I agree they don't look as good as the original kinda washed out and plastic looking. Especially around the eyes they look so weird puts me off the game actually I can't take it seriously because of it. Did you notice the bad water effects on the remastered version compared to the original?
It's definitely not just you. In the original version, the outdoor lighting model was less sophisticated, but they worked with that constraint and designed the characters to look good under that lighting. In the new version, the lighting model is better, but the artistic choices have not been modified to reflect that change. The telltale sign of this is facial features like cheekbones and eyelids being harshly lit and casting severe shadows, which makes them look more like rubbery dolls than humans. The characters in the new version look much better and more detailed in the indoor cutscenes, so it seems like the main problem is the outdoor lighting.
Most of them honestly. I can see the lighting is more natural but it looks washed out and the so-called improved materials and shaders don't convince much either - it just looks bright and flat. I even prefer the way the hair looks on PS3. So Tom, you might not think anyone could call it anything but an upgrade, but some of us disagree. We didn't even get to see any snow either as no-one could be arsed to get past the prologue.
I agree the remastered version seems to be missing some detailed look and I really don't like the water effects in the remastered version compared to the original. The character models look like plastic and washed out the eyes look so weird too it's like mass effect andromeda all over again
So you peasants dislike the better draw distance, better shadows, better lighting, screen space reflections on water for the environment and objects (completely absent in old version), higher resolution and more stable frame rate???
The water looks as murky as that (especially on the east coast where Boston is) in real life so the water looks more realistic on PS4. Can't expect all water to look amazingly clear
That's the problem with so many games since last gen. The colours are very inaccurate. why does silent hill 2(original) look so good? because of the colours. why does Dissidia 012 look better than Dissidia NT? because of the colours.
Speaking of, eyes in particular are a weird one here. More people need to make a stink about this, like back when The Ezio Collection launched with eye shading that was utterly nightmarish in places.
Thank you! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! Yeah, the shadows look great and the scattered lighting on things like cloth (like the sail he spoke of) look great, but by god the faces and hair are horrid. Flat, plastic, and not nearly as full of life as the original - especially the eyes! I prefer the original look in almost every way except frame rate and resolution - it's textures just seem to have more character. Just look at Shaun's jacket in the van comparison. Oh, and then compare the hair on Rebecca. Its crazy different and looks much better in the original.
No AO? Jeeez these guys need to stop rushing things and take their time. Just a quick sample of Boston with none of the tools unlocked or larger fights and all the padding to get over 10 minutes. They dropped the ball hard on covering this one, kinda like the remaster
@@crativ3 if there is, is only in some places and much less than before There are some other analisys that looked into to it and they did not find any type of AO. I myself am looking at the ps360 versions and comparing. It is lacking AO in almost every place i look
I loved the PoP series on the ps2. I have no idea why Ubisoft ditched it. Also...Splinter Cell. But they make Division 2 and Watchdogs 2...who the heck asked for that?
The models werent updated to work with the new PBR lighting and shadows. So it makes them look out of place. Indoors they look good but outside they look like dolls.
The only real change was with AC2, mercifully both Brotherhood and Revelations came away unscathed on that occasion. Wish more care had been taken to uphold the original look with AC3, the volumetric fog really overpowers a lot of scenes and the lighting in general is off the mark.
I feel like the lighting on the remaster looks objectively worse, especially on the characters. I saw a screenshot comparison from IGN without seeing which one was which and 100% legitimately thought the original was the remaster.
Meanwhile Rockstar Games removes ambient occlusion from Red Dead 2... why is nobody talking about this?! Big channels like DF need to talk about this and spread awareness, this is the only way we as players could change something!
DF only speaks up enough to not look like they serve publishers - but they are supported by advertising publishers just like IGN and the other mainstream sites. They are not going to cause problems with those paying their meal tickets.
Raiden You should consider watching the comparison videos and see the difference for yourself. Everything is not as grounded in the environment anymore and looks flatter. I hope we get a PC release of RDR2 (but I highly doubt it). On a PC you would be able to turn those settings on and off on your own. I started playing RDR2 again yesterday after 2 months of not playing it and I immediately noticed that something was off. Ambient occlusion is important and as a regular PC player I think that AO is one of the most important graphical features. Like I already said, it helps to ground the objects in the environment.
Yes, last Gen Version in 1080P with stable 30FPS is in my opinion better than this "4K Remaster" The Switch is a lot more powerful than the last Gen, it could easily manage this.
@@firefly3196 I second this we got proof from dark souls that a result like that is entirely possible since ubisoft can actually effectively port a game if they try
@@firefly3196 I wouldn't say "a lot more powerful". Just look at any game that actually took advantage of the ps3's CPU, the switch couldn't handle it well, like we saw at L.A. Noire.
I've played both and I can safely say, besides the faces, the remaster is a welcome improvement in every aspect except maybe the lighting being too bright at times. This is especially evident in the Frontier around Achilles' homestead.
Kinda sad to not have any review of liberation we rewroted entirely how water worked, added cubemaps reflections, switched to PBR, changed how grass worked, added volumetric fog, redid half of the lighting removing most fake light to get most of the new PBR lighting (which isn't the implementation that AC3 have because it's a different engine). We even added parallax occlusion to get cool volumes on brick and stones :/ (working quite great on the snow of New York). Note: I barely touched AC3
@@eandjproductions2 I mean there is nothing of the original code that is still running for this. in fact this is a lot closer to the AC blackflag's ocean than anything else.
@@eandjproductions2 yes I am. But I didn't worked on Ezio collection. I had llittle to no influence on the decision that were made on what to change/improve on this project though. Additionally the version of anvil is very different from an AC to another, it was very difficult to even share a single asset so I'm not sure it would have been even possible to just import improvements made on Ezio collection.
@@NeWincpp Interesting. Yeah just it just feels like wasted effort when it turns out like this. It just seems misguided on Ubisoft. IIRC Assassin's Creed Rogue and Far Cry 3 were just straight ports. I think more people would just be happy with a resolution and framerate bump than this. It's always cool to hear some insight on these types of projects. Thanks.
@@killermoon635 of course it looks and runs better. But the ps3 asthetics just look better in my eyes. Skin / Humans look terrible in the new version. The new lighting model might be accurate, but the materials are just off. It doesent look natural. I not only wouldnt play the ps3 version because of the framerate, but also not the ps4 version, because of the rest
Man i remember this game i played it when I was like 13 on the wii u of all consoles. Man I feel old i just got the remaster on my PS4 pro for the nostalgia and playing ac3 again made me feel like a kid again its a wonderfull feeling. Framerate's aren't a dealbreaker for me but i always watch your videos Digital Foundry for information on how games run. I find that side to video games to be really interesting you make some good videos and unlike. Console "fanboys" like Crappgamer and Jaytech tv you dont show much bias to any system thats what i like about you guys. You are honest and aren't shills to microsoft and Sony keep doing what you are doing. You deserve more subscriber's also Assassins creed 3 also made me interested in the american. Revolution it is a really interesting time period
I would like a remake of the first game. Not a remaster. A full body inspection. Cleaning. Replacing. Fixing. Lighting. Mechanics overhaul. Parkour overhaul (not the simplistic parkour of Origins/Odyssey, but maybe Unity/Syndicate) The works.
Why compare vs PS3 instead of PC Ultra? Also, to me at least, the new lighting seems off in a lot of places, like they just threw in a new lighting model without actually tweaking the details in order to properly convey what the scene was originally meant to show.
I am so tired of seeing games getting remastered or enhanced graphics and still playing at 30fps on console. Focus more on performance instead of graphics.
I mean, FHD60 "remasters" are pretty hated (gow 3, tlou, etc.), but 30fps "graphics focused" remasters also have it rough (return to Arkham, ac3, etc.). What devs need to do is make it different enough to tell a noticeable difference between the two, whilst also being at least 1080p60
Ubisoft were too lazy to improve anything just improved the resolution and make it slightly more textured.... That's it I'm very disappointed actually even assassin's creed 2 remastered looks better than this game
I hadn't even thought about any other games getting a remaster until you mentioned it, Tom but I would love the Prince of Persia trilogy to be redone in 4K60!
This is a really disappointing analysis frankly. No mention or analysis of the added volumetric lighting, or supposed addition of some kind of temporal AA? No comparison to the PC version of the time which clearly is the version this was ported off of? No look at the fact that SSR has been added to environmental water in many areas, adding real-time reflections? A move to PBR and volumentric lighting is good, but it's quite clear that in many cases the original art direction was then abandoned or changed/ignored for the worse, or moved forward without a ton of care. For all those things and whether they're better or worse, no comment on how odd of a context it is that they do all this for 3/Liberation, but the Ezio Collection had next to nothing done on it as far as improvement, or that despite you saying that native 4k is the least you expect for games this old much less with improvements added, you don't touch on the fact that the Ezio collection got far, far less, which is even more appalling and odd considering it was even older and arguably more beloved? At the least, that seems like an obvious question to be raised, even if in technical terms this game's revision was given more effort clearly. Then parts of your analysis of changes from PBR in regards to the sail material/scene claiming that's due to PBR when it's just the fact that the dynamic weather/TOD is clearly different? Extra shadowing from a different sun position has zero to do with PBR. Then the fact that your basic resarch on the title misses the fact that the Switch version doesn't actually even release till May 21st? Come on. Honestly a bit disappointed in you/DF, Tom. Just a ton of omissions/little effort put in, it feels like. Thought your standards were higher. As a Patron, haven't been super impressed with Toms' analyses of late, in the last several-6months in particular. Love DF and everyone else's work, but honestly, you need to pick up your quality standard, Tom, man. You're not up to par, and it's outright embarrassing. Just seems to be no actual context, depth, or much thought put into looking at titles outside of basic commentary on FPS consistency/performance. That's appreciated, but not what I expect from an analysis, especially when you're clearly going for something else, ostensibly. I realize I'm probably coming off quite harshly, but to be honest, this has been a growing pattern of a situation with Tom's work, and this particular analysis is frankly so shoddy, lacking, and seemingly rushed/inaccurate, that it just feels embarrassing and the continuing nature of the lack of depth when looking at titles, needs calling out. Sorry.
Holy fuck man, he opens the video by saying it's just going to be a quick look, with more to come later. And Tom's recent videos have been quite alright, thank you. Your Patron entitlement might be going to your head.
Admittedly, the "remaster" doesn't really look that much better to me. The lighting & shading feels better in a few places, but looks off most of the time (especially with the in-game cutscenes). The reflection mentioned with the ocean water seemed worse on the PS4 version. And the animations & models were pretty much translated to the remaster. So you still get some janky animations here & there. All in all, it seems the only major improvement is the frame rate. So... There's that.
I’ve heard complaints of frame rate drops on both the X and Pro in the frontier. Rendering all those trees at 4K seems to hit the frame rate. Would’ve like for you guys to visit these areas!
The PS4 and Xbox CPUs suck ass they’re barely stronger than last gen. PS5 will finally have a good CPU because it’ll use the Ryzen APUs. Open world games require CPU power to scale up to 60fps.
Its all bound by the cpu. The Cpu in consoles are horse shit and thats why games are locked to 30 no matter wether its a remaster or a top notch game like Spiderman.
I'd love to see a comparison between original on PC and the remaster, because there are far too many instances, especially in the lighting, where i think the remaster looks worse.
Man when i saw the new cutscene in the truck compared to the old ps3 version i was actually shocked. How could they not see that they ruined the face lighting and the hair lighting?
I think this looks super terrible, especially in cutscenes. Look at the woman's face (i forgot her name) at 4:00, she looks like a weird alien in the PS4 version. There's light coming from all sorts of places with no explanation, including it seems behind her eyeballs? A little earlier when Sean exits the van you can see shadows in his hair on the PS3 version, that's all gone on PS4 and you can just see a grainy banded shadow across his back. I don't understand why you guys think this is in any way an improvement.
@@Amar-ux7gi Every one likes to have a pc but when you live in a country which its currency is 0.000001 of a dollar you don't really have much of a choice .
Yeah . it is one of the main criticism of remastered . Although environment , textures , lighting and colours looks much better when you are running around , characters , expecialy in cutscenes , look far worse due to not reacting to new lighting to well . I hope devs can do something about it ...
@@nikoladoes3d Yeah i agree, for me similar to SOC the ps3 vs ps4. Alot of stuff in the ps3 ( remaster of ps2) may have happened because hardware limitation however how team ICO went around it making what considered to be a weakness one of the originals strengths e.g. team ICO utilisation of bloom. Where companies fail at utilising it properly, team ICO understands how to use it to enrich and enhance a scene. i don't care about AC however find it weird the people who were working on this remaster did not notice this glaring issue.
I still think most of the shadows in the original look better and everything looks over exposed on the remaster. Especially inside the truck at the start of the game. There shouldn't be that much light inside the truck lol
Just a word of caution: when you get to the open wilderness areas the game tanks to the low 20fps range if you're playing in 4K. I had to manually switch to 1080p to get a locked 30fps. I'm glad they didn't force 4K rendering on the 1080p system settings or we'd have another Skyrim issue on our hands. It's disappointing this wasn't mentioned at all in this video and it's a huge thing to omit. It seems as if this video was only done on the first hour of the game, which just isn't enough to get to the real frame rate issues out in the area where a large portion of the game takes place.
