You need to get your eyes checked.
You too.
-
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
You need to get your eyes checked.
You too.
It's like dreaming of being able to fly unassisted then being upset that you can't. Not sure why people had such belief in the first place when there was nothing suggesting it was gonna happen.
You do, this is hardly a significant difference like AC 4 to UnityYou need to get your eyes checked.
You too.
Who cares about Unity? When did I talk about Unity? I said Black Flag was a huge upgrade over last gen version and it's true. Get over it.
It happens every generation. "Finally, 60fps will the standard for all games!!"
Every. Single. Time.
Did I ever tell you the definition of insanity?
It's not about Unity but about how BF improve a lot of things in the current gen. The same kind of improves that can be expected in Valhalla.
You get your eyes checked, AC 4 PS3 to PS4 is not a significant difference, it pretty much looks the same since it is still a game built for last gen.
Sure, it's exactly the same. Nothing has changed between PS3 and PS4 versions.
When did I say that? I said the visual differences are minor and they are. The game still looks pretty much the same on PS3
I don't see the difference either, this guy clearly has a head in both pictures.You need to get your eyes checked.
You too.
I don't think I much minded the FPS in games as a teen playing such horrors as Stunt Race FX. Sure, I must've thought that its sluggish as frack, but I think I just accepted it and focused on playing it. That was around 1994. Certainly I remember times when the games ran well, they were a sheer joy to play just for the sake of playing. I suppose these realizations sort of nudged me towards PC, little by little and each disappointing console generation after another.
I'm not sure what I'd thought if I'd be able to tell my teen self that 30 FPS is a thing in 2020.
Maybe I'd just focus on the fact that after Stunt Race FX anything is better.
I'm not sure what I'd thought if I'd be able to tell my teen self that 30 FPS is a thing in 2020.
Maybe I'd just focus on the fact that after Stunt Race FX anything is better.
That was always a dumb dream. Its fixed hardware and the developer sets a performance goal. 30 FPS is so much easier to hit.
On Odyssey, I can do 1800p at mostly 60fps with a 2070 Super and Ryzen 3700x at high settings. Gsync smooths out the rest. If they have a variable resolution and frame rate, I'm sure they can hit 60fps in most scenarios.
Bruh, the lighting and foliage were huge upgrades. We went from static bushes and flatter lighting to something much better, weather and foliage were improved to such a degree that it actually improved the gameplay
It wasn't just upgrades to model quality and resolution.
Last edited:
Just.. This is hardly a significant difference. Of course it's a bit sharper and better looking, but in every conceivable way this is the same last gen game with minor touches. Unity and every other game with a similar budget made only for XB1/PS4 look way better. That character model in Black Flag possibly wouldn't look any better if it would have 1000x sharpness compared to original release. It would be need to made from scratch to really make a difference, and that's the whole point why something like Unity looks so much better.You need to get your eyes checked.
You really think a difference like this alone is going to wow people and convince them to buy a $500 next-gen console?
AC Valhalla is not made to convince people to buy a new console. Ubisoft aren't selling consoles. AC Unity has nothing to do with it. I was comparing last-gen vs current gen Black Flag and the difference was huge. It's not just "a bit sharper and better looking" or just "minor touches". Watch the video above your post.
You need to get your eyes checked.
You too.
Lmao you call this a "huge" improvement?
Talk about low standards
Dude forget it, these fanboys are the worst. Delusional even. Anything Daddy Yves has for them they will slop it up.
I don't know why people always expect this. A PS1 can run games at 60FPS. It's always just comes down to a choice between framerate and other concerns (Resolution, polygon count, texture resolution, number of effects on screen, map size, number of physics objects...)
And since most players don't really care, it almost never makes sense to downgrade your game's graphics to run it at twice the framerate.
And since most players don't really care, it almost never makes sense to downgrade your game's graphics to run it at twice the framerate.
What do u have to say about that video above? Also, wtf is up with you and this daddy Yves shit? This isn't the first time you've resorted to just calling people who correct you ubisoft fanboys, hasn't even been a day since the last time:
Improve your level of discourse my dude.
We had 2 things IMO that told us we might/should expect 60 fps in most games for next gen.
1. Many games on xbox one x and ps4 Pro offered performance modes (showing that devs do care and might be moving towards this option as a standard)
2. For the first couple years these cross gen games are being designed for Jag cpus and we know we are getting a massive upgrade on that front, so should at least expect a 60 fps option in nearly all games. You cant simply look at the past and say "hey consoles have always been this way," without taking all the current data/facts we have into consideration.
