• 110 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by minivan (164 posts) -

Who wants to buy it and tell me if the port is decent?

#2 Posted by JoeyRavn (4886 posts) -

It's out in the US. It'll be out in Europe on the 22nd.

From what I've seen from... eeeeeh... pre-release builds, it's a, well, problematic port. I'd wait a few days to see if there is a patch and/or updated drivers that improve performance. NVIDIA released its latest drivers today, but the only mention to ACIV is in the SLI section...

#3 Edited by Elwoodan (671 posts) -

I got it for free with the 770 I just picked up, will report back after the DL.

#4 Edited by BBAlpert (1259 posts) -

One thing that hadn't occurred to me until hearing the crew talk about that basketball game on the PS4 launch video was the fact that even if a next gen version is coming out, the PC version could be a port of the current/previous gen game. In other words, the PC version of NBA 2K14 is apparently a port of the PS3/360 version, which has some different features from the PS4/Xbox One version.

So I guess what I'm wondering is what the case is with AC4.

#5 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3595 posts) -

@bbalpert said:

One thing that hadn't occurred to me until hearing the crew talk about that basketball game on the PS4 launch video was the fact that even if a next gen version is coming out, the PC version could be a port of the current/previous gen game. In other words, the PC version of NBA 2K14 is apparently a port of the PS3/360 version, which has some different features from the PS4/Xbox One version.

So I guess what I'm wondering is what the case is with AC4.

Not the case.

You brought up the one game where this is the case, basically (NBA 2K). You're getting a better version of every game otherwise with ports to PC.

2K does a crap job with NBA and acknowledges it by making it $30 at release on PC. The game doesn't even have online on PC. They didn't bother to port the advanced next gen version for the same reason.

#6 Posted by jimmyfenix (3680 posts) -

@bbalpert: I think Nvidia stood in and partnered with Ubisoft to make the PC versions of their games better. So i think the PC version of AC IV might be pretty good.

#7 Edited by lun49gameon (89 posts) -

I have a good gaming computer and wasnt gonna buy AC4, but then I got lured into buying a PS4 and didnt know what game to buy for it. I randomly chose AC 4 even though Im still playing AC 2on PC.

I hope the PC version is an ok port because past assassins games have not run good at all on my PC and have some problems.

#8 Edited by BBAlpert (1259 posts) -

@bbalpert said:

One thing that hadn't occurred to me until hearing the crew talk about that basketball game on the PS4 launch video was the fact that even if a next gen version is coming out, the PC version could be a port of the current/previous gen game. In other words, the PC version of NBA 2K14 is apparently a port of the PS3/360 version, which has some different features from the PS4/Xbox One version.

So I guess what I'm wondering is what the case is with AC4.

Not the case.

You brought up the one game where this is the case, basically (NBA 2K). You're getting a better version of every game otherwise with ports to PC.

2K does a crap job with NBA and acknowledges it by making it $30 at release on PC. The game doesn't even have online on PC. They didn't bother to port the advanced next gen version for the same reason.

I guess the fact that NBA 2K14 is such an anomaly explains why the idea that it even COULD happen like that hadn't crossed my mind. But that is good to hear.

#9 Posted by AlexGBRO (245 posts) -

@minivan: i will buy it but i live in EU so i get my copy on the 22

#10 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3595 posts) -

@bbalpert: Yeah it's definitely a bizarre fringe case. Not saying other games might not have sub part ports too but 2K is alone as far as I know in doing a PC port that so clearly avoids being next gen. But 2K is also a new engine and everything for the next gen versions so yeah it's a bit different.

This game seems to be just going up from the next gen versions as long as it's optimized (we will have to see). AC III at least looked a lot better and performed a lot better for me on PC than it did on console.

#11 Edited by martez87 (64 posts) -

It seems to be out on Steam in EU now! Probably by mistake, so you might want to hurry.

#12 Posted by TooWalrus (12973 posts) -

Oh hey.

...I'm out of money to spend on games I probably won't play.

#13 Edited by Chrjz (303 posts) -

I'm currently downloading the copy I got with my 780... roughly 2 hours left of a 22.5GB download.

#14 Posted by Veektarius (4147 posts) -

Dammit, I wanted to make sure it was optimized in this thread and no one has it yet.

#15 Posted by JoeyRavn (4886 posts) -

@martez87 said:

It seems to be out on Steam in EU now! Probably by mistake, so you might want to hurry.

Oh, wow. That is pretty weird. I wonder how this will work, because even if Steam unlocks it, you still need to launch uPlay to uPlay it (pun totally intended).

#16 Posted by Capum15 (4571 posts) -

@veektarius: Haha, same. I'm hoping by the time I get home, someone will have played a bit of it.

