Support NeoGAF

[BruiserBear]

Tomb Raider Definitive Edition was made by different teams on PS4 and XBox One: Nixxes for the PS4 version and United Front Games for the XBOne. Original source in portuguese, couldn't find it in English http://www.eurogamer.pt/articles/2014-01-24-tomb-raider-ps4-e-one-feitos-por-equipas-diferentes

Here you go!

This narrative that the different developers explains the performance difference is hilarious.

OK, so throw out TR from the discussion. How do you explain Ghosts, AC4, and BF4, all performing much better on PS4? It's not like TR is some anomaly. It's the norm.

Phil Kollar, who's reviewing the game for Polygon, has already said he can't easily see the difference between 30 and 60 fps. You can guess how that review's gonna go.

That's pathetic. If their review doesn't hold up the standard they decided to start with Ghosts, they have no credibility.

 

[PJV3]

I feel that if you can't tell the difference between 60 fps and 30 fps in a profession that looks for these things when doing a review that the person doing the review should have to look for a new job in a different field of work.

Nah, I lost my tongue in a bizarre fishing accident, and I'm a professional food critic.

 

[nssdigitalchumps]

30 vs. 60 fps is extremely noticeable.

Not sure how someone can say otherwise.

Well, I could see how...but I'm not judging...much.

 

[SRTtoZ]

I don't even know how some of you game on a coach reclined back. Whenever I'm at my friends house on his couch I sit on the front edge leaning towards the TV since I try my best to focus. At home I use my computer chair which is a nice high back leather executive which is very comfy but again, leaning forward lol

 

[TyrantII]

By efficiency I can only assume you're talking about the secret sauce, optimisation and whatever other magical goings on hardware has when it's put inside a console's chasis. If a game runs as well as it can on both platforms, it'll perform similarly on similar specs. I've yet to be convinced otherwise.
Using Tomb Raider as an example. If you run the game on a 7850 at PS4 settings (or the PS4 build essentially with the new TressFX, minus tesselation and so on), I'm sure you would see the game running at 50-60 FPS.

You're assuming here the PS4 is the same as a PC containing a 7850 in a PC's north bridge setup . You're assuming wrong.

There's key hardware differences that too many are overlooking or oversimplifying.

Pure hardware wise, there is more brut power there than a similar speced PC that can be accessed right away. Then you dive into the API and the tangible differences Sony put in that aren't found on PC.

Its not apples to oranges. But it is very two different species of apples.

That said we don't know if they used any of that. It very well might be a straight port and run only slightly better than a 7850 due to the shared ram/bus simply due to better refined shaders.

 

[tomfusion]

Confirmed that turning off voice recognition in the Gameplay options fixed the random pausing problem on the PS4/camera. Can't really fault the game too much as my young kids were in the room playing at the time and being noisy!!

Loving the game so far. My first retail game I've played to any extent, and it looks amazing to me....frame rate is silky smooth!

 

[MHWilliams]

Does anyone have a full listing of the voice commands for this game?

Nope, and the voice commands bothered me in the long run when I was playing the PS4 game for my review for USgamer. They kept pausing and unpausing the game randomly, even though I liked them otherwise. I just wish I knew which phrases paused the game.

We'll also have the Xbox One part of the review up some time this weekend. Jeremy is playing that one.

 

[Tux]

Nah, I lost my tongue in a bizarre fishing accident, and I'm a professional food critic.

Both food critics and game journalist can succumb to dishonestly for various reasons, though, in spite of being poked in the eye or losing ones tongue. X)

 

[tbm24]

Nice to see folks still bickering about both consoles still.

Having played the game some more hours and taking in the scenery once again, this version of the game in particular is easily the most impressive looking console game I've played thus far.

Also I will say despite this being a second run through for me, game is still as great as I remember it to be .

 

[RealityPales]

Rememeber Remember the 5th of November, when Polygon gave a lower score to CoD:Ghosts on PS4, citing "framerate consistency is paramount!"

If they don't enforce similar standards for inferior Xbox One multiplatform titles, then... Oh who am I kidding? We all know they've been compromised.

 

[tbm24]

Rememeber Remember the 5th of November, when Polygon gave a lower score to CoD:Ghosts on PS4, citing "framerate consistency is paramount!"

If they don't enforce similar standards for inferior Xbox One multiplatform titles, then... Oh who am I kidding? We all know they've been compromised.

Unless I'm mistaken wasn't the reason they gave ps4 a lower score because the fluctuating framerate impacted the gameplay? Considering these two are completely different games, if one being lower framerate than the other minimal impact on actually playing the game then what's the issue? Haven't seen anyone who has the X1 version in this thread complain yet about it.

