TR: DE Kotaku review - Xb1 "noticeably sluggish".

  • 92 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by juarbles (801 posts) -

The fps on the xbone is adjusted to match the brain processing capacity of the average xboner. Otherwise they would miss entire sequences.

#53 Posted by AM-Gamer (3471 posts) -

@chikenfriedrice: Her face actually looks amazing. I know some of the stale shots look funny buts because they catch her while she changes expression. She makes lots of small subtle changes in her expressions during gameplay that you do not see in the old build.

#54 Posted by Joedgabe (5092 posts) -

@Joedgabe said:

How many of you are actually going to pay 60$ for the exact same game that's available at 5 - 6 times less the price?

How many people have said they want the last of us to come out on ps4, how many have said they want gta 5 to be re-released, how many topics on here start by saying which games would you like to see re-made for the next gen, and finally how many people go out and buy the game of the year eidition on the same console with the exact same graphics for the exact same high price

Don't Game of the Year editions include all the DLC's for the games which the games end up being like 30$ + 2 or 3 15$ dollar DLC and buy a GOTY edition of the game for 49$? Square is as greedy as capcom. Capcom re-released Dragon's dogma for 40$ with extras instead of just selling the extras as DLC for those that wanted it. Same with Super street fighter 4. Their business practices fcking stink. I'm gonna be an idiot and say that if Sony or Rockstar decide to re-release the game for next gen it'll include all the DLC or extras or won't be full retail price like this. But that's more likely on a We'll see level.

#55 Edited by leandrro (787 posts) -

Lol paid review, taking screenshots on low settings with no tresfx to make the definite edition look much better, i hate gaming "journalism" so corrupt

yes

people might think ultra settings is the max for this game

its not, there is also ultimate settings and the ssaa

so its a comarison with a tiny gif with bad compression and lower than max settings

i like the movement of the trees, but it make the 2 versions not good for comparison because that must impact consoles performance

#56 Edited by Heil68 (43178 posts) -

Well its clear that the PS4 is the most powerful video game console to have ever been created. Best place to mulit plats this gen in the console environment.

#57 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (13050 posts) -

Did they give lara those chromosomes back?

I still don't believe it looks better than the PC version, some of those screens I've seen looked pretty bad. Unless those were early previews and they look significantly better now.

edit: holy shit the ps4 version does look better than the PC version, wtf was up with those earlier screens.

#58 Posted by GoldenElementXL (2706 posts) -

@spicymeatball27 said:

Hm so the Fraud Edition of Tomb Raider isn't a smooth 60fps on ps4 like everyone thought during huge battles & dips to 40fps during the shawnty town level & any other levels with action which more or less will be half way towards the game where it does get more crazy. Hm guess not even the ps4 could hold the Fraud Edition to 60fps lol unless theres probably like 2-4 bad guys on screen. The xbox one version go's a little above 30fps which is maybe around 35fps tops since thats what they stated.

So overall the Fraud Edition is just a rip off on both versions since it's still the exact game that we all played & got full 1000GS on. Laras has a fucked up face that nees botox but at least both versions are better looking then the PC version which is a surprise but overall still a complete rip off for $60.

I love how you scorch the PS4 version for going under but you say sh** about the xbox one which who knows if it goes even under 30,most of your ammo fire at the PS4 one.

He say 40 to 45 but he is not measuring,either way most of the time is 60 not 40 or 45..

@GoldenElementXL said:

Any one who saw the character model changes knows that this version of the game is crap. Cross eyed Lara isn't worth $60 to me. I will stick the the PC version @ 1440p and 60 fps locked thanks.

I hope you have something very powerful because on a 7970 you will not get that max out...

And you will certainly will not get that with a even lower GPU like 660Ti or 7870 or 7950...

I have a GTX 690 The Metro, Battlefield and Crysis games are the only ones I have any trouble with.

http://www.techspot.com/review/663-amd-radeon-hd-7990/page7.html

#59 Edited by TheFadeForever (1685 posts) -

"Putting the two versions side by side, there are a number of differences. Most immediately noticeable is how much more alive the environments feel in the new version: Howling winds and low-hanging clouds blow through most areas, where in the PC version there was only open air and the occasional bit of fog. Trees in the Definitive Edition blow in the wind where on PC they stand still. In some places in the Definitive Edition, flocks of birds circle in the air, while on PC the air is empty.

