There is a difference between reporting issues and bashing. You can only report issues if you personally own the game and actually encounter them. That's not bashing. But it's bashing if you don't own the game, have no first-hand experience with it and just repeat stuff you read somewhere on the internet in an aggressive unserious manner.Joke aside you simply cannot deny the game has major problems - UBISOFT have admitted it on their blog (http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/en-US/news/news_detail.aspx?c=tcm:152-184353-16&ct=tcm:148-76770-32) and here you can see for yourselves they report the very issues people are referring to in this thread - so it's not made up or bashing.
People are allowed to be sceptical and they are allowed to not buy the game.And you cannot expect people to just buy the game to experience it for themselves and if they don't they are not allowed to be skeptical or comment. It is one of the worst launches of a game that should still be in development and not released yet when suffering so many issues.
And where do you get your information from that its is "one of the worst launches of a game"? Just because you read so on the internet? Just because Ubisoft admitted that there are problems for some people? Just because there exists a big bug thread?
Guess what: same is true for almost every video game I've played in the past 20 years. Every game has bugs and problems at release, especially on PC. Hell, even Witcher 2 had a lot more issues on my system at release than AC Unity. Dark Souls' PC port was horrible. GTA IV on PC was a nightmare at release. Gothic 3 was almost unplayable for some. Many games from 10 years ago where completely riddled with serious bugs for the first few weeks. But out of nostalgia or because it's trendy we all forget that and just pretend like this game must be the worst...
Bugs and problems are part of video games. I don't ignore that other people have problems, not at all. But obviously a lot of people also have not many or none at all and a lot of people bashing Ubisoft right now, they ignore that. Their behaviour indicates that the game is unplayable for everybody but the simple reality is that the game is playable and enjoyable for a lot of people - of course only given if you own at least the minimum PC specs. They were announced for a reason and I hear a lot of people complaining who don't even own the required hardware which makes no sense at all. Nobody forced them to buy the game. On the opposite, Ubisoft warned them by releasing those minimum and recommended specs. Is the game demanding? Yes. Are the specs extremely high? Yes. Are the specs justified for the visuals? Maybe, depends on your own opinion very much. Is this a justification for bashing? Hell, no, that's your own problem if you take the risk to buy a game which probably won't run well or at all on your system...
I'm perfectly fine with it and I respect that. You experienced problems yourself and you just say that you wait. That's a serious and reasonable approach imo. But it's a difference if you just state that or if you bash Ubisoft on a whole without personal experience or without sense of proportion. But if I may ask you: on which PC specs did you play the game and what do you mean with "FPS issues and serveral other problems" in detail?But I will not buy a game that is so obviously bugged and unpolished and yes I have hands on experience on both console and PC (granted neither was on my own rig or console) and both have FPS issues among several other problems.
Imho many gamers -especially on PC- are just lousy whiners nowadays. You can't make it right for them, they will complain and flame no matter what. Of course that doesn't apply to everyone and many people also state reasonalbe and often first-hand critique. But usually in every thread I read about Ubisoft games at least 20% are just simple, plain bashing or trolling comments without any arguments and blown out of proportion for whatever reason. And I'm fed up with that because those people actually don't help anyone, they just poison the game (and PC) community with plain stupid hate.
Crysis 2 and 3 were no real open world games. In fact, they were more or less corridor shooters. You're right about the original Crysis though. But compared to Unity Crysis 1 looks just old anyway.I wanted to take you seriously, but after calling Crysis a 'corridor shooter' you're giving me a hard time with that..
I stand to what I say: the game looks absolutely great in motion. If any blur is involved in that or not is totally all the same to me. Who cares if it looks good?Blur makes everything better. More cinematic.
But hell, why do I even answer to an inflammatory one-liner...