Possible quality of the pc version of ACIII

#1 Posted by Elohym (26 posts) -

I recently noticed that Steam is finally taking preorders for Assassin's Creed III and am left with a difficult dilemma. You see, I have played AC I, II, Brotherhood and Revelations all on my PS3 but want to give the PC a try with this one. I remember hearing some rumors about bad port quality for these games in the past and was wondering if anyone could enlighten me. How have the assassin's games been in the past? Has the port quality generally been bad or am I just being paranoid? Is all that Deluxe Edition Jazz worth my money?

Sorry if this topic is already in these forums but I didn't want to browse them to much for fear of spoilers.

Also, English is not my native language and this is my first topic ever, so please be gentle ;)

#2 Posted by iceman228433 (694 posts) -

I don't know what all that is about I have all of the games on the pc and they seem great to me, many of people just had hate for Ubisoft's pc drm and they got rid of that.

#3 Posted by kadash299 (340 posts) -

As long as it runs above the 25fps of the ps3., id say get it.

#4 Posted by TooWalrus (13344 posts) -

I've only played Brotherhood on PC, but the game ran just fine and it looked fantastic. It was just the always-on DRM people were upset about, which they don't even do anymore.

#5 Posted by SeanFoster (915 posts) -

I played the Ezio games on my PC and had no complaints. They looked gorgeous and played well with my Xbox controller.

#6 Posted by Bane (503 posts) -

I played Revelations on PC and there weren't any technical issues that I remember. You do have to put up with their Uplay system which requires a Uplay account and their own separate launcher to be installed.

I also recommend getting a 360 controller to use.

#7 Edited by AhmadMetallic (19303 posts) -

Two points:

  • I've played AC1, 2, Brotherhood and Revelations on PC, and I can't remember a single incident where I was anything less of completely satisfied. Well, the Ubi DRM disconnected ONCE, but that was it. The AC ports are stellar, beautiful and have a consistent FPS.
  • Don't pre-order games. It's not worth it pre-ordering AC3 and it turning out to be buggy or even broken when it comes out on PC. Just buy it day 2 after the idiots who pre-ordered it tell you whether they wasted their money or whether the game's good. Pre-ordering is the stupidest concept I've ever heard of, especially with games. Big freaking gamble right there! A 60-dollar-worth gamble.

Welcome to Giant Bomb!

#8 Posted by MikkaQ (10296 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

Don't pre-order games. It's not worth it pre-ordering AC3 and it turning out to be buggy or even broken when it comes out on PC. Just buy it day 2 after other idiots who pre-ordered it tell you whether they wasted their money or whether the game's good.

This this this.

What's the point of paying now? Just wait for all the people to either rejoice around or completely demonize the port and make your decision from there. Bonus points if you wait even longer for a fan patch to come out and fix stuff.

#9 Posted by Elohym (26 posts) -

Thanks guys, I feel much better now about buying it on a PC.

#10 Posted by bibamatt (1123 posts) -

I'm currently playing Brotherhood on PC after playing a bit of it on Xbox and it's looooads better. No bugs or anything so far, it's been smooth as butter. Just having the game in native 1080p makes the game look much better. I don't know about 3, but the previous games haven't been intensive on your rig either, as they're essentially console ports.

#11 Edited by rolanthas (257 posts) -

Yeah there haven't been any major issues with AssCreed PC versions so far, aside from their usual lateness. They got a fair amount of graphic options, and for the most part nicely optimized. UPlay is wonky, but at least they don't require a constant net connection for the single player campaign anymore.

Deluxe Edition doesn't makes sense much I think, 80 dollars is a bit of an overkill for a digital edition however you slice it.

#12 Posted by lclay (398 posts) -

For some reason AC3 doesn't even seem to be ok the UK steam store anymore - it better be made available again, I had definite plans to get it.

Anyone know what is going on here?

