He's running it with low graphics, mine throughout the game was really great

Here ya go. I took my time with the shading and left the eyes slightly open to give it more of an effect.

yaranaika

Here's a larger (800x800) template

thank you ive been looking for one

Thank you, I've been trying to find one but I have no idea what to look for. +1

It's called yaranaika. :)

Here's another one.

Your username...

i dont get it

Kripke, Eric Kripke, producer of the Supernatural series.

never watched it to be honest, that makes me feel a bit better after not knowing what it is

His last name was fun to say, so I chose it as my username.

Me or him?

mfw

Here's a white background one. I mean, if you need it. I use it as my skype profile picture.

Take them. Take them all!

Yeah it works great on PC, the controls feel way better than they do in the previous games using mouse and keyboard. It's not supported by Win XP though, you need Vista, 7, or 8 to run it

There really isn't any new games with an emphasis on graphics that can run on Windows XP..
DirectX 10 isn't supported by that OS, and I'm running a cracked (oh gosh, I sure don't hope the police read this) Windows 7, so I might be good to go if my hardware will run it.

Yeah I'm using a cracked Windows 7 as well, runs perfectly

I love the smell of a cracked OS in the morning!

I'm not shelling out another $150 just to play a game

Running win 7 64bit legit copy on my machine. Picked it up for £30 odd pound when I was in college from a Microsoft deal. My copy of AC3 is cracked though. Didn't want to shell out without testing it beforehand.

Graphically fine for me and my graphics card is the worst part of my machine.
Personally not having any of the FPS issues that everyone else are having.

My rig:

ASUS Crosshair V Formula motherboard
AMD 8150 Processor @ 3.6ghz
16gb Corsair vengence @ 1333mhz (Underclocked from standard speed. mobo did that.)
Nvidia GTS 450 o.c graphics card.

No SSD neither and it's running perfectly fine for me. Granted it has its glitches but what new game doesn't?

I love my username.

I get called upon randomly when people are talking about computers.

Then I can rub my GTX 690 in their faces.

Haha GTS 450 sucks ass, GTX 690 master race, eat it.

Got my GTS 450 quite a long time ago now as a budget buy. Surprisingly it's trooping through lots of the latest gen games without any bottlenecking/hickups.
For example i'm still able to run BF3 on high/ultra @ 1920x1080 16:9 at a constant 50+ FPS. I've only recently came into the excess money required to upgrade and the graphics card is definitely on the list :)

Borderlands 2 will probably kill it.

While I can play Crysis 2 on max settings at a steady 130 FPS, borderlands 2 brings me down to 60 FPS

Nope. Borderlands 2 runs perfect for me. 60+ FPS at all times. Ran through that game twice now and in the middle of doing the DLC and there's no issue there for me.

Max settings as well as max physics settings?

Yup, PhysX is set to run from my CPU and as my CPU is pretty beafy to say the least it handles fine.

Thanks !
I doubt I'll be able to handle it though.. My rig is getting kind of old fashioned.

Gigabyte EP-45 series motherboard
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0 ghz
8 gb Corsair 800mhz RAM
Nvidia 9800GT 1 GB

I can run Battlefield (everything at lowest, but doesn't matter, it's still pretty and it's still awesome) and I run Hitman: Absolution just fine. But I think Assassin's Creed might be overkill.

The E8400... that thing is a legend.
The 9800 should run it at lowest settings with a decent FPS. Doesn't matter cause it looks almost the same as the highest settings, but with 2-3x the framerate. I have a desktop with almost the same specs as yours (4GB instead of 8GB, GTS 250 instead of 9800GT, and a different MB, but all in all about as good). That comp again is about as good as my laptop, which runs AC3 well enough at 1920x1080. Though I'm not sure if the 9000 series runs it well.

Well, I do meet the minimum reqs for the game... But those are often ******** , and AC games are not known for being greatly optimized for PC..
But I just might give it a try!

Sadly, I can't overclock my E8400, for some reason, the computer just shuts down when windows is loading after I tried overclocking it. But it runs god damn solid normally !

Now on to a whole nother subject: is the game worth buying? I enjoyed the crap out of AC and AC II, the gameplay, the storyline especially, the voice acting, the (for once) well done conspiracy theme.. It was all great. But I haven't played Brotherhood or Revelations.
Do you think I would enjoy AC III ?

Yeah, but AC3 doesn't seem so bad in that way. If your performance isn't that good at first, just set everything to the lowest except resolution, you'll barely see a difference. Also get the 310.54 driver from nvidia, it improves AC3 performance a tad.

The E8400 is damn solid, really good for OC'ing, so that's unfortunate. Dunno why it doesn't work?