The definitive edition also has much more high-contrast, dramatic lighting, and everything looks somehow heightened—every time I'd switch back to see a similar scene on PC things would look flat and less active"

The reworked the effects like the wind and how the environment reacted

#60 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (13050 posts) -

"Putting the two versions side by side, there are a number of differences. Most immediately noticeable is how much more alive the environments feel in the new version: Howling winds and low-hanging clouds blow through most areas, where in the PC version there was only open air and the occasional bit of fog. Trees in the Definitive Edition blow in the wind where on PC they stand still. In some places in the Definitive Edition, flocks of birds circle in the air, while on PC the air is empty.

The definitive edition also has much more high-contrast, dramatic lighting, and everything looks somehow heightened—every time I'd switch back to see a similar scene on PC things would look flat and less active"

The reworked the effects like the wind and how the environment reacted

which was definitely needed, one of the things I disliked about tombraider was how dead the forest felt.

#61 Posted by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

http://kotaku.com/tomb-raider-on-ps4-is-more-definitive-than-on-xbox-o-1508613136

PS4 runs around 60 with drops in the 40s in the more heavier sections - x1 runs around 30 with spikes when nothing is happening. Also PC is the worst version

http://www.rocketchainsaw.com.au/exclusive-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-ps4xone-framerates-revealed/

"UPDATE (25/01): Further information from our sources points to the actual “average” of the PlayStation 4 build to be around 55fps (fluctuating between 50-60fps), while the Xbox One build should “average” around 40fps (fluctuating between 30-45fps). We’ll know more in the near future."

#62 Edited by PinkieWinkie (1364 posts) -

@ronvalencia: so minimum 15 fps better. Definitely noticable

#63 Edited by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -
@tormentos said:

@spicymeatball27 said:

Hm so the Fraud Edition of Tomb Raider isn't a smooth 60fps on ps4 like everyone thought during huge battles & dips to 40fps during the shawnty town level & any other levels with action which more or less will be half way towards the game where it does get more crazy. Hm guess not even the ps4 could hold the Fraud Edition to 60fps lol unless theres probably like 2-4 bad guys on screen. The xbox one version go's a little above 30fps which is maybe around 35fps tops since thats what they stated.

So overall the Fraud Edition is just a rip off on both versions since it's still the exact game that we all played & got full 1000GS on. Laras has a fucked up face that nees botox but at least both versions are better looking then the PC version which is a surprise but overall still a complete rip off for $60.

I love how you scorch the PS4 version for going under but you say sh** about the xbox one which who knows if it goes even under 30,most of your ammo fire at the PS4 one.

He say 40 to 45 but he is not measuring,either way most of the time is 60 not 40 or 45..

@GoldenElementXL said:

Any one who saw the character model changes knows that this version of the game is crap. Cross eyed Lara isn't worth $60 to me. I will stick the the PC version @ 1440p and 60 fps locked thanks.

I hope you have something very powerful because on a 7970 you will not get that max out...

And you will certainly will not get that with a even lower GPU like 660Ti or 7870 or 7950...

Needs driver updates and game patches.

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-280x-r9-270x-r7-260x,3635-14.html

7870 GE managed to reach 60 fps at 1080p with ultra settings.

You should have known by now that high profile PC games improves over time. With Mantle, the results would be higher..

#64 Posted by kitty (114460 posts) -

@spicymeatball27 said:

Hm so the Fraud Edition of Tomb Raider isn't a smooth 60fps on ps4 like everyone thought during huge battles & dips to 40fps during the shawnty town level & any other levels with action which more or less will be half way towards the game where it does get more crazy. Hm guess not even the ps4 could hold the Fraud Edition to 60fps lol unless theres probably like 2-4 bad guys on screen. The xbox one version go's a little above 30fps which is maybe around 35fps tops since thats what they stated.

So overall the Fraud Edition is just a rip off on both versions since it's still the exact game that we all played & got full 1000GS on. Laras has a fucked up face that nees botox but at least both versions are better looking then the PC version which is a surprise but overall still a complete rip off for $60.

