Assassin's Creed

So Arno is a former noble whose father was sympathetic to the common folk and murdered because of it? He doesn't appear to approve of the Reign of Terror, either. Also the council that rules the Parisian Brotherhood appears to have been the ones who ordered the death of King Louis.

edited 6th Oct '14 9:30:22 AM by theLibrarian

I never thought I'd see Unity or any videogame for that matter making Time

@Lancaous: I found the point on slavery to be a bit misguided (it's a game. Game mechanics work that way, like the entire comment section keeps noticing).

I disagree. It may be a mechanic, but I found the same issue when I played the game/DLC in that slaves became relative to a currency or reward system which I found a bit... overly simplified compared to what it could be. Just because its a game mechanic doesn't mean it has to be simple and have child's logic.

Are there any significant highlights from the TIME Article?

They're trying really hard to be unbiased about the French Revolution? Apparently, the closest thing they have to a position on the issue is "everyone was wrong".

Oh, also the plot is supposedly more of a romance than anything else, and they want to push the romance through gameplay by making the romantic partner an antagonist.

edited 7th Oct '14 8:06:00 AM by illegalcheese

It was, to be honest. Yes, the revolutionaries had a point and yes, the aristocrats were ruining the country, but the way that the revolutionaries went about it was extremely misguided.

Agreed. And, by the end, they were practically exicuting anyone they got their hands on in hopes that their death would outright solve the problems France was facing.

I certainly like the idea of a romance going on since, if they can successfully pull it off, it'll be nice to see and could work wonders for converying their story. One of the issues that AC has had with this historical setings is that their events and historical domain characters can feel like the 'Disneyland Version' rather than nuanced and interesting.

Not sure if I'm making sense, but the Historic Figures are incredibly static in the series, while the others are dynamic and it doesn't make any sense for some of them to be so static, except with the fore knowledge of 'This is a historic figure that can't change from how history remembers him'. If that makes any sense.

As confident that I am that this romance is going to somehow turn out tragic due to the polar sides, I'm actually holding out that they Earn Their Happy Ending in this case with one another. I mean, given the numerous ways this can go badly and the likelihood that it will, it would just catch me off guard in an uplifting way.

I want them to as well, but the art for the Dead Kings DLC suggests a very depressing turn of events. No one finds happiness midst a revolution.

So, should we all friend each other on the Ubisoft thing so we can all co-op together when the game comes out?

Ubisoft tries to make an excuse for locking Unity at 30 fps on XONE and PS4 instead of 60 like it should. Something about "ruining suspension of disbelief" if it's on 60, and "it's more cinematic" if it's at 30.

Just like the case with The Order on PS 4, this is a good example of a dev that's honestly spouting a lot of BS excuses when a better excuse would simply be "the consoles aren't powerful enough" or "we didn't have enough of a grasp with the systems to really optimize it." He fails to realize that there's a difference between film and video, that just because one framerate is acceptable in one medium doesn't always mean it'll be acceptable in another.

edited 9th Oct '14 11:05:16 AM by Nettacki

Part 2

Exactly. FPS isn't inherently a visual quality thing in video games. Sure, we'll notice that there is a difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS, but anything higher than 60 and we can't really see a difference. FPS, in video games, is also reaction speed of the game itself and 60 is a generally good response speed. 30? We're going to feel a difference.

Since they only seem to mention Consoles, does this mean PC is uncapped?

Past 60 the only thing we notice is that the images are crisper.

Pretty much. We'll notice a difference, but exactly what would be hard for us to pinpoint. I'd imagine animation would look a lot smoother.

The reason films haven't gone that high is that, in those cases, can actually pull us out of the experience; like a prop looking fake or seeing the details of the makeup artistry. Sort of an uncanny valley effect.

But, in a video game? We're already aware that its all completely fake anyway so the higher FPS doesn't bother us. The only negative impact that I can think of is that it'd accentuate flaws in the game, like poor animation quality and etc.

I personally don't care about the frame rate.

I wouldn't be so bothered if they weren't blatantly lying. Its new technology, its ok not to know how to optimize it completely. But to so blatantly defecate an excuse out? How dare you.

EDIT: I mentioned this to a friend and he simply told me that I can open up notepad and change the FPS??? Wat... That doesn't sound right to me but he was rather... aggressively certain about it.

edited 9th Oct '14 3:36:23 PM by lancesolous13

Some games allow you to edit a .ini file via Notepad or similar to change things that normally can't be changed in menus, like the FPS cap or FOV.

Assassin's Creed Unity Preview: Ubisoft Finds the First Assassin's Creed Again

Ubisoft makes a post following up on the whole resolution thing mentioned earlier as an attempt to clear up some misconceptions. Or at least I *think* it's supposed to clear things up, but as far I can tell, it just seems like a lot more vague PR talk about "bringing the best experience possible" or whatever. Read it and figure it out for yourselves: