Assassin's Creed: Valhalla will 'only' run at 30fps in 4K

Fijiandoce

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 8, 2007
6,489
151
63
#2
If there was ever to be a noticeable jump in visual quality between this gen, and the next, then 4K60 as a standard was never on the table.

The jump from 720p to 1080p was a little over 2x the pixel count. The jump from 1080p (which some games can't even currently hit) to 4K is 4x the pixel count.

There isn't a linear relationship between resolution and graphical effects as the 2x, and 4x might seem. The ~2x jump from 1080p to 1440p is greater than the ~2x jump from 720p to 1080p. As your resolution gets higher, it becomes ever increasingly difficult to sample the scene in a quick enough fashion. The relationship, as such, is logarithmic.

I would not be surprised if most games that came out ran at sub-4K for the entire generation (for base console), with variations on upscale technology. There is so much pixel data in a 4K image that these techniques should increase in effectiveness quite substantially. This is why things like variable rate shading are a thing - You cut that logarithmic function closer to something like a linear function.

Hopefully we get HDR as standard tho. IMHO HDR > 4K.
 
Likes: Two4DaMoney

TidalPhoenix

The Last of Us
Staff member
Dec 16, 2006
12,662
97
48
#3
Yup, all that is understood which is exactly why when Eurogamer were told it would 60 fps as standard a lot of people and media questioned that. Now we know for certain its not 60 fps, but more likely 30 fps for 4k - which, as I said, is still impressive. My Area-51M with its overclocked i9 and RTX 2080 just about runs some very graphic intensive games at 4k over 30 fps (e.g. Star Citizen, Assassin's Creed Odyssey)
 
Jun 4, 2007
13,389
174
63
#4
I do wonder what's the difference between current and next gen versions of this game besides loading times and 4k.

I'll take checkerboard and whatever other techniques than a native 4k image. Especially if it allows for higher frames and/or other graphical goodies.
 
Last edited:

Fijiandoce

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 8, 2007
6,489
151
63
#5
Yup, all that is understood which is exactly why when Eurogamer were told it would 60 fps as standard a lot of people and media questioned that. Now we know for certain its not 60 fps, but more likely 30 fps for 4k - which, as I said, is still impressive. My Area-51M with its overclocked i9 and RTX 2080 just about runs some very graphic intensive games at 4k over 30 fps (e.g. Star Citizen, Assassin's Creed Odyssey)
I think this is a case of over-marketing your product. They kind of got away with it with the 'X'. Lots of hype, while conveniently steering away from the fact it still came with jaguar cores. They probs need to dial down the rhetoric a bit - tho, might not even matter considering the 'X' got a free pass.
 
May 20, 2008
10,854
91
48
#6
I think this is a case of over-marketing your product. They kind of got away with it with the 'X'. Lots of hype, while conveniently steering away from the fact it still came with jaguar cores. They probs need to dial down the rhetoric a bit - tho, might not even matter considering the 'X' got a free pass.
How are they over marketing it? This is all on Ubisoft. Microsoft can't control what other publishers do with their games. Anyways, the article says the game will be "at least" 30fps. There is still over 6 moths before this game releases. It's possible that it will be 60fps on next gen consoles. We know that both are capable of running this game at that frame rate.
 

TidalPhoenix

The Last of Us
Staff member
Dec 16, 2006
12,662
97
48
#7
How are they over marketing it? .
Because he was required to issue a follow-on statement a few days laters: In a later statement, Aaron Greenberg would state that "Developers always have flexibility in how they use the power" of the Xbox Series X. He also said that "a standard or common 60fps is not a mandate" (Source: Overclock3d.net)

If 60 fps is not a mandate then it's hardly a standard! I'm going to say right now that 4k games with kick-ass visuals are NOT going to run consistently at true 60 fps (and by true, I mean not the smoke and mirrors thing they did with the Xbox One where they duplicated the 30 fps frame to allow it to run at 60 Hz)
 
May 20, 2008
10,854
91
48
#9
Because he was required to issue a follow-on statement a few days laters: In a later statement, Aaron Greenberg would state that "Developers always have flexibility in how they use the power" of the Xbox Series X. He also said that "a standard or common 60fps is not a mandate" (Source: Overclock3d.net