I love how you scorch the PS4 version for going under but you say sh** about the xbox one which who knows if it goes even under 30,most of your ammo fire at the PS4 one.

He say 40 to 45 but he is not measuring,either way most of the time is 60 not 40 or 45..

@GoldenElementXL said:

Any one who saw the character model changes knows that this version of the game is crap. Cross eyed Lara isn't worth $60 to me. I will stick the the PC version @ 1440p and 60 fps locked thanks.

I hope you have something very powerful because on a 7970 you will not get that max out...

And you will certainly will not get that with a even lower GPU like 660Ti or 7870 or 7950...

That picture is wrong, I was getting more than the avg with just one of my cards. I believe I could get even higher than what I was with a better cpu.
I have my cards at stock and well look at the avg.
http://i43.tinypic.com/2ds0g42.jpg

#65 Edited by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

@2ndwonder:

@2ndwonder said:

@tormentos said:

@spicymeatball27 said:

Hm so the Fraud Edition of Tomb Raider isn't a smooth 60fps on ps4 like everyone thought during huge battles & dips to 40fps during the shawnty town level & any other levels with action which more or less will be half way towards the game where it does get more crazy. Hm guess not even the ps4 could hold the Fraud Edition to 60fps lol unless theres probably like 2-4 bad guys on screen. The xbox one version go's a little above 30fps which is maybe around 35fps tops since thats what they stated.

So overall the Fraud Edition is just a rip off on both versions since it's still the exact game that we all played & got full 1000GS on. Laras has a fucked up face that nees botox but at least both versions are better looking then the PC version which is a surprise but overall still a complete rip off for $60.

I love how you scorch the PS4 version for going under but you say sh** about the xbox one which who knows if it goes even under 30,most of your ammo fire at the PS4 one.

He say 40 to 45 but he is not measuring,either way most of the time is 60 not 40 or 45..

@GoldenElementXL said:

Any one who saw the character model changes knows that this version of the game is crap. Cross eyed Lara isn't worth $60 to me. I will stick the the PC version @ 1440p and 60 fps locked thanks.

I hope you have something very powerful because on a 7970 you will not get that max out...

And you will certainly will not get that with a even lower GPU like 660Ti or 7870 or 7950...

That picture is wrong, I was getting more than the avg with just one of my cards. I believe I could get even higher than what I was with a better cpu.

I have my cards at stock and well look at the avg.

http://i43.tinypic.com/2ds0g42.jpg

There was a large performance boost with recent drivers and game patches. Consoles doesn't have a monopoly with software optimizations.

#66 Posted by tormentos (16728 posts) -

Needs driver updates and game patches.

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-280x-r9-270x-r7-260x,3635-14.html

7870 GE managed to reach 60 fps at 1080p with ultra settings.

You should have known by now that high profile PC games improves over time. With Mantle, the results would be higher..

Your test is Ultra mine is Ultimate so yeah he need something stronger than the 7970 to max out Tomb Raider at 1440p,because on 1080p it get 50 FPS.

I posted a benchmark period.

@PinkieWinkie said:

http://kotaku.com/tomb-raider-on-ps4-is-more-definitive-than-on-xbox-o-1508613136

PS4 runs around 60 with drops in the 40s in the more heavier sections - x1 runs around 30 with spikes when nothing is happening. Also PC is the worst version

http://www.rocketchainsaw.com.au/exclusive-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-ps4xone-framerates-revealed/

"UPDATE (25/01): Further information from our sources points to the actual “average” of the PlayStation 4 build to be around 55fps (fluctuating between 50-60fps), while the Xbox One build should “average” around 40fps (fluctuating between 30-45fps). We’ll know more in the near future."

Your link is useless we have several confirming 60 FPS on the PS4 version,while the xbox one is say to be 30,hell even CD stated that 30FPS was the target,and that anything over it was just gravy...

The one who has been trying to say that mostly runs at 40 are lemmings we should see when the test arrive,55 vs 30 or 35 still a big gap.

By the way is funny seeing you still trying to cheer for the xbox one while pretending that you don't care for it...hahaha

#67 Posted by ZoomZoom2490 (3934 posts) -

@LanceSSJ said:

xbox is 45 fps with lo action and 35 higher action. ps4 dips to 50pretty much its 10-15fps difference.

you should go back to 1st grade.

