Assassin's Creed II for PC Uses Only DX9 Features

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Looks bullshit.
"We spent quite some time improving the performances of the PC version by taking advantage of multi-core processors. The PC version also supports much higher resolutions than the console version and multi-sampling modes up to 8X (as opposed to the console version which only supports 2X)."
Higher resolutions? So what? You don't even had to do anything since theres no higher resolution textures so it's just for the birds.
Multisampling up to 8x? WooooW. Is it a new feature? Well it is, if you lived under a rock for about 20 years. Even AC1 had support for DX10.1 and 4xMSAA. (Which is fair enough I think)
"a Steam survey that has 40 percent of gamers still using Windows XP."
So this means the majority of gamers would use at least DX10 renderer.
So Mr. Champagne do we look like an ass?
 
[citation][nom]princeandy63[/nom]that sucks, having the latest and greatest in graphics apparently doesn't matter[/citation]

Unlike consoles, PC gamers tend to want more than just flashy and shiny. We want games that stand out, have a story tied in with compelling gameplay as well as decent graphics.

Desides, DX9 still is capable of producing some amazing effects, in fact consoles are limited to DX9 and still have some nice looking games.
 
[citation][nom]liquidsnake718[/nom]Damn I loved the first AC, I actually thought it was a DX10 gaME....Oh well, Ati may have gotten the advantage of bringing out the first dx11 card but there have been few games that actually utilize it...[/citation]

Only one so far and it doesn't do a really good job. Dirt 2. Now AVP will do a great job of tesselation at least with the Aliens. They look better than in the movies.
 
[citation][nom]princeandy63[/nom]that sucks, having the latest and greatest in graphics apparently doesn't matter[/citation]
Of course not. If developers made games for the PC (high resolution textures, high density models etc.) and then ported to the consoles (downsampling the textures, using lower LOD models), games would look their best on both consoles and the PC.

But no, they develop for the consoles and then do a straight port to the PC. Does any console game or port look as good as Crysis? That game was released more than two years ago, and since console hardware doesn't evolve, we're stuck on the PC with whatever the current-gen consoles can handle.
 
Well it doesnt matter anyways because DX10 didn't do much of anything for the first one and theses console ports are made on DX9 anyways.Why add new DX features that will make a bigger performance hit to some peoples PC's when almost no one except the hardcore is going to notice which the hardcore is not they're main source of sales.
 
[citation][nom]CoryInJapan[/nom]Well it doesnt matter anyways because DX10 didn't do much of anything for the first one and theses console ports are made on DX9 anyways.Why add new DX features that will make a bigger performance hit to some peoples PC's when almost no one except the hardcore is going to notice which the hardcore is not they're main source of sales.[/citation]


Because game developers are the ones always claiming to 'push the boundries of what we are used to' and to 'develop new and great things never seen before'...you know... the comments made by developers in most any magazine interview. So what you are suggesting is that we stagnate? DX9 is 'good enough' so lets completely ignore the next 2 generations of hardware and API's? If the new DX features are hitting your particular PC hard then turn it down a notch. It's why the graphics option screen exists. But why stop moving forward just because everyone wants to run their PC titles at max settings when they don't have a PC that can? So the answer is to simpily lower the quality of 'max' settings so that everyone can play it at that?
 
It supports what I have been saying all along. You don't need to spend a bomb on some killer PC. All the games are being coded for the kiddie consoles first anyway and ported to the PC, sometimes horribly. Start thinking of a new PC when the next generation of consoles ships. Until then XP does me fine for Mass Effect 2 at 1920 x 1200 with a single GTX 285.
 
I really can't blame the developers sometimes, PC games aren't as profitable as console games, because of piracy. I too would focus on where the money is; sadly though, it means that PC gamers such as myself suffer. All i can hope is that piracy comes down and allows developers to actually want to put their efforts into great PC games, without having to worry about gaining nothing from it.

A lot of pirates can probably afford these games, but simply choose the cheaper way (why not i suppose), but they don't realise what they are doing to their own industry. If you really appreciate the game, and you respect the developers for it, then buy it. Then maybe, maybe these devs would start to take PC games seriously.
 
