Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GamerBlake

  1. 15 hours ago, Senzelian said:

    I got myself AC Syndicate instead. Looks just as bad, but only costs 4,99€ and the characters are at least interesting.

    Also the gameplay feels so much better than any of the newer ACs I played.

    And Syndicate isn't even that good of an AC. Revelations is way better and even that was considered the weak link of AC when it came out. Like srsly, how can Ubisoft fuck up so bad?

    They did great with AC Odyssey!

  2. 22 hours ago, Wheresmehammer said:

    It's a shame really, but i think Ubisoft are milking the franchise to death.

    Why do you say that?


    Speaking from personal experience I really loved AC: Odyssey and it was the first ever AC game I ever played. It encouraged me to buy almost all of the other AC games.

    However I may be a unique case as a student of Classical History. I gave it a lot of bonus points for realism in terms of visuals and locations as well as including actual historical figures in their proper context. Although with some artistic deviation as would be expected in a video game.


    If you’re an “old school” AC player I can understand if you think the game is deviating too much from its original plot and becoming unrecognizable as an AC game..


    But at the same time new players like myself are getting immersed in the game and in the end the more fans the better right?


    If AC Odyssey had been a total garbage heap of a game I would probably think differently, but it was a good game. Maybe not groundbreaking or game changing but I’d give it a solid 8/10 or B+.

    Would I buy it again? Yes. I got over 200 hours of play out of it and spent $49.99.


    That’s a fair deal in my book.



    P.S. The nonsense with the $129.99 “Ultimate Edition” is ridiculous and I encourage anyone even considering this game to wait for a big sale like I did. I got the “Ultimate Edition” for $49.99 during the Summer Sale which is $10 cheaper than the “Standard Edition” is during non-sale times.

  3. 2 hours ago, Ebony Falcon said:

    Ok so u should have between 70 and 90 FPS most the time now 

    It really depends on where I am.


    Whenever I do a raid and there is lots of fighting it will drop down to 40-45 FPS.


    The only possible thing I can think of slowing it down is possibly my RAM. It’s 3200 MHz overclocked to 3600.

  4. 1 hour ago, Ebony Falcon said:

    No it’s the only setting I didn’t copy because if ur over 60 it turns a to high which causes a dip and it drops back etc bouncing the frame rate around 

    So I did all the settings like you said and I’m getting 87 FPS where I’m standing right now.


  5. 40 minutes ago, Ebony Falcon said:

    Then Why do I have the same specs and my pc is running it easily, it’s the best most optimised ac Iv played 


    u  cant argue it’s not ur pc when we have same specs and it running great on mine 


    What are your graphics settings? Also what resolution are you playing at?

  6. 27 minutes ago, WikiForce said:

    yeah the game is terribly optimized but due to 750 ti being on newer maxwell architecture compared to kepler on 760, it does perform significantly better in certain scenarios, it has some newer tech which gives it an edge compared to older cards in lots of newer games

    I don’t think it would have an edge over a 1070 Ti though right?

  7. 36 minutes ago, WikiForce said:

    can't even play it on my 750 ti because it doesn't natively supports dx12

    I wouldn’t recommend a 750 Ti even if it did work.


    Even if you played at 720p with lowest settings possible you might eek out a whopping 20fps.


    My little cousin has an ASUS 760 and he was getting 28 FPS on low settings at 720p.


    My brother has my old 1070 Ti and plays @ 1080p with lowest settings he was getting 35 FPS.

  8. 24 minutes ago, Ebony Falcon said:

    We have same set up 8700k 2080ti 

    it’s something on ur pc bro because I’m getting between 80 and 110 FPS with hardwareunboxed settings 

    It’s definitely not my PC.


    If it was my PC it wouldn’t just be one game.


    When I play AC: Odyssey I get much better fps.


    The weird thing is when I play AC: Valhalla my CPU is only 60-70% utilized and my GPU is only 75% utilized so it’s something wrong with the game itself.

  9. 9 minutes ago, dizmo said:

    As soon as I heard that dual wielding weapons didn't increase damage output I lost all interest.

    If they fuck up something that basic (whether it's on purpose or not), I don't even want to wade into the potential mess of other things they fucked up.

    I use a shield & axe so I don’t really know how the dual wielding stuff works.


    I do know the skill tree has perks that give you special abilities if you’re dual wielding.

  10. 28 minutes ago, Fasauceome said:

    considering the only praise I've heard about this game is from paid showcases, I can believe this.

    It’s not all bad though. Not by a long shot.


    There’s a lot of good ideas in the game I just feel they didn’t polish it up before release.


    It feels like playing a beta version of the game where the devs are still unaware of lots of bugs.


    When I was about an hour into the game I jumped onto a tree and got stuck and then ended up dying stuck in a tree.

  11. I’m just wondering what others think of the game so far?


    I’ve got about 5 hours of playtime so far and while I do like the time period & story..I think it does have some big problems too.


    I think the combat is rather clunky and ridiculous compared to AC: Odyssey and I think the performance of the game is the worst I’ve ever seen.


    Im running an OC’ed 8700K + an OC’ed 2080 Ti and I can’t get over 85 fps @ 1440p no matter what graphics settings I play on. Whether it’s low, medium, high or ultra it’s always 85 FPS max with dips as low as 45 happening regularly.


    Anyway just wondering what others think and if anyone else is having these same issues?