#69 Edited by s0ldier69 (2071 posts) -
@tormentos said:

Your test is Ultra mine is Ultimate so yeah he need something stronger than the 7970 to max out Tomb Raider at 1440p,because on 1080p it get 50 FPS.

I posted a benchmark period.

Your link is useless we have several confirming 60 FPS on the PS4 version,while the xbox one is say to be 30,hell even CD stated that 30FPS was the target,and that anything over it was just gravy...

The one who has been trying to say that mostly runs at 40 are lemmings we should see when the test arrive,55 vs 30 or 35 still a big gap.

By the way is funny seeing you still trying to cheer for the xbox one while pretending that you don't care for it...hahaha

Can you link any that have "confirmed" this through actual numeric testing? Or are all of these just an "eye ball test" or how it "feels" so far? All of this started with one guy saying he was "told by inside source" kind of thing. To my knowledge none of this has been truly verified by actual measurement.

crickets....

#70 Posted by lostrib (32977 posts) -

Considering that the PC and Definitive edition are running different versions of the game, why are you guys comparing performance?

#71 Posted by StrongBlackVine (8418 posts) -

More like Definitely The Worst Version That's A Rip-Off Edition.

Worst version is Xbox 360 or a really shitty PC.

#72 Edited by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

Its just a lazy crash in to take advantage of the fact there are hardly any games out for next gen so people are willing to rebuy the same game again at almost full price since it is something to play on their new consoles

Could of least be a budget game not almost full fucking price.

#73 Posted by sirk1264 (5524 posts) -

I still haven't played this game yet. Maybe now would be a good time to buy it.

#74 Edited by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -
@tormentos said:

@ronvalencia said:

Needs driver updates and game patches.

From http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-280x-r9-270x-r7-260x,3635-14.html

7870 GE managed to reach 60 fps at 1080p with ultra settings.

You should have known by now that high profile PC games improves over time. With Mantle, the results would be higher..

Your test is Ultra mine is Ultimate so yeah he need something stronger than the 7970 to max out Tomb Raider at 1440p,because on 1080p it get 50 FPS.

I posted a benchmark period.

@ronvalencia said:

@PinkieWinkie said:

http://kotaku.com/tomb-raider-on-ps4-is-more-definitive-than-on-xbox-o-1508613136

PS4 runs around 60 with drops in the 40s in the more heavier sections - x1 runs around 30 with spikes when nothing is happening. Also PC is the worst version

http://www.rocketchainsaw.com.au/exclusive-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-ps4xone-framerates-revealed/

"UPDATE (25/01): Further information from our sources points to the actual “average” of the PlayStation 4 build to be around 55fps (fluctuating between 50-60fps), while the Xbox One build should “average” around 40fps (fluctuating between 30-45fps). We’ll know more in the near future."

Your link is useless we have several confirming 60 FPS on the PS4 version,while the xbox one is say to be 30,hell even CD stated that 30FPS was the target,and that anything over it was just gravy...

The one who has been trying to say that mostly runs at 40 are lemmings we should see when the test arrive,55 vs 30 or 35 still a big gap.

By the way is funny seeing you still trying to cheer for the xbox one while pretending that you don't care for it...hahaha

From http://benchmarkreviews.com/10185/xfx-radeon-r9-280x-black-edition-video-card-review/6/

Processor: Intel Core i5-4670K @ 3.4GHz

.

.

.

.

.

.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.chiploco.com/his-radeon-r9-280x-ipower-iceq-x2-turbo-boost-review-31392/16/

"We tested it with highest possible details, FXAA and 16x AF."

Processor: Intel Core i7-3770K @ 4.5 GHz.

AMD's Mantle would be important for reducing the CPU overhead.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Please share your PS4's TR DE 60 fps links.

#75 Posted by ni6htmare01 (887 posts) -

I have the PS4 version since Friday. The graphic improvement is very vry nice and run ultra smooth. You can clearly see the fame rate different compare to the PS3 version. Is has been long enough so I pretty much can enjoy it again as almost like a fresh new game!

#76 Posted by DocSanchez (1480 posts) -

Don't worry. Once the secret chip is turned on the Xbox 1 version will do 120 fps and add several secret levels.

