YouTube’s ‘Candyland’ has released a video, showing some of the graphical differences between Assassin’s Creed: Unity and Assassin’s Creed: Syndicate. Unity was criticized for its framerate issues and really high requirements and in order to improve things in Syndicate, Ubisoft decided to remove/reduce a number of effects.
First of all, it’s obvious from the start of the video that Syndicate lacks the cloud shadows that were present in Unity. This effect was completely removed from Syndicate.
Syndicate – while reported to be running better than Unity – features less crowded places. The game’s population density has been severely decreased compared to Unity.
NPCs also appear to be less detailed, though it’s pretty hard comparing two games that feature completely different NPCs.
Syndicate also appears to have less walkable interiors.
Enjoy the comparison video!
![Assassin's Creed – Syndicate vs. Unity Graphics Comparison [FullHD][60fps]](https://www.dsogaming.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-youtube-lyte/lyteCache.php?origThumbUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2Fh4YU_hy9xFk%2F0.jpg)
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
so pretty much got rid of useless shadows and less crows as the mass crowds were not in that timeframe anyway …. i would still rather choose day/night cycle from ACS over overbaked lighting sets in ACU any day
Don’t know what you’re on about. Victorian London was one of the most population-dense cities in the world during that time. All you need to do is search for images around that time. The game does not represent 1860 very well.
but stil has wider streets than paris and even though it was dense it wasnt mass crowds …. nonissue for me
Cloud shadows are not “useless”, they add a great bit of life to a game. Every AC except 2 has had them and since AC2 they’ve all had dynamic time of day. You don’t have to choose between day/night cycle and cloud shadows, there is no conflict between them. There is no excuse to cut cloud shadows in Syndicate, it’s a rushed mess.
ACU was good optimized for what graphics it had!
texture were perfect!
NO!!!!
it kinda was look at my channel
Silviu Iulian
Withcer 3 was a bad optimized game
Witcher 3 isnt so bad. The problem with W3 is the animation physics, navigating Geralt is awful. Especially the jumping animation, how they manage to ruined that.
They were both horrible.
no it wasnt
yes it was very good optimized !
check on my channel and compare it to others
Silviu Iulian!
You again… with your clueless statements and your great english! 😀
ACU wasn’t and still isn’t a well optimized game, and it still has plenty of textures that aren’t that good. It looked great, but even on the best PCs, it is still buggy and has several poor graphics options.
ACU looks amazing and runs amazing here idk what are you talking about!
and beside Crysis 3 on 4k there is no game atm on the market to match ACU on graphics quality!
check my youtube channel to see more
Silviu Iulian
i am doing gaming performance tests on every game that comes out!
ACU runs so good on Maxwell, also AMD screwed up with the drivers and that’s why performance was so bad on AMD GPUs. I had a R9 280 at the time and it ran awful, Omega driver came out and fixed the performance issues.
I have a GTX 970 now and ACU runs beautifully, much better than Black Flag as well.
Is anyone still surprised? the monkeys at Ubicrap can’t optimize their shi* so, naturally, they will go to “reducing resource hog” route which is a wise but not necessarily good decision because they chose the easier way. Well, they’ve gotta meet their annual schedule of AC 0_0
Pubisoft couldn’t care less about maxing out the ps4 or x1 , releasing a fantastic game engine that will accept ultra high-res textures, fill up 16gb of ram and use every single cpu cycle or gpu rasteriser…etc etc.
they grab the same net code, textures, objects, animations, they do a big copy-paste, and they already have 70% of the game finished.
all that matters is releasing the game on time, even if there are 1000 bugs , so they can make another 500-1000 million $.
60fps, 30fps, 900p, 720p, all that shiiit isn’t important.
The only thing that must work flawlessly, is any micro transactions system: the gamer should be able to purchase whatever item in whatever Pubisoft game, in just a few seconds, without any problem. THAT, is important.
why should people be surprised by AC:Syndicate graphics, when everybody knows this game/series, like call of duty, fifa, NBA, etc, are just huge copy-paste from the previous version…?
Just look at Activision. .. they have made 1-1.5 billion $ each year, since the first ps3/x360 versions, with the call of duty series… and all these years, with that insane amount of cash, they never had the class to spend 20 or 30 millions, and make a brand new game engine… and kept using the same 10yo outdated engine.
One should only expect the same from a company like Pubisoft…
Nah, we all expected this right after unity. 🙂
I have no problem with graphics i played games since ATARI TV system in ’90, so graphics is not so important, well is 2015 so yeah it is but, i rather enjoy fluid gameplay above look’s. i knew it from first trailer that it will not look as good as Unity, but hey not every human on this planet have HIGH PC, so i hope Syndicate will run better. In unity i had from 25-30 fps in ULTRA without antialishing in 1366×768 resolution (so far my monitor support) in LOW 26-30 FPS. more drops i had in crowded places. My config HD7870 OC, 8 DDR3 1333Mhz, AMD PhenomIIX4 975 3.6 GHZ, so yeah not so great PC but no money for new one (i have to change socket i have AM3). I guess i will go for PS4. (no upgrade every 1/1,5 year; i will buy only games, not components anymore, and graphics what can i say i had an xbox360 from 2008 till 2013). I LOVE how graphics can be on a PC but a 980ti and a 8 core AMD or some badass I7. and some 24 DDR4 (no money sir). so yeah assassin creed syndicate look “worse” but it will run better?
The console version of Singularity looks worse than PC version unity? Ok then, But the pc version of Syndicate will look as good if not better than the pc version of Unity.
Glad someone can see into the future!
What is shown is that this year’s console version of AC “looks worse” than last years’, and with the PC version still being a month from release, how on earth can you make such a definitive statement?
Because PC are becoming more and more powerful evry year with new cpus and gpus release while consoles stay the same until the next generation. That why the pc version will not look worse but instead it must look better since this year we pc are more powerful than 2014 pc’s They made the console version look worse to make it run at 60 fps but on pc there is no rreason to do something like it because it has so much power!
I only play on PC, and yeah it’s a good PC. But I’m sorry, I don’t know if it is because of your english, but you are saying alot of stuff that doesn’t make any sense.
Plus, you are again being a futurologist, making defenitive statements that no one can be sure about, while at the same time making stuff up that isn’t even true, for example, the console version according to eurogamer runs at a max of 30 fps at an upscaled 900p res, yet you say “They made the console version look worse to make it run at 60 fps”.
Developers still have to code/developed for that specific hardware.
They do not even do that today, but you are saying they will start tomorrow with newer/fresher hardware that they are even far less competent on……?! Come on man. Really…?
This is not going to stop unless people stop buying their sh**e
The PC version is based on the console version and the console version looks worse. They’re not remaking assets for PC, textures, character models, all of that stuff will be identical on PC and you know it.
I was very surprised, despite how suspicious I get when I hear bullshit, I still believe in repentance. I really thought they would change their shady tactic.
But they haven’t changed one bit. How can a company like Ubisoft change when stupid people endorse them and pay up front, i.e. Unity. Some things go to he.ll so quick. I hope this franchise dies, cause it’s in the wrong HANDS!
*Syndicate streets* why so lonely?
Just like The Witcher 3 on consoles, the NPCs are so sparse that the places look like a ghost town.
You’re right, I did not know that.
This hooded POS of a franchise needs to die a qick death….
Sadly it won’t, still sells millions.
Keep in mind the 20 FPS, Bloom-fest, trash heap that was AC:Unity sold almost 7 million units. This ugly train is gonna keep chugging for a while sadly.
exactly! most ppl gonna buy that anyway, regardless how crappy it gets. Ubisoft knows that and for rest of us they just keep promising bullshits.