@Regulas

"Until then XP does me fine for Mass Effect 2 at 1920 x 1200 with a single GTX 285"

you sir are nuts and a liar.

"You don't need to spend a bomb on some killer PC"

Most people dont own a GTX 285.. they own a 9500gt or an 4670.

So you spent ALOT of extra money on that Card (well maybe it was on sale I guess).

Sorry I'm just pissed at this news .........grrrrraaa.. DX 9 Give me a break!!!!!
 
I'm displeased, but not surprised or shocked. Consoles make money, PC games don't (anymore), so of course publishers will conform to the lowest common denominator - in terms of technology. Why would they spend time coding high level textures, and DX10/11 when they can do it faster and cheaper on DX9 which is all they need for consoles. It's sad, but this is a clear sign of things to come. Maybe nVidia was right about the future of PC gaming, or at least seems like they weren't too far off. Sucks. ON a positive note, my GTX275 will play games better in 2 years than it does current games and games released 2 years ago... Interesting trend.
 
I thought it was bad enough they made Halo 2 back in, I think 2007, compatible for DirectX 9, when first of all, it required Vista to run, which supported Direct X10. Fast forward 3 years and look how far we have (not) come. Really, what are we waiting for? The whole "Vista requirement" was way ahead of its time and plus, it was Vista. Really, it's safe to say that manufacturers can now require Windows 7 and get away with it. Lets not wait for Windows 8 to come out and not even utilize Direct X12 now.
 
Definitely Mr Champagne drinks champagne too much, why saying utilizing multi-core as the only "great" thing they work so hard? they abandon nvidia phsyx, and directX 11, I don't say that's a great achievement there, utilizing multi-core is kinda old
 
I traded (with cash incentive) my 4870 for the 5770.
Can I has my money back?

What's the point of supporting 8 threads in the first place? On DX9, it'll probably play at 60FPS+ on a C2D with a 4670...
 
Business as usual. Why to make a game not playable on "most" of the machines? They want people to buy the game and play right away, not to wait to upgrade their PCs then think about it.

For example, if they have potential to sell to 100 customers but only a few can run DX11 (says 20? 40?), why the hell not to sell 100 copies of game and get the cash in?
 
when nvidia gets dx11 on his cards, will be time for the new api. remember THE WAY IT'S MEANT TO BE.

I'm no fanATIc nor Nvidioso
 
Good Move!
If everyone coded their games for DX9, Microsoft would either cave in and give XP users DX11 or lose market share on Windows 7

Either way, a big win for users who refuse to use the NSA Spyware platform called Windows 7
 
Well first this gen console need to die already. Xbox is 5 years old and way out of style. PS3 and XBOX 360 have problems running games in 720p so a lot of games are in a post HD resolution and that's just sad. Normally consoles had 5 years hardware span. You can take Dirt2 on Xbox360 and compare it running on a 5850 for example and it look like a N64 game. Also DX9 need to die off and quick.
 
I wonder how many of you proud ATI graphic card owners are still thinking that you made a worthy purchase... I'm not at all digging at ATI here, but just saying, so much for the future moving ahead, this is more like one of those "forward to the past" things (I guess that's the opposite of 'back to the future'?) where things seems to be regressing for the sake of outdated consoles. It breaks my heart. I hope this is just temporary.
 
well that makes sense! thats the limit of what Xbox can do! and apparently the xbox is the best gaming experience there ever was and ever will be! you know! because it's so popular!! and we all know that popularity means your awesome in every way!

this reaks of crappy console port if I ever saw one. fact of the matter is DX10 focuses more on optimizing performance than anything else, so using it doesn't have to mean creating a really pretty game that only people with super awesome gfx cards can use, Quite the opposite! using the optimizations means the same game can run on lower hardware!!
 
i cant wait until 5 years from now when consoles continue to decline in popularity and a standard media pc is used under the tv... even the console makers said the console would be extinct in like 10 years... there was a post that the sony console vp made or something like that. so what it looks like is there tryin to milk consoles for all they got before they go the way of the dino... but my new pc is cryin over this
 
Thank all the console freaks for holding the gaming world in the stone age. Yet somehow, you will will still hear them decry how much "better" the Xbox or PS3 is than a decent PC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom