Assassin's Creed: Valhalla

#26
#26
Freak said:
I’m pretty much the same way. I usually adjust my graphics settings down until I get the FPS range I want. The visual fidelity changes don’t bother me nearly as much as the low frame rates do. I’m still running a 1080 card at 1440p on a 144hz monitor. I’ll probably upgrade to something with ray trading at some point but I’m still pretty satisfied with my performance.
Click to expand...

Thinking about upgrading to Ampere this year? If the price point is where I want it to be then I will most likely get one. I currently have a 1070.
 
#27
#27
zhangliao04 said:
Thinking about upgrading to Ampere this year? If the price point is where I want it to be then I will most likely get one. I currently have a 1070.
Click to expand...
No real plans as of yet but I’ll probably evaluate video cards and consoles later this year and make some decisions.
 
#29
#29
zhangliao04 said:
Thinking about upgrading to Ampere this year? If the price point is where I want it to be then I will most likely get one. I currently have a 1070.
Click to expand...

I can’t wait to upgrade but I bet those cards will be in short supply for a long time. Seems like a lot of people are waiting on their release to upgrade.
 
#30
#30
Aesius said:
I can’t wait to upgrade but I bet those cards will be in short supply for a long time. Seems like a lot of people are waiting on their release to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. These cards are being looked at as a huge jump over the last model. I just hope NVIDIA doesn't jack up the price again. Last year I was ready to upgrade. I was planning on buying a new Ryzen 3000 CPU, new MOBO, new RAM, and one of the new Super GPU's. Then stuff started piling up and decided to hold off. I'm glad I did on the GPU front as it looks as if these new Ampere GPU's are going to smoke even the Super's. I don't care much for RT since not many games at all use it. But there is definitely going to be a huge noticeable difference between my 1070 and a 30XX. I don't know if I want the 3070 or 3080 yet.
 
#32
#32
Brave Volunteer said:
I say just keep it at a simple two options approach. 1080p/60 or 4k/30 unless you can also hit 4k/60. With so few televisions even supporting anything higher than 60, and even fewer home theater receivers supporting higher than that, I doubt many devs would spend a lot of time optimizing for 90 or 120fps.
Click to expand...

More and more TVs are supporting 120 hz now and it will become more standard in the future. I think it's a worthwhile option to include for people with the tech to use it or as a future proofing method. Gran Turismo 4 on PS2 had a 1080i mode for people with HDTVs way back in 2005, and certain Xbox titles also had 720p/1080i options. So the precedent is there to have consoles utilize features that aren't mainstream yet.

1080p on these next gen consoles should be easily handled at very high framerates provided the devs don't go wild with ray-tracing. That's not to say all games need ultra high FPS or will be able to use it of course. But it's cool to have the option.
 
#33
#33
zhangliao04 said:
Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. These cards are being looked at as a huge jump over the last model. I just hope NVIDIA doesn't jack up the price again. Last year I was ready to upgrade. I was planning on buying a new Ryzen 3000 CPU, new MOBO, new RAM, and one of the new Super GPU's. Then stuff started piling up and decided to hold off. I'm glad I did on the GPU front as it looks as if these new Ampere GPU's are going to smoke even the Super's. I don't care much for RT since not many games at all use it. But there is definitely going to be a huge noticeable difference between my 1070 and a 30XX. I don't know if I want the 3070 or 3080 yet.
Click to expand...

I'm fully expecting to pay $1,000+ for a 3080 Ti or whatever it will be. Might be $1,500. But if it's as powerful as the rumors suggest, it should last this entire console generation.
 
#34
#34
Aesius said:
More and more TVs are supporting 120 hz now and it will become more standard in the future. I think it's a worthwhile option to include for people with the tech to use it or as a future proofing method. Gran Turismo 4 on PS2 had a 1080i mode for people with HDTVs way back in 2005, and certain Xbox titles also had 720p/1080i options. So the precedent is there to have consoles utilize features that aren't mainstream yet.

1080p on these next gen consoles should be easily handled at very high framerates provided the devs don't go wild with ray-tracing. That's not to say all games need ultra high FPS or will be able to use it of course. But it's cool to have the option.
Click to expand...

Not THAT many more. The vast majority of 4K TV's sold are the Wal Mart, Target, and Sams Club variety and those are not the high end Best Buy Magnolia variety. Plus, you also have to factor in that even fewer AV receivers support it, so even those who might have TV's that support 120hz, may be handicapping themselves because they are running it through an AV receiver that only supports 60hz.
 