Assassin’s Creed ended with AC3. Black Flag was a nice side story. Other than that it’s pure milkage at this point. The series’ main purpose was to prevent end of the world and tell us the story of Ezio, Altair and Desmond. Those dudes have gone now. Now they do whatever pops up inside their head, even if it’s not series’ canon. The series has no clear direction at this point. Just pure milkage. Sadly most “gamers” don’t have a good taste when it comes to THEIR OWN hobby and will continue to support yearly crap like this and COD. I moved on.
still haven’t finished blackflag.
Any “improvements” they make is nonexistant due to how fast they release a new one. it is done to death, it is borring at this point and it barely improves.
All this are irrelevant if the game is good and not the mess of unity
it will look better on pc but its irrelevant. i have watched gameplay it looks fine.
I care not as long as it actually runs. There was no need for acu to be using up to 5 gigs of vram for the textures it had.
But syndicate is suppose to have dynamic time of day which is usualy more demanding than mostly static lighting in unity. Im glad they implemented it.
Dynamic time of day is alot less demanding than volumetric shadow casting sky and clouds.
I doubt you have any idea what are you talking about. I dont know how exactly are clouds (they look prety much same in syndicate to me) done in unity, but i realy doubt they are volumetric and that they are casting real shadows. Moving cloud shadows are usualy faked with function on light (ue3, ue4, cryengine) and are almost free.
I don’t know if Unity had volumetric clouds or not, but I do know it had moving cloud shadows, as shown, but hey, since you are the pro here who seems to know it all and saying I don’t know a thing of what I’m talking about, I’m pretty sure you’re gonna be the one who’s gonna explain to me how a game running the same engine a year later, that according to the vast majority of people, looks worse and is lighter on graphics to clearly have better performance and more fps… is actually a game that’s running a more intensive lighting with time of day slow moving shadows cast on terrain and objects, instead of the much faster clouds moving casting shadows also on the terrain and on objects.
Whatever the case, which I really don’t care seeing I only play on a pretty good PC, it was obvious that Syndicate was scaled down in graphics options for more stable fps and gameplay on consoles, yet again having to run at only 900p upscaled and the tipical crappy 30 fps limit.
“much faster clouds moving casting shadows also on the terrain and on objects.” Seriously dude, educate yourself a bit. You can start with google and “ue4 light functions” and “dynamic cloud shadows”.
If cloud shadows cost nearly nothing what’s Syndicate’s excuse for not having them? Go ahead, defend Ubisoft some more.
How should i know? Im not working at ubisoft and im not defending them. You ubisoft haters are really pathetic.
We have good reason to hate Ubisoft if you didn’t know.
So you admit you don’t know anything about the feasibility of keeping cloud shadows in the game, once again a feature that last-gen AC games had, and yet you feel the need to defend Ubisoft’s choice to remove them. And you say you don’t work for Ubisoft.
“and yet you feel the need to defend Ubisoft’s choice to remove them.” What? Where? Can you quote me? Where exactly i did that? Seriously dude, get your head checked. You are paranoid.
Yeah again, the pro will teach me on my lighting and cloud shadows education. But then you go and tell me to google stuff from Unreal Engine 4, when we are talking about AC? and again I state I couldn’t really care less if the clouds are volumetric or not, demanding or not, as my PC seems to run it perfectly fine, yet the conversation on this article is about how everyone is clearly seeing that they decided to invest less on graphics demands for a more stable game for the consoles.
But I’m pretty sure you are right, dynamic time of day is much more demanding than cloud shadowing, it goes right along with what they were trying to do … right.
I said “You can start with” in hope ill point you in the right direction. But never mind. Next time you can again made up some bullsh*t a be a idiot some more. Bye.
Cya, and don’t forget, walk in the shade, cause the sun makes sh*t melt 😉 bye
Some of the comparisions they make are pretty dumb, low population density when he runs on a road that’s meant for carriages and not for walking, or show a scene where there’s an actual revolution going on, and compare it to an every day street scene.. sure there are some valid points, but half of the video is just nitpicking.
Sure the game is different, on different times and different places, what the video is showing is whats pretty clear to anyone, they had to go back on graphics options and tone it down, because the consoles can’t handle it, even at lower fps and resolution.
