Ben-DutkaWhat difference do numbers make if the game looks amazing?
That's what Ubisoft argues in response to the news that Assassin's Creed Unity won't hit the previously reported 1080p/60FPS benchmarks. Instead, the game will run at 900p/30FPS for both PlayStation 4 and Xbox One.
In speaking with TechRadar , level design director Nicoloa Guerin said the team was once committed to 60 frames per second but actually opted to back off because the results were "weird."
"At Ubisoft for a long time we wanted to push 60fps. I don't think it was a good idea because you don't gain that much from 60fps and it doesn't look like the real thing. It's a bit like The Hobbit movie, it looked really weird."
Guerin added that the video game industry was shifting away from the lofty 60FPS goal because it's "hard to achieve," and it's "not really that great in terms of rendering quality of the picture and the image." Unity creative director Alex Amancio added that things like frame rate and resolution aren't necessarily the most important aspects of an interactive production, and further explains why 30 is right for this particular game:
"30 was our goal, it feels more cinematic. 60 is really good for a shooter, action adventure not so much. It actually feels better for people when it's at that 30fps. It also lets us push the limits of everything to the maximum. It's like when people start asking about resolution. Is it the number of the quality of the pixels that you want? If the game looks gorgeous, who cares about the number?"
Some of the best experiences in history haven't been accompanied by 1080p and 60 frames per second. Naughty Dog's award-winning Uncharted series is a great example, and Assassin's Creed thrives on atmosphere and gameplay as well.
Sounds like an excuse to me and I am not sure about anyone else but I had no issue with the Hobbit movie.
I had huge issues with the Hobbit movie, but none with the frames per second :).
I thought it was because Xbox One was holding it back along with the ps4, lol
Rolls eyes
Why can't they just say it plainly, "look, for the complexity of our game it benefits the experience to set it at 30fps"
When they start generating highly subjective reasoning by attacking a higher standard its just stupid and "weird" sounding.
I happen to agree that a game like ac benefits more from detail and vastness over speed. If it could run at 60 like it does at 30, it's all the better. But when we're dealing with resource caps, clear judgement calls for what's best for the goal have to be made. In this case they likely made the right call.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 10/9/2014 12:40:38 PM
I know, right?
Can it be that hard to explain in simple terms the relation between resolution, framerate and details? The higher the framerate, the lesser amount of details can be drawn per frame, or fewer pixels (ergo resolution) per frame to maintain the details?
It really is not harder than that.
Well said, Temjin. Their PR department could use your help. 🙂
The problem is that there are more "knowitalls" that simply demand 60fps because it's "better" than 59 fps. The resulting product should stand on it's own quality regardless of specs. Candy doesn't taste better because you put more sugar into it but somehow if a game doesn't run at 60fps it's garbage.
A shame how many assholes the Internet gave birth to.
I bet this is truth, many theatres wouldn't play The Hobbit in it's higher FPS format because of this caveman thinking.
Stay tuned: More Excuses From Ubisoft!
This is supposed to be a new generation of games, meaning, no more lessthan 1080p. some PS3 games were 1080p (rarely) and the console gamers don't have the luxury of the PC gamers who can mod/hack 1080p+ on their games. We have to soley rely on the development teams and if this is the way Ubisoft wants to handle this generation than they can sod off.
Metro is crisp and shiny and clear due to its 1080p. Its like im seeing with my eyes, and not through a glass or foggy window. It makes a HUGE difference if you really stop and look at it.
There won't ever be a "no more less-than 1080p" stuff. As developers push the fidelity of their games further and further tradeoffs like this will always come up.
Hell, in 6 years from now there will still be people crying out against developers not being able to hit 60 FPS "in this day and age" except it will be at 4K resolutions.
There will always be something.
I agree with Knightzane here. A new gaming machine today *should* be able to handle 1080p with ease.
Not to sound like a friggin' PC elitist, but just to put things into context: My PC monitor has a 1440p resolution, and my PC runs all – I repeat, ALL – games on the native resolution of that screen.
