-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Assassin's Creed Valhalla will run at minimum 30FPS on Xbox Series X (read probably 4K/30)
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
- Status
It's a cross-gen game.
It will release all the way down to the weakest OG Xbox One, we're not talking about a true next-gen "device-killer" title here, plus we all seen the in-game supercut.
Damn, it won't even support Ray Tracing on new consoles...
A flag switch from Medium/High settings to Ultra shouldn't kill 50% of the performance on a device 4x more powerful CPU wise, 8x more powerful GPU wise and 35x more powerful I/O wise.
And Valhalla, even if it does look better than Odyssey, does not seem leaps and bound beyond from the in-game supercut we already seen.
But then, how will it be a worse experience than what you played on the other ACs? Expectations? That's what I am trying to say : you are setting the bar to get disappointed. I do understand the wish for something better (in all aspects) with Next Gen, but arbitrary and unflexible expectations will just interfere with us simply enjoying what we get (I can't make any judgement on AC : V of course, it could be crap for all I know).
Might as well cancel next-gen if that's the best they can do.
No-one should actually be using ultra settings to play games unless it's already running so well that it makes no difference.
Ultra settings are typically throwing away significant amounts of performance for details that people struggle to see in a direct A/B comparison.
People need to understand that PC benchmarks are not performance guides. They are for comparing GPUs relative to each other.For reference, for anyone expecting 4K/60 with RT, look at the performance of a 2080 Ti at 4K, which is more powerful than either of the new consoles coming out.
No-one should actually be using ultra settings to play games unless it's already running so well that it makes no difference.
Consoles don't use ultra settings, and neither should you.
Ultra settings are typically throwing away significant amounts of performance for details that people struggle to see in a direct A/B comparison.
User Warned: lazy devs rhetoric
I would just not support evident development lazyness at full price.
I edited my post. The AC Valhalla trailer did have big upgrades over AC Odyssey. It has volumetric lighting similar to RDR2's. AC Odyssey didn't have it. It only had a fake post-process godray effect.
Last edited:
Awww buddy, that devolved into something less debatable. "Lazy dev" is probably something we should remove from these discussion. It's not like Ubi became assets flippers. Well anyway, do what feels right for you, it's only games, just don't cut yourself from nice things because you want to stand a ground.
RDR2 still runs at Native 4K, HDR, 30fps on Xbox One X.
This means it may go at 4K/60fps on XSX with patch made in 1 day if only Rockstar wants, considering the power difference between the two machines.
RDR2 has nothing to do with this though. Completely different games. Completely different engines. I only brought it up to explain what volumetric lighting is in case you didn't know because you were acting like AC Valhalla doesn't look better on XSX.
If things won't change, I will have zero issues in skipping Valhalla at launch, and playing it once it'll drop down to 19€ or something.
I still have a long backlog to complete, and there will still be a lot of games to enjoy on XSX when it will launch later this year (Halo Infinite in primis). ;)
You used RDR2 volumetric light for perspective, so did I as a Resolution/Framerate/Fidelity/Open-World combo one to expect from current gen to the next.
No I didn't use it for perspective. Only to explain what volumetric lighting looks like because you didn't notice it in the ACV trailer. Anyway, I've just seen your "lazy devs" shit. Go away.
You should know X1X version of RDR2 is not the same as the PC version set to "Low"...
Unpopular opinion. I think 30fps is fine for a lot of games, especially stuff like Assassins Creed and Red Dead, I would rather take graphical fidelity over 60fps.
That said 60fps is essential for games where you need quick reflexes like DMC, fighting games and racing games.
That said 60fps is essential for games where you need quick reflexes like DMC, fighting games and racing games.
It's mixed, some parts are low, others medium, some even high and there are some that go even below low!
I agree 100% with you. 30fps is completely fine. Good motion blur, and more importantly, good framepacing makes 30fps perfectly fine.
Cool, but my point is a 2080 TI can barely run RDR2 on 4k/Ultra settings above 40fps. I don't see how anyone is getting 4K + 60fps on the new consoles with the same settings.
I don't (I always tone down settings to get at least 60fps in every game), but Odyssey doesn't even run at a consistent 60 on very high and high settings on my rig. There's no way a $1,000 PC is hitting that framerate at 4k on those settings. Even less so in regards to these consoles.
And the game is still the best looking current gen console game of all.
This just adds to the fact that "Ultra" settings just for the sake of being at Ultra are useless when they almost go unnoticed in A/B comparisons.
I also wouldn't expect Valhalla to be set at "Ultra" on XSX, nor seeing Ray Tracing for it there.
All things that makes 4K/30 only not justified at all.
I am sure there will be enough to catter to all tastes at launch and we have limited times. So yeah, focus for me will be on titles making the most of Next Gen too. AC's have become perfect bargain games for me.
Well, minimum, so only a little bit boo that it can't do 60fps at 4k.
I don't expect too much from third party cross-gen games. Especially the first batch. The hardware will often be used to basically just brute force stuff, I imagine. Whatever engine AC uses has been built around past hardware. And so has the game itself, for the most part.
It's the first party games that ought to demonstrate what the hardware is capable of, at least on a visual level.
And also, I guess some third party games like The Medium are next-gen only. Or maybe it'll be on PC too?
Kind of a weird wrinkle. Will they introduce NVMe SSD's to system requirements? Or not release these games on PC? Or make them work on slower memory solutions? I'm hoping for the former, but it's like....what's the adoption rate on those? It's commercial viability versus integrity/ambition of the game design. I think money tends to win in most cases and it'll probably be the latter.
Anyway I guess this is ramblingly going off-topic.