If it wasn’t clear for you, what was shown, and everyone who’s been playing it have already confirmed, the game is less demanding on graphics, that’s why it is also more stable.
It has alot less population overall, it doesn’t have volumetric shadow casting sky/clouds and most of the models are more simple, have less polygons, no to mention the clear difference where in Unity you could actually enter buildings, and this one is back to textured blocks.
So you rather have that mess of a game back, than something that actually works well?
I get it, it’s worse, we hate consoles etc. but if it doesn’t have all the problems ppl encountered while playing Unity, it’s kinda worth it.
And the explorable buildings aspect.. i never played Unity, but did it actually matter from a gameplay/enjoyment point of view? Because in the previous games, buildings served as a shortcut, but in the video it was like a small “street” where maybe you could blend in with ppl.
I don’t care either way, I didn’t buy Unity and I sure won’t buy this one either, but I did play Unity on my PC, and most of the PC problems were due to being a poorly optimized console port, after a few patches, it’s still too heavy for consoles, but my PC handles it fine, the bugs are still there though, and yeah, mainly cause of rushing the game and because its a console port.
I prefer a game that runs great and looks great, but having to choose just one of those options, running great is better.
Well yeah, but Unity ran like crap for a lot of people, so this was expected. You can’t have both. Although Unity runs fine for me BTW.
Well of course! They don’t want b*tchslappes all over again about poor performance/unoptimized-turd… that’s why they cut back stuff, especially on the crowding, which was a huge system taxing feature.
Normally I would’ve said that there will be crowd density option in PC version but since this is Ubisoft, I’d say that it’ll be like slightly touched up Console version.
It does make sense because most people seem to blame the vast crowds of NPCs in Unity, it’s cut back drastically in Syndicate and still some performance issues(espeically on the XBox one), which says the crowds where not the issue. Consoles struggle with every open world game unless you put it in a desert like MGS 5, bear and barren. Consoles have the same issue with The Witcher 3 ,they just can’t handle open world games every well at all.
Yeah, it’s marketed as “only on Playstation”.
Gameworks will make it look much better thankfully otherwise yes it would probably look the same. Waiting for the the usual Gameworks hate remarks and runs like sh*t on AMD GPUs(even though it runs fine assuming AMD get their drivers together).
LOL. Just LOL.
“20fps drops? Screw Ubisoft, Unity sucks! Just cut some effects but give us 30 fps at least!”.
“Slightly worse graphics than Unity? Screw Ubisoft, give us at least the same quality!”.
People really are that stupid? Why even compare Unity to Syndicate? AC production cycle is about 3 (THREE) years. Its not like they’re taking Unity and just rebuilding it. These games are being made almost simultaneously.
“Slightly worse graphics”
“some effects”
It’s not a minor downgrade and the performance is STILL horrible. Example for the major downgrade: They removed CLOUD SHADOWS. Cloud shadows have been in literally every Assassin’s Creed except 2. Even Brotherhood and Revelations, the addons to 2, had cloud shadows. And yet this game in 2015 is missing that feature. It’s extremely obvious that it was rushed out the door, else devs wouldn’t make cuts in such weird places.
And yet you’re here making excuses for the billion dollar company forcing these rushed, unpolished releases every single year.
I don’t know the person who said the effects were less, but I doubt I would notice, care, or believe some random person on Internet dissing on this game. The city of London is a one-third larger than Paris and unless he can prove the whole less detailed skins on NPCs or crowd density was due to the game running slow I don’t necessarily think the reduction in the NPC population would be for that reason. I always thought Unity was too crowded. If the NPC population was as high as it was in Unity I would think you wouldn’t be able to drive the carriages very well. ?Ubisoft has pretty much done it to themselves but most people crapping all over the franchise seems to be not because the games is inherently bad but because people don’t like ?Ubisoft.
” I doubt I would notice”
I doubt that as well, but it still doesnt run better, and that I WILL notice.
“care, or believe some random person on Internet dissing on this game”
YOU DOING IT ALL THE TIME MAN !!!
