Support NeoGAF

[Deus Ex Machina]

Next gen version has moving trees/PC version has static trees.

Superior version confirmed.

PC:

Xbox One/PS4:

 

[U2NUMB]

Any word if this has a smartglass companion app?

 

[Tux]

And from my understanding those moments are not very common and when it happens it's not a major dip, the "feel" is still smooth.
Don't forget that by this criteria there are no 60 FPS games on consoles at all besides arcade games and FORZA that are locked on 60, all other games that dips here and there are not considered 60 if you dismiss TR.

If you don't wanna cosider those games to be 60 that's fine, but TR on PS4 is still mostly 60 and it feels much smoother than mostly 30.

Actually Gurish. I think I misunderstood your original post. I thought you were saying the opposite.

 

[Vire]

Too much bull crap this in thread and that Kotaku comparison was bad, i hated it. Let me clear the air:

If you have a powerful PC then do not get the next gen version, get the PC version instead for it IS the ultimate version regardless of it being a year old. Do not worry about this definitive version at all, and don't let anyone else fool you. Your PC version is the best version, especially if you can output higher than 1080p with all effects to maximum, which makes the game looks insanely good (2560 x 1600 resolution and anything near that is bliss)!

If you do not have a powerful PC and you know dead set that the next gen machines are better than your rig then get the next gen version. Why? Well, due to the power of your rig, the next gen version of the game will perform and look better.

If you have the game already on the 360 or ps4 then do not spend $60 on the next gen version for it is an absolute rip off. Wait until you find it in the bargain bin or a good price drop because you ARE getting the same game. Only double dip if you really feel the need to replay the game countless times.

If you have both next gen machines then get the PS4 version for it is the best one out of the two.

If you have never played Tomb Raider before then based your decision on which one to get from the above points.

Amazing how defensive PC gamers are getting about this game.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Too much bull crap this in thread and that Kotaku comparison was bad, i hated it. Let me clear the air:

If you have a powerful PC then do not get the next gen version, get the PC version instead for it IS the ultimate version regardless of it being a year old. Do not worry about this definitive version at all, and don't let anyone else fool you. Your PC version is the best version, especially if you can output higher than 1080p with all effects to maximum, which makes the game looks insanely good (2560 x 1600 resolution and anything near that is bliss)!

If you do not have a powerful PC and you know dead set that the next gen machines are better than your rig then get the next gen version. Why? Well, due to the power of your rig, the next gen version of the game will perform and look better.

If you have the game already on the 360 or ps4 then do not spend $60 on the next gen version for it is an absolute rip off. Wait until you find it in the bargain bin or a good price drop because you ARE getting the same game. Only double dip if you really feel the need to replay the game countless times.

If you have both next gen machines then get the PS4 version for it is the best one out of the two.

If you have never played Tomb Raider before then based your decision on which one to get from the above points.

Why are you ignoring all the things added to the PS4/Xbone versions that are not in the PC version?

Plus, I have a powerful gaming PC and preferred to play it on my reasonably large 50" HDTV. That means my peak anyway is 1080p at 60 fps. Anything else is wasted.

So factoring in a 1080p resolution, and a 60 fps framerate max, plus all the things in the Definitive Edition that is not found in the PC version, how is the PC version the best?

 

[Gurish]

So I'm playing on PS4 and the colors seems to be a bit washed out. Like there is an intentional desaturation (vs the PS3 version)

The brightness also seems to be a bit off.

All my other games look great (PS3, 360, PS4)

Change the settings than, sometimes specific games demand different brightness or contrast settings (that's why on most of them you can change it in the in-game menu)

Actually Gurish. I think I misunderstood your original post. I thought you were saying the opposite.

Oh, OK, might have been my fault since English is a secondary language for me, sorry :/

 

[Harp]

Got the ps4 version tonight. And one thing no one is talking about is that how well the game uses the ds4 speaker. Adds a really cool surround sound effect

 

[HardRojo]

Heh, some people are trying to say the difference is "The 50 fps the PS4 reaches when in lot of action" minus "The 45 fps the Xbox One reaches when nothing is going on in the screen" = 5 fps of difference between both versions.