#17 Posted by Subjugation (4693 posts) -

I want this to be good so badly. Someone please

report back and say, "No worries, it's great!"

#18 Posted by jimmyfenix (3680 posts) -

From what i have been reading some people say it is just like AC III and it is poorly optimized while other people have been saying it looks and performs great.

#19 Posted by SirToast (3 posts) -

Was the PC port of any AC ever good? I don't really think so and I don't think that this will change with AC4, but you can always hope. I personally never had performance problems with an AC game though, maybe because my PC is too high-end, so I don't really care.

I really don't know yet, if I should buy this game or not. I heard good stuff about it and it looks pretty cool, but AC3 was a pain to play. Maybe I'll just wait for a Steam Sale and buy it then for 50 % off.

#20 Posted by Korwin (2721 posts) -

@sirtoast said:

Was the PC port of any AC ever good? I don't really think so and I don't think that this will change with AC4, but you can always hope. I personally never had performance problems with an AC game though, maybe because my PC is too high-end, so I don't really care.

I really don't know yet, if I should buy this game or not. I heard good stuff about it and it looks pretty cool, but AC3 was a pain to play. Maybe I'll just wait for a Steam Sale and buy it then for 50 % off.

Not sure where all this comes from, I don't think there has ever been a major problem with PC versions of Assassin's Creed (I've played through every single one of them). The only legit issue was the horrible DRM solution they bolted onto Brotherhood.

I'd love to be playing AC4 right now, but the stupid Steam pre-load only downloaded 250 measly megs... wtf kind of pre-load is that?

#21 Posted by Chrjz (303 posts) -

My Windows 7 system contains:

GTX 780 @ 1175MHz (core) and 7GHz (memory)

i5 3570k @ 4.2GHz

16GB DDR3 1600MHz

So I should hope I can turn all settings to max and have smooth gameplay.

There is about 15 minutes left on my download and I'll report back here after with some info on FPS and fidelity. I haven't seen any of the other versions, though, so it'll be hard to make a comparison.

#22 Posted by JoeyRavn (4886 posts) -

First (?) PC review here. And, to correct myself, the latest drivers by NVIDIA are, in fact, aimed at improving performance in ACIV, both in single-GPU and SLI.

#24 Edited by GaspoweR (2510 posts) -

@artisanbreads said:

2K does a crap job with NBA and acknowledges it by making it $30 at release on PC. The game doesn't even have online on PC. They didn't bother to port the advanced next gen version for the same reason.

What? The PC version doesn't have online play? Wow...just wow. That's just silly. I was kinda hoping to buy this game down the line for the PC, too.

#25 Posted by Chrjz (303 posts) -
@joeyravn said:

And, to correct myself, the latest drivers by NVIDIA are, in fact, aimed at improving performance in ACIV, both in single-GPU and SLI.

Thanks, looks like I'll be downloading those drivers first...

#26 Posted by JoeyRavn (4886 posts) -

@gaspower said:

@artisanbreads said:

2K does a crap job with NBA and acknowledges it by making it $30 at release on PC. The game doesn't even have online on PC. They didn't bother to port the advanced next gen version for the same reason.

What? The PC version doesn't have online play? Wow...just wow. That's just silly. I was kinda hoping to buy this game down the line for the PC, too.

Just to clarify, Assassin's Creed IV does have multiplayer on PC. I assume that by "the game", @artisanbreads was talking about NBA 2k14.

#27 Posted by GaspoweR (2510 posts) -

@joeyravn said:

@gaspower said:

@artisanbreads said:

2K does a crap job with NBA and acknowledges it by making it $30 at release on PC. The game doesn't even have online on PC. They didn't bother to port the advanced next gen version for the same reason.

What? The PC version doesn't have online play? Wow...just wow. That's just silly. I was kinda hoping to buy this game down the line for the PC, too.

Just to clarify, Assassin's Creed IV does have multiplayer on PC. I assume that by "the game", @artisanbreads was talking about NBA 2k14.

Yeah, I was referring to NBA 2K14. I apologize that I wasn't being clear, duder! :D

#28 Edited by Kidavenger (3380 posts) -

I finished them all on PC last year, the only one that had any pc port issues was the first one and it was only a minor issue that the controls weren't completely mapped to the 360 controller by default, you had to go in and set half the stuff manually(I had a lot of the controls wrong it turns out which made the start of 2 a bit crazy).

I did play them all after the fact by quite a bit but they are all fine now, I don't really expect 4 will have any issues by the time it goes on sale at the end of December when I get it.

#29 Edited by Chrjz (303 posts) -

@chrjz said:

My Windows 7 system contains:

GTX 780 @ 1175MHz (core) and 7GHz (memory)

i5 3570k @ 4.2GHz

16GB DDR3 1600MHz

So I should hope I can turn all settings to max and have smooth gameplay.