“The city of London is a one-third larger than Paris ”
Copy paste. streaming same assets
“I always thought Unity was too crowded.”
Yeah but this is not what they mean they mean that npcs spawn right infront your eyes.
” ?Ubisoft has pretty much done it to themselves but most people crapping all over the franchise seems to be not because the games is inherently bad but because people don’t like ?Ubisoft.”
Pretty much but at this point it is ubisoft who keeps screwing people up and then they whine about customers.
if they spend half as much time on their products than making stuff up, they will be the best
No cloud shadows? So its worse than the 2007 original game then.
Consoles can’t handle it and you can’t have the PC version have more features. also there are no open buildings to walk in. It’s either one or the other, no time of day in Unity since it was already too much for the consoles, now Syndicate reduces everything that made Unity so “next-gen” and just made it appear bigger because you can drive around now.
The PC version will be better as usual.
The PC version is always better than the console versions, even if it isn’t quite up to par with PC standards. Every single AC game has been better on PC. Hell, every single Ubisoft game has been better on PC.
Better………, or laden with bugs like all the others….?
well they seem to take their time this time around.
But you can only polish a turd so hard, it is still a turd.
Damn right….
Well to be fair the PC versions of these games have always been better than the console versions. Hell even an i3 CPU paired with a 750ti handed in closer to a locked 30fps with slightly better visuals than PS4 which trailed along at 17fps during it’s worst drops which were frequent. I mean 30fps is a horrible compromise so anything below that should be considered broken.
Lets not forget Unity was absolutely riddled with bugs/issues on console as well despite the fact nothing could be done about the frame rate, resolution, draw distance or inferior graphics.
With that being said I will be ignoring this game as there is far too many better games to buy and play.
I second that choice friend…..
Yep, it’s one of the reasons why I love gaming on PC, the other is PC specific games that I enjoy.
Forget bigger crowds I want smarter AI.
ubisheeps still gonna buy it, sigh, they first need to stop buying these kind of craps
Ubisoft just needs to take a few years off of the franchise and develop a whole new engine because the current engine that is in Assassin’s Creed games is just garbage
they should just suck it up and use unreal4. the game’s breakdown in general after long hours of playing. even NPCs break away from there in game routines and will start to glitch out
Unreal4 engine is 1 trillion times more stable then what Ubisoft uses…
900p again ? lol
Yep, where is this secret power of the consoles 2 years later? AC Syndicate 900p, Starwars Battlefront 900p, Halo 5, dynamic resolution as low as 1152×810.
What a joke.
The secret power will be and as ALWAYS,in LONGEVITY.
EXAMPLE: a 2006 PC CONFIG with an Amd Athlon x2 2,6 Ghz, 3GB DDR1 and a GeForce 7300 GT (my old config aprox 450 $ back then price including HDD,monitor, etc) was put to ground by titles like Assassin Creed 1, DMC 4, crysis 1 was like 5 fps in low. So what i did? i bought an XBOX360 IN 2008. Guess what? after few years i was able to play TOMB RAIDER 2013, Hitman Absolution, Crysis 3, Assassin Creed IV, Prince of Persia TFS etc.
SO WHAT IS THE POWER OF CONSOLES?
SIMPLE, Graphics will be reduced, it was reduced on old consoles but yet i could PLAY, on that PC config i wasn’t able to install windows 7 64 bit, video card dx9 only and ram ohh ddr1 not even 2. and price same PRICE. around 400$. THE XBOX360 RESISTED till GTAV that PC was GARBAGE after year 2010. now i have new PC but i’m thinking in a PS4 ( PC need’s upgrade AGAIN, socket, cpu, ram, video, hdd is still good ahh and Power supply)
You can’t compare PC tech from 2006, to now in 2015. PC hardware is now so far ahead of consoles in raw power, it’s getting rediculous.
When even simple $600 PC builds now days can run most titles easily, the days of needing to purchase a console because your gaming PC can’t run most games, are long gone.
