Yay!

Great, another trash port from ubisoft then ?

Even though I do get playable and smooth FPS on my machine, I do occasionally notice the difference once it hits the 60fps mark here and there, and was wondering if it was just the port or if my hardware was at fault. Given the recommended specs, now I know it's just the port of the game. It's still not bad, though, performance wise. It's more than playable.

Compared with the version of the PS4, which is config on PC?

smooth 1080p 60fps (max settings) on my PC. Very lovely game, probably one of the best installment out of the whole series. funny how the 3rd was considered the worst. ......i didn't see this turn around for the franchise.

I am wondering this as well. I have a PC that can run it on max but if the difference from the Ps4 version is small id rather buy the Ps4 version and be lazy in bed

Blim. what res were you running at? I am prepping a 290 vs 290x vs 780 FTW vs 780 Ti vs GTX 690 article on my site soon. I'll include AC4..

AC3 wasn't a great game, but nowhere near the worst in the franchise. The worst AC is the first, when I played it back in 2007 it bored the hell out of me so much that I only finished this year by forcing myself to play it, the same happened with a lot of other people I know.

At first, I gave the first AC a 4, but after playing and finishing this year, I give it a 6, the problem is that if you want to catch up you have to play it as it is the starting point of the franchise, and this is is very off-putting to a lot of people. Ubisoft should consider remaking it with improved gameplay mechanics and activities.

I got what ACIII was trying to tell and it is a very good game, I gave it 9/10. It somewhat plays differently than the previous entries in the series - both in story-telling and gameplay mechanics, which might be the reason a lot of people disliked it. Its only fault was being too long, they should have decreased the number of chapters and their length.

To me, from best to worst (plus rating):

AC-B (10) > ACII (10) > AC-R (10) > ACIII (9) > ACIII-TOKW [DLC] (7) > AC (6)

Hopefully Black Flag will be a 10, haven't read or seen any reviews so far because I want to judge it for myself, but I know a lot of people liked it, so that's great. :)

Hey Blim, have you guys thought about maybe forming a partnership with PC Gamer? They built this ridiculous PC with 4 titans and are using it run their games at 2560 but they're still relying on youtube for their videos, which as we all know is completely pointless. Seems like their machine plus Gamersyde is a match made in heaven.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/11/18/introducing-the-...

And as for the game, I'll wait for digital foundry to do an analysis of the next gen builds in comparison to the PC build before I make a purchase decision. If PS4 runs it at 60fps with similar IQ I may just get it for that

So that's why you can't hit 60fps.

That's exactly how most developers think about performance in PC games, hence why most PC games are unoptimized console ports, best examples being Crysis and Metro 2033.

I really hate that sort of thinking, as if just because PC gamers want to play on the better technical platform, we should be buying a new GPU every year even if most games don't even use all the power of GPUs from 3-5 years ago.

I have seen so many games require more resources than they actually use, like Ghosts needing 6 GB of RAM - now 4 GB with the patch - when it uses less than 2 GB when running.

The best optimized game I have ever seen is Borderlands 2, with my previous and very old crappy card I was able to get 2 instances of the game running on different windows on max settings with PhysX enabled at 20-30 fps.

Yet Ghost Recon - Future Soldier is almost unplayable at the lowest settings with my new GPU, can't beat optimization.

My dream is that Rockstar hires the people responsible for Borderlands 2's PC version to port Grand Theft Auto V - and even Red Dead Redemption - for PC. One can dream. :D

Love AC series. But I am going to buy sometime next year with PS4

You're right on them not being console ports, but I meant it as both unoptimized games and unoptimized console ports' games, should have clarified that. Also, if you really believe they aren't poorly optimized, then go to any respected PC hardware site and see an in depth analysis of the two, then you will see the reason why they are so heavy and demanding of resources.

"So many games?" Yes, and I wasn't talking specifically about system requirements, if a software isn't properly optimized, it will require far more resources than it actually needs, or you can think of it as "it requires more resources than it should need".