 

[boredandlazy]

Rememeber Remember the 5th of November, when Polygon gave a lower score to CoD:Ghosts on PS4, citing "framerate consistency is paramount!"

If they don't enforce similar standards for inferior Xbox One multiplatform titles, then... Oh who am I kidding? We all know they've been compromised.

Where have you been the last two years?

 

[G_Berry]

Hows the AA on the ps4? Any jaggies, shimmering?

 

[Sanke__]

WOW

The multiplayer is significantly worse than i could have imagined.

Fuck multiplayer trophies.

 

[hank_tree]

Rememeber Remember the 5th of November, when Polygon gave a lower score to CoD:Ghosts on PS4, citing "framerate consistency is paramount!"

If they don't enforce similar standards for inferior Xbox One multiplatform titles, then... Oh who am I kidding? We all know they've been compromised.

From the review -"For a multiplayer shooter, framerate consistency is paramount."

I agree with that

 

[Nags]

I don't even know how some of you game on a coach reclined back. Whenever I'm at my friends house on his couch I sit on the front edge leaning towards the TV since I try my best to focus. At home I use my computer chair which is a nice high back leather executive which is very comfy but again, leaning forward lol

^This. It's seriously the best way to play. Better for your posture as well.

 

[tbm24]

Hows the AA on the ps4? Any jaggies, shimmering?

Haven't noticed jaggies but tbh, I really haven't been looking. So at the very least if there are any, then they aren't blatant/or noticeable.

 

[G_Berry]

Rememeber Remember the 5th of November, when Polygon gave a lower score to CoD:Ghosts on PS4, citing "framerate consistency is paramount!"

If they don't enforce similar standards for inferior Xbox One multiplatform titles, then... Oh who am I kidding? We all know they've been compromised.

Two different games though.

Im not standing up for them at all but 60fps in cod is more important that 60fps in a slow paced action game. Maybe thats where they were going with those comments?

 

[Chobel]

Phil Kollar, who's reviewing the game for Polygon, has already said he can't easily see the difference between 30 and 60 fps. You can guess how that review's gonna go.

Come the fuck on!

 

[R3TRODYCE]

Well just finished it on PS4, I think I might run through it again for some more trophies.

 

[Tux]

Rememeber Remember the 5th of November, when Polygon gave a lower score to CoD:Ghosts on PS4, citing "framerate consistency is paramount!"

If they don't enforce similar standards for inferior Xbox One multiplatform titles, then... Oh who am I kidding? We all know they've been compromised.

Polygon's standard is as follows:

Framerate consistency is paramount = .1 points if PS4 is higher than XB1
Framerate consistency is paramount = .5 points if XB1 is higher than PS4

You can use this cheat sheet for pretty much anything really. 1080p vs 720p, DLC vs none, game install times, you name it...

 

[DenogginizerOS]

Hows the AA on the ps4? Any jaggies, shimmering?

I have not once noticed either. The whole IQ is fantastic. I literally just immersed myself in my home theater for 4+ hours and was thoroughly entertained.

In the dark, the light bar on the DS4 is pretty freaking cool. The first time I fired the gun and the flashes went off in the room, my wife exclaimed, "That is awesome!"

 

[malboroking]

From the review -"For a multiplayer shooter, framerate consistency is paramount."

I agree with that

Anyone who has played both the XB1 and PS4 versions of Ghosts know that its total bullshit to say that the "frame-rate inconsistencies" caused problems with the gameplay. The game plays exactly the same on both consoles.

 

[UnrealEck]

You're assuming here the PS4 is the same as a PC containing a 7850 in a PC's north bridge setup . You're assuming wrong.

There's key hardware differences that too many are overlooking or oversimplifying.

Pure hardware wise, there is more brut power there than a similar speced PC that can be accessed right away. Then you dive into the API and the tangible differences Sony put in that aren't found on PC.

Its not apples to oranges. But it is very two different species of apples.

That said we don't know if they used any of that. It very well might be a straight port and run only slightly better than a 7850 due to the shared ram/bus simply due to better refined shaders.

Exactly, like I said. Secret sauce.

 

[dEvAnGeL]

Any screen tearing on ps4? Already have the game on PC but I don't mind picking this up on ps4 as long as there's no screen tearing

 

[DownWithTheShip]

Seems to be sold out. Any chance of it coming out on Psn before Tuesday?

 

[icespide]

Any screen tearing on ps4? Already have the game on PC but I don't mind picking this up on ps4 as long as there's no screen tearing

absolutely no screen tearing

 

[~Kinggi~]

It's not suddenly. The PS One and PS2 came with their own proprietary chipsets and developer tools. The XB at least had the benefit of their custom Microsoft tools that benefited the ports that went to the 360 compared to the much more esoteric PS3's Cell Processor. Gradually overtime, the idea that using off-the-shelf parts (Intel or AMD, as opposed to the PowerPC from IBM) and following unified RAM design and moving to the AMD APU architecture will allow for more longevity from the consoles. So, that "besting" will be less than previous generations just based on standardizing hardware alone.