I'm aware of that. This whole conversation started from this comment,
to which you answered that yes it will. That's the only reason why I commented on whether Valhalla for example would be the tipping point for people to upgrade. You're contradicting only yourself with this. Black Flag is definitely better on PS4/XB1, but it's still essentially the same game and you can easily get a similar experience on PS3/360.
I'm not contradicting myself. AC Valhalla will wow us. That doesn't mean it will be worth buying a console for it. AC Origins and Odyssey are incredibly good looking games already. Next gen effects and upgrades would only make the game even more impressive.
As an extreme example, they could make a game that has effects/demands that pushes performance to 4K / 5 FPS on the new consoles. Just depends how demanding the game is on the hardware.
But why would the devs target 5 FPS? What kind of logic is that?
out of the 4 games I bought at launch this is the only one I enjoyed.
I feel like a lot of ya'll are putting way too much stock into the CPUs of these machines. Yeah, they're way better than the current gen console processors and they'll remove CPU bottlenecks in a majority of games, but once you start talking about native 4k and increased/new graphical effects, the CPU is no longer a part of the equation. At that resolution it's all about the GPU, and the GPU in these consoles is not powerful enough to run a game like AC at native 4k 60 FPS.
Last edited:
The 5 FPS example is purely illustrative. I don't think any developer would target that in real life. I just think some people have been mislead that SSDs and the like will inherently push framerates to 60 for all games when it's more nuanced than that.
Basically:
Game: Here's the job I've got, can you run it?
Console: Let me give it a shot, here's how I can handle it!
Peace
If you think you aren't or didn't mean it like that, okay then. No point to get bogged down in semantics. Every AAA game for next-gen will wow us to some extent, but I think that there still needs to be something more to actually wow us into the next generation and to get people think that they absolutely should upgrade to get something totally new, just like with the launch games of current gen.
That's not a big difference at all. The difference is just higher resolution textures, and the use of SSAO. There some higher quality shaders too but it's hardly noticeable outside of comparing them side by side. I wouldn't hardly call that significant.You need to get your eyes checked.
You too.
I'm sorry but just because there are a few added details and a resolution bump does not make it a HUGE improvement
See for yourself. It's nearly identical.
See for yourself. It's nearly identical.
Most of us, including me, are not asking for 4k60 (so your argument is moot). we simply want a performance mode at lower res and settings.
I mean... I'm just explaining why it's running at 30 FPS. I agree there should be a performance mode, but they clearly want the game to run at native 4k.
GPU.
They're likely GPU bound rather than CPU at native 4K. And probably using PC's Ultra quality graphics to differentiate from current-gen console's Low-Med/High graphics quality.
Isn't this what you would call "non-news"? Minimum of 30fps... I mean, what kind of info is that?
Smartphones don't need 60Hz/fps but go for it nevertheless because the user experience is significantly smoother and simply more fun.
If Karl Benz had said "we don't need cars" we would still have horse carriages today.
It doesn't need surround sound. It doesn't need 4k. It doesn't need color. We don't even need Assassin's Creed.
Smartphones don't need 60Hz/fps but go for it nevertheless because the user experience is significantly smoother and simply more fun.
If Karl Benz had said "we don't need cars" we would still have horse carriages today.
Last edited:
It is very likely that devs are using Ultra settings in Valhalla on next-gen consoles. Typically, at the beginning of a new console's lifecycle, devs do use Ultra settings or close to it, especially in cross-gen titles to make it look "next-gen" compared to current-gen consoles which would be using lower quality graphics. You can see Black Flag screenshots above in this page as an e.g.
I mean, it seems like a rather peculiar reply to make to me.
Your arguments of smoothness and whatever else are sort of tied to the part of my post you ignored. If you'd prefer 60fps with lesser graphics, awesome, that's why I said we need to be given the option. To me, the graphics are far more immersive in an RPG. FPS, racing games, fighting games, sure, give me a higher frame rate. Assassin's Creed? I don't really care.
But right now AC runs at variable 4k/30 on the One X, with graphical fidelity that is already far beyond the base PS4/Xbox One. That is the basis of comparison that led to the initial speculation.
Unless the IQ is far beyond what we're already seeing in current gen "enhanced" games, the question then becomes why don't you offer a performance mode that offers (approximate) One X fidelity? If they just come out and say "We're trying to push Ultra settings with limited RT at a locked 4k/30 FPS, and we only had 9 months of dev time on this version", that's totally understandable and reasonable.
- Status