Tomb Raider Definitive Edition (PS4/XB1) is 30 FPS
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
TressFX can't really be THAT taxing, can it? I always thought the performance hit was just another case of horrendously unoptimized gimmicks to sell GPUs.
UnrealEck
Member
Or some people think 30 FPS in 2014 with the "next gen" consoles is rather dissapointing.
Some people enjoy analysing the power of computer (yes this means consoles too) hardware in graphics processing. They like hardware and seeing what it can do and trying to figure out what it's capable of.
It's not all big bad fanboyism.
I knew it, people don't realize just how much of an impact TressFX makes, but it's a damn shame the consoles aren't powerful enough to do both, I assumed at least the PS4 would be.
Also, are we supposed to settle for 30fps? Wasn't Kaz's whole speech at CES about not settling for just good enough?
Also, are we supposed to settle for 30fps? Wasn't Kaz's whole speech at CES about not settling for just good enough?
That's because Killzone SF has more demands than Tomb Raider on graphics.
thatsafakewebsitebro
Member
Hip Hop
Member
Yup, it doesn't look so good. It get's really bad in multiplayer.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
I'm one of the few that seems to prefer 30 FPS to 60 FPS
For action and adventure games, anyways. 60 FPS looks weird to me.
For action and adventure games, anyways. 60 FPS looks weird to me.
bigboss370
Member
they probably could have gotten 60fps if they tried for it, but i have the feeling most of the work just went into straight up porting + cosmetic changes. Would've probably had to optimize to get 60fps running properly. I remember that story about CoD being too high of an fps and that was creating stutters on the ps4 version, so they had to do some extra work to make it run 60fps all the time without jumping higher.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
No surprise. I was expecting 30fps.
GoofsterStud
Member
PC remains the Definitive version for me.
Same. It's senseless for people to be upset that any of these games run at 30fps on consoles anymore. If the PC had defined specs and a closed system, there would be lots of games opting for more eye candy at the expense of framerate there too(not all games of course). It's never going to change with consoles, no matter how much whining is done on a forum. Screenshots sell, and most games are still playable at 30fps, just maybe not ideal.
You mean in price right?
Latvian Hitman
Member
Sounds like it was the right choice for ya'!
Yes, but the vast majority of the complaints towards next gen tech and capabilities comes from PC gamers, which under the circumstances is understandable, but why should they care outside of some proverbial dick swinging contest. In fact when's the last time a PC enthusiast had anything good to say about a console in regards to anything technical, I would think this gen would be no different.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
No, most games were multiplats. Multiplats almost always ran better on Xbox.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
The game is pretty hardware intensive even without TressFX. The consoles aren't packing Titans so something had to give.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
$60
Didn't realise a framerate of 30FPS on console is considered comical all of a sudden.
Most games people remember from that generation were exclusives, and PS2 had a huge number of notable exclusives that ran at 60 fps, while the Xbox only had a handful. Also, multiplatform games that ran at 60 fps on Xbox were almost always running at 60 on the PS2 as well. The PS2 was the much better system for 60 fps gaming. This is an indisputable fact.
Fine isn't definitive.
Shaqiri1287
Banned
Dat definitive 30 fps.
Tye The Czar
Member
I think I'll be satisfied with my PC version TYVM.
So now all of the sudden a solid 60fps is the "definitive" factor in determining the best version. I was always the impression that it goes well beyond one singular aspect, which as of now is looking like both version will have features that complement the respective hardware they're running on, Imo making both version the definitive one depending on how you look at it.
CouchMaster
Member
defiantly
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Unlocked framerate is not the same as 60fps.
UnrealEck
Member
Yes if by optimisation you mean cutting corners, reducing details from what you get with the ultra preset.
This whole optimisation thing is always exaggerated. If Tomb Raider doesn't run at 60 FPS on ultra settings on a slightly more powerful graphics card than what's in the PS4, in all likeliness it won't run at those settings on a PS4 at 60 FPS either. Perhaps the definitive edition does in fact have more advanced effects going on too, which will require even more processing power again.
UnrealEck
Member
Because some PC gamers also play on consoles too.
But as I said too, it's not always big bad fanboyism and sometimes involves an interest in hardware and graphics processing. You seemed to cut that out of the quote as if it wasn't relevant.
I should also mention it's not always fanboy criticisms or tech geek analysis of computer hardware. It's also critcisms of companies putting stuff like this out. Especially when it's $60.
I understand what your saying but generally why would any avid PC gamer have any interest in console hardware considering that in reality it's highly inferior to anything the PC has to offer and is of no real benefit to PC gaming as a whole.
RoboGeorgeForeman
Banned
Game isn't even that great, but to sell an inferior version of the game for 12 times the cost of the game during Steam sales? Who would be cuhrazy enough to pay that much?
decayedmatter
Neo Member
The whiners in this topic are absolutely clueless and pathetic. As a million others said, expecting 1080p60 on the ps4 and xbone with max pc detail and more isn't even realistic.
On top of that, I bet if they targeted 1080p60 but without all the fancy new effects you people would still be whining like little babies that it isn't a huge leap over the last gen version. My god ~shakes head~
On top of that, I bet if they targeted 1080p60 but without all the fancy new effects you people would still be whining like little babies that it isn't a huge leap over the last gen version. My god ~shakes head~
justsomeguy
Member
Agree but playing devil's advocate, isn't it pretty much a TRUTHFACT now, that both consoles are disappointing compared to what we'd hoped for (clearly One moreso than the other)? So I have a little sympathy with the person you were replying to.
toastyToast
Member
I don't know why anyone expected otherwise
justsomeguy
Member
Agreed, it's a really good game (played it on PC at 1680x1050 at around 25fps
) but $60 is too high. It's that high pricing which is going to push me into PC gaming as much as I hate the "wait for the Steam sales" mentalitySomeone who's never played it and doesn't have access to a PC capable of running it. Because lets be honest, there is defiantly a clear advantage to this version over the last gen version.