"5 at the top of my head", I will give you more, just looked at my list of PC games, the ones I either played extensively or the ones that were so bad you noticed immediately, hopefully you don't find that to be a "research" as no one holds all that information on their brain, unless you have eidetic/photographic memory. They are all unoptimized and whether or not they are console ports, all of them require more resources - better PC specs - than they should, I know this because I have tested all of these games with different configurations and on different machines throughout the years:

Crysis, Dark Souls, Dead Space 3, Dragon Age 2, Driver: San Francisco, Grand Theft Auto 4, Hitman: Absolution, Homefront, L.A. Noire, Lost Planet 1, Lost Planet 2, Metro 2033, Metro: Last Light, Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm 3 - Full Burst, Need For Speed: Shift, Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands, Remember Me, Resident Evil 5, Stranglehold, The Last Remnant, The Lord of The Rings: War in The North, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier, Venetica and etc...

I'm not going into detail because I would need to install and play each to point out all the differences, but the best way to see if a game was unoptimised is by comparing it to other games in the same genre with the same PC specs, please take note that the year of release can be taken into consideration, but when you have a 2007 game like Crysys running worse than a 2012 game like Far Cry 3 based on the same PC specs, taking the years into account does little benefit:

Crysis vs Far Cry 3, Metro: Last Light vs Battlefield 3, Dead Space 3 vs any Batman: Arkham game, Grand Theft Auto 4 vs Sleeping Dogs, Dragon Age 2 vs The Witcher 2, Need For Speed: Shift vs Dirt 2, Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands vs Prince of Persia (2008), Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier vs Spec Ops: The Line and etc...

There's a ton more, but for the sake of time I won't list everything, it isn't just Infinity Ward who screws up.
Yes, Unreal Engine 3 is amazing, but Gearbox did a phenomenal job with it, I have never seen any other game developed in it run as smootly as Borderlands 2.

"My point here: Ubisoft's attitude is wrong and is exceptionally shitty. It is not the norm." <- Don't disagree with you, hence why I said: "I really hate that sort of thinking..."

This "distinction" that you mention doesn't exist: if a game uses X resources, it requires X resources. Optimization has everything to do with requirements, if it is poorly optimized, then it will require more processing power.

If it didn't, there would be no gap between consoles and PC gaming, the only reason Ghosts had the "fake" 6 GB of RAM in the minimum requirements was because it was poorly optimized, whether it used all the 6 GB of RAM is irrelevant.

The PC version of Naruto Shippuden: Ultimate Ninja Storm 3 - Full Burst doesn't use everything I have and still runs poorly, it requires more than it actually uses.

Just because the games compared are on different engines doesn't mean you can't compare them, it's how each accomplishes the same things in very similar structures/restrictions.

Saying Metro isn't poorly optimized because it has advanced settings is... nevermind. Optimization has to do with 'how well" a game's code scales with the hardware, bad optimization happens when a game requires more resources because the code is a mess.

good game, ship battles after while get bit repetitive and still wish they remove that future garbage, but am enjoying this out of all the series

At 1080P on PS4

And not sure what the Resolution is on Xbox ONE if anybody knows?

Yeah but be honest. Consider what you call a PC Gamer, and the type of games the majority play in the 16-25 year old range. And what their interest is as a whole in "video games" and the actually amount of games they own and the genres. And compare that to people that just love video games in general no matter what the platform and have games on multiple systems and maybe pc. That's why mostly only you see so called "PC Gamers" talk constantly only about Crysis,Metro,CoD etc. and then the others that talk just about OnLine Multi-Players, MMOS, etc. That's why the studios don't waste their time thing about the PC version of every single game that gets made. .....Besides the fact that video games and the idea began with Home Consoles. That's my bit for the day, Now I have to pay the bills and work so I can afford a Xbox ONe and PS4 next week after paying the Mortgage.

Well first of all Naruto Full Blast on the consoles has never really used and type of AA. If you know about PC games any type of AA uses alot of resources. That the main reason why on the PC Naurto needs that extra memory that the consoles couldn't provided. Not every games that comes out on the PC needs fixing, sometimes its just the privilege of getting it, and being able to have a "polished version" Examples" Devil May Cry4/5, Street fighter 4, BatMan Series, and many others.