Tom were you pissed when doing this vid ? I appreciate all your technical analysis and jargon. Just plainly obvious the PS3’s version looks better. The new one looks white washed and gash !
People keep complaining about remasters, but I think something like AC3 is a perfect candidate; not in that it was a fantastic game, but in that it was one of those titles that definitely suffered from being releasen in a generation that was holding on far too long
@@HugoStiglitz88 I mean I can't tell you what you think, but it sure isn't common to rank it that high, lol... I'd probably rank it at the bottom down around Syndicate, Brotherhood, and Revelations
Looking at the two, I would personally rather get the Backward compatible version on the One X, than this remaster, not sure if it's the artistic choices that have been stripped from this new version or the change in lighting and shading but the remaster doesn't look that great.
I like the idea of remastering older Assassin's Creed games because you can play it on more modern hardware and updated graphics are much more pleasing for the eyes of more people which could persuade more people to buy and try or replay them. Personally i don't have anything against original graphics considering that i played them when they came out and playin AC 2 about a month ago on my PS3 i still think that that game looks great. On a side note I know that it doesn't have much to do with remastering if anything but holy shit i still can't believe what they have done to Rebecca. She was very pretty in AC 2 in my opinion. In later Ezio games her look has changed but she looked good. In AC3 though and now in Remastered she doesn't resemble her AC 2 self at all.
Wish you would have compared it to the PC version so that those of us that have the PC version could see that it's worth the upgrade or if they just kinda reached parity with that version.
Jaqen H'Ghar on PC with a 4K screen I do feel that every bit of the game has been improved. The most dated thing in the remaster is the faces in my opinion. However, the forest look a lot better and the faces look ok in some cutscenes and lighting. Overall a good remaster in my opinion. It got rid of the more grey look in the original which in my opinion helps the game overall it was evident that some of the drawbacks of last gen actually helped the old character models however.
After a month of “try-settings” the best Graphic is: 4 general brightness (1 less than default), 1300 hrd max Luminance and PapeWhite of 200. Game look really impressive
I think the some visual elements in the remaster just look wrong. The super rubber white eyes, the hair and the heavy color banding on the white shirt at 3:45. The lighting maybe somewhat an upgrade as some of the scenes does look more natural and the performance is more stable, but I don't think this is a good remaster work.
My problem is the ps3 version looks better in many areas , characters faces are much better the water and ship looks better on ps3... The lighting in the remaining is bad in some areas, no thanks
shadows and lighting from the sun looks pretty good, it's just when anyone is indoors or the light is not as intense that everything seems to fall apart.
Characters look far worse cause of the new lighting, seems to be a trend with remasters. The whole game also looks way too bright, cartoony and unrealistic
On the back of Haytham's cape they've decided to make the previous embroidery look like it was spray painted on, instead of being a subtle golden pattern.
@Dimitrelos300 Dude, sorry to break it to you, but GTA V is almost 6 years old. Assassin's Creed 3 is 7 years old. They're BOTH really old games. What do you consider "old"? 10 years? Yes, this game IS as old as I think it is. It is 7 years old, man. GTA V is relevant now on days, like CS:GO, but that doesn't make those games less old. The difference is that GTA V and CS:GO are being updated all the time because they have pretty relevant multiplayer modes, so you don't have a reason to bring something like remaster. They're already way to different from what they were on release, unlike Assassin's Creed 3, which, by the way, is a game that is mostly popular for the single player experience, and it never had good performance on consoles. Getting 30 fps on a remastered version of a game from the last generation is ridiculous. GTA V got 3 releases. One for the last generation, other for the new one, and other for PC. The PC version is vastly superior to the consoles version, and every single version of this game is running as good as it can. Can you say the same thing for Assassin's Creed 3? Do you reallly think that a PS4 is NOT capable of running this game at 60 fps? Even a $200 PC can.
true but PBR just doesnt work here, if u dont update the character models and certain objects to refract tht. The models are still made in a way to work with the old baked lighting, so the PBR just adds shadows in weird spots on them; amongst other things, tht makes them look plastic.
I’d like to see Unity remastered with the AC Origins/Odyssey engine. I always felt the technical achievement of Unity was so heavily overshadowed by the glitches and bugs. Give Unity the engine and polish it deserves!
After all the changes in the remaster edition, I think it is very worthwhile. And a good choice on Ubisoft’s part to remaster this one since it genuinely shows how good Anvil Next can be. Now if they can remake AC I I’ll be a happy boy.
If the PS4 Pro version looks worse than it’s counterpart, just imagine the dumpster fire that will be the Switch version! Incoming 10fps and native 720p! Woo!
You didn't address the shitty looking cutscenes in the remaster. They're downright horrible. Also you didn't talk about the missing ambient occlusion. Very incomplete review to be honest.
I don't care if the new lighting is technically superior - it looks like crap compared to the original. "Realistic" doesn't mean "good". The original development team clearly had a vision for how the game should look, and that's completely destroyed by the flat, overly-bright lighting in the "remaster". What's the point of technical improvement if you wipe away artistic vision in the process?
Never watch their full videos just skip through it. And the release date is 21 may so that the reason why i said that. Good for them that they have a early copy.
Worth pointing out the Ezio collection wasn't always native 4k on the Pro. Certain areas of the game, the entire Forli area seems to run at 1080p, for example.
i played the game,its just a resolution bump and reshade applied over....typical remaster by any AAA studio(excluding capcom) Edit: cut scenes are horrendous btw
@Punch Down King Capcom hasn't exactly made a lot of remasters and none of them do more than what they described as a typical remaster by a AAA studio. They're definitely thinking about the remakes.
Jerooxama first of all it was Ubisoft decision to prioritize resolution. If PS3 could get 20-40 I’m sure the Pro could of gotten 60 at 1440p or maybe even 1620p...once again the devs could of easily targeted 60FPS but no they’d prefer resolution
DMC “If the PS3 could get 20-40 I’m sure the Pro could of gotten 60 at 1440p.” You’re comparing the last gen title to a remaster though. It’s not like it’s a straight port. Of course the Pro could achieve 60fps if it was running the straight last gen PS3 version. But who knows where the FPS would land if the PS4 Pro had an unlocked frame rate. I could see the Pro hitting 60fps at 1080 on the remaster but who knows how much time Ubi spent optimizing it. Probably not at all. It’s kinda their specialty; quick cash grabs for little effort.
@@d34th6un3 Sorry to disappoint you but ps3 had single core 3.2 Ghz processor and ps4 8 core 2.7ghz processor and the fact that this game is bottle necked by single core performance it can't get 60 fps processor is simply slow. It would have been possible if it was made in new engine but it's still using the same old engine.
8:01 When he's talking about V Sync but then on the top right it says "Viewpoint Synchronized" and suddenly V Sync has a whole new secondary meaning to you
It's a shame that Ubisoft didn't try to push for a 60fps with their "remastered" games. 4:53 Really? The character models don't seem to react well with the new lighting.
![[4K] Assassin's Creed: The Ezio Collection PS4 Pro/PS4 Analysis + Frame-Rate Test](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XcRKnvK-Rx0/mqdefault.jpg)
![KSI - Dirty [Official Visualiser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VoDh1h1dPUE/mqdefault.jpg)
Hope they fix the lighting in cutscenes. They look super odd in the remaster.
Agreed. They look super washed out to me
7:01 no foliage on ground
Assassin's Glowface
Ya I noticed this right away at least on pc cutscenes look way worse than gameplay now.
They'd need to rework the entire character model which is too much work since this is a remaster and not a remake
Characters look so much worse now though with the new lighting...
Looks terrible, that why I always avoid multiplat games.
@@noobdebusca1757 Does that make any sense what u just said?
i avoid most of the crossgen games unless it's gta
@@noobdebusca1757 wtf irrelevant
I was going to say, the characters look like bloody mannequins
Something about the shading/lighting of the faces in the new version looks off and I don't know if it's just me.
I agree they don't look as good as the original kinda washed out and plastic looking.
Especially around the eyes they look so weird puts me off the game actually I can't take it seriously because of it.
Did you notice the bad water effects on the remastered version compared to the original?
It's definitely not just you. In the original version, the outdoor lighting model was less sophisticated, but they worked with that constraint and designed the characters to look good under that lighting. In the new version, the lighting model is better, but the artistic choices have not been modified to reflect that change. The telltale sign of this is facial features like cheekbones and eyelids being harshly lit and casting severe shadows, which makes them look more like rubbery dolls than humans. The characters in the new version look much better and more detailed in the indoor cutscenes, so it seems like the main problem is the outdoor lighting.
They'ce cranked it up WAY to much. Looks unnatural and all details gets "whited" out.
Clearly it was an “artistic” choice
They did the remaster the lazy way with revamping the whole lighting system with a generic one and not fixing the altered cutscenes.
At certain selected scenes I found the ps3 version actually better.
Most of them honestly. I can see the lighting is more natural but it looks washed out and the so-called improved materials and shaders don't convince much either - it just looks bright and flat. I even prefer the way the hair looks on PS3. So Tom, you might not think anyone could call it anything but an upgrade, but some of us disagree. We didn't even get to see any snow either as no-one could be arsed to get past the prologue.
Agreed
It's the eyes. The old lighting seems to make their eyes not look like rubber.
I agree the remastered version seems to be missing some detailed look and I really don't like the water effects in the remastered version compared to the original.
The character models look like plastic and washed out the eyes look so weird too it's like mass effect andromeda all over again
So you peasants dislike the better draw distance, better shadows, better lighting, screen space reflections on water for the environment and objects (completely absent in old version), higher resolution and more stable frame rate???
may be just me but in the comparison footage of the ship, the water looked better/more realistic on the PS3 version...
It's not more realistic because real water doesn't look like that but I agree it does look better on PS3, just not realistic.
The water in the remaster looks horribly last gen, compared to the PS3 version. The particle effects for the foam also look piss poor in the remaster.
The water looks as murky as that (especially on the east coast where Boston is) in real life so the water looks more realistic on PS4. Can't expect all water to look amazingly clear
That's the problem with so many games since last gen. The colours are very inaccurate. why does silent hill 2(original) look so good? because of the colours. why does Dissidia 012 look better than Dissidia NT? because of the colours.
It's because of those jaguar cpu's
remaster looks horrible :( the lighting is way "boosted", nothing looks natural. Rest looks ok though.
Just some textures
textures are slightly better, but that dont help when the light is turned to 11
Hard disagree.
Hard disagree. Once you start playing as connor, you see the clear as day upgrades
Faces in the remastered version can look rather rough, and there are a few aspects where the older graphics look “better” on the eye
Speaking of, eyes in particular are a weird one here. More people need to make a stink about this, like back when The Ezio Collection launched with eye shading that was utterly nightmarish in places.
Jesus Christ sometimes PS3 looks 10 times better, what`s wrong with the eyes and lack of shadows?
JUST LOOK AT IT!WTF?! 3:58
Thank you! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
Yeah, the shadows look great and the scattered lighting on things like cloth (like the sail he spoke of) look great, but by god the faces and hair are horrid. Flat, plastic, and not nearly as full of life as the original - especially the eyes!
I prefer the original look in almost every way except frame rate and resolution - it's textures just seem to have more character. Just look at Shaun's jacket in the van comparison. Oh, and then compare the hair on Rebecca. Its crazy different and looks much better in the original.
The Ezio Collection had the same problem.
yea.. she did look super scary... lizard human with eyeballs popping out
@@FrankieKnowhere Ah yes, the infamous NPC with the thousand yard stare that Polygon unveiled to the world.
@@FrankieKnowhere yes, they have. Just play the game... It's was wash out to white also.
Can you guys adress the lack of Ambient oclusion in a update? Is missing from the remaster and it was present in the original PS360/pc versions...
No AO? Jeeez these guys need to stop rushing things and take their time. Just a quick sample of Boston with none of the tools unlocked or larger fights and all the padding to get over 10 minutes. They dropped the ball hard on covering this one, kinda like the remaster
There is AO, its just a different type. Its larger and less blobby than the 360/PS3 versions.
@@MrGamemaker8 i think so too.. the DF analisys lately looks rush and not very deep like before..
@@crativ3 if there is, is only in some places and much less than before
There are some other analisys that looked into to it and they did not find any type of AO. I myself am looking at the ps360 versions and comparing. It is lacking AO in almost every place i look
Their eyes look more natural in the PS3 version.
Prince of Persia original trilogy - that would be a very nice surprise
I loved the PoP series on the ps2. I have no idea why Ubisoft ditched it. Also...Splinter Cell. But they make Division 2 and Watchdogs 2...who the heck asked for that?
@@AttilaTheHun333333 ikr
Attila TheHUN
The last POP and Splinter Cell games sold horrible.
I got a twitch when you said that.
Alexandru-Marian Stanciu POP was killed due to AC series success..... Too bad ......
Characters look waaay better on PS3?!? What´s going on? :D
The models werent updated to work with the new PBR lighting and shadows. So it makes them look out of place. Indoors they look good but outside they look like dolls.