I don't think it's worth the 50 euros, but get it when it's on sale or something. It doesn't have the good old AC feel to it like 1 and 2. Brotherhood was okay, Revelations was meh. 3 is a lot different for sure, but I don't really know if I like the style that much.

Well, maybe it''s run, maybe it won't.. i'll buy it sometime, when it's on sale, and who knows, maybe I have a new computer by then!

I have no idea why it doesn't work, I read a pretty deep guide on how to best OC it and utilize its strenghts, which said that it could easily be overclocked to 3,6 without changing the voltage or anything. Apparently it's just me.. But I'm not that much into it, I might just be noobing the whole thing up.

I'll definitely buy the game someday, I gotta get this story finished off... I wanna know what happens. And also, the ship segments should be pretty awesome.

Yup. It should definitely run decently if you use the lower settings, and even then it looks just as good as AC2. (it's not like AC1 where it'll look like a 90's game if you turn down the visuals).

I've always wanted to OC an E8400 myself too. Right now I'm just using a gaming laptop with a desktop setup when I'm at home + for LAN-ing at friends. So my other PC is just collecting dust, but I bet if I could OC the CPU, get a new video card, add some more ram, it could handle next year's games with no problem. I just have zero knowledge of CPU overclocking and voltage. I know I have to go into the MB's bios or something and adjust stuff there, but it seems kinda dodgy when I only have the stock cooler, so I'm too chicken to try it.

I don't know that much about the story yet, but the part on the ship is pretty cool, but short. I bet there's just gonna be another super-weird ending on the Desmond side though, as always.

Dude, get a GTX 670 or something. Iz gon b gud.

I would wait a tad if you're getting it for pc.

I personally have it and a lot of people ( including me ) are having huge optimization problems.

The first sequence runs 60+ fps, but the second when you're in the city, people get like 18 fps, no matter the graphic settings or gaming rig.

I personally run 2 overclocked 6950 2gb cards, enough to play any game on the market at max, and i still only get around 20 fps in cities.

I'd wait for a patch to see if it fixes it.

I'll probably wait then.. Till I can buy a new rig.
My PC is almost 4 years old.

Check above for specs if you're for some reason extremely interested.

Something weird is up with your comp, bro. Or it just hates AC3.... or AC3 hates AMD cards... or there's driver issues. I assume you tried the lowest settings?

I almost never drop below 25 FPS even in the most crowded city areas. Using a single GTX 460M, dual core 2.9Ghz CPU, 4GB RAM.

It's not bad. The graphics run well enough, but the highest settings (especially shadows and anti aliasing) don't look much different from the lowest settings, but they almost cut down the FPS by half. Even with all the settings on the lowest, it doesn't look much different.
I'm using an Asus G53SW laptop with a GTX 460M, and it runs with 25-40 FPS average in a city. Max environment quality and textures, lowest shadows and AA, 1920x1080. There's supposed to be a feature for TXAA, but that's only possible with 600 series cards, so I dunno how well that looks and runs. There's still the infamous black bars with any resolution that isn't a 16:9 ratio.

The controls are about the same as previous AC games, but with a little different keyboard layout. The mouse movement feels alright. No smoothing or acceleration that I can notice, but it can get a bit jerky below 30 FPS. It's probably a bit more convenient to play with a 360 controller, though. Other than that, it seems pretty okay on PC.

(again for the graphics, lowest settings barely look worse than max. I tried comparing the visuals and FPS difference with every setting. only shadows and AA seem to kill performance)

Well, I probably can't run it on my computer anyway.. I might have ben able to if it was really optimized for PC and had very dynamic graphics settings.

But I'm getting too old for this **** . Or my gamer-rig is.

But thanks ! Also, I play on a 1280x1024 19" LCD screen, so I would get the infamous black bars.. I hate those.

Then the graphics' resolution is only 1280x720.
What the **** ? Two 6950s and you get below 20 FPS on that? Only one of those cards is better than my laptop's GPU. Maybe crossfire is causing problems with it? Try using only one card... I dunno. Honestly that's really ****** up. I play at a much higher resolution on a computer that's probably only half as good as yours.

There's probably a bug or an issue somewhere with something. And yeah, I used to play AC1 on my old comp on a 1280x1024 monitor and man I hated the black bars.

I think you respinded to the wrong person there buddie, I don't have the game or any crossfire AMD cards.

It's funny and weird, because the part with the 1280x1024 resolution was spot on, that was me.
And then the rest was some other dude.. You really got it confused.

It's probably your punishment for touching yourself at night. God is a bitch that way.

Nah, I just haven't slept much lately, and I've been working a lot. Confusing stuff is a side effect I get from that.

Also, 1280x1024 was the **** back in the day. Just except the narrow aspect ratio.

I just realizd you are the same person that I just responded to on another comment.
I too am a bit sleep deprived, so I just might **** up a bit myself. .

yaranaika