Someone at Ubisoft’s been busy playing The Witcher III: Wild Hunt. Though the anticipated Assassin’s Creed Origins whisks you away to the wide open expanses of Egypt, you can sense the White Wolf watching over this surprisingly RPG leaning iteration of the French publisher’s stealth series.
Our demo is a perfect example of that: Geral—we mean Bayek is riding horseback through desert plains. As the vista narrows, small pockets of settlements start to appear, and the game is quick to inform you that you’ve discovered a new location. A compass at the top of the screen alerts you to points of interest, with a boy being whipped being the primary marker.
The game looks fine, though perhaps not quite as jaw-dropping as you may have been led to believe. We should stress that Ubisoft was eager to point out that all code was alpha, but shimmering, pop-in, and other common open world graphical glitches were common. Frankly, we also found it to be a little bit fuzzy, despite testing the vaunted Xbox One X version, which maybe doesn’t bode well for base consoles.
Nevertheless, there are some nice elements here. The world feels much more alive than it ever has in previous Assassin’s Creed games, with NPCs moving around with real purpose for once. A new mechanic allows you to call in your trusty eagle to gain an air advantage, scouting out potential targets and looking for objects of interest.
Sandbox games are always hard to demo, and we didn’t really get a feel for the stealth in our time with the title – arguably the most important part of any Creed release. But the combat seems marginally better than the countering systems of Assassin’s Creed Syndicate, instead mapping attacks to the shoulder buttons and accentuating dodge rolls, making it feel ever so slightly – groan – like Dark Souls. Yes, you can send that one to the Twitter account.
The quest that we completed was a simple one – essentially a find and seek affair as we gathered together two missing trinkets – and the dialogue adding context to the objective was poor, from a writing, acting, and directing perspective. But we get the sense that this was probably more of a side-quest than the kind of full-blown mission we can expect from the final release.
Nevertheless, we’d be lying if we said we didn’t come away ever so slightly disappointed. It’s easy to deal with alpha code jank if what you’re seeing shows something unique, but in our short time with Assassin’s Creed Origins, we couldn’t help comparing it to other games. The danger here, then, is that it ends up being an amalgamation of all that’s come before it – rather than finding a voice of its own.
Are you feeling Egyptian with enthusiasm for Assassin’s Creed Origins? Or have some of the issues raised in this preview left you feeling concerned? Have a Pharaoh natter in the comments section below.
Comments 32
"the dialogue adding context to the objective was poor, from a writing, acting, and directing perspective."
This is my main worry with Origins. It's gone almost full action RPG, but what's the point if you're not going to do it well? Adding a few lines of crap-tier dialogue doesn't make clearing map markers anymore enjoyable.
I had to laugh when their CEO said games like Breath of the Wild and Horizon took gameplay ideas from Far Cry and Watch Dogs which I thought was a bit rich considering Origins looks a reskin of Witcher or Horizon.
@adf86 I suppose you could look at it in the sense that all of these games are pushing each other to raise the bar in different areas, but yes... I agree.
I kind of feel like they should have waited another year or two between this game and syndicate. I’m not really excited about this one, and feel like it’s just another Assassin’s Creed game, as if it came out a year after the last
@get2sammyb I mean there's nothing wrong with taking ideas from other games and to be fair he was complimenting those games too but he made it sound like his company were the inventors of the genre or something.
The rather patchy performance on Xbox One X doesn't bode well either.
Dodge rolls.. Dodge rolls everywhere.
@CloudNine completely agree with this. I just cant get excited about creed any more. Im sure the game will play well, but I just am bored of the ubisoft formula now - and open world games in general - trading interesting environments, for more square feet with a few more collectible markers.
I am afraid I have no faith that this will reinvigorate a franchise, that was already tired by ac: revelations. I hope I am wrong as the setting is brilliant. But I think another year or two off would have helped breath new life into the franchise (perhaps Prince of persia could have returned to plug the gap!)