I feel like when a PS3 game from 7 years ago is rereleased on PS4, the idea that the Pro version can't even target 60 is kind of sad.
That Jaguar CPU is TERRIBLE
*remastered with new assets and much higher native resolution (720p vs 2160p).
can't? or won't bother? something like a 780 can handle AC-3 just fine, and the PS4 is easily more powerful than that
@AnEn I agree. Its the fact that the consoles are using APUs this gen instead of 2 dedicated SOC pools like they did last gen
Gameplay might be tied to CPU speed.
The remaster has ruined the art style, it actually looks worse
Well, the Ezio Collection kinda did the same.
The only real change was with AC2, mercifully both Brotherhood and Revelations came away unscathed on that occasion. Wish more care had been taken to uphold the original look with AC3, the volumetric fog really overpowers a lot of scenes and the lighting in general is off the mark.
would love a AC1 remake (remake not remaster). The only one not on current gen
It's on current generation . I think few months back it was also on games with gold. But remake like RE 2 will be amazing.
I actually find AC1 the best looking out of the old ones. Something about the lighting was more convincing compared to the others.
@Jan Brady It got a Xbox One X patch which makes it look stunning. But I get what you are saying.
@@flyingplantwhale545 totally agree but I tried it few days back and controls felt very clunky . For that time period they were amazing though!!
@Jan Brady Haha yeah it does need some more dialogue. Im all for a remake/remaster
I feel like the lighting on the remaster looks objectively worse, especially on the characters. I saw a screenshot comparison from IGN without seeing which one was which and 100% legitimately thought the original was the remaster.
Meanwhile Rockstar Games removes ambient occlusion from Red Dead 2... why is nobody talking about this?!
Big channels like DF need to talk about this and spread awareness, this is the only way we as players could change something!
DF only speaks up enough to not look like they serve publishers - but they are supported by advertising publishers just like IGN and the other mainstream sites. They are not going to cause problems with those paying their meal tickets.
Maybe cause the ambient occlusion thing is as stupid as puddlegate
ion77799 Although you have a point there, they also talked about the broken HDR in RDR2 which is certainly not a great thing either.
Raiden You should consider watching the comparison videos and see the difference for yourself. Everything is not as grounded in the environment anymore and looks flatter. I hope we get a PC release of RDR2 (but I highly doubt it). On a PC you would be able to turn those settings on and off on your own.
I started playing RDR2 again yesterday after 2 months of not playing it and I immediately noticed that something was off. Ambient occlusion is important and as a regular PC player I think that AO is one of the most important graphical features. Like I already said, it helps to ground the objects in the environment.
@@Spoggi99YT I think the reason why no one is covering it is because the game still looks fucking amazing
Honestly, I hope the Switch version is just the last gen version running at 1080p. The models look so weird in this remaster.
1080p lmao
Best you can wish for is 540p 25fps
Yes, last Gen Version in 1080P with stable 30FPS is in my opinion better than this "4K Remaster" The Switch is a lot more powerful than the last Gen, it could easily manage this.
@@firefly3196 I second this we got proof from dark souls that a result like that is entirely possible since ubisoft can actually effectively port a game if they try
@@firefly3196 I wouldn't say "a lot more powerful". Just look at any game that actually took advantage of the ps3's CPU, the switch couldn't handle it well, like we saw at L.A. Noire.
It's the original with no improvements besides the hud.
Man I wish they would've used an unlocked framerate so it could be played at 60fps on PS5
2:01 "countless NPCs running about..." and appearing out of thin air!
😂
I've played both and I can safely say, besides the faces, the remaster is a welcome improvement in every aspect except maybe the lighting being too bright at times. This is especially evident in the Frontier around Achilles' homestead.
3:57 Why does she suddenly look like Donkey Kong?
Kinda sad to not have any review of liberation we rewroted entirely how water worked, added cubemaps reflections, switched to PBR, changed how grass worked, added volumetric fog, redid half of the lighting removing most fake light to get most of the new PBR lighting (which isn't the implementation that AC3 have because it's a different engine). We even added parallax occlusion to get cool volumes on brick and stones :/ (working quite great on the snow of New York).
Note: I barely touched AC3
What do you mean "we rewrote"?
@@eandjproductions2 I mean there is nothing of the original code that is still running for this. in fact this is a lot closer to the AC blackflag's ocean than anything else.
@@NeWincpp No I mean are you a developer? Seems like it was a bit misguided to change the graphics after how the Ezio Collection turned out.
@@eandjproductions2 yes I am. But I didn't worked on Ezio collection. I had llittle to no influence on the decision that were made on what to change/improve on this project though. Additionally the version of anvil is very different from an AC to another, it was very difficult to even share a single asset so I'm not sure it would have been even possible to just import improvements made on Ezio collection.
@@NeWincpp Interesting. Yeah just it just feels like wasted effort when it turns out like this. It just seems misguided on Ubisoft. IIRC Assassin's Creed Rogue and Far Cry 3 were just straight ports. I think more people would just be happy with a resolution and framerate bump than this. It's always cool to hear some insight on these types of projects. Thanks.
Ps3 Version looks (sadly) better. The new lighting may be more accurate, but it just looks horrible
The ps4 version looks much better. The ps3 looks shit if you see it on real tv screen
maroom1 I wholeheartedly agree.
@@killermoon635 of course it looks and runs better. But the ps3 asthetics just look better in my eyes. Skin / Humans look terrible in the new version. The new lighting model might be accurate, but the materials are just off. It doesent look natural. I not only wouldnt play the ps3 version because of the framerate, but also not the ps4 version, because of the rest
AC isn't supposed to be colorful, it's supposed to feel cold and the over blown color saturation and the new lighting makes the game look very bad.
Man i remember this game i played it when I was like 13 on the wii u of all consoles. Man I feel old i just got the remaster on my PS4 pro for the nostalgia and playing ac3 again made me feel like a kid again its a wonderfull feeling. Framerate's aren't a dealbreaker for me but i always watch your videos Digital Foundry for information on how games run. I find that side to video games to be really interesting you make some good videos and unlike. Console "fanboys" like Crappgamer and Jaytech tv you dont show much bias to any system thats what i like about you guys. You are honest and aren't shills to microsoft and Sony keep doing what you are doing. You deserve more subscriber's also Assassins creed 3 also made me interested in the american. Revolution it is a really interesting time period
I would like a remake of the first game. Not a remaster. A full body inspection. Cleaning. Replacing. Fixing. Lighting. Mechanics overhaul. Parkour overhaul (not the simplistic parkour of Origins/Odyssey, but maybe Unity/Syndicate) The works.
Why compare vs PS3 instead of PC Ultra? Also, to me at least, the new lighting seems off in a lot of places, like they just threw in a new lighting model without actually tweaking the details in order to properly convey what the scene was originally meant to show.
I am so tired of seeing games getting remastered or enhanced graphics and still playing at 30fps on console. Focus more on performance instead of graphics.
I really hope DriveClub gets a 60fps remaster at some point.
@@directorjustin that game is trash
@@Christoph22KakaFan I disagree.
I mean, FHD60 "remasters" are pretty hated (gow 3, tlou, etc.), but 30fps "graphics focused" remasters also have it rough (return to Arkham, ac3, etc.). What devs need to do is make it different enough to tell a noticeable difference between the two, whilst also being at least 1080p60
The character's faces look so much worse in the remaster. I'm not a fan at all.
wtf why does the PS3 version looks better?
Ubisoft were too lazy to improve anything just improved the resolution and make it slightly more textured.... That's it
I'm very disappointed actually even assassin's creed 2 remastered looks better than this game
Simple. The light is horrible in the remaster,.
It doesn't check your eyes
@@JoriDiculous The lighting is actually good but then they need to get the character model's skin textures to match the newer lighting system.
@@nemesisencounter2060 My eyes are just fine, the color and exposure on PS3 is superior.
I hadn't even thought about any other games getting a remaster until you mentioned it, Tom but I would love the Prince of Persia trilogy to be redone in 4K60!
This is a really disappointing analysis frankly. No mention or analysis of the added volumetric lighting, or supposed addition of some kind of temporal AA? No comparison to the PC version of the time which clearly is the version this was ported off of? No look at the fact that SSR has been added to environmental water in many areas, adding real-time reflections? A move to PBR and volumentric lighting is good, but it's quite clear that in many cases the original art direction was then abandoned or changed/ignored for the worse, or moved forward without a ton of care.
For all those things and whether they're better or worse, no comment on how odd of a context it is that they do all this for 3/Liberation, but the Ezio Collection had next to nothing done on it as far as improvement, or that despite you saying that native 4k is the least you expect for games this old much less with improvements added, you don't touch on the fact that the Ezio collection got far, far less, which is even more appalling and odd considering it was even older and arguably more beloved? At the least, that seems like an obvious question to be raised, even if in technical terms this game's revision was given more effort clearly.
Then parts of your analysis of changes from PBR in regards to the sail material/scene claiming that's due to PBR when it's just the fact that the dynamic weather/TOD is clearly different? Extra shadowing from a different sun position has zero to do with PBR. Then the fact that your basic resarch on the title misses the fact that the Switch version doesn't actually even release till May 21st? Come on.
Honestly a bit disappointed in you/DF, Tom. Just a ton of omissions/little effort put in, it feels like.
Thought your standards were higher. As a Patron, haven't been super impressed with Toms' analyses of late, in the last several-6months in particular. Love DF and everyone else's work, but honestly, you need to pick up your quality standard, Tom, man. You're not up to par, and it's outright embarrassing.
Just seems to be no actual context, depth, or much thought put into looking at titles outside of basic commentary on FPS consistency/performance. That's appreciated, but not what I expect from an analysis, especially when you're clearly going for something else, ostensibly.
I realize I'm probably coming off quite harshly, but to be honest, this has been a growing pattern of a situation with Tom's work, and this particular analysis is frankly so shoddy, lacking, and seemingly rushed/inaccurate, that it just feels embarrassing and the continuing nature of the lack of depth when looking at titles, needs calling out. Sorry.
Holy fuck man, he opens the video by saying it's just going to be a quick look, with more to come later.
And Tom's recent videos have been quite alright, thank you. Your Patron entitlement might be going to your head.
This is the exact comparison I was wanting to see. Thanks so much for posting this!
3:57 glad to see that part of the remaster process is hitting each character in the face with a shovel repeatedly. Looks much better now.,
I think the new lighting and colors look really weird and worse than the original in some scenes.
I’d willingly revisit this due to its inclusion with the season pass, but I wouldn’t pay full price the game.
VG tech is saying it's not native 4k on the Pro or the x for that matter, what's going on here then??
Admittedly, the "remaster" doesn't really look that much better to me. The lighting & shading feels better in a few places, but looks off most of the time (especially with the in-game cutscenes). The reflection mentioned with the ocean water seemed worse on the PS4 version. And the animations & models were pretty much translated to the remaster. So you still get some janky animations here & there.
All in all, it seems the only major improvement is the frame rate. So... There's that.
I’ve heard complaints of frame rate drops on both the X and Pro in the frontier. Rendering all those trees at 4K seems to hit the frame rate. Would’ve like for you guys to visit these areas!
HX422 the origilan dipped to 20fps
30fps on PS4 PRO for a PS3 remaster. Should I start commenting "Ps4 sucks" now in addition to "Xbox sucks?" WTF?
my potato run AC3 at 60fps
The PS4 and Xbox CPUs suck ass they’re barely stronger than last gen. PS5 will finally have a good CPU because it’ll use the Ryzen APUs.
Open world games require CPU power to scale up to 60fps.
Considering the original ran so bad its not surprising. It is native 4k too. They should include a 60fps option for 1080p play though.
@Mohammed wouldn't say gpu is the future, cpu is very important also Phil Spenser said with Scarlett he looks to "rebalance" the cpu gpu gap.
Its all bound by the cpu. The Cpu in consoles are horse shit and thats why games are locked to 30 no matter wether its a remaster or a top notch game like Spiderman.
I'd love to see a comparison between original on PC and the remaster, because there are far too many instances, especially in the lighting, where i think the remaster looks worse.
I think I prefer cutscene look from original game. Looks more natural with handmade light.
Awesome .Great video you guys really need more subscribers for the level of professional you put into the videos
Man when i saw the new cutscene in the truck compared to the old ps3 version i was actually shocked. How could they not see that they ruined the face lighting and the hair lighting?
I think this looks super terrible, especially in cutscenes. Look at the woman's face (i forgot her name) at 4:00, she looks like a weird alien in the PS4 version. There's light coming from all sorts of places with no explanation, including it seems behind her eyeballs? A little earlier when Sean exits the van you can see shadows in his hair on the PS3 version, that's all gone on PS4 and you can just see a grainy banded shadow across his back. I don't understand why you guys think this is in any way an improvement.
That 30fps is so dissapointing
I also don't see the point of releasing remasters with the same shitty framerate as the original on last gen consoles.
Soheil Dehbashi get on pc you consile peasent
@@Amar-ux7gi Every one likes to have a pc but when you live in a country which its currency is 0.000001 of a dollar you don't really have much of a choice .
At least it hits 30fps unlike PS3 version. 5fps in Boston
@@TheCentennial4 The 360 version ran at 10fps. Lol.
I can’t believe they couldn’t add the modelled hair of Desmond that we see in cutscenes and animus scenes in the game. Hilarious
4:23 holy shit the PS3 looks way better than PS4 version. I think due to changing the lighting you have sequences that look like this.
Yeah . it is one of the main criticism of remastered . Although environment , textures , lighting and colours looks much better when you are running around , characters , expecialy in cutscenes , look far worse due to not reacting to new lighting to well .
I hope devs can do something about it ...
@@nikoladoes3d Yeah i agree, for me similar to SOC the ps3 vs ps4. Alot of stuff in the ps3 ( remaster of ps2) may have happened because hardware limitation however how team ICO went around it making what considered to be a weakness one of the originals strengths e.g. team ICO utilisation of bloom. Where companies fail at utilising it properly, team ICO understands how to use it to enrich and enhance a scene. i don't care about AC however find it weird the people who were working on this remaster did not notice this glaring issue.
The No.1 channel for any video game graphics comparison analysis
I still think most of the shadows in the original look better and everything looks over exposed on the remaster. Especially inside the truck at the start of the game. There shouldn't be that much light inside the truck lol
Just a word of caution: when you get to the open wilderness areas the game tanks to the low 20fps range if you're playing in 4K. I had to manually switch to 1080p to get a locked 30fps. I'm glad they didn't force 4K rendering on the 1080p system settings or we'd have another Skyrim issue on our hands.
It's disappointing this wasn't mentioned at all in this video and it's a huge thing to omit. It seems as if this video was only done on the first hour of the game, which just isn't enough to get to the real frame rate issues out in the area where a large portion of the game takes place.
Same for AC Rogue
Tom were you pissed when doing this vid ? I appreciate all your technical analysis and jargon. Just plainly obvious the PS3’s version looks better. The new one looks white washed and gash !
Doesn't matter about the PS3 version when it cannot run 20 fps.
People keep complaining about remasters, but I think something like AC3 is a perfect candidate; not in that it was a fantastic game, but in that it was one of those titles that definitely suffered from being releasen in a generation that was holding on far too long
actually it is a fantastic game. Top 3 in AC series.
@@HugoStiglitz88 I mean I can't tell you what you think, but it sure isn't common to rank it that high, lol... I'd probably rank it at the bottom down around Syndicate, Brotherhood, and Revelations
Looking at the two, I would personally rather get the Backward compatible version on the One X, than this remaster, not sure if it's the artistic choices that have been stripped from this new version or the change in lighting and shading but the remaster doesn't look that great.
I like the idea of remastering older Assassin's Creed games because you can play it on more modern hardware and updated graphics are much more pleasing for the eyes of more people which could persuade more people to buy and try or replay them. Personally i don't have anything against original graphics considering that i played them when they came out and playin AC 2 about a month ago on my PS3 i still think that that game looks great. On a side note I know that it doesn't have much to do with remastering if anything but holy shit i still can't believe what they have done to Rebecca. She was very pretty in AC 2 in my opinion. In later Ezio games her look has changed but she looked good. In AC3 though and now in Remastered she doesn't resemble her AC 2 self at all.
Wish you would have compared it to the PC version so that those of us that have the PC version could see that it's worth the upgrade or if they just kinda reached parity with that version.
Jaqen H'Ghar on PC with a 4K screen I do feel that every bit of the game has been improved. The most dated thing in the remaster is the faces in my opinion.
However, the forest look a lot better and the faces look ok in some cutscenes and lighting.
Overall a good remaster in my opinion. It got rid of the more grey look in the original which in my opinion helps the game overall it was evident that some of the drawbacks of last gen actually helped the old character models however.
@@slushg3326 the new lighting fucked up the faces, they look a lot better in the og release
After a month of “try-settings” the best Graphic is: 4 general brightness (1 less than default), 1300 hrd max Luminance and PapeWhite of 200. Game look really impressive
Man the 3D geometrics models are horrible. It seems a horror movie. I prefer the original
I think the some visual elements in the remaster just look wrong. The super rubber white eyes, the hair and the heavy color banding on the white shirt at 3:45. The lighting maybe somewhat an upgrade as some of the scenes does look more natural and the performance is more stable, but I don't think this is a good remaster work.
exactly. They shuld've just put a lil more effort into at least updating the entire character models to work with PBR.
9:35 The way he threw tht cup 😂
but did they update the engine so that it can use all the threads on my ryzen 7???
No , as far as I heard . it still taxes the first core the most ,though the performance is much better than original game .
I get a locked 63 (ugh) on a Ryzen 5 1500x and RX590. Much better then the 40-80 in base AC3
My problem is the ps3 version looks better in many areas , characters faces are much better the water and ship looks better on ps3... The lighting in the remaining is bad in some areas, no thanks
shadows and lighting from the sun looks pretty good, it's just when anyone is indoors or the light is not as intense that everything seems to fall apart.
Characters look far worse cause of the new lighting, seems to be a trend with remasters. The whole game also looks way too bright, cartoony and unrealistic
Similar to the materials in the Dark Souls Remaster. The armor losing detail and looking like plastic.
On the back of Haytham's cape they've decided to make the previous embroidery look like it was spray painted on, instead of being a subtle golden pattern.
pls do PC comparison when switch version come out.
they should compare all the remastered versions
120fps 4k
@@chinchy111 I wonder if it supports SLI.
Thanks for addressing whether the game supersamples on its own or not on PS4 Pro with a 1080p screen.
30 fps? Dude... COME ON! What's the point of this remaster?
At least put $10 USD on the price. This game is old af.
@Dimitrelos300 Dude, sorry to break it to you, but GTA V is almost 6 years old. Assassin's Creed 3 is 7 years old. They're BOTH really old games. What do you consider "old"? 10 years? Yes, this game IS as old as I think it is. It is 7 years old, man.
GTA V is relevant now on days, like CS:GO, but that doesn't make those games less old. The difference is that GTA V and CS:GO are being updated all the time because they have pretty relevant multiplayer modes, so you don't have a reason to bring something like remaster. They're already way to different from what they were on release, unlike Assassin's Creed 3, which, by the way, is a game that is mostly popular for the single player experience, and it never had good performance on consoles. Getting 30 fps on a remastered version of a game from the last generation is ridiculous.
GTA V got 3 releases. One for the last generation, other for the new one, and other for PC. The PC version is vastly superior to the consoles version, and every single version of this game is running as good as it can. Can you say the same thing for Assassin's Creed 3? Do you reallly think that a PS4 is NOT capable of running this game at 60 fps? Even a $200 PC can.