Ok, its a bit confusing and mixed messaging and they should be more careful about what they say, but it's not overmarketing, which means to advertise excessively. 3rd party devs have creative control about how they want to use the hardware. Its always been that way. They said that way back in march. Should all games be 60 fps? Yes. I think they should be because I believe that's what most gamers want. Sadly, we all know or should know that wont be the case for xbox series x or ps5. At least we are actually seeing games run on series x hardware. [/QUOTE]


If 60 fps is not a mandate then it's hardly a standard! I'm going to say right now that 4k games with kick-ass visuals are NOT going to run consistently at true 60 fps (and by true, I mean not the smoke and mirrors thing they did with the Xbox One where they duplicated the 30 fps frame to allow it to run at 60 Hz)
Dirt 5 is already achieving that along with a 120fps option. Scorn and bright memory are also running at 4k and 60fps. A couple of the games even has raytracing.
 

TidalPhoenix

The Last of Us
Staff member
Dec 16, 2006
12,662
97
48
#10
...but it's not overmarketing, which means to advertise excessively.
Well that's true, but I think you could see his intent was to imply they make bold and often incorrect claims about capability. Remember when the Xbox One claimed to have '4K uncompromised'? Complete lie as it absolutely compromises. Anyway, I take everything they say at this stage with a large pinch of salt until I see a kick ass game that really shows what they are capable of. I think 4k at 60 fps is going to be rare. I mean even power PC gaming rigs often don't hit that (with RTX enabled etc).
 
May 20, 2008
10,854
91
48
#11
Well that's true, but I think you could see his intent was to imply they make bold and often incorrect claims about capability. Remember when the Xbox One claimed to have '4K uncompromised'? Complete lie as it absolutely compromises. Anyway, I take everything they say at this stage with a large pinch of salt until I see a kick ass game that really shows what they are capable of. I think 4k at 60 fps is going to be rare. I mean even power PC gaming rigs often don't hit that (with RTX enabled etc).

That why i said they should be more careful about what they say because 3rd party publishers are going to do what they want regardless of hardware. They would be better off just saying xbox series x is the most powerful console and just leave it at that. With that being said, you really cant put all the blame on Microsoft because Ubisoft shouldn't get a pass if their game doesn't have a 60FPS mode.

i still disagree about 4k 60fps being rare. As I stated above some of those games shown already are going to be 4k 60. If we are seeing this early i believe it will only get better once devs really learn more about the hardware and this gen's hardware is significantly better than last gen. The best is still yet to come. As long as gaming exist there are going to be moments like what we are seeing with devs like ubisoft and the console makers. I remember back before sony launched ps3 they were saying it could do games at 120fps when there no tvs at that time capable of displaying that. Same with ps4pro being a 4k games console. Like i said before, at least we are seeing games running on their next gen hardware and 2 of those (The Medium and Scorn) are console exclusives. All we have from sony is a logo, controller and a tech demo. I wish they would gives us something more.
 
Last edited:

Fijiandoce

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 8, 2007
6,489
151
63
#12
If we are seeing this early i believe it will only get better once devs really learn more about the hardware and this gen's hardware is significantly better than last gen.
That's the opposite of whats going to happen. Hitting 60fps isn't something that you can work your way toward given [reasonable]time. It's something you design around. Ostensibly, regardless of what the game is, a 60fps game can only ever do half of what a 30fps game does. If a title can put 1000 NPC's on screen, at 30 you could put 2000 NPC etc. etc. This goes for the visual effects you use as well. If you want to do sampling for DOF, you might get away with nice bokeh effects at 30FPS, but have to cut that and go for a generic Gaussian blur for DOF if you want 60.

I don't think MS are going to have their first party devs putting out visually inferior looking titles to third party devs. If the game devs want to make it look pretty, the framerate is the first thing that's going, and then the resolution if they're struggling.
 
May 20, 2008
10,854
91
48
#13
That's the opposite of whats going to happen. Hitting 60fps isn't something that you can work your way toward given [reasonable]time. It's something you design around. Ostensibly, regardless of what the game is, a 60fps game can only ever do half of what a 30fps game does. If a title can put 1000 NPC's on screen, at 30 you could put 2000 NPC etc. etc. This goes for the visual effects you use as well. If you want to do sampling for DOF, you might get away with nice bokeh effects at 30FPS, but have to cut that and go for a generic Gaussian blur for DOF if you want 60.
That's your opinion. You don't if that's the case for all games. Devs will be able to squeeze more out of the hardware as tools get better and they are more comfortable with hardware. Those are the words from a guy called Cerny.