There is about 15 minutes left on my download and I'll report back here after with some info on FPS and fidelity. I haven't seen any of the other versions, though, so it'll be hard to make a comparison.

So, I maxed out everything and it looked like I got an average of 45 FPS. It looked to go as low as 35 and as high as 62-ish. I'm sure I could gain a good amount of frames by lowering some of the fluff settings like soft-shadows and AA. It is a nice looking game for sure, but I get 100+ FPS in BF3 so it does seem a little unoptimized / drivers could be improved; I did update to 331.82.

#30 Posted by Korwin (2721 posts) -

@chrjz said:

@chrjz said:

My Windows 7 system contains:

GTX 780 @ 1175MHz (core) and 7GHz (memory)

i5 3570k @ 4.2GHz

16GB DDR3 1600MHz

So I should hope I can turn all settings to max and have smooth gameplay.

There is about 15 minutes left on my download and I'll report back here after with some info on FPS and fidelity. I haven't seen any of the other versions, though, so it'll be hard to make a comparison.

So, I maxed out everything and it looked like I got an average of 45 FPS. It looked to go as low as 35 and as high as 62-ish. I'm sure I could gain a good amount of frames by lowering some of the fluff settings like soft-shadows and AA. It is a nice looking game for sure, but I get 100+ FPS in BF3 so it does seem a little unoptimized / drivers could be improved; I did update to 331.82.

Just don't use TXAA, seriously it's a huge performance whore and offers almost nothing over SMAA in my opinion. I leave it turned off in every title that it's offered on, it's just not worth the performance hit.

#31 Posted by Abendlaender (2597 posts) -

Is it out in Europe as well? Steam lists it as "Out now" but UPlay doesn't.

#32 Edited by fetchfox (1158 posts) -

@abendlaender: In Norway and downloading through steam now, so... yeah! But, Uplay might stop me when I go to try and activate it. We'll see tomorrow (just started the download).

#33 Posted by Jimbo (9709 posts) -

Pre-ordered from Amazon but unfortunately not released here until friday because of the reasons.

#34 Posted by theodacourt (510 posts) -

@abendlaender: I got the code which came with graphics cards and this registers straight on to Uplay, and I've just played about 15 minutes of it to see if it works and it does and I'm in the UK. The Uplay shop is in £ so I assume it knows I'm British. Maybe it was a mistake, but I don't think they'll now turn it off for a few days since is been available to play for at least some people from the EU.

#35 Edited by CaLe (3678 posts) -

The amount of stuff to do in this game just feels overwhelming.

#36 Edited by Chrjz (303 posts) -
@korwin said:

@chrjz said:

@chrjz said:

My Windows 7 system contains:

GTX 780 @ 1175MHz (core) and 7GHz (memory)

i5 3570k @ 4.2GHz

16GB DDR3 1600MHz

So I should hope I can turn all settings to max and have smooth gameplay.

There is about 15 minutes left on my download and I'll report back here after with some info on FPS and fidelity. I haven't seen any of the other versions, though, so it'll be hard to make a comparison.

So, I maxed out everything and it looked like I got an average of 45 FPS. It looked to go as low as 35 and as high as 62-ish. I'm sure I could gain a good amount of frames by lowering some of the fluff settings like soft-shadows and AA. It is a nice looking game for sure, but I get 100+ FPS in BF3 so it does seem a little unoptimized / drivers could be improved; I did update to 331.82.

Just don't use TXAA, seriously it's a huge performance whore and offers almost nothing over SMAA in my opinion. I leave it turned off in every title that it's offered on, it's just not worth the performance hit.

I've heard TXAA is bad but it actually performs much better than MSAA or CSAA. I know why FXAA is bad; is TXAA similar?

#37 Posted by LiquidPrince (15606 posts) -

Anyone want to post some screen shots?

#38 Posted by Abendlaender (2597 posts) -

@abendlaender: I got the code which came with graphics cards and this registers straight on to Uplay, and I've just played about 15 minutes of it to see if it works and it does and I'm in the UK. The Uplay shop is in £ so I assume it knows I'm British. Maybe it was a mistake, but I don't think they'll now turn it off for a few days since is been available to play for at least some people from the EU.

That's weird. The game doesn't even show up in the "My games" thing on UPlay for me. That's kinda worrying.

#39 Posted by Korwin (2721 posts) -

@chrjz said:
@korwin said:

@chrjz said:

@chrjz said:

My Windows 7 system contains:

GTX 780 @ 1175MHz (core) and 7GHz (memory)

i5 3570k @ 4.2GHz

16GB DDR3 1600MHz

So I should hope I can turn all settings to max and have smooth gameplay.