Seriously?

 

[AgentOtaku]

Good you are enjoying it.

Is this your first time playing the game? If not, please give us your impression in comparison to what version you played previously.

Previously owned the PS3 version which, even though I detested the story, would easily admit the core gameplay was solid (and fun… if a bit ludicrous) and looked pretty damn impressive
Never finished it though so now am giving it another shot on PS4.

 

[Tux]

NOPE

Until a single frame in a game can accurately do that, there's no such thing as a "cinematic effect" in a game. Further, the resources to do per pixel motion blur to replicate that would better be spent just rendering more frames per second for smoother motion.

Yes please.

I was quite pleased with game graphical effects such as motion blur found in Uncharted: Drake's Fortune when you drop into the shiny green jungle. If you spin the world round and round you can see a nice demonstration of that. There are more examples, I'm sure. But that really blew me away as far as cinematic effects - in addition to the fighting animations in UC2. This in no way is meant to suggest that I'm willing to give up the smooth frame rates of 60 (or mostly 60) in exchange for sacrificing resources for an artificial, yet not properly developed effect/inefficient; i.e. something more efficient than just current motion blur.

 

[Gurish]

Heh, some people are trying to say the difference is "The 50 fps the PS4 reaches when in lot of action" minus "The 45 fps the Xbox One reaches when nothing is going on in the screen" = 5 fps of difference between both versions.

Seriously?

It's not only "nothing going on" its "nothing going on and you are in the most plain, small and barren environment", yea... :|

 

[Pwn]

Heh, some people are trying to say the difference is "The 50 fps the PS4 reaches when in lot of action" minus "The 45 fps the Xbox One reaches when nothing is going on in the screen" = 5 fps of difference between both versions.

Seriously?

They possibly get $3 per post.

 

[GribbleGrunger]

I'm on another forum at the moment trying to explain why cranking the resolution and framerate up won't add all the new features of this version. No doubt when the PC gets the definitive version, they'll suddenly notice all the new effects they appear to be overlooking at the moment.

 

[UnrealEck]

Objectively

• PS4/Xbone version has animated trees
• PS4/Xbone has better skin
• PS4/Xbone has basic physics for objects attatched to the character model (guns, arrows, radio)
• PC has better TressFX
• PC has slightly better textures
• PC has tesselation
• PC has better ambient occlusion
• PC has slightly better shadow resolution

Subjectively

• The new face is better or worse

AA, resolution and frame rate aside. There's also objects missing in some scenes in one version which are in the other.

 

[LiK]

Next gen version has moving trees/PC version has static trees.

Superior version confirmed.

PC:

Xbox One/PS4:

okay, i'm glad they did this.

 

[Spazznid]

NOPE

Here's a single frame from a pan in POTC:


Until a single frame in a game can accurately do that, there's no such thing as a "cinematic effect" in a game. Further, the resources to do per pixel motion blur to replicate that would better be spent just rendering more frames per second for smoother motion.

Done. This is truth. The reason movies get away with it is because you don't have to react in them. The best motion blur I've seen in a game is in Planetside 2.

Those are all images of my own, taken throughout various times in the beta. I haven't played in a while, but I'd assume it's still relatively the same blur.

From over 300 hours, and some hardware upgrades, I can assure people that if you're getting 30 fps, and there's no input lag, or hell if you can't tell there's lag, then good on you. This type of blur actually helps a bit at that FPS.

If you get 60 FPS, then the blur won't help, but some might like it as long as it doesn't affect your response time too much.

At 120 FPS, which I could easily get before the optimization patches hit, the blur gets in the way. a lot. It can look somewhat nice sometimes, but you can definitely feel it slow down your response.