#35
#35
Brave Volunteer said:
Not THAT many more. The vast majority of 4K TV's sold are the Wal Mart, Target, and Sams Club variety and those are not the high end Best Buy Magnolia variety. Plus, you also have to factor in that even fewer AV receivers support it, so even those who might have TV's that support 120hz, may be handicapping themselves because they are running it through an AV receiver that only supports 60hz.
Click to expand...

It's coming though, especially with HDMI 2.1. It's like computer monitors. For a long time LCDs maxed out at 60 hz. Now there's a whole gamut of them going all the way up to 360 hz. It's an improvement and a big selling point. High refresh rate 4K TVs are already out and it will eventually be standard, the same way that 4K itself and HDR are now.

Again, look at my example of PS2 and Xbox offering HD support. Barely anyone had HDTVs back then. Why not offer it, especially as it becomes more common when these consoles are still being sold circa 2025-2026? Also, the new consoles support HDMI 2.1, but there should be no reason to do so considering that very few TVs have it right now, right? Future proofing IS a thing.

And how many people have AV receivers now? Most have just have HDTVs and soundbars.
 
#36
#36
DrRosenRosen said:
Console is probably cheaper.
Click to expand...

Oh definitely. With all of that it will definitely be cheaper in the beginning. But my current setup has lasted 7+ years and with how things are going now...how Microsoft and Sony "upgraded" halfway through the gen with a One X and 4 Pro, I think it would end up being a wash. I believe they will do the same thing with this gen...Xbox Series X2 and PS5 Pro. If I were to buy both of those, then I'm right back to where I would be if I were to have built a new PC.

Having said that, watch me go buy a new console and upgrade my PC hah.
 
#37
#37
Aesius said:
I'm fully expecting to pay $1,000+ for a 3080 Ti or whatever it will be. Might be $1,500. But if it's as powerful as the rumors suggest, it should last this entire console generation.
Click to expand...

I won't be able to afford a 3080 iI at that price range. I fully expect it to come out at the normal numbers we saw the Supers and original 2000's come out at. ~$500 for a 3070 and ~ $700 for a 3080. If they do that I can definitely upgrade. But make the 3070 ~$700 then people may riot. Lol
 
#38
#38
Let's not also forget another critical part of all this HD gaming: the cable. Definitely worth it to spend more on the cable than you think. Some say they are 4K ready, but in reality they should never be bought for 4K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oUTlaw
#39
#39
Bumping this. I'm about 60 hours in on Xbox One X.

So far....I'm underwelmed. It's not a bad game, but so far my experience has been EXTREMELY buggy. Like almost AC Unity and AC3 level buggy. I've experienced 6 game crashes so far, and I don't think I experienced 6 total with either Origins or Odyssey. Main quests haven't been bad but I've experienced a ton of bugs with side quests. At least 15 already, and most made the quest not able to be finished. For instance one with a boar that would find you treasure, the last treasure he would either stand over the spot you needed to check to to finish the quest, or he wouldn't go to it. I've seen way more graphical glitches than with Odyssey at this point, from floating enemies to arrows that stay stuck in the air. For them to take off a year to dedicate to this game and it be this unpolished is pretty bad. To make matters worse, they just released a patch and it actually made my experience worse. The framerate dropped and I'm experiencing way more screen-tearing.

Also, it's a Viking theme but honestly it's pretty much the exact same game as Odyssey, just a different era. Same mission structure, same side quest structure, and a gigantic map which sounds cool but after a while it feels like mindless busywork quests. They need to go back to the drawing board for the next game and actually scale it back.
 
#40
#40
VolsSportsFan said:
Bumping this. I'm about 60 hours in on Xbox One X.

So far....I'm underwelmed. It's not a bad game, but so far my experience has been EXTREMELY buggy. Like almost AC Unity and AC3 level buggy. I've experienced 6 game crashes so far, and I don't think I experienced 6 total with either Origins or Odyssey. Main quests haven't been bad but I've experienced a ton of bugs with side quests. At least 15 already, and most made the quest not able to be finished. For instance one with a boar that would find you treasure, the last treasure he would either stand over the spot you needed to check to to finish the quest, or he wouldn't go to it. I've seen way more graphical glitches than with Odyssey at this point, from floating enemies to arrows that stay stuck in the air. For them to take off a year to dedicate to this game and it be this unpolished is pretty bad. To make matters worse, they just released a patch and it actually made my experience worse. The framerate dropped and I'm experiencing way more screen-tearing.

