PixlBit

I don't like these games, but I still like that they take place in areas mostly ignored by games.  Even the new one almost lures me in because I find revolutionary era France fascinating.  But we all see what they did with an awesome setting of revolutionary era america, so they just seem to fuck these things up.  My brother did enjoy the last one, but not because it was an AC game necessarily.  

I think after 2 they've really been wasting their potential.

I don't know why resolution and frame rate matters to people so much. At lot of times those numbers don't explain everything that's going on. I play mainly for gameplay and fun factor. The game may stutter sometimes and look like a Xbox 360 game from 2006 that was ported from original Xbox like EDF 2025, and I still love it for the weapon variety and the shear visceral thrill of shooting things. The graphics of Diddy Kong Racing may look like melted colored plastic, but I still get into it for the races. RE4 HD looks really good with improved graphics but the combat is as clunky as ever. I'm going to have a hard time completing it with those controls. It's good looks won't keep me playing if the controls are frustrating. I say poo on frame rates and resolution. Gameplay is what matters.

Framerate absolutely matters for gameplay. That's why Call of Duty's controls are so highly praised, because it's one of the few shooters at 60 FPS. That's why Metal Gear Rising worked better than DmC last year, because action games like that almost need 60 FPS. It matters less for AC, but the gameplay absolutely is better at 60 FPS. It's just a matter of smoother, more fluid controls.

As for resolution, what you say is true, but beside the point. If Ubisoft just said their game was going to be 900p, there wouldn't be an issue. But they were one of the developers talking about how much graphics matter, how resolution matters, and all that stuff. So for them to say it doesn't now that giving the best image quality isn't convenient for them, yeah that's bullshit.

i understand how framerate matters for serious FPS gamers. I work with an ex-MLG player, but for me it just doesn't.

Resolution is cool. I got turned on by the way Killzone Shadowfall looked last year, but it's given way too much attention. I get it that Ubisoft says one thing and then seems to backpeddle on their specs, but if it's noticeable that's one thing. If it's all about a number, that's just stupid.

Yeah, for film I'd agree that 30 FPS does make things more cinematic and dream-like than 60 FPS, hence why movies tend to use 30 FPS and news uses 60 FPS for the most part. There's exceptions, but a lot of people who saw Peter Jackson's The Hobbit in HFR (60 FPS) thought it was too obvious the sets were fake and people who know about film were like "yeah, that's why you slow things down to trick the eye." 

But for video games, a smoother experience is more important than what's "cinematic," so that argument doesn't really translate. 

Also, video games don't have the physical limitations of filmmaking, so developers can make a game look "cinematic" at any framerate, by using motion blur, depth-of-field effects, low resolution elements, by attenuating movement speed of characters and objects, etc.  

What's more, I think people should be concerned that game companies are being outright dishonest by claiming they are capping framerates to achieve film aesthetic. Or that they are ignorant of their own medium, take your pick.

Yup.

That last paragraph nailed it.

If Ubisoft reps just kept their mouth shut or used another official excuse such as "ease of development" and/or "we were struggling to hit the release date", I think this wouldn't have blown up in the manner that it did. This could also be a case of a game that's early on in a generation's lifespan that doesn't completely take advantage of said console's abilities for whatever reason, which I've heard has happened in the early years/stages of the past two console generations.

By this point, people will know whether they want to continue playing this series every year. As much as I enjoyed Black Flag, I'm on the fence regarding Unity and Rogue. But Ubisoft needs to take a breather from this franchise. The game could end up being fun to play anyway but I understand the multitude of eyes-rolling.

Rogue and Unity could be fun to play, but I refuse to spend full price on an AC game after 3.

I'm getting the impression that it seems that Ubisoft is having alot of problems with this version of Assassins and the graphics issue is just another problem to add to the list. They should have seen this as a problem from the beginning and built their game at that framerate. This could be a game that many will avoid because of these issues. 

Given what Ubisoft has done over the years with their verison of Online Pass, UPlay integration and what they've done to the AC series as a whole, I wouldn't trust them at anything they say either. Should've just cancelled this mistake from the onset.