I actually liked Syndicate. I think the fact you had two playable characters helped a lot and a fairly decent storyline.
I hope they have finished with the pointless collectables and have interesting side-quests. The murder mysteries in Syndicate were at least interesting. Better than fetch this.
Well I have it pre-ordered - the Gold edition. Its the first AC game that has interested me since I bought 'brotherhood' and the decline the franchise it went on from there. AC4 may be a 'favourite' for some and whilst I think it would have made a good pirate game - it sucked as an AC game!
There is a Canadian study done by the Université de Montréal that repetitive video games can severely damage your brain. By mainly stimulating the part of your brain that controls habit formation and it's reward system it can leave the part of brain that helps you think critically and develop rational thought. They had a group of people in their study play games like Call if Duty, Killzone, and Borderlands 2; another group played platformers like Super Mario Brothers for 90 hours.
I bring this up because looking at this game and considering playing it makes me want to cave in my own skull with a ball peen hammer. It looks like a bad action (OMG guys it's just like Dark Souls) RPG with an AC skin over it.
I want to use my brain Ubisoft, and be lost and confused when I play a game. I want to learn how to play it! I want that sense of wonder! I'm in the overwhelming minority I think, but I hate this incredibly prevalent pandering to the lowest common denominator in games right now.
Ouch, I was expecting a little bit more hype from you guys. Anyway, I'm still excited for the game I noticed the pop in a recent demo they've shown, and the jankiness has been there since the first demo...
Also, I think it's a bit unfair comparing this to Witcher 3 in such a harsh way when Witcher 3 is just a RPG like so many other done in an exceptionally good way...it's not like Witcher 3 had anything groundbreakingly new...
I don't like the future stuff in assassin creed, also the overabudance of icon in the map gave me headache.
"Ubisoft saying the game code is still in Alpha stage" basically the game won't look like what we showed you. Because gamers now expect that from us! And if its poor alpha code on the Xbox One X I still think the game will run and look like crap.
I'll rather play Witcher 3 GOTY edition which I got for a serious bargain off the PS store. Yet to start it as I'm finishing off my back log of digital games to free up space for new ones.
@Kidfried They were the 3D Mario games.
Here's the article if you're interested: https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2017/08/07/video-game-effects-on-brain-study/%3fsource=dam
it's really fascinating. The researchers even made some suggestions to make games healthier for your brain, in their opinion. I think it's interesting to think about!
@adf86 yeah if the XB1X is struggling i hate to think how it will play on standard systems
the main thing is though they said it was alpha code but all the gameplay they have shown previously was working fine so i have to wonder "were they really running on a XB1X or where they running on a P.C?"
@get2sammyb So you weren't completely blown away with your initial play on XboneX either by the sound of it?
@Dodoo I mean I'm sure people will play the fanboy card on me but, just like the PS4 Pro, all of the Xbox One X games on display just look like current-gen titles at a higher res.
I'm sure when Digital Foundry zooms in and pulls out its frame rate counters it'll find differences, but nothing about the hardware stands out on the show floor from the games being shown.
Just my opinion.
Having skipped all ACs since BF, i'm actually looking forward to this one. Looks like fun to me. Still wont pick it up until 6-9 months after release given Ubi's track record of shipping bug ridden games and behaviour on review embargoes.
@get2sammyb It's because it exists purely to play games at higher resolutions and probably so MS can brag about having "the most powerful console ever" the problem is their charging too much money for what it does. If the Pro gets a price cut at Paris Games Week then that console is going to offer the better value proposition cos it'll half the price of a X and it'll offer similar results.
@adf86 Yeah agreed. Already I'm personally not sure how they can justify the price difference.
@Th3solution I think the Witcher 3 will be the 'better' game, the better story and more 'dynamic' feeling reactions to your decisions. I get the impression that AC will have a 'dynamic' world with NPC's going about their business etc depending on time of day but the enemies, as interesting and varied as AC may be, I can't see the variety of 'Humans' matching up to the variety of beasts and magic that Witcher offers. I guess you have more 'ranged' options in AC and more hand held choices too. The Witcher is mainly Swords wit the occasional crossbow or 'bomb' with a 'Sign' for either defensive or aggressive actions. I doubt though that you would need to read up on the enemy types to know the best combination of bombs/signs/oils to give you an 'edge'.