  12. Just now, HelpfulTechWizard said:

    is it running at 3600mhz? If you have a 3200 kit and a 3600 kit, then they are probably running at 2133 or 2400, since the 3200 kit would need to be oced (past xmp) to get to 3600 (or did you do that?)

    Yes I do have XMP enabled. The problem isn’t me or my PC. The problem is the game being defaulted to borderless instead of full screen. Once I changed it the problem was gone.

  13. 43 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

    Yeah I hate how Microsoft are pushing all games to use borderless mode, its has huge drawbacks like this.


    Although getting an Assassins Creed game to run at 60fps is often a challenge in itself, almost always CPU bottlenecks.  Same goes for Watch Dogs, I'm having to run it at 50fps/50Hz because no matter what I try it lingers around 55 - on a 9900k and 2080. :/

    Actually pleased to hear Valhalla is running so well for you, I might actually be able to get a stable 60.

    I can assure you this one isn’t very CPU intensive compared to Odyssey.


    I have an 8700K OC’ed @ 5GHZ all core and this game was “only” using 60-70% utilization compared to Odyssey’s 97-98% utilization.


    However playing at 1440p Max settings still seems to be tough for it and I definitely can’t get the full 144hz even with a 2080 Ti. 

    I read people with 3090s are having trouble with 4K/60 FPS.

  14. 41 minutes ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

    boarder less is bad, just use normal fullscreen lol.


    What are temps, CPU and gpu (and ram)  usuage? is anything else running? Similar problems in other games?

    All my hardware is fine. It was the game.


    My 8700K was in the 60s C
    (65-70% usage)

    My 2080 Ti was 65-68C

    (90% usage)

    My DDR4 3600 RAM was 9GB/32GB used.


    No all my other games run fine. So does this one once I switched from borderless to full screen.


    I made this post for people who might not know that’s the issue like I didn’t know until I found it.

  15. Hey guys, I’ve been playing AC: Valhalla for a few hours and it was really frustrating because I have an 8700K & 2080 Ti and the game installed on a Samsung 970 Evo Plus NVMe SSD and even with that it kept dipping down from 85ish FPS down to 8-10 FPS and then going back up to 85ish FPS again causing stuttering.


    I couldn’t figure it out but I went into graphics and by default the game is run in “borderless” mode. If you change that to “full screen” it really helps smooth things out. Not to mention in “borderless” the FPS is capped at 60fps, whereas in “full screen” you can set it at 30, 60, 120 or 144fps.


    I hope this helps! It would’ve helped me.


    - Blake

  16. 1 hour ago, kelvinhall05 said:

    And that's precisely the problem! People will shell out big bucks for a keyboard that cuts corners everywhere and will be absolutely destroyed by a custom (or GMMK "custom") of the same total price.


    Look, if you want to go drop $300 on something with $10 keycaps, shit switches, extremely average build quality, etc, be my guest. But you asked for advice and are now ignoring it, so...

    You’re right I did ask for advice and I appreciate your input.


    However I disagree that only custom keyboards can be good and that everything else is garbage or average.


    These companies spend millions of dollars on designing things and, while there may be people out there who prefer something different, they design them for the masses.


    It’s the same with computers in general. Just because you don’t build a PC yourself doesn’t mean any pre-built PC being sold is average or crap and can’t possibly be good because it’s prebuilt.

  17. Just now, TheSLSAMG said:

    Most people prefer linear switches for gaming from what I've seen but go for whatever you prefer. At that budget, I'd suggest building your own but that's nearly impossible on Amazon because a lot of the parts are niche.


    I like this choice personally. I have a GMMK Compact with Kailh Box Jade switches (kind of similar to MX Blue/Green) and Razer PBT Doubleshot keycaps and I really enjoy it so far. Amazon doesn't have the barebones models except for the Compact, so everything else they have is fully built. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01D8YNJH0/

    If you like the 60% class layouts, there's also the Drop ALT which is a 65% and various GK61 barebones kits. All of these are wired.

    What about like the Corsair K100?

  18. 5 minutes ago, kelvinhall05 said:

    GMMK with keycaps and switches of your choice, possibly several types so you can try stuff out (since it's hotswap).

    What is GMMK?


    Also I’m not really familiar with swapping keyboard stuff so I’m preferably looking for a plug & play keyboard that I can just buy, un-box, and play.

  19. Hey guys I’m currently gaming with a Razer Cynosa Chroma RGB keyboard and recently I’ve noticed that it’s staring to break down. Sometimes I’ll have to push a button 2 or even 3 times before it registers and it’s infuriating when I’m playing a game and die (not due to my own fault or being outplayed) because my keyboard decides not to do what I tell it too.


    Anyway, I’m looking for a good keyboard with a sturdy build from a reliable company. Preferably with Cherry MX switches. Wireless would be a great perk but not absolutely necessary.


    Budget: $250-$300 (preferably on Amazon since I have $350 rewards on my Amazon Card).

  20. 11 minutes ago, Skiiwee29 said:

    I just played the first few minutes with everything maxed and HDR enabled since I have an HDR monitor, the graphic setting said 12.69gb needed, but I only ever saw 6-9gb used according to GPUz. 

    Hmm I wonder why they would say it requires almost double what it actually does. 🤔 


    You would think the devs would’ve wanted players to enjoy the best experience possible graphically and people probably have settings turned down below necessary due to what the game says is required.