#77 Posted by tormentos (16728 posts) -

From http://benchmarkreviews.com/10185/xfx-radeon-r9-280x-black-edition-video-card-review/6/

Processor: Intel Core i5-4670K @ 3.4GHz

.

.

.

.

.

.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.chiploco.com/his-radeon-r9-280x-ipower-iceq-x2-turbo-boost-review-31392/16/

"We tested it with highest possible details, FXAA and 16x AF."

Processor: Intel Core i7-3770K @ 4.5 GHz.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Please share your PS4's TR DE 60 fps links.

Not even on 1680x1050 is able to hit 60 FPS the 7970 on Ultimate.....

You posted basically what serve you best,i tell you this because i search for Tomb Raider benchmarks and the first one was this one....^^

The above data suggests that Tomb Raider isn't particularly CPU-intensive, as our Core i7-3770K offered virtually identical performance when clocked at 2.5GHz as it did at 4.0GHz. In fact, an 80% increase in clock speed to 4.5GHz resulted in a frame rate boost of only 1%.

http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performance/page4.html

lol....Owned..

On a livestream with GamesRadar, Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition‘s Executive Producer, Scot Amos revisited the question, this time stating that when developing the game, Crystal Dynamics targeted 30 fps as their minimum for the title. The PS4 version that the developer was showing off during the live stream ran at 60 fps. Because they were only demoing the PS4 version, no comments were made about the framerate of Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition on Xbox One.

http://ps4daily.com/2014/01/tomb-raider-60fps/

Enjoy...

#78 Edited by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -
@tormentos said:

@ronvalencia said:

From http://benchmarkreviews.com/10185/xfx-radeon-r9-280x-black-edition-video-card-review/6/

Processor: Intel Core i5-4670K @ 3.4GHz

.

.

.

.

.

.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.chiploco.com/his-radeon-r9-280x-ipower-iceq-x2-turbo-boost-review-31392/16/

"We tested it with highest possible details, FXAA and 16x AF."

Processor: Intel Core i7-3770K @ 4.5 GHz.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Please share your PS4's TR DE 60 fps links.

Not even on 1680x1050 is able to hit 60 FPS the 7970 on Ultimate.....

You posted basically what serve you best,i tell you this because i search for Tomb Raider benchmarks and the first one was this one....^^

The above data suggests that Tomb Raider isn't particularly CPU-intensive, as our Core i7-3770K offered virtually identical performance when clocked at 2.5GHz as it did at 4.0GHz. In fact, an 80% increase in clock speed to 4.5GHz resulted in a frame rate boost of only 1%.

http://www.techspot.com/review/645-tomb-raider-performance/page4.html

lol....Owned..

On a livestream with GamesRadar, Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition‘s Executive Producer, Scot Amos revisited the question, this time stating that when developing the game, Crystal Dynamics targeted 30 fps as their minimum for the title. The PS4 version that the developer was showing off during the live stream ran at 60 fps. Because they were only demoing the PS4 version, no comments were made about the framerate of Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition on Xbox One.

http://ps4daily.com/2014/01/tomb-raider-60fps/

Enjoy...

Your benchmarks are older which is dated March 12th, 2013 and using AMD Catalyst 13.2 (Beta 7) driver.

There's a reason why I picked GTX 770 or R9-280X era Tomb Raider scores e.g. version v1.01.748.0 not 1.00.716.5.

The link from http://benchmarkreviews.com/10185/xfx-radeon-r9-280x-black-edition-video-card-review/

is dated January 8th, 2014.

The link from http://www.chiploco.com/his-radeon-r9-280x-ipower-iceq-x2-turbo-boost-review-31392/16/

is dated December 29th, 2013 and AMD Catalyst 13.9 driver.

Also, there's a near flat line with the scores i.e. there's a bottleneck.

You haven't provided 1920x1080p CPU benchmark scores with updated drivers/software setup. LOL.

You haven't factored in the lack of Tessellation with Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition i.e. reduced level of detail.

Also notice TR:DE is missing some shadow type effects with it's foliage i.e. reduced shadows.

The comparison between PCs and next-gen consoles are not apples to apples. TR:DE made other improvements in some other areas(e.g. subsurface scattering, additional object movements), while avoids brute force workloads e.g. reduced shadows, reduce geometry (disabled Tessellation), reduced depth field.

