things into predictable echo chambers?

.heres the thing: why not both?.

Because:
a. time, money, and team members are all limited resources and they are going to be spent on what devs think people will notice and care about, which, currently is graphics.
b. Processing power is limited. Games cant be built on the expectation that everyone is going to have TotalBiscut's dual titan monstrosity, and the more power you are using on shiny crap, the less is left over for the things I want to see done.

Your "1200 dollar gaming set up" is more than capable of doing both.

Better rigs than mine struggle to hold consistent framerates with new tech like TressFX or whatever that one option in TW2 was called, and you think publishers can do that and have hundreds of NPCs interacting at once and still have a reasonable power expectation? I doubt it.
I also get the feeling you don't believe that I have a gaming PC, which is amusing.

major_chaos:

Enlighten me as to how SSAO or DoF have ever made for a better game on any level other than the visual one.

You were the one making a claim it doesnt matter, shouldnt you be the one providing evidence?
ANyway, DoF is crap and is right there with motion blur in "things to turn off after installing new game".

SSAO however is useful on gameplay level. for example in a game with open enviroment it can be used to hide in dinamic shadows or spot other players from their shadow to the point of knowing which side they are looking at. it also helps a lot with gametime in games where time progression exists.

Because they are silly, their goals are directly opposite mine, and I like to shout contrary things into predictable echo chambers?

so you intentionally come here to get people angry by shouting contrary things just because they like different things? thats pretty mean of you.

Because:
a. time, money, and team members are all limited resources and they are going to be spent on what devs think people will notice and care about, which, currently is graphics.
b. Processing power is limited. Games cant be built on the expectation that everyone is going to have TotalBiscut's dual titan monstrosity, and the more power you are using on shiny crap, the less is left over for the things I want to see done.

A) in part yes. however new engines, for example UE4 have most of graphical things mapped to automatic. you create models, textures and the engine handles the rest. you do know that a person who makes textures isnt the same person who codes AI, right? their jobs are not interchangable, game devs are not some omnipotent beings.
B) processing power is limited, on consoles. PC processing power is increasing almost exponentially. it has easily surpassed the point where we can have both already at decent levels. and its going to be even higher as time goes on.

You know i want all the things you listed, reactive enviroments, persistent particles, good AI, but i realize that thats not all videogames are. And i realize we CAN do both.

TressFX is crap, no denying that, and TW2 was a disaster in how it was coded (it wasnt graphically intensive, it was just leaking all over so much it crashed on itself). few bad apples does not mean every apple is spoiled though. for example Metro games were made on what is consdered a very small budget nowadays, is one of the most graphically impressive games out and yet manages to have engaging story and AI (which reviewers praised it for).

Hachind hundreds of NPCs is easy. Seriuos Sam did it in 2001. Having hundreds of NPCs that are SMART is hard. so far no game managed that. AC:Unity claims it will, but im not willing to believe it before i see it. thing is, AI needs a lot of memory (RAM), but little processing time. the resources it uses are very different than those graphics use and in fact resources AI would use for vast majority of people stand half-idle while gaming. Gaming became so GPU heavy that most peoples CPUs go up to half load when gaming, and AI is very much a CPU beast.

Oh, i believe you have a gaming PC, i just think you underestimate it.

I thought today's Jimquisition felt disjointed for the lack of a better word.

It started to talk about frame rates. Of which, I personally cannot really tell the difference between 30 and 60fps. Like a magic eye puzzle, it's not something to get really mad over. By the way Jim presents it, you'd think it were the greatest miscarriage of justice the world has known.

Then it starts going on about Ubisoft sounding pretentious and/or condescending. OK, I can get aboard that particular train. Hold the phones! Isn't that that what Jim himself does in every Jimquisition?

Then mentions going on about how it doesn't matter about how good the visuals are - but so long as they come at you at 60 FPS. OK, that's your opinion. But personally, I prefer a game with fabulous visuals so long as it isn't a laggy and unplayable mess.

Strazdas:

smithy_2045:

Strazdas:

Just because you are indifferent of framerate and resolution benefits does not make them somehow unimportant. however your insults makes me think your just jealous rather than indifferent, otherwise why go to such lengths as to invent insults against groups you disagree with?

I've never refused to play a game because it didn't have enough pixels. I've never decided to not buy a game because it didn't run at enough fps. As long as it runs at a constant frame rate and you can see what's going on, neither of those things matter all that much.

Once again just because you chose to be indifferent does not make the benefits dissapear. jesus, do you even read what you quote?

What benefits? It doesn't make the game any more fun to play if it runs at 60fps vs 30fps, or 900p vs 1080p. It's mostly just a dickwaving contest, one which consistently takes valuable time and effort away from actually making an enjoyable game to play.

Gunner 51:

Then mentions going on about how it doesn't matter about how good the visuals are - but so long as they come at you at 60 FPS. OK, that's your opinion. But personally, I prefer a game with fabulous visuals so long as it isn't a laggy and unplayable mess.

i find this argument strange. you want a game that isnt a laggy mess and then argue for the gamer being a laggy mess.

smithy_2045:

What benefits? It doesn't make the game any more fun to play if it runs at 60fps vs 30fps, or 900p vs 1080p. It's mostly just a dickwaving contest, one which consistently takes valuable time and effort away from actually making an enjoyable game to play.

Would you say having a motor skills disease and needing glasses compared to a heathy person give the healthy person benefits? because thats what this is. higher framerate allows you to control the character better and sell the gameplay better, while higher resolution means you can actually see the stuff your playing that does not look like you smeared vaseline all over your screen.

If we were talking about trying to make 4k on consoles id agree its unnecessary. basic 60fps and 1080p is a necessity though.

Strazdas:

Gunner 51:

Then mentions going on about how it doesn't matter about how good the visuals are - but so long as they come at you at 60 FPS. OK, that's your opinion. But personally, I prefer a game with fabulous visuals so long as it isn't a laggy and unplayable mess.

i find this argument strange. you want a game that isnt a laggy mess and then argue for the gamer being a laggy mess.

30 frames per second isn't what I'd describe to be laggy. That's quite smooth IMO. I come from the generation where Codename: Droid was the bee's knees and we were lucky to get one frame per second and it was still a lot of fun. (Oh man, I'm turning into my grandfather.)

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.