A Square Enix spokesperson issued the following statement to IGN: "Both platforms offer the same outstanding Tomb Raider experience. Delivering the core Tomb Raider gameplay at native 1080p and running at 30fps was always our primary goal given the type of experience Tomb Raider is and the exploration we want players to do. Anything beyond 30fps for this version is gravy."
A Square Enix spokesperson issued the following statement to IGN: "Both platforms offer the same outstanding Tomb Raider experience. Delivering the core Tomb Raider gameplay at native 1080p and running at 30fps was always our primary goal given the type of experience Tomb Raider is and the exploration we want players to do. Anything beyond 30fps for this version is gravy."
Looks like quadizzle owners are getting the deluxe treatment then. Mmmmm gravy.
@Envviouseyezonme: you realize this means nothing right? All it says is their goal is 30 fps and anything more is just extra...obviously the ps4 version got the extra
A Square Enix spokesperson issued the following statement to IGN: "Both platforms offer the same outstanding Tomb Raider experience. Delivering the core Tomb Raider gameplay at native 1080p and running at 30fps was always our primary goal given the type of experience Tomb Raider is and the exploration we want players to do. Anything beyond 30fps for this version is gravy."
Dat denial. It just says the lowest possible was 30fps and everything extra is gravy. Obviously the PS4 version got the gravy as even the Executive Producer came out and said the PS4 version is 60fps in this livestream: http://www.twitch.tv/gamesradar/b/497373767 (57:00-59.00)
Stop living in denial lems, the PS4 version is 60fps. Just let it go, IT'S OVER.
Cows claiming drops to 30 instead of 45 - 50 as vastly inferior, then claim multiplats on PC are barely better. -_-
The game mostly runs at 30 not 45...that is what is been say.
Stop hiding on PC we all know is more capable and more expensive to period,and will never ever compete directly with consoles period is a different market it has always been.
@lostrib said:
They've already admitted that the build isn't complete, that the textures are at 25% of the final game. Unless you have some evidence that it's not an alpha build? I would guess that it's not even the most recent build, when BF4 beta was released they admitted that it was an old build of the game (that they then managed to completely **** up, but that is a different issue)
Yeah we all know the excuses very well this game is almost here Alpha my ass,this game is on Beta already and close to launch they should drop the whole dishonesty crap is not like this game was hyped for the graphics any way.
@StormyJoe said:
@Locutus_Picard:
Maybe read the amendment before you post...
...but our own extrapolation of the information suggests you might say the average (accurate use of the term) Xbox One performance could be ~35fps, meanwhile the average PlayStation 4 performance may be ~55fps. Actual, concrete performance benchmarks will need to wait until the game is out for everyone, as we certainly don’t have them.
This own you so freaking much,but but the difference will only be 3 to 5 FPS...lol
The best case scenario your picturing has this game on PS4 20 FPS faster than the xbox one version,and that is one version other point at 30FPS mostly while the PS4 version mostly at 60.
Remember all the times i told you the difference could be even bigger than 20FPS and you branded me as a fanboy.?
They've already admitted that the build isn't complete, that the textures are at 25% of the final game. Unless you have some evidence that it's not an alpha build? I would guess that it's not even the most recent build, when BF4 beta was released they admitted that it was an old build of the game (that they then managed to completely **** up, but that is a different issue)
Yeah we all know the excuses very well this game is almost here Alpha my ass,this game is on Beta already and close to launch they should drop the whole dishonesty crap is not like this game was hyped for the graphics any way.
How about you bring some real evidence that this alpha isn't using 25% textures, and that it will be the same as the launch version?
This is something I have been saying since before the systems were released but Stormy, Ron etc did not really want to listen. I said developers would be on a scale, some would use the additional power in the PS4 to improve graphics (COD 720p vs 1080p), some would slightly improve graphics and also slightly improve frame rate (BF4 720p vs 900p with a 10FPS advantage) and others would go for graphical parity but better frame rates (Tomb Raider 30fps vs 60fps).
To be honest though I thought the differences would be more like 900p vs 1080p for pure graphical differences (more like ACIV Black Flag) than they are in the majority of games. There will also be exceptions where the games are pretty much the same such as sports titles or indies but that will always be the best case scenario for the Xbox 1.
I hate to say it but to those lems who would not listen. I told you so.
Umm... when did I ever say that PS4 would not have higher frame rates? I have always said the difference would be minor. And guess what, we are not even out of the launch window and I am begin proven right - read the update to the article.