Also, it's a Viking theme but honestly it's pretty much the exact same game as Odyssey, just a different era. Same mission structure, same side quest structure, and a gigantic map which sounds cool but after a while it feels like mindless busywork quests. They need to go back to the drawing board for the next game and actually scale it back.
Click to expand...

i'm on ps5. it took me FOREVER to sign into ubisoft just to play it. then there was a lot of chops in the frames and even some dead zones on some cutscenes. it's a fun game, especially for my girlfriend since she's a medieval literary historian and beowulf is her ****.. but meh.
 
#41
#41
VolsSportsFan said:
Bumping this. I'm about 60 hours in on Xbox One X.

So far....I'm underwelmed. It's not a bad game, but so far my experience has been EXTREMELY buggy. Like almost AC Unity and AC3 level buggy. I've experienced 6 game crashes so far, and I don't think I experienced 6 total with either Origins or Odyssey. Main quests haven't been bad but I've experienced a ton of bugs with side quests. At least 15 already, and most made the quest not able to be finished. For instance one with a boar that would find you treasure, the last treasure he would either stand over the spot you needed to check to to finish the quest, or he wouldn't go to it. I've seen way more graphical glitches than with Odyssey at this point, from floating enemies to arrows that stay stuck in the air. For them to take off a year to dedicate to this game and it be this unpolished is pretty bad. To make matters worse, they just released a patch and it actually made my experience worse. The framerate dropped and I'm experiencing way more screen-tearing.

Also, it's a Viking theme but honestly it's pretty much the exact same game as Odyssey, just a different era. Same mission structure, same side quest structure, and a gigantic map which sounds cool but after a while it feels like mindless busywork quests. They need to go back to the drawing board for the next game and actually scale it back.
Click to expand...

I’m very with you here. I’m usually a Creed fanatic, and I’ve defended Creed games no one else liked, but this one is very “meh”

It feels like everything is busy work. I also don’t feel like I’m an assassin at all, I’m just a Viking that does Viking stuff. Stealth doesn’t seem to be a big part of this game and stealth is what made these games great.

One final gripe... I feel like the guard placements are awful in this one. Even if you want to use stealth you really can’t, in most places the guards are placed in such a way that killing one of them just alerts the others. Just feels like Ubisoft was lazy on this one.
 
#42
#42
After getting through Demons Souls I picked up where I left off with this one last night (50’ish hours in), I played for about 10 minutes before I finally just said “Ok, I just don’t like this game”, gonna find something else to play at nights. This one was a flop for me.
 
#43
#43
knox-townVOL said:
After getting through Demons Souls I picked up where I left off with this one last night (50’ish hours in), I played for about 10 minutes before I finally just said “Ok, I just don’t like this game”, gonna find something else to play at nights. This one was a flop for me.
Click to expand...
Yeah, flop for me too. Only reason I play it is I like Norse folklore and I like Vikings era stuff. But the gameplay leaves a ton to be desired. I play it every now and then, but have yet to be pulled in.
 
#44
#44
BruiserVol said:
Yeah, flop for me too. Only reason I play it is I like Norse folklore and I like Vikings era stuff. But the gameplay leaves a ton to be desired. I play it every now and then, but have yet to be pulled in.
Click to expand...

They need to go back to the old formula. I enjoyed Origins and Odyssey was good but a step down and now Valhalla is showing they now are in a rut with the "new" formula. They're trying to be like Skyrim and have this huge map with a million side quests but after a while they're all the same. Go here, help this guy, find a map, conquer area. Go to next area and repeat.

I know they felt like the old formula was in a rut, and I can buy in some ways it was but to me the rut was they didn't know where to go with the story after the Miles part was done. There's a reason AC2 and AC4 are the most popular ones. Last year I went back and played all the remastered versions of the old titles and it made me realize how much I miss "old" AC. Even AC 3 was much better and prior to all this that used to be my least favorite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UTwild82 and Aesius
#45
#45
VolsSportsFan said:
They need to go back to the old formula. I enjoyed Origins and Odyssey was good but a step down and now Valhalla is showing they now are in a rut with the "new" formula. They're trying to be like Skyrim and have this huge map with a million side quests but after a while they're all the same. Go here, help this guy, find a map, conquer area. Go to next area and repeat.