30 fps is fine for MMOs, and third person action games. It's not as important as in a first person shooter. But in games, you feel much better with higher framerate. It might not be noticeable, but people need to deal with it. 30 fps might, for whatever reason, "feel" ..."Magical"... to some individuals, but it won't be doing any favors of any kind.

60 FPS isn't the "Key" or anything. It's not like 60 should be the target. it's just a number. Just like "1080p True Full HD" it sounds like a target, but we can easily go higher. for some reason, people like to put up flags at certain points in everything. As if that's where you gotta be and no further.

I spend a lot of time screenshotting with rediculous settings. My first playthrough of Tomb Raider on PC was at 5-12 fps. 5 FPS. I pushed it as far as my PC could, which at the time was 1620p and 4xSSAA. Now I can do 2160p (4K) and 4xSSAA. Soon I'll be able to do more. I have quite a bit of time spent at every framerate possible, and I can easily tell the difference between 5-10-30-60-100-144. Some people can't and that's ok. but it's not right to say just because some find 30 to be pleasant, it doesn't matter.

 

[Foxyone]

I don't think it should be too hard to believe / intimidating that the next-gen versions can look better than previous versions, since it is a game built for next-gen consoles compared to the PC version of a game built for PS360.

 

[Spazznid]

Next gen version has moving trees/PC version has static trees.

Superior version confirmed.

PC:

Xbox One/PS4:

That's actually a really nice addition.

 

[TyrantII]

Yes please.

I was quite pleased with game graphical effects such as motion blur found in Uncharted, the fist one when you drop into the shiny green jungle. If you spin the world round and round you can see a nice demonstration of that. There are more examples, I'm sure. But that really blew me away as far as cinematic effects, this in no way is meant to suggest that I'm willing to give up the smooth frame rates of 60 (or mostly 60) in exchange for sacrificing resources to active an artificial, not yet properly developed effect; i.e. something more efficient than just current motion blur.

Not saying blur can't help. Or even per object motion blur. But doing a per pixel blur that accurately replicates something like a camera taking a snapshot of something on film is going to be hard to replicate accurately and cheaply.

The only other thing I can think of that would be "film magic" would be flicker and jutter. Flicker can be added with a post processioning effect if you really need that. Jutter is the same issue as in videogames with sharp focus shots and slow pans that break the illusion of motion.

Neither are really magical, nor much wanted.

 

[slapnuts]

Amazing how defensive PC gamers are getting about this game.

They are always this way...all the PC specific forums and gaming forums i am a member at, same BS. The second i tell them i also really love gaming on consoles too...they are the first to start all the BS and if someone EVER mentions that a next gen console is better at "anything" gaming related..Oh man you better watch out..lol.

Personally it shows a lack of "real" appreciation for gaming as a whole. I have a pretty damn good gaming PC but i would be a F'n fool to say the PS4 will not bring some games to the table the will raise the bar in some way relating to graphics. I know it will..

Its like the biased PC gamer refuses to give a "inch" of respect for the things the PS4 can do or will be able to do. Shows so much immaturity and a lack of "passion" for gaming.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Objectively

• PC has better TressFX

• 
  
  Isn't this possibly subjective? To my understanding the PC version is less optimized for performance, even with an AMD card, and is more chaotic and unrealistic. The PS4/Xbone version has better performance and a bit more muted on movement which results in a bit more tame and realistic take on it. If anything, I would think this is subjective and not objectively in favor of the PC version. I say this as someone who played with Tress FX on while playing the PC version. Granted, I haven't seen the Definitive Edition in motion yet.

 

[MilkBeard]

Just picked up the PS4 version earlier today and put an hour or so into it. The game really is visually stunning, it feels properly next-gen in terms of consoles. I haven't played any version before so I don't know how it compares. But this game looks pretty great.

In fact I'd say it's on par or evenbetter than Killzone in that regard. I'll have to play more to see how the rest of the game is. So far I'm enjoying the game, but I hope they keep the quick time events to a minimum, they are fun when randomly put in, but start to lose their excitement when you are constantly doing them.