#13 Edited by Tennmuerti (8519 posts) -

I've played all of the AC games except Revelations on PC, and the ports have been rock solid, better graphically then consoles obv. and run better, no major bugs. Not too fancy on the graphical options but didn't really need them imo. Controls (k&m) actually work great for that type of game too.

Ubisoft DRM may be have been shit requiring always online (not anymore). But the actual PC versions are better then what most publishers put out.

Their current problem is that Ubisoft authentication servers tend to fail on big sales/launches making you unable to register and play the game for a bit. But they have added the offline mode just like Steam.

The latest Driver game from them also ran perfectly. Ubisoft actually puts out quite a few PC only releases too (Anno2070 for example). They are imo on of the better PC publishers, their only blemish being the past DRM policy.

#14 Posted by Hunkulese (2968 posts) -

The funny thing is Ubisoft is the company that does PC ports right. They put in the work to make sure the games are fantastic on the PC and every Ubisoft game I've played on PC has easily been the best version of the game. Unfortunately they keep trying new forms of drm that ruin the experience for some people and those are the people you're likely to see complaining on the internet. Personally I've never had their drm get in the way of playing the game and would 100% recommend that you play all your Ubisoft games on your PC.

#15 Posted by caska (167 posts) -

@MikkaQ: In Australia preordering digital games is one of the ways I manage to save 30 or so dollars for each title. For some reason Steam likes to sell games at the US normal 40-60 mark before someone at the retailers notice and force them to change the price to our usual 80-100...

That said I'm probably not going to go for AC3 until a few sites like PCGamer or RPS tell me something about the port. I played Revelations on the pc back in the day and that seemed great but you never know :P

#16 Posted by AhmadMetallic (19303 posts) -



#17 Posted by DJJoeJoe (1399 posts) -

Ugh this game is a mess on the PC currently, just straight up poor optimization of the CPU usage in the game. It's fairly insane and easily the worste optimized game I've ever played on my PC that I can remember, I at least got GTAIV to run at 30~ish stable at some point due to much tinkering. This game is a definitely wait, or buy the console versions assuming you appreciate your games to run properly. I shouldn't need anything more than what I have ($1500 worth of pc built 3 years ago) to play a game that runs fairly ok on a 7 year old console, no matter the level of control you get on consoles. Very sad considering the older AC games ran VERY well on PC. It's almost a tease because the very very first sections of AC3 run at above 60fps for me, but as soon as the game enters boston I'm lucky to get above 20fps and changing the resolution to half, and removing ALL graphical options to their lowest and even tweaking the .ini file to remove v-sync doesn't get the game even close to 30fps overall. Wish there was a consumer report thingy for video games that I could file false advertising or something lol... this version of the game, currently, is as close to a joke as things can get.

Hopefully Ubisoft will supply a vast optimization patch to the game eventually, would be very much appreciated.

#18 Posted by zenmastah (1072 posts) -

Yeah, the port is poorly optimized for sure.

And the story in general feels rushed and lacking in almost every way..

Biggest dissapointment this year for me.

#19 Edited by Tennmuerti (8519 posts) -

I'm having no problems running it on my PC.

Game looks beautiful (on highest settings) and runs very smooth, with only occasional frame rate dips. (using 2x6990M)

I'm actually very glad I waited for the PC version over the console counterparts, the game looked like ass during the QLs, but playing it myself now on the PC it's easily one of the most stunning looking games of the year. The sheer scope of the environments adds to my appreciation, it's easy to make a beautiful looking corridor (or other small area) but on this scale it's pure impressive, especially with the sheer number of detailed unique assets, so many varied and natural looking environments.

#20 Posted by Korwin (3529 posts) -

@Tremore said:

Yeah, the port is poorly optimized for sure.

Seems fine to me, 60 frames and all. Has some nice new bells and whistles and they brought back the older (see better) global lighting system from AC1 which ran on DX10.

#21 Posted by zenmastah (1072 posts) -

Sure i got 60 frames too, it just fluxuates too much on the highest settings in terms of what those settings actually do.

Very High enviroments versus High especially.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.