Combining TR:DE's improvements into PC version would yield another version which is again not apples to apples comparison.

From http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=385987&page=2

"The fully updated pc version has godrays and other effects:"

--------------

As for PS4's 60 fps.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/ps4-version-of-tr-slightly-better-than-pc-maxed-31041515/?page=3

From WG_McFartypants

Slowdown! That constant 60FPS line is bullshit. I've hit noticeable lag spikes in multiple places and I'm not even that far into the game. I wasn't expecting magic, but considering my original experience is on a high end PC & GPU and the amount of hyping online and from the fanbase about 60FPS, I was seriously let down when I started hitting stutter in the action sequences...

http://www.rocketchainsaw.com.au/exclusive-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-ps4xone-framerates-revealed/

UPDATE (25/01): Further information from our sources points to the actual “average” of the PlayStation 4 build to be around 55fps (fluctuating between 50-60fps), while the Xbox One build should “average” around 40fps (fluctuating between 30-45fps). We’ll know more in the near future.

#79 Edited by PinkieWinkie (1364 posts) -

I have the game for ps4. It really doesnt look that good graphically, its about on the same level as U2 and U3 for ps3. Its definitely a good game though, the only thing about the game thats worth talking about is how pathetic it is that the X1 ony averages around 35-40 fps.

#80 Edited by btk2k2 (351 posts) -

Here is a more upto date HardOCP review using the 280x and the GTX770.

HardOCP: "In this second apples-to-apples test we have Tomb Raider set to 1920x1080 with 2X SSAA and TressFX hair enabled. We are using the "Ultra" quality with "Ultra" shadows enabled."

Game version is 1.01.748.0

As you can see if you were to turn off SSAA and use FXAA or even 2x or 4x MSAA you would quite easily hit 60FPS average with minimums up into the 40's

The Kotaku gif people are complaining about is showing an example of the extra scene activity in the new version of the game and for that purpose it does its job, you would not use it to compare the textures or the lighting though.

From an image fidelity stand point the PC version wins because some of the textures are better, it supports higher resolutions and much better methods of AA. However where the definitive edition shines are areas that go beyond pure image fidelity into the realm of immersion and creating a more alive and vibrant world. This is where the definitive edition is better than the PC version so unless they bring out some DLC or a patch for the PC version to make it the same as the definitive edition it will be personal preference as to whether you prefer what the PC offers or what the new consoles offer.

#81 Posted by StormyJoe (4736 posts) -

@PinkieWinkie:

It's funny to watch cows scramble to point out the PS4's hardware advantages. For CoD, it was all about 720P vs 1080P. Now that games are at 1080P on XB1, it's all about the frame rate: 60FPS vs 30FPS.

In the end, this gen will be decided by the games, not minor hardware differences.

#82 Posted by PinkieWinkie (1364 posts) -

@StormyJoe: damage control all you want, but 1080p vs 720p and a 30 fps difference is not a "minor difference"

#83 Edited by StormyJoe (4736 posts) -

@StormyJoe: damage control all you want, but 1080p vs 720p and a 30 fps difference is not a "minor difference"

Yes it is. Most people cannot tell, regardless of what they say. We are not talking PS2 vs Xbox differences here.

You can take it as "damage control" all you want - but I don't see the difference being enough to elevate it to "damage" in the first place; so I hardly see a reason to "control" it.

#84 Edited by edwardecl (1950 posts) -

The new version is obviously better in a lot of ways. I assume they they are just testing new stuff out from their next game on this one. They probably will never release a new version for PC because they know nobody will buy it. I hope the sequel for PC uses mantle, the level of optimisations on the new consoles is awesome (yes even the Xbox One). I can't play this game on PC at 60FPS with all the features turned on a HD7850 (which is quite close to the PS4) not even close, I turn TressFX on and it turns into a glitchy slideshow, so they have done a good job here.

Downgrading some textures a little where not noticeable and whatever is also a good idea if you are aiming for better average frame rates, nobody is going to stop and stare at a tree and compare it against a screenshot while in game, as long as the textures do not vary in quality dramatically (RAGE is a bad example of this) but overall looks good what's the problem.

