Assassin's Creed - New Interview

[Arwin]

I believe blimblim said they used the same capture hardware. Quick Arwin, B3D elects you to go get AC and give us impressions

But I want Uncharted, Guitar Hero III and SingStar! And R&C, if I have some spare change! And I'll never have enough time to even play the games I already have (Eye of Judgement, I :heart: you!). And the game doesn't seem like any fun! The more I see of it, the less I'm thrilled.

Of course, I"m curious, but I think I'll like this much better, for less money too, so I'm going to wait until others post impressions. Should be out here this week.

 

[Jedi2016]

Same hardware, same default settings, and no agenda.

This has been known for a long time now, PS3 outputs a brighter image than the 360, which usually looks 360 screens look better (darker, deeper, more contrast).

Of course this can be fixed by simply calibrating your TV...

I noticed that on day one when I got my PS3 and calibrated my TV to it. As a result, I generally ignore any comments in reviews or screenshots indicating reduced contrast or brighter image for the PS3. So I'm fairly sure that, on my TV, both versions would look identical in terms of contrast and shading.

I am a bit confused about the flip-flop regarding the framerate, though. One site the 360 is smoother, another says the PS3 is smoother. Do the majority of the reviews indicate one over the other? I wonder if the two aren't simply exactly the same and the reviewers' personal bias towards one system may lead them to "see" something that isn't there. I just did a quick run-through of the Head-to-Head video on IGN, and it appears that both systems have occasional framerate dips and tearing.

 

[ninzel]

This is what happens when your game doesn't have a multi-trillion dollar marketing budget behind it. You get the normal spectrum of opinions reflecting the fact that everyones taste is different. As it should be.
As opposed to a game like Halo3 where reviewers are practically conditioned to universally love it before it even arrives.
Bottom line,trust your own opinion and if in doubt don't don't give up on it completely just try it with a rental.

 

[XeRo]

snip

I think most reviews were x360. I didn't really see anyone else compare the two versions.

 

[scooby_dooby]

No, this is a case of the current state of game reviews that value a highly polished experience, over an innovative one.

COD4 for example. No huge marketing budget, but an average of 95%!! How can a game, that is repeating the SAME formula we've seen time in, and time out, really get a 95 average?

 

[deepbrown]

No, this is a case of the current state of game reviews that value a highly polished experience, over an innovative one.

COD4 for example. No huge marketing budget, but an average of 95%!! How can a game, that is repeating the SAME formula we've seen time in, and time out, really get a 95 average?

I suppose it's like a perfected formula. Like a Michelin star recipe. I don't know...but I do know that the more FPS/Shooters are marked higher than other games, and sell more than other games - developers just really aren't going to bother. And I was excited that I was being catered to this gen.

 

[ninzel]

No, this is a case of the current state of game reviews that value a highly polished experience, over an innovative one.

COD4 for example. No huge marketing budget, but an average of 95%!! How can a game, that is repeating the SAME formula we've seen time in, and time out, really get a 95 average?

A well known IP acts as it's own marketing as well. I don't disagree that the quality matters but there should still be variety in scoring. There will always be exceptions,and COD4 may be one of them. The lack of variety also shows that the game review community is small and somewhat monolithic.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Also, this is Ubisoft's premiere title for 2007, so it probably has a huge marketing budget behind it, not as big as Halo, but still bigger than 95% of games out there.

 

[Asher]

The IGN HeadToHead reiterates the differences in framerate, and even has video to prove it: http://insider.ign.com/articles/834/834701p4.html

 

[RobertR1]

Not an insider so what BlimBlim said on gaf was correct? that at times the PS3 is anywhere from a noticable 5-10fps slower?

 

[Ben-Nice]

So who's lying? They say the opposite regarding framerate.

IGN

These big open worlds, which are fully interactive, do come at a severe cost on PS3. There is considerable texture pop-in and noticeable framerate issues. Playing back-to-back with the 360 version, it's obvious that Ubisoft did not devote enough resources to the PS3 edition

Gamespot

There are few differences between the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions. PS3 owners are blessed with a slightly more solid frame rate, although the 360 version features a little more contrast in the lighting, so it's pretty much a wash

 

[PARANOiA]

I don't think it's a lie so much as an error. So far we have IGN and a couple of forum goers saying 360 is better, with only Gamespot saying it's the PS3.

Some suggest maybe the PS3 ran smoother on level one, and maybe they tried it, made a note, then finished the game on 360. IGN made special mention that the PS3 version was near unplayable later in the game - so maybe Gamespot just didn't get up to there.

Why they would keep playing on the lower-framerate version is anyone's guess. Achievements? It's speculation either way, but someone messed up big time, and their site's reputation will suffer with it.

 

[Jedi2016]

I didn't notice a drastic difference in the IGN video. The X360 version was not without it's share of framerate stutters and screen tearing, they just happened at different times than on the PS3. One particular instance of pop-in (the shadow of the first ladder) was exactly the same on both.

I've also gotten the impression from reading some of the posts on IGN that, according to that particular reviewer, a game becomes "unplayable" after a dip of about 5fps or so. He's apparently rated several games as having the "worst framerates in history", and yet no one who actually plays them notices much of anything. Also, the second reviewer (with the "Another Take" at the end of the review) actually played the PS3 version all the way through, and yet he makes no mention whatsoever about the framerate.

 

[wco81]

I guess for those not wanting to spend 60 on this game, you could check your local Fry's to see if they are doing the $40 deal.

What $40 deal at Frys?

 

[XeRo]

What $40 deal at Frys?

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?threadid=652864

You need to check with your local Fry's. Some are doing, some aren't

 

[wco81]

Thanks.

Tho it sounds like AC may be more of a rental.

Sometimes they do it on other high-profile game at launch.

 

[RobertR1]

$40 at Fry's. Play it for a bit and get the achievements. Enjoy the pretty graphics and trade it in for a used copy of Uncharted. Don't anyone dare copy my master plan :|

 

[AlphaWolf]

No, this is a case of the current state of game reviews that value a highly polished experience, over an innovative one.

COD4 for example. No huge marketing budget, but an average of 95%!! How can a game, that is repeating the SAME formula we've seen time in, and time out, really get a 95 average?

I've seen plenty of cod4 ad's, it really just depends what you're watching I guess.

 

[iceberg187]

Not an insider so what BlimBlim said on gaf was correct? that at times the PS3 is anywhere from a noticable 5-10fps slower?

Due to Blimblim being French and so is UBI, he gets a lot of info from them in particular. Anything that he says about UBI should be taken as fact.

 

[djskribbles]

i don't doubt the PS3 version has lower framerate, but how does the fact BlimBlim is french make him a reputable source of information regarding Ubisoft Montreal titles? unless he personally knows somebody inside.
reading his posts at neogaf, it looks like he got no information regarding the two versions, but rather compared them himself.