I didn’t i did compared a 2006 PC vs a 2007 XBOX360 and now days is same i wonder my HD7870 OC and my 8GB ddr3 1333Mhz and Phenom IIx4 975 3.6 Ghz will last is year 2015 well almost 2016 and games are already require R9 280 and above or 960 and min a I7 or a 8core from AMD and RAM at least 8 yes but not at 1333 MHZ above 1800 or 12 at 1600 mhz.SO now you have my actual config.UPGRADE OR PS4.when i say upgrade i refer to new socket and at least a 980ti or a R390 from amd and 16 DDR3 1600.(WHY?so it can run games longer than 3 years ,lets say games from year 2018)all that costs more than 1300 $ a ps4 and a nice TV under 900$ the rest of the money GAMES.and i keep the actual PC for internet and music,etc.PROBLEM IS I don’t have MONEY.f….
yeah but my pc have only 2 GDDR5 on 256 bit and next year same month won’t be as good and maybe not at all nowdays 3 GB is OK 4 in future and at least 382 bit and for CPU clock is 4 x 3.6 Ghz but the L3 chace is 6MB an I5 has 12 and a i7 24. i don’t know intel series cause i had AMD since 2003. In assassin creed Unity i had huge frame drops and well the last AAA title that had 53 FPS was TOMB RAIDER 2013 max settings 1366×768. i tried Evil Within full HD downsample but lags so much maybe 15 fps. Not so good PC. It was from 2012 till now 3 years i could max the graphics and make a difference between consoles, but with the new games incoming next year and an upgrade is necessary if i want to play a game and make it look better than ps4 otherwise is useless to have a PC with graphics lower than PS4. So as far as RIGHT NOW i play in 768p (monitor won’t allow more) on actual PC in 30/40 FPS , a PS4 with 900p is better. and i wanted so bad to play Uncharted series and The last of US, with the Horizon Down incoming next year. i guess 900p 30 fps is not a problem. i wish a better PC but…
Just don’t buy the newest games until you can upgrade. By the time you can upgrade, they’ll be cheap as hell. Don’t throw your money away by giving it to Sony.
with a $600 PC build including all components POWER SUPLLY, HDD, CPU, RAM, VIDEO BOARD, COOLER, CASE. you will not be able to play games in dx 12 in let’s say year 2017-2018. With an upgrade maybe. and yes you are RIGHT nowdays PC HARDWARE IS POWERFULL, but at 400$ you won’t get as powerfull (complete PC) and be able to play on it as long. Why Game Requirements (watch evolution of graphics) it’s normal to EVOLVE but it costs. Is more rentable to buy a console and still play games after 5 years on SAME config THAN upgrade every 2 years.
You buy a PC with a good CPU, then replace the graphics card after 3-4 years if you’re struggling to maintain 60 fps at native res. After 6 years you move on to a new CPU which means replacing the MOBO and possibly RAM, so that’s basically where the cycle starts over. As I have shown you in my previous post a console will cost over 800 dollars in the same time frame so think of it as:
Year 1: 600 dollar PC
Year 4 or 5: 200 dollar GPU
Year 7: 600 dollar CPU + MOBO + RAM + whatever else you need
Year 10: 200 dollar GPU
A Big upgrade
B Small upgrade
A …
B …
If you do this you will ALWAYS play games at smooth framerates, WAY better looking than the console version and with all the other freedoms and lower prices PC gaming brings. There is simply no rational argument for consoles. Plug a controller into your PC and your PC into a TV if you insist on that particular “experience”.
I don’t really like your time frame, but yeah, that general idea is what keeps someone going for cheap.
You don’t like the time frame because you don’t believe a CPU included in 600 dollars total costs can last 7 years? That depends on whether you play the newest consoleports or not. If you stick to genuine PC games it will work.
Or is it the GPU lasting 4-5 years? That depends on whether you have that compulsion (so many have) to “max” settings. But for quite some time now games have looked virtually identical between medium and “maxed” so I don’t think that’s reasonable anymore.