I love the bow, and upgrading, and the areas where it feels like you can move at your own pace.

Environments look great, really crisp. Controls are intuitive as well.

 

[Ora]

that must have been one fat piggy back lol

lol it was Kinda felt awesome when the total surpassed $60. I was like, "yup, preordering tomb raider when I get home."

 

[Maninthemirror]

kotaku claims Xbox hits 40-45 in non action while 35~ in. They state ps4 seems 50~ in action. Its not double the difference for sure

You keep focusing on Xbox not action vs ps4 action numbers

Lets admit the worst for both

Xbox one : 30
Ps4: 50

Best for both

Xbox one : 45
Ps4 : 60

Variability for both : 15
Difference ~20

 

[Gurish]

Objectively

• PS4/Xbone version has animated trees
• PS4/Xbone has better skin
• PS4/Xbone has basic physics for objects attatched to the character model (guns, arrows, radio)
• PC has better TressFX
• PC has slightly better textures
• PC has tesselation
• PC has better ambient occlusion
• PC has slightly better shadow resolution

Subjectively

• The new face is better or worse

AA, resolution and frame rate aside. There's also objects missing in some scenes in one version which are in the other.

PS4/X1 also have much more particles and effects, and a new model is a big plus no matter how you will try to present it, all impressions suggest that it's a very nice upgrade and you can appreciate it more in motion.

BTW why do you think TRessfx is better? to me it seems that PC Tressfx is overdone and exaggerated with its "Revlon" effect, i like the consoles version better and i didn't see any technical analysis suggesting that it's better on PC.

 

[UnrealEck]

I don't think it should be too hard to believe / intimidating that the next-gen versions can look better than previous versions, since it is a game built for next-gen consoles compared to the PC version of a game built for PS360.

It's not built for next gen. They made a few minor tweaks and additions and still left out things like tesselation and AO. Bringing it in line with the PC version makes it "next gen" though. It is a demanding game. It's not like this can be done on the old consoles.

 

[Glorified G]

Guresh, your wrong. It seems the games are only 10-15 fps apart. It says when little is on the Xbox is 45fps.

when action against s higher the ps4 dips to 50~ while Xbox is 35~

Imo its nit a big deal and can be chalked up to devs imo. Not saying Xbox should match ps4 but I. This case its not much worse

Read:

I don't want to derail this thread, but I'll reiterate what I was told.

* Both builds have an unlocked framerate, going up and down depending on what's on the screen.
* PlayStation 4 build apparently steers close to 60fps for much of the time, though does dip during certain sequences. I was told it stays well into the 50s basically all throughout.
* Xbox One build apparently goes up to 45fps, but this irregular and only in the most barebones, basic of scenes. I was told it stays in the 30s for most most part.
* I, like a dickhead, misused the term "average" in my article. I'm sorry. My fuck up. 30/60 are not technical averages of the game, and shouldn't be treated as such.
* We don't have concrete famerate values, and won't until someone measures them.

Almost all 60fps games dips below in heavy scenes. Even CoD. What described here is nothing different

 

[UnrealEck]

PS4/X1 also have much more particles and effects, and new model is big plus no matter how you will try to present it, all impression suggest that it's a very nice upgrade and you can appreciate it more in motion.

BTW why do you think TRessfx is better? to me it seems that PC Tressfx is overdone and exaggerated with its "Revlon" effect, i like the consoles version better and i didn't see any technical analysis suggesting that it's better on PC.

People are saying PC gamers are being defensive in here. I think there's two sides to the coin.

 

[Tux]

The reason movies get away with it is because you don't have to react in them. The best motion blur I've seen in a game is in Planetside 2.
.