@tormentos: You should make a pie with all those cherries you picked. Mmmmm... pie.
And still they would not be as much as the ones you picked up...
@enviouseyezonme said:
PUT IT TO BED!
A Square Enix spokesperson issued the following statement to IGN: "Both platforms offer the same outstanding Tomb Raider experience. Delivering the core Tomb Raider gameplay at native 1080p and running at 30fps was always our primary goal given the type of experience Tomb Raider is and the exploration we want players to do. Anything beyond 30fps for this version is gravy."
So Square Enix just confirm this on that last part yeah the PS4 version get gravy extra while xbox one get only turkey..
Tomb Raider is a pretty damn good game, so at least this is a discussion over a game that is good. No doubt PS4 hardware is superior to Xbox One hardware, so you'll see things like this. Having said that, the tighter version is on the PS4. But its a good game and worth buying no matter where you get it. I'm a Frames per second guy so this matters. Id rather have it at 900p upscaled and hit that 60 fps more often on the Xbox One. Still, the average public aint gonna give a shit about this same way they don;'t for CoD or BF4. Still, early in the gen and things will get better. This is newsworthy though and for a good game, so its a feather in the PS4 cap. Not nearly enough to make me want to buy the system, but far from a bad thing either.
Come on guys, you can do better damage control than that now.
What damage control? The PS4 version is the better version of the two, and at least this is a good game people are discussing. I might pick this up for the One, but its not enough to make me buy a PS4.
After everything that is known, I don't understand how you can favor the Xbone over PS4.
Oh that's really easy.
1. Fable Legends, Quantum Break, Titanfall, Sunset OverDrive, Project Spark, Killer Instinct season 1 and 2, Forza Horizon 2, and Halo 5 are all games I want far more than anything announced on the PS4.
2. Kinect voice/motions controls for navigating Xbox One features. Its perfectly fine if none of that interests you, but I enjoy using it a great deal for Skype, Xbox Fitness, and just maneuvering from game to TV to app, etc. I don't want a Xbox One without Kinect, period. Its not perfect and it needs work like any app/add-on but its something I use alot and enjoy.
3. Most of my friends game on 360 and all upgraded to Xbox One. I discuss/debate in sales threads and whatever, but at the end of the day I don't care if Sony sells more of if MS sells more. I care about playing the games I want, with the friends I have, and the features that interest me.
4. PS4 is the more powerful system of the two and that can't and won't change. And I don't care because the games I listed in 1. are not on a PS system, and since I only game on consoles I bought the one with the games that interest me. I've enjoyed CoD ghosts on my One in 720p upscaled and couldn't have cared less that the PS4 version is higher resolution because my buds don't have one, aren't playing it, and want Titanfall and Halo far more that losing their mind over 1080p. I don't pause games, take snapshots and then zoom in to see AA or texture blurs. A game is great or its average or it sucks. Resolution wars is a online gaming forum issue. Real world its all about games, your pals and if you care about the price.
5. Going forward I may get sequels to a number of my fav games from last gen like Crackdown and Gears of War. Likely both will only be on Xbox One.
6. Xbox Fitness is fantastic, period.
PS4 overall seems like a very simple gaming focused system, and I want my console to feature much more than just games because 400 and 500 bucks aren't cheap. One is cheaper, definitely, but doesn't do everything I'm interested in like the more expensive one does. Again, its all a matter of taste. The PS4 feels like a souped up PS3 to me, and that's not nearly enough across the board. I don't hold Sony or MS to any degree of trust outside of the fact that they both want my money and have both done a world of shady shit in the past. All that anti consumer BS and shady YouTube crap is lost on me as Sony has done just as much, same as Apple, Samsung, McDonalds, ect. If a company produces something I like I will buy it. But I hold no allusion that they care about anything other than my money, or that there are things they wont do to get ahead, lol. Others feel different and that's cool. Opinions are like assholes, everybody got one, lol.
But Those are the reasons I chose the One and why I think for me and my tastes its a far better system than the PS4.
This is something I have been saying since before the systems were released but Stormy, Ron etc did not really want to listen. I said developers would be on a scale, some would use the additional power in the PS4 to improve graphics (COD 720p vs 1080p), some would slightly improve graphics and also slightly improve frame rate (BF4 720p vs 900p with a 10FPS advantage) and others would go for graphical parity but better frame rates (Tomb Raider 30fps vs 60fps).