Still it looks fun to have a big open world 'Ancient Egypt' to spend our time in...
@get2sammyb Yeah thanks that's cool, your opinion matters!
@adf86 Spot on. Even now before Pro has had a price cut it's £120 cheaper than XboneX in the UK which is massive. That's before you even take into consideration the implied value of the much better PS4 library...
I played the demo on XB1X today and it looked beautiful but there was some drops in performance during combat for me and oddly when swimming underwater. I liked the world though, really detailed and the controls felt pretty good. The demo was a very bog standard side quest but would be interested in seeing what the full missions are like. It didn't seem particularly revolutionary but played well.
I am very excited for Origins as I really enjoy the Creed titles, I even got a lot of enjoyment out of Unity.
I think I may well leave it a month or two though so a few patches a have been released to tidy things up a little. My backlog along with Southpark will see me through......ignoring Mario however, is going to be very tough!
@get2sammyb The same could be said about games like AC4 and the PS4/XB1 versions when they launched. These games were nothing more than a full HD version of the 720p PS3 era games.
The X can EASILY justify that £100 difference in my opinion. Its got a whole PS4 Slim worth more GPU power, 4 GB extra (MUCH faster) RAM, Dolby Atmos and a 4k HDR Bluray player - for just £100 more.
In HD terms, if the PS4 was full 1080p with a Bluray, the XB1 would be a 720p console which uses 'clever' CB rendering to offer 900-1080p (2x450-540p) and use SD quality textures etc, have only 6GB of 'slower' RAM and only a DVD player - albeit with the ability to upscale to 1080p. Some games won't even be HD - just 540p with a few minor tweaks to the quality of the visual settings - better reflections for example. All for £100 less than the PS4. Of course the XB1 wasn't that weak by comparison but that is the HD equivalent of the 'differences' that we will see in the 'X'.
Whether its 'worth' it to have the 'high-end' PC quality visuals or whether you are 'happy' with PS4 level visual settings textures but with a ~1440p output resolution that sharpens edges but still fills them with more blurry upscaled textures is a different matter and will vary person to person. I bet though if/when Sony do release their PS5 with Full 4k and 4k textures etc, then it will matter to you and all the other Sony Fanboys.
I am well aware of how well the Pro copes with delivering a UHD image, and sometimes incredibly well as H:ZD proves. Even though the textures etc may be exactly the same as the base PS4, the upscaling does give them an edge over the standard version and coupled with the 'sharper' edges, it helps create enough of a difference on 4k screens to be obvious. Even the 1440p games from ND look better but if Sony had built a PS5 and released these in full 4k - not just boost 'resolution' but actually use 4k assets too, the difference between the Pro and PS5 would be instantly noticeable.
I am not saying that it would make a 'significant' difference to the quality of the game overall but the increase in PQ would be easy to see and I can't believe you wouldn't be a little more stunned at the visuals. I can't believe anyone was not impressed by the first 'few' years of those 'multi-gen' games that, in many cases were 720p on PS3 and 1080p on PS4. A lot of the games like Tomb Raider, Last of Us, AC4, CoD:Ghosts etc only had a increase in resolution over the PS3 versions and yet these were lauded over because of their 1080p crisp image quality.
I can't see the PS5 doing 'much' more than the XB1X will. I do hope it has a much better CPU though so it can offer 60fps more often but visually, with 4k resolutions and 4k assets, I can't see it being much different from the X. If it has more GPU power, we may see a slight difference in 'visual' settings, maybe more games at 'Native' 4k but very difficult to see unless you zoom in or get up close. Audio quality can't be superior to Dolby Atmos but I still expect you, and other Sony fanboys to be 'very excited' and enthusiastic at the 4k visuals the PS5 is offering. I know I will be too but then I am not bias or hypocritical to 'dismiss' the X now and then be all over it when Sony catch -up.
