Assassin's Creed: Valhalla

#3
#3
Looking forward to the gameplay footage. Also glad to see that this is being handled by the team that did Origins. I think Origins was a better game than Odyssey.
 
#4
#4
I never played Origins, but I loved Odyssey. Really pretty landscaped and ran smooth for me (PC). My buddy who has played all AC games said he really liked Origins and Odessey. We both can't wait until Valhalla releases.
 
#8
#8
  • Like
Reactions: TallVol68 and Offset Eye
#9
#9
Freak said:
Seriously, it's mind blowing that 60 frames isn't the focus above all else on next gen.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It’s also looking more and more like the old rule of “consoles outperform their PC equivalents” isn’t true, or at least isn’t as true as it used to be.

Origins and Odyssey require ultra beefy rigs to run at 4K 60 FPS, and those rigs sure as hell don’t cost $500 like the XSX presumably will.
 
#10
#10
Freak said:
Seriously, it's mind blowing that 60 frames isn't the focus above all else on next gen.
Click to expand...

I'll take 1080p @ 240 fps over 4k @ 30 fps. Actually... 1440p @ 60 or 120 fps would be A-OK.
 
Last edited:
#11
#11
Aesius said:
Agreed. It’s also looking more and more like the old rule of “consoles outperform their PC equivalents” isn’t true, or at least isn’t as true as it used to be.

Origins and Odyssey require ultra beefy rigs to run at 4K 60 FPS, and those rigs sure as hell don’t cost $500 like the XSX presumably will.
Click to expand...

XSX will probably do 4k @ 60 fps, except with frame tearing.
 
#13
#13
Aesius said:
Agreed. It’s also looking more and more like the old rule of “consoles outperform their PC equivalents” isn’t true, or at least isn’t as true as it used to be.

Origins and Odyssey require ultra beefy rigs to run at 4K 60 FPS, and those rigs sure as hell don’t cost $500 like the XSX presumably will.
Click to expand...
I'm hoping that as we move into the cycle these 30 fps games are a thing of the past. If not, I won't be playing much console.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Offset Eye
#14
#14
Freak said:
Agreed, give me 1440p all day long at 60+ fps and I'm thrilled.
Click to expand...

I don't get why this isn't a mandate. Only thing I can think of is that the developer is saying they don't have enough time to optimize at launch. Eh, I don't know.
 
#15
#15
Offset Eye said:
I don't get why this isn't a mandate. Only thing I can think of is that the developer is saying they don't have enough time to optimize at launch. Eh, I don't know.
Click to expand...
I’ve thought about it too. It doesn’t seem like changing the FPS would be much more complicated than a config file, but maybe it is. I look at it like pc, being just a matter of tweaking graphics settings until you get the desired frame rate.
 
#16
#16
Offset Eye said:
I'll take 1080p @ 240 fps over 4k @ 30 fps. Actually... 1440p @ 60 or 120 fps would be A-OK.
Click to expand...

1080p with some AA still looks good, especially at the distance most people play consoles at. Targeting 4K on every title is dumb.

They should really do three tiers on the demanding titles: 1080p/120 or 90, 1440p/60, and 4K/30.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Offset Eye
#17
#17
Freak said:
I’ve thought about it too. It doesn’t seem like changing the FPS would be much more complicated than a config file, but maybe it is. I look at it like pc, being just a matter of tweaking graphics settings until you get the desired frame rate.
Click to expand...

I guess they don't want to sacrifice any visual fidelity. It's funny because I actually love tweaking settings as a PC gamer to get the best image quality and FPS compromise. I still have a meager 980 Ti and I run a 3440x1440 display, so I'm a little underpowered.

But because Ultra settings are a sham nowadays, I just find out which settings have the biggest performance hit and lower them to high. Leave everything else on very high or ultra and get the same FPS as the 2080 owners with the graphics looking 5% worse.

It IS nice to have an ultra beefy card and just crank everything and not worry about it, though.
 
#19
#19
Aesius said:
1080p with some AA still looks good, especially at the distance most people play consoles at. Targeting 4K on every title is dumb.

They should really do three tiers on the demanding titles: 1080p/120 or 90, 1440p/60, and 4K/30.
Click to expand...

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.
 
#20
#20
Aesius said:
I guess they don't want to sacrifice any visual fidelity. It's funny because I actually love tweaking settings as a PC gamer to get the best image quality and FPS compromise. I still have a meager 980 Ti and I run a 3440x1440 display, so I'm a little underpowered.

But because Ultra settings are a sham nowadays, I just find out which settings have the biggest performance hit and lower them to high. Leave everything else on very high or ultra and get the same FPS as the 2080 owners with the graphics looking 5% worse.

It IS nice to have an ultra beefy card and just crank everything and not worry about it, though.
Click to expand...
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.
 
#21
#21
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...
Which comes back around to my earlier question of how hard is it to optimize for different configurations? It doesn’t seem like it would be that big of a deal but I don’t have a clue how optimization on console works.
 
#22
#22
I’m not sure most console owners even understand frames per second. I’m embarrassed to admit that I didn’t until I got into pc gaming. The games I played with higher frame rates I thought just had better graphics and that’s why they looked so smooth. I’m guessing that’s why 4K has always been a big selling point on console because people understand that. Or maybe I was in the minority with my ignorance on the subject. Lol.
 
#23
#23
Freak said:
Which comes back around to my earlier question of how hard is it to optimize for different configurations? It doesn’t seem like it would be that big of a deal but I don’t have a clue how optimization on console works.
Click to expand...

As a console gamer I don't WANT a plethora of settings options though Freak. Part of the reason why I console game in the first place is the simplicity. I have no interest in a bunch of graphic/performance settings staring me in the face when I boot up a game on console. If I wanted that I would be a PC gamer. I can accept a 2-options approach, as an "either/or" is still relatively simple. But keep that laundry list of graphical settings on PC where it belongs! I want the developer to have already made those decisions for me. I want them to present a 30fps option at the highest possible graphic/resolution setting that my console to handle and I want a 60fps option at the highest possible graphic/resolution setting that my console can handle. I can accept those terms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tweezervol
#24
#24
Brave Volunteer said:
As a console gamer I don't WANT a plethora of settings options though Freak. Part of the reason why I console game in the first place is the simplicity. I have no interest in a bunch of graphic/performance settings staring me in the face when I boot up a game on console. If I wanted that I would be a PC gamer. I can accept a 2-options approach, as an "either/or" is still relatively simple.
Click to expand...
I understand and agree. Im not suggesting anything of the magnitude of pc settings. But I think a simple setting to prioritize frame rate over graphics should be easy enough, whether it’s two options or three. It’s already being done now with several games since the one x and ps4 pro came out. It’s one setting with different choices. Or a slider even.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aesius
#25
#25
Aesius said:
Well this is a bit of a bummer:

Ubisoft Confirms Assassin's Creed Valhalla Running at 4K@30 on Xbox Series X

Surprising that a 12tf console can't run a game built on a ~7 year old engine at 4K 60. I wish there was a setting to lower graphics or do checkerboard rendering and get 60 FPS. Should be standard on all next-gen games IMO.
Click to expand...

Color me shocked :eek:

They were full of marketing when posting all of these 4K up to 120 fps stuff.

Freak said:
Agreed, give me 1440p all day long at 60+ fps and I'm thrilled.
Click to expand...

This is what I do on my computer. 1440p gaming all day and I usually get ~50 fps. I don't need 4K.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top