#85 Posted by PinkieWinkie (1364 posts) -

@StormyJoe: are you serious? Then why does every reviewer mention the frames dropping on the x1 version? 1080p is also a huge difference especially if you have a larger tv

#86 Edited by StormyJoe (4736 posts) -

@StormyJoe: are you serious? Then why does every reviewer mention the frames dropping on the x1 version? 1080p is also a huge difference especially if you have a larger tv

Because reviews have to point out differences?

Frame rates are important in games that have high speed motion, like a racing game or a fast-paced FPS. If the game is not moving at a fast pace, you can't tell the difference at all. The XB1 cannot seem to maintain 60FPS for this game. Still, unless you are looking for it, I find it difficult to believe you (or the average person)could tell where the frame rate drops.

People will tell you they can, and that I am full of it, but I have watched 100s of videos showing where frame drops occur and unless someone points it out, I can't see it.

So, is that a PS4 "win"? I guess so, but it's hardly a sticking point that would make me say "I would absolutely get this on the PS4 before XB1" or "this is a reason to get the PS4 over XB1". Again, cows will say it is, but they are just blowing smoke.

#87 Posted by Dire_Weasel (15912 posts) -

@PinkieWinkie said:

@StormyJoe: are you serious? Then why does every reviewer mention the frames dropping on the x1 version? 1080p is also a huge difference especially if you have a larger tv

Because reviews have to point out differences?

Frame rates are important in games that have high speed motion, like a racing game or a fast-paced FPS. If the game is not moving at a fast pace, you can't tell the difference at all. The XB1 cannot seem to maintain 60FPS for this game. Still, unless you are looking for it, I find it difficult to believe you (or the average person)could tell where the frame rate drops.

People will tell you they can, and that I am full of it, but I have watched 100s of videos showing where frame drops occur and unless someone points it out, I can't see it.

So, is that a PS4 "win"? I guess so, but it's hardly a sticking point that would make me say "I would absolutely get this on the PS4 before XB1" or "this is a reason to get the PS4 over XB1". Again, cows will say it is, but they are just blowing smoke.

When a game comes out on two different platforms, and one version is demonstrably the better version, by running at nearly twice the framerate as its counterpart, that's news.

If both consoles were the same price, it would be a very easy decision: you'd buy the version of the game with the better performance.

The reality is even worse: the console that costs $100 less has the best performance.

It's a big deal, and that's why the reviewers mention it.

#88 Edited by EnviousEyezOnMe (260 posts) -

So it's a 15% FPS difference? This is what everyone is fappin over???? JeeZ, I guess I will pick this up after-all...................................................................NOT!

#89 Edited by WG_McFartypants (218 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@chikenfriedrice: Her face actually looks amazing. I know some of the stale shots look funny buts because they catch her while she changes expression. She makes lots of small subtle changes in her expressions during gameplay that you do not see in the old build.

Really? I have the PC version on Ultra and the PS4 version, and I find myself going back to the PC version. Much better framerate consistency and as much as I want to be impressed with the new effects, her face seems far less expressive, and there's something about the rain on surface effects that looks really bad. Shame, because the new lighting and foliage effects are very impressive.

#90 Posted by StormyJoe (4736 posts) -

@StormyJoe said:

@PinkieWinkie said:

@StormyJoe: are you serious? Then why does every reviewer mention the frames dropping on the x1 version? 1080p is also a huge difference especially if you have a larger tv

Because reviews have to point out differences?

Frame rates are important in games that have high speed motion, like a racing game or a fast-paced FPS. If the game is not moving at a fast pace, you can't tell the difference at all. The XB1 cannot seem to maintain 60FPS for this game. Still, unless you are looking for it, I find it difficult to believe you (or the average person)could tell where the frame rate drops.

People will tell you they can, and that I am full of it, but I have watched 100s of videos showing where frame drops occur and unless someone points it out, I can't see it.

So, is that a PS4 "win"? I guess so, but it's hardly a sticking point that would make me say "I would absolutely get this on the PS4 before XB1" or "this is a reason to get the PS4 over XB1". Again, cows will say it is, but they are just blowing smoke.

When a game comes out on two different platforms, and one version is demonstrably the better version, by running at nearly twice the framerate as its counterpart, that's news.

If both consoles were the same price, it would be a very easy decision: you'd buy the version of the game with the better performance.

The reality is even worse: the console that costs $100 less has the best performance.

It's a big deal, and that's why the reviewers mention it.

But, it's not "running at nearly twice the frame rate", it is occasionally from the reviews I read.

I am growing really tired of the "$100 cheaper runs better" argument. The PS4 is just a console. The XB1 is more than just a console, it's designed to be an entertainment hub. To me, that's worth $100.

They mention it, but they all downplay it - and so do the developers. Fanboys are the ones who blow it out of proportion. I mean, if the PS4 is so much better than XB1, why do cows make it a point to emphasize every possible difference 24/7? Shouldn't the PS4 just trounce the XB1 just by resting on it's laurels?

#91 Posted by Dire_Weasel (15912 posts) -

I am growing really tired of the "$100 cheaper runs better" argument.

I imagine that Microsoft is really getting tired of hearing that argument as well.

The solution would have been for Microsoft to create a console that wasn't $100 more expensive and significantly less powerful then its competitor, but, instead they made the Xbox One.

#92 Posted by StormyJoe (4736 posts) -

@StormyJoe said:

I am growing really tired of the "$100 cheaper runs better" argument.

I imagine that Microsoft is really getting tired of hearing that argument as well.

The solution would have been for Microsoft to create a console that wasn't $100 more expensive and significantly less powerful then its competitor, but, instead they made the Xbox One.

Wow. Talk about taking something out of context. You should work for the DNC when you grow up.

#93 Posted by MlauTheDaft (3191 posts) -

@btk2k2 said:

Here is a more upto date HardOCP review using the 280x and the GTX770.

HardOCP: "In this second apples-to-apples test we have Tomb Raider set to 1920x1080 with 2X SSAA and TressFX hair enabled. We are using the "Ultra" quality with "Ultra" shadows enabled."

Game version is 1.01.748.0

As you can see if you were to turn off SSAA and use FXAA or even 2x or 4x MSAA you would quite easily hit 60FPS average with minimums up into the 40's

The Kotaku gif people are complaining about is showing an example of the extra scene activity in the new version of the game and for that purpose it does its job, you would not use it to compare the textures or the lighting though.

From an image fidelity stand point the PC version wins because some of the textures are better, it supports higher resolutions and much better methods of AA. However where the definitive edition shines are areas that go beyond pure image fidelity into the realm of immersion and creating a more alive and vibrant world. This is where the definitive edition is better than the PC version so unless they bring out some DLC or a patch for the PC version to make it the same as the definitive edition it will be personal preference as to whether you prefer what the PC offers or what the new consoles offer.

Wonder what happened to the max value of the OC version of the 770.

#94 Edited by Dire_Weasel (15912 posts) -

@Dire_Weasel said:

@StormyJoe said:

I am growing really tired of the "$100 cheaper runs better" argument.

I imagine that Microsoft is really getting tired of hearing that argument as well.

The solution would have been for Microsoft to create a console that wasn't $100 more expensive and significantly less powerful then its competitor, but, instead they made the Xbox One.

Wow. Talk about taking something out of context. You should work for the DNC when you grow up.

Classic System Wars: when it becomes obvious you've completely lost an argument, it's time to start insulting the other participant.

Also, please tell me that you actually vote Republican, it will make every single one of your posts that much more entertaining to read.

#95 Posted by StormyJoe (4736 posts) -

@StormyJoe said:

@Dire_Weasel said:

@StormyJoe said:

I am growing really tired of the "$100 cheaper runs better" argument.

I imagine that Microsoft is really getting tired of hearing that argument as well.

The solution would have been for Microsoft to create a console that wasn't $100 more expensive and significantly less powerful then its competitor, but, instead they made the Xbox One.

Wow. Talk about taking something out of context. You should work for the DNC when you grow up.

Classic System Wars: when it becomes obvious you've completely lost an argument, it's time to start insulting the other participant.

Also, please tell me that you actually vote Republican, it will make every single one of your posts that much more entertaining to read.

I was not attempting to be insulting, just emphasizing that your took my comment out of context. And, you know you did - because you didn't include the whole thing.