There is about 15 minutes left on my download and I'll report back here after with some info on FPS and fidelity. I haven't seen any of the other versions, though, so it'll be hard to make a comparison.

So, I maxed out everything and it looked like I got an average of 45 FPS. It looked to go as low as 35 and as high as 62-ish. I'm sure I could gain a good amount of frames by lowering some of the fluff settings like soft-shadows and AA. It is a nice looking game for sure, but I get 100+ FPS in BF3 so it does seem a little unoptimized / drivers could be improved; I did update to 331.82.

Just don't use TXAA, seriously it's a huge performance whore and offers almost nothing over SMAA in my opinion. I leave it turned off in every title that it's offered on, it's just not worth the performance hit.

I've heard TXAA is bad but it actually performs much better than MSAA or CSAA. I know why FXAA is bad; is TXAA similar?

TXAA as far as I'm aware is a hybrid multi-sampling/shader based solution. It's performance in general is pretty poor (high level MSAA poor) in every title I've seen and often has the same kind of if not worse negative impact on texture quality that poorly optimized FXAA can have. More often than not it just seems like a bullet point feature Nvidia likes to have their embedded engineers throw into titles that when all that's said and done purely bogs down hardware giving the illusion that its "maxing out" a top end machine.

I gave it another shot recently in Arkham Origins but again it really didn't look any better than FXAA in that game and the performance dropped considerably in some areas with it enabled.

#40 Edited by minivan (164 posts) -

I'm on Windows 7 running at 1920x1080:

Radeon HD 6900 2 GB

i5 2500k 3.3GHz

8GB DDR3

If I max all settings I get like 10-15 frames. Here's the settings I'm using to get 30-45 frames per second:

Screenshots with settings pictured above first, then maxed:

I'm just starting so I'll update with more screenshots as I get to new environments. Initially this seems to look and perform a lot like AC3. Still no windowed mode...

@liquidprince

#41 Posted by CrusNR (19 posts) -

I hope that no one minds me butting in with a few screenshots as well. Mine are also from very early in the game and were downsampled from 1440p with max settings. I'll most likely have to drop back down to 1080p for a solid frame rate while I play though.

#42 Edited by MonetaryDread (1955 posts) -
  • Clean install of Windows 7 with latest drivers (updated today)
  • SSD
  • GTX 680
  • 8 gig of DDR 3 1600
  • i5-2500k (4.2 GHz)

As long as I use MSAA (2x) instead of TXAA, then turn off Ambient Occlusion (I never see a noticeable difference in image quality with SSAO),and lock my FPS at 30, the game runs as smooth as one could hope for. I think the key here is locking the game at 30 because as soon as you start seeing a fluctuation in frame-rate then the game feels choppy and unoptimized. When it is running at 30fps though, the game feels like it was designed to run this way.

#43 Posted by Ghost_Cat (1295 posts) -

Somewhat random question: has anyone tried playing this on the PC with the PS4 controller? I have been looking for a reason to get the controller, and thought maybe ACIV will be that game to break me in.

#44 Posted by chiablo (847 posts) -

@crusnr: how we'll does a 1440 screen scale 1080 content?

#45 Posted by LiquidPrince (15606 posts) -

Doesn't look too far off from the PS4 version. So at least that's something. Weird that the anti-aliasing doesn't seem that much better either. I saw some screenshot of people running 4x TXAA, and I could still see some jaggies.

#46 Posted by Korwin (2721 posts) -

@chiablo said:

@crusnr: how we'll does a 1440 screen scale 1080 content?

About the same as a 1080 screen scales 900 content, fuzzy when compared to native.

#47 Posted by Xanadu (169 posts) -

For me turning off ambient inclusion gave me the most change in frame rate. I can post my settings later if anyone wants but I'm using a core i5 8gbs of ram and a GeForce 570 running at 1360x768 and I'm getting about 40-55fps with it averaging around the 50's. Considering my machine is modest I would expect most gamers to have no problem with this build. One odd note: turning on vsync throttles the fps to 30 and not 60fps.

#48 Posted by soulcake (211 posts) -

The game feels badly optimized i am only getting 15 fps or its my GT540m and lowering it to 720p wont stretch the game so i am stuck with black bars ;[

#49 Edited by shinjin977 (707 posts) -

i7 & Titan here! Looks amazing and the port is fine but VERY demanding game if you want to max it out. I get some fps dip on max.

#50 Edited by Colourful_Hippie (4281 posts) -

@soulcake said:

The game feels badly optimized i am only getting 15 fps or its my GT540m and lowering it to 720p wont stretch the game so i am stuck with black bars ;[

No, that sounds about right. You're trying to run this on a mid range mobile gpu

I would like to run this on my i7/770 but I'm not interested enough yet to spend $60