That's true. But why do you say that Planetside 2 is the best motion blue you've found? Something specific to their game engine optimizations for this task? Yet do you think they've sacrificed the requirement (for reaction times) to maintain true 60+ fps? I'm actually glad you brought this up. I wouldn't say that PS 2 is the most cinematic game. But it is a FPS that chose to add motion blu in order to active this look and feel. I've always thought Gear of War did a really good job of this too. Although, that was a 3rd person shooter.

 

[- J - D -]

I'm curious, how does one judge which implementation of TressFX is better? The volume? Shading? Performance impact? We can't really get a sense for the movement from screens.

 

[Gurish]

People are saying PC gamers are being defensive in here. I think there's two sides to the coin.

I don't get what is defensive in here, you decided random things like Tressfx is better without providing any proof, it's really subjective which version's hair looks better.

 

[EightBitNate]

Is this available for digital download yet? I could swear I read 1/28.

Edith, 1/24 via Gamestop

What an incredibly stupid way to publish your game

 

[Tux]

Not saying blur can't help. Or even per object motion blur. But doing a per pixel blur that accurately replicates something like a camera taking a snapshot of something on film is going to be hard to replicate accurately and cheaply.

The only other thing I can think of that would be "film magic" would be flicker and jutter. Flicker can be added with a post processioning effect if you really need that. Jutter is the same issue as in videogames with sharp focus shots and slow pans that break the illusion of motion.

Neither are really magical, nor much wanted.

Yeah, I just used "magical"for humor sake. I prefer to use terms like motion blur that trick the eye graphically even if it's technically possible to do higher draws on screen.

A co-worker of mine had a really long discussion on why CGI movies such as The Polar Express do such a bad job of tricking the eye even though that film is technically more accurate pixel-per-pixel draw compared to CGI films that Pixar makes. Pixar uses effects that trick the eye and try to replicate in CGI the "flaws" what our eyes can't see well in real world. That's why Pixar films look more natural while The Polar Express is unnatural (sterile).

It's not just science, but an art. In the end it's matter of developer tools, creativity and future optimization effects.

 

[Jomjom]

You keep focusing on Xbox not action vs ps4 action numbers

Lets admit the worst for both

Xbox one : 30
Ps4: 50

Best for both

Xbox one : 45
Ps4 : 60

Variability for both : 15
Difference ~20

Don't forget the 60 is only because of the cap. Obviously if it wasn't, the ps4 version during scenes where nothing's going on (the ones where the xbone version hits 40s) would likely get 80 to 100.

 

[TAJ]

It's not only "nothing going on" its "nothing going on and you are in the most plain, small and barren environment", yea... :|

You forgot the part where you need to have the camera hugged up to Lara so a nice chunk of that small room is covered.

 

[system11]

I hate motion blur with the fury of a thousand burning suns. It always makes my eyes feel really tired because they can't focus on the detail affected by it. It should always be optional even on consoles, I don't even care if it doesn't unlock more performance, just please let me turn motion blur off

 

[SRTtoZ]

Too much bull crap this in thread and that Kotaku comparison was bad, i hated it. Let me clear the air:

If you have a powerful PC then do not get the next gen version, get the PC version instead for it IS the ultimate version regardless of it being a year old. Do not worry about this definitive version at all, and don't let anyone else fool you. Your PC version is the best version, especially if you can output higher than 1080p with all effects to maximum, which makes the game looks insanely good (2560 x 1600 resolution and anything near that is bliss)!

If you do not have a powerful PC and you know dead set that the next gen machines are better than your rig then get the next gen version. Why? Well, due to the power of your rig, the next gen version of the game will perform and look better.

If you have the game already on the 360 or ps4 then do not spend $60 on the next gen version for it is an absolute rip off. Wait until you find it in the bargain bin or a good price drop because you ARE getting the same game. Only double dip if you really feel the need to replay the game countless times.

If you have both next gen machines then get the PS4 version for it is the best one out of the two.

If you have never played Tomb Raider before then based your decision on which one to get from the above points.

I have a powerful PC and im buying it on PS4 tomorrow.