Another factor is how much will this affect how many game developers focus on the console first vs the PC.

Um not really.

If anything, ps3 demonstrated the games started to look better and compete more as time went on because of its unique architecture.

All the new consoles using more generic parts just means we see the differences that will exist more upfront. And those differences are going to be the differences that have always existed as pc tech gets more memory and more speed. Better resolutions, nicer effects etc etc.

And every start of new gens on consoles are when the majority of graphical jumps occur anyway for the PC. Devs have always went first with the consoles as the lead for baseline graphics. So give it a year and both pc and console will show the potential of a new gen.

Just like every other gen before it. Eventually, consoles become old, devs on the edge get bored and then decide to specialize for pc cause console cant keep up.

Actually the things that might be different this gen is consoles lose their relevance if steam machines can be console-ized and deliver some decent performance at console prices.

 

[perineumlick]

I feel that if you can't tell the difference between 60 fps and 30 fps in a profession that looks for these things when doing a review that the person doing the review should have to look for a new job in a different field of work.

That's basically the tweet I responded with lol. It just seems crazy to me that a so called professional can't tell the difference.

 

[perineumlick]

Come the fuck on!

Lol; looks like my tweet was deleted. Typical.

 

[Nev]

It just seems crazy to me that a so called professional can't tell the difference.

Did you actually believe him? He's from Polygon.

 

[Y2Kev]

Hows the AA on the ps4? Any jaggies, shimmering?

IQ is flawless IMO

If every next-gen game looked like this and they locked the performance at 60 fps, Next-gen would be worth it 20050505%

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

Unless I'm mistaken wasn't the reason they gave ps4 a lower score because the fluctuating framerate impacted the gameplay? Considering these two are completely different games, if one being lower framerate than the other minimal impact on actually playing the game then what's the issue? Haven't seen anyone who has the X1 version in this thread complain yet about it.

Well COD:G frame rate dropped drastically both in SP and MP from what I've experienced on the PS4.

 

[psn]

Phil Kollar, who's reviewing the game for Polygon, has already said he can't easily see the difference between 30 and 60 fps. You can guess how that review's gonna go.

I don't get it. They don't see a difference in this?
http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates

I even see a big difference in first person shooters between 60 and 120 / 144 fps.

 

[perineumlick]

Did you actually believe him? He's from Polygon.

Of course not. I would like to believe that not everyone there is biased, but I had to call that one out.

 

[Loginius]

30 vs 60fps locked is very noticeable and almost everyone that knows whats up should be able to see it.
(except maybe for cases like witcher 2 that make good use of motion blure etc. but that is a different story)

Now, 30-45 vs 40-60fps is not a very noticeable difference because the fps keep changing on both platforms and are a mess either way.

Stop giving reviewers shit for stuff like this and save that for when they actually aren't doing their job properly.

 

[Lord Error]

Now, 30-45 vs 40-60fps is not a very noticeable difference because the fps keep changing on both platforms and are a mess either way.

Have you played either of them? I haven't but from the sounds of someone who has, the PS4 version is actually at, or very close to 60FPS most of the time, while the XB1 version is close to 30FPS most of the time, and people who review them are actually noticing it. http://kotaku.com/tomb-raider-on-ps4-is-more-definitive-than-on-xbox-o-1508613136

I was all but certain that the game was running at 60fps, or at least close to it.

Shortly thereafter, the Xbox One version was halfway downloaded, enough to fire up the game and start comparing the two. I started it and… wait a minute. It still looked great, still had all the visual bells and whistles I'd seen on the PS4 version… but it was not running at 60fps. It was noticeably more sluggish, closer to 30fps.

 

[chubigans]

Now, 30-45 vs 40-60fps is not a very noticeable difference because the fps keep changing on both platforms and are a mess either way.

Man, where are people getting these ranges from?

 

[Curufinwe]

Man, where are people getting these ranges from?

Show me the receipts, I mean the DF framerate graphs.

 

[Skeff]

30 vs 60fps locked is very noticeable and almost everyone that knows whats up should be able to see it.
(except maybe for cases like witcher 2 that make good use of motion blure etc. but that is a different story)

Now, 30-45 vs 40-60fps is not a very noticeable difference because the fps keep changing on both platforms and are a mess either way.

Stop giving reviewers shit for stuff like this and save that for when they actually aren't doing their job properly.