To be honest though I thought the differences would be more like 900p vs 1080p for pure graphical differences (more like ACIV Black Flag) than they are in the majority of games. There will also be exceptions where the games are pretty much the same such as sports titles or indies but that will always be the best case scenario for the Xbox 1.
I hate to say it but to those lems who would not listen. I told you so.
Umm... when did I ever say that PS4 would not have higher frame rates? I have always said the difference would be minor. And guess what, we are not even out of the launch window and I am begin proven right - read the update to the article.
How are you vindicated by the update? The update just says what we've already known. The lowest common denominator is 30fps and that's what Xbone is getting. PS4 gets 60fps, DEAL WITH IT.
The dev even explains what they meant by saying they targeted 30fps in this livestream: http://www.twitch.tv/gamesradar/b/497373767
between the 57:00 and 59:00 mark then he goes on to confirm they run at 60fps on PS4. Stop this bullshit lems, it's already been confirmed lol. Your weakass damage control is looking horrible at this point.
LOL even Forbes has picked up on this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2014/01/23/tomb-raider-runs-at-1080p-60-fps-on-ps4-xbox-one-still-a-question/?partner=yahootix
LOL even Forbes has picked up on this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2014/01/23/tomb-raider-runs-at-1080p-60-fps-on-ps4-xbox-one-still-a-question/?partner=yahootix
30FPS will Always Deliver Better Story-Telling than 60FPS in Games – Heres Why
All the peeps of the Gaming World have been going crazy over 30 FPS and 60 FPS standards this last year. From 60fps/1080p being thought the new Next Gen standard to Ryse downgrades. But there a point many people are missing, one which i hope to shed some light on today, the point that why 30 FPS cant and shouldn’t ever be replaced with 60fps. 30fps vs 60fps – The Magic of Story Telling Lies in Lower FPS, 30 FPS will always deliver a more “Cinematic” Experience than 60FPS. I am of course making quite a bold claim and the burden of proof lies with me. One which i am more than willing to shoulder. Let me begin by saying that the minimum limit that our brain needs to perceive moving frames as a seamless entity ( a video) is 24 Frames Per Second. This is one of the reason 99% of Movies are shot at 24 FPS. Though this was originally due to Sound Hardware limitation of Old Cinema, it has now become the Cinematic Standard. The 24 fps of the Cinema Industry is roughly equivalent to the 30 fps standard of the Gaming Industry. When you see a video shot at 24 fps / 30 fps there are holes to fill and your brain automatically does this by literally creating stuff out of your imagination : also known as movie magic. The More frames you increase, the less you brain fills in, the less the “magic”. Proof of Concept: Hobbit 24 FPS vs 48 FPS analogy to the 30FPS vs 60FPS Gaming Standard So, Notice how the 48FPS video looks, Sped Up, Weird and almost too Real (in a Bad Way) ? That is called the Soap Opera Effect. Because we grew up in a world where reality tv and soap operas were shot at a higher FPS our brains are now hard wired to associate mundane reality with Higher FPS. And i think you can see now what i meant by our brain filling in the gaps at lower FPS. The Original trailer looks magical and truly “Cinematic”. Of course you might be one of the minority who actually like the sped up, but in my opinion that is probably because of the Novelty Value. 30fps vs 60fps The more Frames Per Second we increase in our Gaming Standards the less “Magical” they will feel. I remember when playing Alan Wake (at 30fps) that it felt unbelievably like a movie to me, the sudden attacks of darkness and the way everything was moving about, i wonder if the magic would have been there with 60FPS. If i could clearly see how everything moved – probably not. Likewise in Cinema the Smokes and Mirrors fall away with increased fps – and story telling is all about the illusion. Of course some games would actually benefit from higher frames per second like Racing Games and Fighting Games (Tekken) but Games in which story telling is a main part would do better with the 30FPS Standard. http://wccftech.com/30fps-vs-60fps-3...telling-games/
30FPS will Always Deliver Better Story-Telling than 60FPS in Games – Heres Why
All the peeps of the Gaming World have been going crazy over 30 FPS and 60 FPS standards this last year. From 60fps/1080p being thought the new Next Gen standard to Ryse downgrades. But there a point many people are missing, one which i hope to shed some light on today, the point that why 30 FPS cant and shouldn’t ever be replaced with 60fps.