 

[LiK]

I'm curious, how does one judge which implementation of TressFX is better? The volume? Shading? Performance impact? We can't really get a sense for the movement from screens.

really interested in what DF says about this. so far people i know who never played the previous gen versions are impressed with this one's visuals.

 

[MilkBeard]

I'm not sure what all the argument is about. It's true that with PC's unlimited potential, you can make Tomb Raider look infinitely better.

It still looks damned good on PS4 and is a good port. It just depends on if it's worth the 60 bones for each person. It was worth it for me because I don't want to play it on older systems with low framerate and detail, and yet I don't have a computer that could even remotely run it.

 

[RedAssedApe]

so like in a cave with your torch off in the dark staring at a wall? 45fps.

no difference. pretty much a crapshoot to which console version is better.

 

[system11]

I already finished it on the 360 the first time around, but I'm buying this on ps4 to show my support for 60fps gaming.

 

[XOMTOR]

So far, my impression based on reading this thread:

PS4:

+ improved lighting
+ improved physics
+ more realistic TressFX effects
+ some improved environment detail
+ sub-surface scattering on Lara's skin

- FXAA post-process anti-aliasing
- lower draw distance
- slightly worse texture details (most likely due to FXAA)
- unlocked framerate
- no tessellation
- price

PC:

+ higher resolutions and/or downsampling
+ supports SSAA for anti-aliasing
+ higher draw distance
+ 60fps or higher framerate
+ tessellation
+ price

- worse physics
- toned down particles and environment detail
- "old" character model (personal pref.)

So neither version is "definitive"; both have their pros and cons. Either way, the new version isn't too bad especially for those who've never played it before and don't have a PC beefy enough to run it with all the bells and whistles enabled (like me). Not that I'd replay it anyway since I pretty much despised what I played of it when it came out.

 

[- J - D -]

really interested in what DF says about this. so far people i know who never played the previous gen versions are impressed with this one's visuals.

I'm very impressed as well. Tomb Raider was never a slouch in the visuals department, especially so on pc, but they've added some pretty cool things to this one while minimizing (from what I've seen) the downgrading of certain assets, i.e. textures and whatnot. The image quality looks good too, not much in the way of aliasing. As for Lara, I prefer the older model, but it's tough to deny that the new face looks more next-gen with the higher poly count and SSS.

Really, all that's left for me is to see what's new about TressFX 2.0.

 

[Sylvrfonic]

This might be a mighty fine generation of consoles.

 

[thuway]

So far, my impression based on reading this thread:

PS4:

+ improved lighting
+ improved physics
+ more realistic TressFX effects
+ some improved environment detail
+ sub-surface scattering on Lara's skin

- FXAA post-process anti-aliasing
- lower draw distance
- slightly worse texture details (most likely due to FXAA)
- unlocked framerate
- no tessellation
- price

PC:

+ higher resolutions and/or downsampling
+ supports SSAA for anti-aliasing
+ higher draw distance
+ 60fps or higher framerate
+ tessellation
+ price

- worse physics
- toned down particles and environment detail
- "old" character model (personal pref.)

So neither version is "definitive"; both have their pros and cons. Either way, the new version isn't too bad especially for those who've never played it before and don't have a PC beefy enough to run it with all the bells and whistles enabled (like me). Not that I'd replay it anyway since I pretty much despised what I played of it when it came out.

Good write up. The console version does a fine job standing next to its PC brother.

 

[Tagyhag]

They are always this way...all the PC specific forums and gaming forums i am a member at, same BS. The second i tell them i also really love gaming on consoles too...they are the first to start all the BS and if someone EVER mentions that a next gen console is better at "anything" gaming related..Oh man you better watch out..lol.

Personally it shows a lack of "real" appreciation for gaming as a whole. I have a pretty damn good gaming PC but i would be a F'n fool to say the PS4 will not bring some games to the table the will raise the bar in some way relating to graphics. I know it will..