If I had to make an upgrade plan for the 2000s I would pick smaller steps, like year 1, year 3, year 5. For today’s pace 1,4,7 works.
>and price same PRICE. around 400$.
False. You made additional payments to MS, specifically 15-20 bucks per game (why console games including multiplats cost 60+ instead of PC exclusives’ typical 40-45) and 60 bucks a year for playing online. Conservatively estimating let’s say you buy only two games a year, 30-40 bucks in console tax. Multiplayer included that’s 80-90 EACH YEAR. You bought it in 2008 and you still have it. Let’s say you stopped playing in 2013, that’s 5 years. Low-balling it with 80 per year you have actually paid Microsoft 400+5*80 = 800.
People who think playing on consoles is cheap are like people who think their cellphone contract is a great deal because they got the phone “for free”. No, it isn’t and no, you didn’t. MS and Sony aren’t handing out cheap hardware, they are letting you RENT mid-range hardware at a low entry price.
You make no sense at all and all your prices are wrong as usual.
in my country pc components are almost double priced (a 980ti is almost 1000 Euro 3.599 RON/920 EURO ) i live in Romania and to have a PS4 IS cheaper (in both cases i need money from bank) I earn from work every month 1100 RON (romanian monetary) in euro is almost 300 euro, but from that money i MUST LIVE. PC COMPONENTS HERE ARE EXPENSIVE (maybe EURO zone) i plan in leave this country. So YEAH IN MY COUNTRY it makes sense. if i was living in Germany or Sweden or England yeah maybe i would’ve had home BOTH (HIGH TECH PC +PS4) and my actual pc is not capable in playing FULL HD, at max settings (WHY?what’s the diff then if play on LOW in 1080p, and more i see that FullHD is gettin old, 1440p is STANDARD. So on my PC same graphics or worse than as a PS4 but on lower FPS. I know that a PS4 is weak but HERE is the best CHOICE, not every country have sallary over 1000 euro. i hate my country.
With lower than the lowest settings graphics.
what pisses me off so much is that it told those morons those things years ago and i was called a xbot/sony pony.
There isnt any point with those peasants.
Consoles are sh*t now, it’s just about brand name loyalty at this point and selling the same games over and over again, just like Nintendo with Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros.
PS4 is 50% more powerful…. or 4 fps faster lmao
Those peasants never learn there isnt any point keep talking to them.
Cloud shadows are out. There’s a deja vu. AC1’s cloud shadows were the prettiest thing about it (and it WAS a pretty game in its day), then AC2 removed them.
Atari in the 90s, LOL
In a lot of ways i did like Unity. but some textures,bugs and ofc the horrible performance held it back from being the best game in the series.
Oh and it was kind of same old.. same old.. (boring)
Well in Unity there was a revolution.. everyones outside.. so idk if thats a good comparison. Also people walking on the street while everyone is inside those horse pulled things? It made more sense that people were on the side walks.
The building comparison wasnt that good either.. i mean everything was different.
During some parts Unity looked better..Syndicate had its good sides too. I love Candyland but this was kind of pointless, or well not entirely but yea. One thing i did notice is that there ARE far less people in general. Revolution or not. It feels kind of empty and while it doesnt have to be packed full like Unity, it does need a few more people here and there..
P.s. Sorry about the double post. 😛
look at the bright side atleast it will not run like sht.
Gameplay wise it does look better than Unity, animation looks like a cartoon though. people criticised Risen 3 for it’s animation, this looks worse. Will have to see it running at 60fps because it looks bad on the consoles. Also the Gameworks tech will give it depth unlike the flat, bland and cheap look on the consoles.
apparently it is a sjw’s wet dream, at this point if they dont add laser guns i dont give a damn.
ehmm i posted that
“look at the bright side atleast it will not run like sht.”
Now i have to take it back
Anyway so much for next gen.
Im more disapointed about the rain effects they look barely any better than in unity was expecting something more like AC4 considering its London and we all know how much it rains there.
Unity was 1 of the better AC games. I sold Syndicate back and kept Unity.