30fps vs 60fps – The Magic of Story Telling Lies in Lower FPS, 30 FPS will always deliver a more “Cinematic” Experience than 60FPS.
I am of course making quite a bold claim and the burden of proof lies with me. One which i am more than willing to shoulder. Let me begin by saying that the minimum limit that our brain needs to perceive moving frames as a seamless entity ( a video) is 24 Frames Per Second. This is one of the reason 99% of Movies are shot at 24 FPS. Though this was originally due to Sound Hardware limitation of Old Cinema, it has now become the Cinematic Standard. The 24 fps of the Cinema Industry is roughly equivalent to the 30 fps standard of the Gaming Industry. When you see a video shot at 24 fps / 30 fps there are holes to fill and your brain automatically does this by literally creating stuff out of your imagination : also known as movie magic. The More frames you increase, the less you brain fills in, the less the “magic”.
Proof of Concept: Hobbit 24 FPS vs 48 FPS analogy to the 30FPS vs 60FPS Gaming Standard
So, Notice how the 48FPS video looks, Sped Up, Weird and almost too Real (in a Bad Way) ? That is called the Soap Opera Effect. Because we grew up in a world where reality tv and soap operas were shot at a higher FPS our brains are now hard wired to associate mundane reality with Higher FPS. And i think you can see now what i meant by our brain filling in the gaps at lower FPS. The Original trailer looks magical and truly “Cinematic”. Of course you might be one of the minority who actually like the sped up, but in my opinion that is probably because of the Novelty Value.
30fps vs 60fps
The more Frames Per Second we increase in our Gaming Standards the less “Magical” they will feel. I remember when playing Alan Wake (at 30fps) that it felt unbelievably like a movie to me, the sudden attacks of darkness and the way everything was moving about, i wonder if the magic would have been there with 60FPS. If i could clearly see how everything moved – probably not. Likewise in Cinema the Smokes and Mirrors fall away with increased fps – and story telling is all about the illusion. Of course some games would actually benefit from higher frames per second like Racing Games and Fighting Games (Tekken) but Games in which story telling is a main part would do better with the 30FPS Standard.
Tomb Raider is a pretty damn good game, so at least this is a discussion over a game that is good. No doubt PS4 hardware is superior to Xbox One hardware, so you'll see things like this. Having said that, the tighter version is on the PS4. But its a good game and worth buying no matter where you get it. I'm a Frames per second guy so this matters. Id rather have it at 900p upscaled and hit that 60 fps more often on the Xbox One. Still, the average public aint gonna give a shit about this same way they don;'t for CoD or BF4. Still, early in the gen and things will get better. This is newsworthy though and for a good game, so its a feather in the PS4 cap. Not nearly enough to make me want to buy the system, but far from a bad thing either.
Come on guys, you can do better damage control than that now.
What damage control? The PS4 version is the better version of the two, and at least this is a good game people are discussing. I might pick this up for the One, but its not enough to make me buy a PS4.
After everything that is known, I don't understand how you can favor the Xbone over PS4.
Oh that's really easy.
1. Fable Legends, Quantum Break, Titanfall, Sunset OverDrive, Project Spark, Killer Instinct season 1 and 2, Forza Horizon 2, and Halo 5 are all games I want far more than anything announced on the PS4.
2. Kinect voice/motions controls for navigating Xbox One features. Its perfectly fine if none of that interests you, but I enjoy using it a great deal for Skype, Xbox Fitness, and just maneuvering from game to TV to app, etc. I don't want a Xbox One without Kinect, period. Its not perfect and it needs work like any app/add-on but its something I use alot and enjoy.
3. Most of my friends game on 360 and all upgraded to Xbox One. I discuss/debate in sales threads and whatever, but at the end of the day I don't care if Sony sells more of if MS sells more. I care about playing the games I want, with the friends I have, and the features that interest me.
4. PS4 is the more powerful system of the two and that can't and won't change. And I don't care because the games I listed in 1. are not on a PS system, and since I only game on consoles I bought the one with the games that interest me. I've enjoyed CoD ghosts on my One in 720p upscaled and couldn't have cared less that the PS4 version is higher resolution because my buds don't have one, aren't playing it, and want Titanfall and Halo far more that losing their mind over 1080p. I don't pause games, take snapshots and then zoom in to see AA or texture blurs. A game is great or its average or it sucks. Resolution wars is a online gaming forum issue. Real world its all about games, your pals and if you care about the price.