I know they felt like the old formula was in a rut, and I can buy in some ways it was but to me the rut was they didn't know where to go with the story after the Miles part was done. There's a reason AC2 and AC4 are the most popular ones. Last year I went back and played all the remastered versions of the old titles and it made me realize how much I miss "old" AC. Even AC 3 was much better and prior to all this that used to be my least favorite.
Click to expand...

Trying to copy Skyrim or Witcher 3 is one of the biggest mistakes game devs make. Those are masterpieces based in fully fleshed out fantasy worlds that rival Tolkien. That is where you start. Have content that you understand that deeply. There is no dev formula that will get you there.

Even Bethesda and CDPR have learned this the hard way with their other titles, which are fun entertainments but not mind blowing. It is also no accident that these titles are the 3rd and 5th in the same fantasy world.

The quest structure of those games, and the play mechanics, are not where they excel. And the inventory maintenance required in both is always something that seems to suck away time you could be doing things. Dragonborn/Witcher/Supply Maintenence Clerk. And I still won't have the potion I need when a legendary dragon swoops down.
 
Last edited:
#46
#46
Rifleman said:
Trying to copy Skyrim or Witcher 3 is one of the biggest mistakes game devs make. Those are masterpieces based in fully fleshed out fantasy worlds that rival Tolkien. That is where you start. Have content that you understand that deeply. There is no dev formula that will get you there.

Even Bethesda and CDPR have learned this the hard way with their other titles, which are fun entertainments but not mind blowing. It is also no accident that these titles are the 3rd and 5th in the same fantasy world.

The quest structure of those games, and the play mechanics, are not where they excel. And the inventory maintenance required in both is always something that seems to suck away time you could be doing things. Dragonborn/Witcher/Supply Maintenence Clerk. And I still won't have the potion I need when a legendary dragon swoops down.
Click to expand...


Skyrim was very good but morrowind is the goat. There is something about the beauty of that land and music that will ever be ingrained into me. Oblivion was horrible and I hated the portals.

I would pay great money for a remastered morrowind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman
#47
#47
NEO said:
Skyrim was very good but morrowind is the goat. There is something about the beauty of that land and music that will ever be ingrained into me. Oblivion was horrible and I hated the portals.

I would pay great money for a remastered morrowind.
Click to expand...

The problem is I think everyone follows the boring ubisoft model for RPG’s now. Horizon is just like far cry, fenix rising is just like AC Odyssey. Even all the Bethesda games are boring and fetch questy. I don’t think anything will touch what the Witcher 3 was, not even anything CDPR makes in the future. Caught lightning in a bottle there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO and Rifleman
#48
#48
It's not even about being an assassin anymore. That was one of the coolest part of the old ones was just the fact that you were in this mysterious group that lived in the shadows.
 
#49
#49
Christian Lowe said:
The problem is I think everyone follows the boring ubisoft model for RPG’s now. Horizon is just like far cry, fenix rising is just like AC Odyssey. Even all the Bethesda games are boring and fetch questy. I don’t think anything will touch what the Witcher 3 was, not even anything CDPR makes in the future. Caught lightning in a bottle there.
Click to expand...


The star wars oprn world game could but I doubt it.

Imagine if each world was a complete game and the quest could take you around the galaxy?

The entire galaxy completely open.

I think they could charge a monthly 9.99 subscription and just never stop adding content. It could be mind blowing.


It wont though....

I know I am teasing myself.
 
#50
#50
Rifleman said:
Trying to copy Skyrim or Witcher 3 is one of the biggest mistakes game devs make. Those are masterpieces based in fully fleshed out fantasy worlds that rival Tolkien. That is where you start. Have content that you understand that deeply. There is no dev formula that will get you there.

Even Bethesda and CDPR have learned this the hard way with their other titles, which are fun entertainments but not mind blowing. It is also no accident that these titles are the 3rd and 5th in the same fantasy world.

The quest structure of those games, and the play mechanics, are not where they excel. And the inventory maintenance required in both is always something that seems to suck away time you could be doing things. Dragonborn/Witcher/Supply Maintenence Clerk. And I still won't have the potion I need when a legendary dragon swoops down.
Click to expand...
Yeah, let's not get crazy with the Tolkien comparisons. They might compare in what has been captured in video games/movies, but Tolkien literally wrote the book(s) on universe creation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rifleman
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top