I don't expect too much from third party cross-gen games. Especially the first batch. The hardware will often be used to basically just brute force stuff, I imagine. Whatever engine AC uses has been built around past hardware. And so has the game itself, for the most part.
It's the first party games that ought to demonstrate what the hardware is capable of, at least on a visual level.
And also, I guess some third party games like The Medium are next-gen only. Or maybe it'll be on PC too?
Kind of a weird wrinkle. Will they introduce NVMe SSD's to system requirements? Or not release these games on PC? Or make them work on slower memory solutions? I'm hoping for the former, but it's like....what's the adoption rate on those? It's commercial viability versus integrity/ambition of the game design. I think money tends to win in most cases and it'll probably be the latter.
Anyway I guess this is ramblingly going off-topic.
5-6 feet away from a tv i don't care about 60fps with these kind of games either. that said combat in nu asscreed does get pretty twitchy so it's not entirely negligible
the trick for consoles will be the same as it is for PC: "don't run it at Ultra settings if you want 4K, dummy". lol
nowhere is it recommended or required for Ultra settings to be engaged. In most high-end games, it is expressly discouraged.
The frames are in storage. Just gotta get them out fast enough.
I know. I'm just saying a 2080TI is brought to it's knees like this, so I don't expect new consoles to fair much better at lower settings even. You want 4K in these bigger titles you will have to settle for 4k/30fps on lower/medium settings. That's what I expect at least.
That was already achieved on One X (RDR2 at native 4K/30fps).
Awful. Just make 60fps the base already. Vast majority of people will prefer it, disregarding what many of them might claim with their love for higher image quality. Well, I mean it's for looking at marketing screenshots *clap*
at high settings, a 2080Ti manages 4K 60fps quite handily. Struggles in some games at Ultra.
My question is: with all the reconstruction technology already available and its awesome performance, why settle for native 4K? It's a ridiculous compromise and bragging rights more than anything.
Please note I'm not a PC Gamer.
Medium is on PC. Will interesting to see if SSD is required. If not then their claims will look suspicious.
The constraint for 60fps might not be only tied to resolution in this case.
Side note : has Ubi had any game outside of rainbow six using good reconstruction techniques?
"At Ubisoft for a long time we wanted to push 60 fps. I don't think it was a good idea because you don't gain that much from 60 fps and it doesn't look like the real thing"
Nicolas Guérin, world level design director of AC Unity
"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."
Alex Amancio, Unity's creative director
seems that this is still true for Ubisoft lol. more shocking is that people also believe this nonsense. 60fps is always better than 30fps, period.
Nicolas Guérin, world level design director of AC Unity
"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."
Alex Amancio, Unity's creative director
seems that this is still true for Ubisoft lol. more shocking is that people also believe this nonsense. 60fps is always better than 30fps, period.
Last edited:
Been shackled to notebook CPU's for a long-ass time now. Next-gen is finally a chance at fully capable CPU's, so a big jump was thought to be possible.
Think people are overestimating the capability of the next gen consoles.
Top PC hardware struggles to run AC games at a stable 60fps.
Somehow people expected the consoles to play with improved graphics, new graphical techniques like Ray tracing, and run at 60fps.
Somethings gotta give.
Remember the consoles are gonna cost around $500. There's only so much that can be done at that price. Sony/Microsoft don't know magic.
Top PC hardware struggles to run AC games at a stable 60fps.
Somehow people expected the consoles to play with improved graphics, new graphical techniques like Ray tracing, and run at 60fps.
Somethings gotta give.
Remember the consoles are gonna cost around $500. There's only so much that can be done at that price. Sony/Microsoft don't know magic.
After playing Odyssey on PC and seeing how it performs with a Zen2 makes me think this game is more CPU bound that any other thing. I guess the AnvilNext engine still sucks and they rather keep 30fps than reducing the world density, etc, like they had to do in Unity to fix the consoles framerate issues.
You know what bugs me the most about devs that push this narrative? It's that, most of the time, if you play their games on PC, they either lack a 30fps cap, or the cap is awful and delivers extremely unstable frametimes.
So much for a cinematic experience, I have to achieve it myself.
Guess thats the issue with having an engine that is built around supporting old-ass tech. Maybe once Ubi move Anvil over to Next-gen and PC only, the jumps might be there.
The point of posting that was that the 2080 Ti is STILL a more powerful card than either next-gen system and it's still barely able to push that game that hard. And that's not even ray tracing. Plus, consoles now-a-days (except for the Switch) run on an x86 architecture, so putting relatively specs up against each other still makes sense. For reference, the XSX would be between a 2080Ti and 2080 Super (if you go by just TFLOPS that is).
That isn't true. Getting well over 60fps stable is not a problem, even at 4K. For Odyssey as a much more recent and demanding game, you do need to compromise some settings rather than going all ultra presets.
On the consoles they are prioritising fidelity first, as I'd assume this is a large part of their marketing efforts and what they feel the console users want to see. If they really wanted to, they could have targeted 4K 60fps, at lower fidelity. I'd presume they recognise it is harder to sell a game based on framerate advantages.
We also already see so much bluster around 4K as a buzzword in the past generation, when the games usually don't consistently or natively render at 4K - but it didn't matter how that was happening, just that the buzzword could be pushed. I think there are still going to be plenty of games with upscaling from sub 4K, and it won't matter to the majority, just as 60fps
As others have said, 'ultra' is not a necessity for 4K, 'very high' or 'high' is great on some settings to hit 60fps with the right card.
There should be a 1440p option at 60fps, no reason to be stuck at 30 and it does say minimum.
- Status