Whilst a game like Rise of the Tomb Raider looked great in 4k on the Pro, the 'enhanced' mode was 1080p - its 4k on the X! We also saw DF's comparison of what those 4k assets added over the HD quality that the Pro used, and if Sony had a PS5, the Assets that would have used instead too - to match the 'quality' of a high-end PC. It also runs better in its 60fps mode too - although we still need to see if it drops frames at all in the most taxing area - but in the early levels, its remained locked at 60fps - something the Pro doesn't.
I know a Top-End PC can have 'ultra' enhanced/settings and higher frame rates but the X is the 'console' equivalent - like the PS4 was for 1080p.
I am looking forward to playing this on my 'X'. The improved textures, probably higher resolution as I expect the Pro to be CB1800p, the faster transitions between bird and character, the greater draw distances etc etc. I am also looking at getting Atmos headset and upgrading my audio to atmos too so benefit from more immersive audio too.
I am not criticising the Pro at all. I have said many times I understand why its built like it is and impressed at how well implemented the CB rendering method is. Its still the 'best' console to play games like Spider-man, Days Gone etc on but when DF do their comparison video's, visuals on the X will be much closer to the high end PC's and the Pro more in common with the PS4 but with a 'better' resolution only.
@BAMozzy Sure, I'm just saying what I saw with the naked eye on the show floor. Like I say, just my opinion.
@get2sammyb And I respect your right to have an opinion but, like I said, if the PS5 was launching with '4k visuals etc',would you also be equally as 'unimpressed' or enthusiastic just because it has 'Sony' on the box? It will be interesting to see your review (if you are the reviewer) of the PS4/Pro version. From my perspective, I am finding a lot of hypocrisy. How something like a 1440p game looks great on the pro and better than the 1080p PS4 version yet when a jump to 4k, with 4k assets etc by a 'rival' platform, its now ordinary or not much better than PS4/XB1. If I thought the 'Pro' was worth the £350 I spent to basically double the resolution only, then £450 to do even more in terms of improving the visual quality that now comes much closer to matching the quality of my 4k HDR TV is certainly worth it. I don't care what brand is on the box either. I spent the last 4yrs saying I can clearly see the difference the PS4 had over XB1 - especially when I upgraded to a 4k TV so I will be honest too in the future.
If you look at all multi-platform games currently available, the 'PC' version with 4k assets etc is not 'that' different from the PS4 (not Pro) version and when the PS4 launched, most of the games didn't look especially next gen either - just a higher resolution, better PQ version of the PS3 yet that was called a 'next gen'. Again using AC4, was the PS4 version 'next' gen when all it did was offer full HD version of the 'HD' version on last gen? The 'X' is technically improving the resolution/visuals by a bigger 'jump' than we saw with that game and yet its not technically 'next' gen hardware but an iterative step to offer the current gen games at a visual level to match the 'next' gen displays.
AC: origins isn't a 'next gen' only game - thankfully otherwise we wouldn't be playing it on PS4/XB1. The X, like the Pro, isn't a 'next gen' console either but a console designed to deliver 4k gaming. Its like upgrading your 1080p PC/Monitor to be 4k and then playing the same games you had at much higher resolutions and visual settings. You wouldn't call 'BF1' next gen yet if Sony had released a PS5, the chances are it would still be BF1 but in 4k with the 4k Assets.
I can't see any games being as big a 'jump' from a say 2D to 3D anymore. Its 'diminishing' returns in a lot of ways and unless we see something 'radical' - like Quantum Computing or a 'big' change in the balance between GPU and CPU that enables a 'radical' change in the direction that 'devs' can push gaming (such as NPC. AI advancement), then games are likely to be 'similar' in a lot of ways to what we have already seen - just advancements in visual settings/resolutions.