I don't think MS are going to have their first party devs putting out visually inferior looking titles to third party devs. If the game devs want to make it look pretty, the framerate is the first thing that's going, and then the resolution if they're struggling.
You aren't telling me anything I don't know already. That still doesn't mean you cant achieve both. Their will be games where devs wont have to make compromises to achieve the desired results.
 
Last edited:

Fijiandoce

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 8, 2007
6,489
151
63
#14
That's your opinion.
That's where you're wrong, i'll get to why in a sec.

Devs getting more out of the hardware over time... Not sure what logic is being applied here, but if they were pushing 30 in the beginning, with new, more heavy techniques, they still push 30... Not sure if somethings being lost in the middle here, but i don't get it.

As for why it's not just my opinion? I'm finishing up my CS degree. Not exactly gunna design my own game engine any time soon (nor have any interest in graphics), but the issues faced in a game share commonalities in other tech industries. A function that runs for a given time before, still runs for the same time on the same hardware. Want an example from industry? Here's DICE discussing the time complexity of the very thing i posted above: https://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/five-rendering-ideas-from-battlefield-3-need-for-speed-the-run
Obviously, my example was meant to highlight the loss of a feature rather than the time complexity of some very specific effect.

Their will be games where devs wont have to make compromises to achieve the desired results.
Every game has compromises, the fact this is your reasoning make me wonder why even try to debate the point? When even an effect is made faster, it's usually as a compromise.

SSAO wasn't even imaginable for console when Crytek developed it for Crysis. Yet by generations end, almost every title launched with it.

Was it made faster? Yup, was it the same? No. The sample count for the console SSAO version was significantly reduced compared to Crytek who (if anything) over-sampled. Did the console version look the same? Again, no. It looked worse. Depending on the game, sometimes much worse (Far cry 3 if you want a nice example). Did the devs make use of the time improvements to increase framerates? Nope. They added in more effects, hence SSAO, and kept a 30fps profile.

If some algorithm has a given time complexity, for example O(n^n), you can't magic it into another time-space (like O(n)). You can work to reduce the time, but fundamentally, a function that is O(n^n) will always be O(n^n).

As i said above, there is a reason techniques like variable rate shading exists. It's because the hardware can't run the function in a quick enough time. Did they improve the function? Nope. Can they? Sure, here and there. But fundamentally, the function is the same. They just changed the number of samples the function works with.
 
May 20, 2008
10,854
91
48
#15
That's where you're wrong, i'll get to why in a sec.

Devs getting more out of the hardware over time... Not sure what logic is being applied here, but if they were pushing 30 in the beginning, with new, more heavy techniques, they still push 30... Not sure if somethings being lost in the middle here, but i don't get it.

As for why it's not just my opinion? I'm finishing up my CS degree. Not exactly gunna design my own game engine any time soon (nor have any interest in graphics), but the issues faced in a game share commonalities in other tech industries. A function that runs for a given time before, still runs for the same time on the same hardware. Want an example from industry? Here's DICE discussing the time complexity of the very thing i posted above: https://www.slideshare.net/DICEStudio/five-rendering-ideas-from-battlefield-3-need-for-speed-the-run
Obviously, my example was meant to highlight the loss of a feature rather than the time complexity of some very specific effect.


Every game has compromises, the fact this is your reasoning make me wonder why even try to debate the point? When even an effect is made faster, it's usually as a compromise.

SSAO wasn't even imaginable for console when Crytek developed it for Crysis. Yet by generations end, almost every title launched with it.

Was it made faster? Yup, was it the same? No. The sample count for the console SSAO version was significantly reduced compared to Crytek who (if anything) over-sampled. Did the console version look the same? Again, no. It looked worse. Depending on the game, sometimes much worse (Far cry 3 if you want a nice example). Did the devs make use of the time improvements to increase framerates? Nope. They added in more effects, hence SSAO, and kept a 30fps profile.

If some algorithm has a given time complexity, for example O(n^n), you can't magic it into another time-space (like O(n)). You can work to reduce the time, but fundamentally, a function that is O(n^n) will always be O(n^n).

As i said above, there is a reason techniques like variable rate shading exists. It's because the hardware can't run the function in a quick enough time. Did they improve the function? Nope. Can they? Sure, here and there. But fundamentally, the function is the same. They just changed the number of samples the function works with.
you're making mountains out of molehills, dude. I never said devs don't or won't make compromises. However, there will be those that wont depending on their goal. That's all im saying. For example the Scorn devs said:

https://www.squadfill.com/2020/05/1...-it-wouldnt-have-to-compromise-on-pc-version/
“It was about bringing it in line with the PC version”, says game director Ljubomir Peklar when I ask what the thinking was behind releasing Scorn for the new Xbox. “We don’t want to make any compromises and Series X certainly enables us to do just that.”

I ask what, specifically, Series X offers the team that current-gen consoles couldn’t: “It’s mostly evolutionary improvements that are going to make the biggest difference. The most important one is elimination of the CPU bottleneck that exists in the current-gen consoles and much faster loading of assets thanks to the SSD. It’s all about responsiveness and not having to wait on things.”

This game started development in 2017 for PC and they wouldn't do a console version because they couldn't achieve what they wanted with this gens hardware. Now they can with xbox series x. They achieved the desired results with the series x. With the xbox one it wasn't possible. That's not a compromise. Sometimes its not all about graphics.
 

Fijiandoce

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 8, 2007
6,489
151
63
#16
you're making mountains out of molehills, dude.
Hardly, but the irony is not lost on me tho.

That's not a compromise. Sometimes its not all about graphics.
See my note in my previous post about function timings when hardware remains the same. Additionally, i don't see what this has to do with anything other than a quote from a dev?? We started off with 4K60 being a standard, not too sure what this is supposed to inform?

Also, you're posting a quote about the very thing i have actually been bitching about since the mid-gen refreshes. The jaguar was/is hot garbage. At least we are all on the same page now.
 
May 20, 2008
10,854
91
48
#17
Hardly, but the irony is not lost on me tho.
you sure about that? I clearly stated "I believe" in that post. That's all I can say because I don't have all the facts about next gen hardware for neither console. Neither do you. We will have to wait and see.


See my note in my previous post about function timings when hardware remains the same. Additionally, i don't see what this has to do with anything other than a quote from a dev?? We started off with 4K60 being a standard, not too sure what this is supposed to inform?
A quote from a dev who has actually has some hands on with the hardware though. Not speculation.




Also, you're posting a quote about the very thing i have actually been bitching about since the mid-gen refreshes. The jaguar was/is hot garbage. At least we are all on the same page now.
We were never on different pages. You overanalyze about minor trivial things like me saying, "devs will get more out of the hardware over time", when its a fact that devs do get a better understanding of the hardware with time.
 

Fijiandoce

Administrator
Staff member
Oct 8, 2007
6,489
151
63
#18
you sure about that? I clearly stated "I believe" in that post. That's all I can say because I don't have all the facts about next gen hardware for neither console. Neither do you. We will have to wait and see.
Sad thing is, i think everyone knows where this goes, as it always does. When presented with any sort of evidence on the contrary, we end up in this dumb round about spiral, where, at every turn, we get sly jabs in some odd attempt to bait some sort of confrontation, or derail any discussion into obscurity.

So, i'll just end my part by saying that on a technical sheet, the PS4 and XBone can both do 4K60. I wonder where those titles all ended up? (That's rhetorical, I don't particularly need an answer for that).
 
Likes: sainraja
May 20, 2008
10,854
91
48
#19
Hardly, but
Sad thing is, i think everyone knows where this goes, as it always does. When presented with any sort of evidence on the contrary, we end up in this dumb round about spiral, where, at every turn, we get sly jabs in some odd attempt to bait some sort of confrontation, or derail any discussion into obscurity.


So, i'll just end my part by saying that on a technical sheet, the PS4 and XBone can both do 4K60. I wonder where those titles all ended up? (That's rhetorical, I don't particularly need an answer for that).
Its really not that serious, dude. I go by two rules .
1. Don't sweat the small stuff
2. Everything is small stuff