Playing on Xbox One X and very happy with it. Sooo much better. Edges on things look great
30fps still feels horrible though. Not blaming the hardware just ubisoft and other not bothered with 60fps
PS4 Native 1080P / 30 FPS with drops 28
PS4 Pro Native 4K / 30 FPS. HDR included.
hero
Thank you for that last scene, I needed those soulless eyes in my night.
Don't mention the PC. -Digital Foundry
120fps 4k
@@chinchy111 Nope, game is single threaded so no cpu will allow for fps that high
There have put more work in that remaster than I was expecting. Moving a whole game to PBR isn't trivial.
true but PBR just doesnt work here, if u dont update the character models and certain objects to refract tht. The models are still made in a way to work with the old baked lighting, so the PBR just adds shadows in weird spots on them; amongst other things, tht makes them look plastic.
So the PS3 version is the definitive edition?
Yeah I’m just gonna skip the remaster and play it on PC lmao. What a joke of a remaster.
Yeah, 20 fps is the definitive version
I’d like to see Unity remastered with the AC Origins/Odyssey engine. I always felt the technical achievement of Unity was so heavily overshadowed by the glitches and bugs. Give Unity the engine and polish it deserves!
this game at this framerate.... some high quality motion blur would have been nice
Like the one they used in the trailers for the remaster
After all the changes in the remaster edition, I think it is very worthwhile. And a good choice on Ubisoft’s part to remaster this one since it genuinely shows how good Anvil Next can be.
Now if they can remake AC I I’ll be a happy boy.
If the PS4 Pro version looks worse than it’s counterpart, just imagine the dumpster fire that will be the Switch version! Incoming 10fps and native 720p! Woo!
We already got it. It's called PS3
30 fps on a remaster is a complete joke. Why can't developers just take the Nathan Drake Collection as an example of how remasters have to be made?
4:15 I think the ps3 models do look better here
Sam it’s the same model.
@@jesper9147 Well, I mean that the models look better in the lighting.
Splinter Cell.. the entire franchise needs a remastered. Most of them are broken in modern PCs.
Everything looks way overblown and removes shadow depth in most instances.
You didn't address the shitty looking cutscenes in the remaster. They're downright horrible.
Also you didn't talk about the missing ambient occlusion. Very incomplete review to be honest.
iam stil waiting for my *ANTHEM DOWNGRADE ANALYSIS* like where is that video!?!?
Hilarious how people can demand a video, thinking DF owes them something :-/
@@jaymzx2587 you do realize they said they would right..
I don't care if the new lighting is technically superior - it looks like crap compared to the original. "Realistic" doesn't mean "good". The original development team clearly had a vision for how the game should look, and that's completely destroyed by the flat, overly-bright lighting in the "remaster". What's the point of technical improvement if you wipe away artistic vision in the process?
Character faces look worse on the remastered
Great but how do these versions look and run in portable mode?
switch version is coming out in may so got to wait for that one
They'll be covering it next week. What about watching the video first before commenting.
Never watch their full videos just skip through it. And the release date is 21 may so that the reason why i said that. Good for them that they have a early copy.
Walther Penne yes but how do the other versions run in portable mode?
Worth pointing out the Ezio collection wasn't always native 4k on the Pro. Certain areas of the game, the entire Forli area seems to run at 1080p, for example.
The NPC @ 1:59 falling off the stairs was a nice touch XD
Uh no Xbox One X analysis?
It's the same as pro.
Both are Native 4k
@Mr Glass
Except not this time.
Pro is Native 4k. X will be the same.
It's an old ass game. So not surprised both hit 4k tbh.
kaleb Powell pro isn’t native 4K they updated the videos description
10:18 that boy's so shocked somebody got killed in front of him,that his eyes almost pop out of his eye sockets
Wow, amazingly underwhelming.
Could we just get a remake of the first assassin's creed? Altair is my favorite assassin.
Brandyn Kropp the first Assassins Creed should be totally remade instead, since it is very dated to look at now.
i played the game,its just a resolution bump and reshade applied over....typical remaster by any AAA studio(excluding capcom)
Edit: cut scenes are horrendous btw
RE2 isn't a remaster. it's a remake.
@Punch Down King Capcom hasn't exactly made a lot of remasters and none of them do more than what they described as a typical remaster by a AAA studio. They're definitely thinking about the remakes.
2:18
Shadow on the window pop-in nicely.
People complaining about it being 30FPS that’s not PS4 fault Ubisoft did it
It's ps4 fault this game relies on very fast single core performance, ps4 got week processor.
Jerooxama first of all it was Ubisoft decision to prioritize resolution. If PS3 could get 20-40 I’m sure the Pro could of gotten 60 at 1440p or maybe even 1620p...once again the devs could of easily targeted 60FPS but no they’d prefer resolution
@@jerooxama2367 The fact that this game relies on single core performance is because of poor optimisation from Ubisoft.
DMC “If the PS3 could get 20-40 I’m sure the Pro could of gotten 60 at 1440p.”
You’re comparing the last gen title to a remaster though. It’s not like it’s a straight port. Of course the Pro could achieve 60fps if it was running the straight last gen PS3 version. But who knows where the FPS would land if the PS4 Pro had an unlocked frame rate. I could see the Pro hitting 60fps at 1080 on the remaster but who knows how much time Ubi spent optimizing it. Probably not at all. It’s kinda their specialty; quick cash grabs for little effort.
@@d34th6un3 Sorry to disappoint you but ps3 had single core 3.2 Ghz processor and ps4 8 core 2.7ghz processor and the fact that this game is bottle necked by single core performance it can't get 60 fps processor is simply slow. It would have been possible if it was made in new engine but it's still using the same old engine.
Anyone else having the bug/glitch when the snow flickers between different models.
Nigel Engel yes, like big squares of it disappear and reappear. It's the new snow effect and it's kinda broken in some spots.
"Old" PC version on Max looks miles better than console remaster! (its again oversaturated like ezio remasters)
8:01 When he's talking about V Sync but then on the top right it says "Viewpoint Synchronized" and suddenly V Sync has a whole new secondary meaning to you
Lighting is far worse than in original. I dont't know what digital foundry is smoking.. .
Lol.. they ain't smoking anything... is those Sony checks they need to keep advertising..
I kinda wanted to see the 360 version shown just to see its framerate in comparison
It's a shame that Ubisoft didn't try to push for a 60fps with their "remastered" games.
4:53 Really? The character models don't seem to react well with the new lighting.
I know running of a GTX 1070 Ti at 1080P 60FPS my card is only using 20% in game.
Ubisoft went all lazy...didnt bother changing anything really quick cash in