Its like the biased PC gamer refuses to give a "inch" of respect for the things the PS4 can do or will be able to do. Shows so much immaturity and a lack of "passion" for gaming.

It goes both ways, yeah the PC gamers who think the PS4/X1 can't do anything right or bring nothing to the table are obviously wrong, but then you have the console gamers who think there's no difference between 30 and 60fps until their game has it, resolutions don't matter on TV's, PS4 is as strong as a high-end PC etc.

The fact of the matter is, TR Definitine Edition is a great port, but look at these facts:

-TressFX 2.0 is much more optimized than 1.0.
-There is zero tessellation in the port.
-The AA is noticeably worse.
-Despite all that the FPS is NOT locked at 60.

All minor details to the casual gamer, but it goes to show that the consoles are not the powerhouses people are making them out to be.

But to be honest, this whole thread seems to be a tug of war for an ultimately useless purpose considering at the end of day most of the differences between versions are subjective.

 

[Gurish]

So far, my impression based on reading this thread:

PS4:

+ improved lighting
+ improved physics
+ more realistic TressFX effects
+ some improved environment detail
+ sub-surface scattering on Lara's skin

- FXAA post-process anti-aliasing
- lower draw distance
- slightly worse texture details (most likely due to FXAA)
- unlocked framerate
- no tessellation
- price

PC:

+ higher resolutions and/or downsampling
+ supports SSAA for anti-aliasing
+ higher draw distance
+ 60fps or higher framerate
+ tessellation
+ price

- worse physics
- toned down particles and environment detail
- "old" character model (personal pref.)

So neither version is "definitive"; both have their pros and cons. Either way, the new version isn't too bad especially for those who've never played it before and don't have a PC beefy enough to run it with all the bells and whistles enabled (like me). Not that I'd replay it anyway since I pretty much despised what I played of it when it came out.

We only got an "official" word on this matter (someone who compared those 2 versions side by side) from Kotaku and in their opinion there is no question that the consoles pros overcome the PC pros and they are the better version when all is said and done.

You put in a nice pros and cons table but you don't value how bigger are some of the new additions they made for the consoles, not all "pros" are equal, if the WOW effect is much bigger when you see all the new effects, improved lighting and new model, it doesn't put the PC on an equal ground just because it's AA is better and it has tessellation...

Let's just wait for DF for the final verdict, I think we can all agree that they have the final word, until than this discussion is pretty pointless.

 

[Haines]

Does the XBONE version have that bad black outline stuff like AC and stuff?

 

[Trojan X]

Why are you ignoring all the things added to the PS4/Xbone versions that are not in the PC version?

Plus, I have a powerful gaming PC and preferred to play it on my reasonably large 50" HDTV. That means my peak anyway is 1080p at 60 fps. Anything else is wasted.

So factoring in a 1080p resolution, and a 60 fps framerate max, plus all the things in the Definitive Edition that is not found in the PC version, how is the PC version the best?

You set your own condition and restriction, which is in this case your tv and, probably, your sound system that goes with it. So considering this, your case will affect your preference. I certainly not ignoring the additional effects that the next gen version provide, and the same instance I am not ignoring what can be applied to the effects that makes it maximisable on the PC version (e.g. tensellation and more). So in the end, everything boils down to your condition and preference, and whether you want to double dip on a game like this or not. You enjoy the game on your 1920x1080p set up on your lovely 50inch TV, and I enjoy the game on my 2560x1600p setup on my beautiful 30inch monitor and home theatre sound system with all effects set to max. Thanks to the massive bump in resolution with everything set to max that I gained on my version, tomb raider looks insane on my PC. I don't want nor need to scale down so I don't need the definitive version as I am not missing anything, especially in consideration on the amount of money have saved purchasing the game. Other people in the same boat as me also don't need to worry about the definitive version, however, other people who are not in the same boat should definitely look at the definitive version. Simple as that.

 

[HeelPower]

what's this game like ? hyper linear corridors with little replay value or is it atleast relatively open with some areas ?