5. Going forward I may get sequels to a number of my fav games from last gen like Crackdown and Gears of War. Likely both will only be on Xbox One.
6. Xbox Fitness is fantastic, period.
PS4 overall seems like a very simple gaming focused system, and I want my console to feature much more than just games because 400 and 500 bucks aren't cheap. One is cheaper, definitely, but doesn't do everything I'm interested in like the more expensive one does. Again, its all a matter of taste. The PS4 feels like a souped up PS3 to me, and that's not nearly enough across the board. I don't hold Sony or MS to any degree of trust outside of the fact that they both want my money and have both done a world of shady shit in the past. All that anti consumer BS and shady YouTube crap is lost on me as Sony has done just as much, same as Apple, Samsung, McDonalds, ect. If a company produces something I like I will buy it. But I hold no allusion that they care about anything other than my money, or that there are things they wont do to get ahead, lol. Others feel different and that's cool. Opinions are like assholes, everybody got one, lol.
But Those are the reasons I chose the One and why I think for me and my tastes its a far better system than the PS4.
I understand. And I respect your opinion.
But now I'll ask of you to be objective and only look at the facts, then what console is the best?
That means ignore that all of your friends got an Xbox,...
This is something I have been saying since before the systems were released but Stormy, Ron etc did not really want to listen. I said developers would be on a scale, some would use the additional power in the PS4 to improve graphics (COD 720p vs 1080p), some would slightly improve graphics and also slightly improve frame rate (BF4 720p vs 900p with a 10FPS advantage) and others would go for graphical parity but better frame rates (Tomb Raider 30fps vs 60fps).
To be honest though I thought the differences would be more like 900p vs 1080p for pure graphical differences (more like ACIV Black Flag) than they are in the majority of games. There will also be exceptions where the games are pretty much the same such as sports titles or indies but that will always be the best case scenario for the Xbox 1.
I hate to say it but to those lems who would not listen. I told you so.
Umm... when did I ever say that PS4 would not have higher frame rates? I have always said the difference would be minor. And guess what, we are not even out of the launch window and I am begin proven right - read the update to the article.
How are you vindicated by the update? The update just says what we've already known. The lowest common denominator is 30fps and that's what Xbone is getting. PS4 gets 60fps, DEAL WITH IT.
The dev even explains what they meant by saying they targeted 30fps in this livestream: http://www.twitch.tv/gamesradar/b/497373767
between the 57:00 and 59:00 mark then he goes on to confirm they run at 60fps on PS4. Stop this bullshit lems, it's already been confirmed lol. Your weakass damage control is looking horrible at this point.
The topic is "Tomb Raider @ 60fps on PS4, 30fps with drops on XB1" - that's not true. He says the target was 1080P/30FPS, and the area they were showing in the demo, which was the PS4 version, was running at 60FPS.
Why do I have to be "vindicated" for anything? I didn't design the Xbox One, nor do I work for Microsoft. I bought and like the Xbox One, and plan on getting a PS4 sometime this year (which I am sure I will also like).
Just because I expose the cow bullshit does not mean I am some blind fanboy.
This is something I have been saying since before the systems were released but Stormy, Ron etc did not really want to listen. I said developers would be on a scale, some would use the additional power in the PS4 to improve graphics (COD 720p vs 1080p), some would slightly improve graphics and also slightly improve frame rate (BF4 720p vs 900p with a 10FPS advantage) and others would go for graphical parity but better frame rates (Tomb Raider 30fps vs 60fps).
To be honest though I thought the differences would be more like 900p vs 1080p for pure graphical differences (more like ACIV Black Flag) than they are in the majority of games. There will also be exceptions where the games are pretty much the same such as sports titles or indies but that will always be the best case scenario for the Xbox 1.
I hate to say it but to those lems who would not listen. I told you so.
Umm... when did I ever say that PS4 would not have higher frame rates? I have always said the difference would be minor. And guess what, we are not even out of the launch window and I am begin proven right - read the update to the article.
How are you vindicated by the update? The update just says what we've already known. The lowest common denominator is 30fps and that's what Xbone is getting. PS4 gets 60fps, DEAL WITH IT.
The dev even explains what they meant by saying they targeted 30fps in this livestream: http://www.twitch.tv/gamesradar/b/497373767
between the 57:00 and 59:00 mark then he goes on to confirm they run at 60fps on PS4. Stop this bullshit lems, it's already been confirmed lol. Your weakass damage control is looking horrible at this point.