Now, there's not really a need on a console for a capacity higher than the TV resolutions (ergo 1080p) but yes, it is weak that this generation consoles don't hit off straight on 1080p right out of the gate.
But if at first something has to be sacrificed, I personally don't mind if resolution is sacrificed. Rather that than a low/unstable frame rate or simplified graphics.
Last edited by Beamboom on 10/9/2014 2:56:35 PM
Yo Saiyan,
PC is the thing developers are pushing fidelity levels for constantly, Forever. It will always have games 1080p+ at 60fps+ at the least.
Why can't they have these new fresh consoles even keep up with the bare minimum?
So Ubisoft is officially gimping PS4 games to 30 FPS and 900p because the Xbox One cannot handle 60 FPS and 1080p and they have obviously been 'coerced' into ensuring parity with the weaker platform. Utterly pathetic from Ubisoft
Time to make a stand and boycott Ubisoft games until they get the message that PS4 owners are not stupid and will not accept this bullshit.
Right… "weird"…
Brilliant move Ubi, brilliant move. Trying to mend the damage for that horrible PR move are we?
The way they are handling things, it's just such a shame; they release all these awesome games like Farcry, AC, Splinter Cell, Just Cause, WD, but I don't know if I can support a company that keeps on making lame excuses such as these.
And then there's the 900p issue…
Last edited by Masszt3r on 10/9/2014 1:26:25 PM
Couldn't care less about their excuses, anymore. I might not break their piggy bank, but they will certainly NOT celebrate the products sales with any of my money.
Keep your game and bullshit excuses. K? Thanks. Actions speak louder than words, Ubisoft.
shifting away from 60fps? When did it even start?
Just an excuse. People seem to have a lot of those now.
To quote the dude
"Yeah well, that's like . . . your opinion man."
And it is just an opinion, there's a big difference and it IS just like The Hobbit movie but not everyone hates the change.
I didn't even get that Hobbit reference?
Beamboom,
The Hobbit films were shot at 48fps rather than the industry standard 24fps, and a lot of people commented that it made the film look more like a soap opera than a standard cinema production, which detracted from the experience (a sentiment I agree with).
Ahhh, of course. Now I remember.
Okay, so it's an ambiguous excuse, but that doesn't matter. When it comes to games like AC and Uncharted, where the action is more measured and the game prizes itself on visual spectacle, a 60fps refresh rate simply isn't necessary. These games don't require split-second timing and buttery smooth motion (not saying that it doesn't help, though), and so sticking to 30fps is no bad call. And if it helps to make the game look better, then so be it.
I'm more torn on the 900p thing, though. Okay, I get that reducing the resolution allows more visual density and the like, but it still feels like a bit of a cop-out.
Wasn't the PS4 version of The Last of Us capable of 60fps? Did anyone have any issues with that?
clear utter horse sh*t!
im sorry but there is ONE reason why unity is not 60FPS, these so called "next gen" consoles cant handle it!
so next gen they cant do what PCs were doing what, 5 years ago!?
this gens a utter joke, not only with the disappointment in the consoles themselves but with the nothing but "HD" remakes, so few big first party studio announcements, i mean come on this gens been the biggest let down since the Hindenburg went up in flames!
SEVEN freaking years, SEVEN, and we cant even do 1080P let alone 1600P, let alone 4K!
so much for the good old days where consoles were more powerful than even the f*cking multi million dollar IBM supercomputer, AND a minuscule of the cost!
I call BS on this, from what I have read it sounds more like "micro&soft paid us off to make it so they didn't look "bad" to THEIR customers"… I can understand running at 30fps, that's what all the rest of the ACs have been, but setting the game to 900p instead of 1080p is just BS.
well they i guess the makers can't do much about that but i have heard ppl say they think this is a stupid excuse and they game won't be as good i'll have to wait and see for myself
happy gaming