AC Unity tried to push gaming in a 'new' direction but the lack of CPU performance hampered that. This generation of Consoles - have both been very GPU focused which is why we see more 'advancement' in terms of visuals - better smoke, water, lighting, particles etc etc as well as increased resolutions rather than any 'dramatic' jump in 'game-play'. I know VR is 'new' but its also 'restrictive'. By that I mean Devs really need to focus on the action happening in front because if you turn to far, the camera struggles to track the controllers. In my opinion, its still just the same games - except brought closer to you eliminating the room but as 'games' they aren't exactly 'new'.
As I said, I truly believe that the PS5 will do what the X does - maybe better with more power etc but ultimately, I don't see any 'radically' new games - something this gen couldn't offer - albeit at a lower res/PQ and probably lower frame rates. It may take 'years' for games to push something 'new' unless we see some radical new advancements or a big jump in CPU technology in consoles. If you look at the rate at which GPU have advanced compared to CPU's, the CPU hasn't advanced that much at all comparatively which is why we see more of a jump in visuals in recent gens over radical changes in game-play.
When/IF you do play AC Origins, I bet that the PS4 version will look good, have a few areas that could be improved from a visual stand-point but still look and play OK, better looking than the base XB1 version of course thanks to a better GPU. The Pro version will look better on a 4k screen because no doubt it will be running at a 'higher' resolution - even if the settings, etc will be the same as the PS4 version but still look and play similarly. The X version will probably look the best of the console versions but ultimately still be the same as the 'worst looking' console version in that all missions, story etc will be the same with the same cut-scenes, same combat etc. The best PC's in the world will still play the 'same' game but at higher 'frame rates' - it won't be capped at 30fps. However you could say that about any of the games thus far. The Witcher 3, one of the 'best' games was still the 'same' game in 4k with 4k assets on PC
I know I really loved the visuals of Horizon:ZD, enthused at the little details and facial animation in U4 etc but as someone with a 4k TV, I would love to play these at 4k with 4k assets etc and would buy a PS5 if that enabled me to play games like these as well as Spider-Man, Days Gone, Last of Us 2 etc at that level. That's not to say that these games look 'ugly' at 1080p or even 1440p but that I also know they can look 'better' too. I also hope that Sony go big with the CPU to offer 60fps (and above with HDMI 2.1 with HFR and Game VRR) but I doubt these will be 'next' gen in anything but name. Is Destiny 'Next-gen'? Was CoD:AW next gen? both of these also released on last gen...
@Th3solution Yeah I think the main culprit of brain damage are the more twitchy first person shooter type games. One of the the things that stood out to me though was that the researchers suggested removing elements of the HUD that guide you to an objective because it negates the need for your brain to utilize spatial awareness.
And AC games are notorious for having icons everywhere. It just made me think of that study.
And I as you said before, I should just make a forum post on it! I'll do it after work, or if anyone else wants to do it they should as well! There is a definite interesting discussion there.
I have high hopes for Origins reviving the AC series in the right direction, assuming the game doesn't go south.
"the dialogue adding context to the objective was poor, from a writing, acting, and directing perspective." Please dont become the next andromeda. Do not only make a open world game believeable with npc's having stuff to do but invest in great writers and voice actors. I still hope this game will be great but feeling a little less hyped after reading this.
@JoeBlogs Not really. Like you say, when I first saw the Pro I was impressed with the 4K and HDR (although I was very clear they were still PS4 games).
It's now been a year, and I'm used to this level of fidelity now. My point is that to the naked eye, all of the Xbox One X games just looked like PS4 Pro games to me. Now obviously Digital Foundry will find differences, but when you're just wandering a show floor, nothing really stood out for me. In fact I'd argue that the single Horizon booth they had running was still the most visually impressive thing.
So yes, if the Xbox One X had launched two years ago, I'd probably be impressed, but I've spent 12 months on the Pro and I'm kinda used to it now.
It's all about context.
@JoeBlogs Haha, true that.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...