The topic is "Tomb Raider @ 60fps on PS4, 30fps with drops on XB1" - that's not true. He says the target was 1080P/30FPS, and the area they were showing in the demo, which was the PS4 version,was running at 60FPS.
Why do I have to be "vindicated" for anything? I didn't design the Xbox One, nor do I work for Microsoft. I bought and like the Xbox One, and plan on getting a PS4 sometime this year (which I am sure I will also like).
Just because I expose the cow bullshit does not mean I am some blind fanboy.
What im curious about is are they actually going to release versions of the game with unlocked framerates? Wont there be tearing out the ass?
Rarely if ever do console games have unlocked framerates, I assume for that very reason.
A lot of console games have unlocked framerates actually. COD is a prime example of this. They target 60fps but the game dances all over that depending on what's going on screen.
This is something I have been saying since before the systems were released but Stormy, Ron etc did not really want to listen. I said developers would be on a scale, some would use the additional power in the PS4 to improve graphics (COD 720p vs 1080p), some would slightly improve graphics and also slightly improve frame rate (BF4 720p vs 900p with a 10FPS advantage) and others would go for graphical parity but better frame rates (Tomb Raider 30fps vs 60fps).
To be honest though I thought the differences would be more like 900p vs 1080p for pure graphical differences (more like ACIV Black Flag) than they are in the majority of games. There will also be exceptions where the games are pretty much the same such as sports titles or indies but that will always be the best case scenario for the Xbox 1.
I hate to say it but to those lems who would not listen. I told you so.
Umm... when did I ever say that PS4 would not have higher frame rates? I have always said the difference would be minor. And guess what, we are not even out of the launch window and I am begin proven right - read the update to the article.
How are you vindicated by the update? The update just says what we've already known. The lowest common denominator is 30fps and that's what Xbone is getting. PS4 gets 60fps, DEAL WITH IT.
The dev even explains what they meant by saying they targeted 30fps in this livestream: http://www.twitch.tv/gamesradar/b/497373767
between the 57:00 and 59:00 mark then he goes on to confirm they run at 60fps on PS4. Stop this bullshit lems, it's already been confirmed lol. Your weakass damage control is looking horrible at this point.
The topic is "Tomb Raider @ 60fps on PS4, 30fps with drops on XB1" - that's not true. He says the target was 1080P/30FPS, and the area they were showing in the demo, which was the PS4 version,was running at 60FPS.
Why do I have to be "vindicated" for anything? I didn't design the Xbox One, nor do I work for Microsoft. I bought and like the Xbox One, and plan on getting a PS4 sometime this year (which I am sure I will also like).
Just because I expose the cow bullshit does not mean I am some blind fanboy.
Do you even believe the shit you type?
What are f**k you talking about? Where in the video that you provided, or one of the links posted throughout this thread, does anyone say "The XBoxOne version is running at 30FPS"? That was my point.
Personally, I really don't give a damn if it ends up being true - these are still launch window games. I was over it with COD.
What im curious about is are they actually going to release versions of the game with unlocked framerates? Wont there be tearing out the ass?
Rarely if ever do console games have unlocked framerates, I assume for that very reason.
A lot of console games have unlocked framerates actually. COD is a prime example of this. They target 60fps but the game dances all over that depending on what's going on screen.
Right but the upper limit is still locked to 60, ie the game is limited from rendering above 60fps even when its capable of it.
Most console games that have their upper limit locked at 30fps, could render over 30fps but they limit it to 30 to prevent tearing. This seems to be suggesting the X1 version isnt being frame limited but its being allowed to render at 30-45fps... which I would think is going to cause a buttload of tearing. Which seems really odd and ive never seen a console game do before.
I guess frame limited is the more correct term but people seem to use locked 30 or 60fps interchangeably.
If the games are averaging 35 and 55fps respectively as the article claims i wonder if there is some alternative mechanism in place to reduce tearing is all.
A Square Enix spokesperson issued the following statement to IGN: "Both platforms offer the same outstanding Tomb Raider experience. Delivering the core Tomb Raider gameplay at native 1080p and running at 30fps was always our primary goal given the type of experience Tomb Raider is and the exploration we want players to do. Anything beyond 30fps for this version is gravy."
What im curious about is are they actually going to release versions of the game with unlocked framerates? Wont there be tearing out the ass?
Rarely if ever do console games have unlocked framerates, I assume for that very reason.
A lot of console games have unlocked framerates actually. COD is a prime example of this. They target 60fps but the game dances all over that depending on what's going on screen.
Right but the upper limit is still locked to 60, ie the game is limited from rendering above 60fps even when its capable of it.
Most console games that have their upper limit locked at 30fps, could render over 30fps but they limit it to 30 to prevent tearing. This seems to be suggesting the X1 version isnt being frame limited but its being allowed to render at 30-45fps... which I would think is going to cause a buttload of tearing. Which seems really odd and ive never seen a console game do before.
I guess frame limited is the more correct term but people seem to use locked 30 or 60fps interchangeably.
If the games are averaging 35 and 55fps respectively as the article claims i wonder if there is some alternative mechanism in place to reduce tearing is all.
I see what you mean. Screen tearing is a strong possibility. Hopefully they have something in place to reduce this.
What im curious about is are they actually going to release versions of the game with unlocked framerates? Wont there be tearing out the ass?
Rarely if ever do console games have unlocked framerates, I assume for that very reason.
A lot of console games have unlocked framerates actually. COD is a prime example of this. They target 60fps but the game dances all over that depending on what's going on screen.
Right but the upper limit is still locked to 60, ie the game is limited from rendering above 60fps even when its capable of it.
Most console games that have their upper limit locked at 30fps, could render over 30fps but they limit it to 30 to prevent tearing. This seems to be suggesting the X1 version isnt being frame limited but its being allowed to render at 30-45fps... which I would think is going to cause a buttload of tearing. Which seems really odd and ive never seen a console game do before.
I guess frame limited is the more correct term but people seem to use locked 30 or 60fps interchangeably.
If the games are averaging 35 and 55fps respectively as the article claims i wonder if there is some alternative mechanism in place to reduce tearing is all.
I see what you mean. Screen tearing is a strong possibility. Hopefully they have something in place to reduce this.
What im curious about is are they actually going to release versions of the game with unlocked framerates? Wont there be tearing out the ass?
Rarely if ever do console games have unlocked framerates, I assume for that very reason.
A lot of console games have unlocked framerates actually. COD is a prime example of this. They target 60fps but the game dances all over that depending on what's going on screen.
Right but the upper limit is still locked to 60, ie the game is limited from rendering above 60fps even when its capable of it.
Most console games that have their upper limit locked at 30fps, could render over 30fps but they limit it to 30 to prevent tearing. This seems to be suggesting the X1 version isnt being frame limited but its being allowed to render at 30-45fps... which I would think is going to cause a buttload of tearing. Which seems really odd and ive never seen a console game do before.
I guess frame limited is the more correct term but people seem to use locked 30 or 60fps interchangeably.
If the games are averaging 35 and 55fps respectively as the article claims i wonder if there is some alternative mechanism in place to reduce tearing is all.
I see what you mean. Screen tearing is a strong possibility. Hopefully they have something in place to reduce this.
Its called a FPS limiter.
Yea but if the X1 version is averaging 35fps and running up to 45fps as the report states, that suggest its not being frame limited at all and no vsync is being used which sounds like a really odd design choice for a console game.... since I dont know of any other console game that does that.
Seems like they are inviting alot of screen tearing/stuttering for no good reason. It makes me think these reports are from non finalized versions of the game, or the devs are using some new fangled method of combating the tearing/stuttering, like some sort of interpolation or something.
If true I think this speaks more on the laziness of the developers rather than the capabilities of the X1.
Funny how those words were uttered by PS fans last gen...
System Wars, never change.
The difference is that with the ps3, the exclusives was the back up, with most of them not only looking better than most 360 exclusives, but also having more exclusives to run in a native HD resolution over the 360 exclusives. Also, both the ps3, and the 360 versions of multiplats run at the same framerate most of the time, while the 360 version mostly ran at native HD resolution. With the ps4 x1, not only does nearly every multiplats on the ps4 either runs at a higher resolution, or a higher framerate, but the best looking exclusives out now may be Ryse or KZ: SF depending on the viewer, but KZ DESTROYS Ryse on a technical standpoint (ala: HD resolution, fps, ect)
"Delivering the core Tomb Raider gameplay at native 1080p and running at 30fps was always our primary goal given the type of experience Tomb Raider is and the exploration we want players to do.
Log in to comment