So if Both framerates are varying but one is slightly lower than the other, the review score shouldn't be lowered? In that case you should read the Polygon Ghosts review where the PS4 version is docked points for having a slightly lower framerate at times.

The problem is the hypocrisy.

 

[perineumlick]

30 vs 60fps locked is very noticeable and almost everyone that knows whats up should be able to see it.
(except maybe for cases like witcher 2 that make good use of motion blure etc. but that is a different story)

Now, 30-45 vs 40-60fps is not a very noticeable difference because the fps keep changing on both platforms and are a mess either way.

Stop giving reviewers shit for stuff like this and save that for when they actually aren't doing their job properly.

You obviously haven't played either one, so I'm not even gonna argue with you there.

And the reviewer you are defending clearly stated that he can't tell the difference between 30/60 fps, even though he can tell when a framerate is consistent or jumps up or down. Which sounds like bullshit.

 

[Magnus]

Got looked at funny when I asked for this today in Toronto. Tuesday, they said

 

[Tux]

Um not really.

If anything, ps3 demonstrated the games started to look better and compete more as time went on because of its unique architecture.

All the new consoles using more generic parts just means we see the differences that will exist more upfront.

The PS3's games looked good up-front from 1st and 2nd party developers only. For 3rd party developers, those games were strongest on the PC/360 which had a head starts. It took a while for the PS3 3rd party versions to start perform at least on par with the 360. Thus, the Cell processors complexity was blamed. The "power" of the Cell was held back due to the complexity and immaturity of the tools provided to the 3rd party.

The PS3 also had RAM limitations. This made matters worse for open world games such as Skyrim. Fast forward 3-4 years into the PS3's lifecycle and some of the 3rd party developers might have caught up to some level of parity with the 360 but it still was hampered by a lack of RAM and developer tools that still added more time to meet deadlines.

You are correct that, upfront, the PS4 is showing it's power. But that also helps future tools being implemented that improve shaders, lighting, particle effects, etc…PS4 devs will have more time to develop further optimizations that isn't wasted learning a complex beast such as the Cell.

 

[funkystudent]

Man, where are people getting these ranges from?

I do like how the ps4's frame rate is anywhere from 60 with occasional dips to 40-60 depending on the argument the poster is trying to make.

We really need a proper analysis of that stuff.

 

[JLeack]

Just beat the game on normal. I enjoyed it. It's short though.

Back to Madden 25 and Forza 5 until March rolls around I guess.

 

[benzy]

30 vs 60fps locked is very noticeable and almost everyone that knows whats up should be able to see it.
(except maybe for cases like witcher 2 that make good use of motion blure etc. but that is a different story)

Now, 30-45 vs 40-60fps is not a very noticeable difference because the fps keep changing on both platforms and are a mess either way.

Stop giving reviewers shit for stuff like this and save that for when they actually aren't doing their job properly.

It's actually a very noticeable difference considering one version mostly runs at 60fps while the other version is mostly around 30fps...

 

[Loginius]

I havent played them, so of course if one is running at 60fps and the other at 30fps that is a noteworthy difference.
Still if they arent stable the difference wont be as apparent, you cant argue against that.

So if Both framerates are varying but one is slightly lower than the other, the review score shouldn't be lowered? In that case you should read the Polygon Ghosts review where the PS4 version is docked points for having a slightly lower framerate at times.

The problem is the hypocrisy.

If both cant keep constant framerates than both should get a bad score in the graphics department, one of them a little lower if the fps is a little lower, if your rating system is a overall 1-10 then it should not make a difference because a advantage at a unstable framerate doesnt mean anything if it isnt significant and certainly should not impact the overall experience.

My point is:
Does the fps advantage in this game really matter enough to give reviewers shit for not noticing it?
It is unstable in both versions.

(Some of you make it sound like the game runs in 60fps on ps4 and 30fps on xbone, I dont know if thats true if it is forget what I said)

And the reviewer you are defending clearly stated that he can't tell the difference between 30/60 fps, even though he can tell when a framerate is consistent or jumps up or down. Which sounds like bullshit.

Im not trying to defend any particular reviewer, flipping out about small advantages or disadvantages and wanting them to make a solid 9.0 score a 7.0 is common around here and I think its stupid.
It certainly is important that the reviewer mentions those differences so that we as customers can make a educated guess on which system to buy the game for but if they dont make the game worse they should have almost no influence on the overall score.

 

[Outtrigger888]

Called 4 gamestops all sold out of the ps4 version. What's the official release date the 28th?

 

[MHWilliams]

Called 4 gamestops all sold out of the ps4 version. What's the official release date the 28th?

Yep. This Tuesday.

 

[kinggroin]

I was afraid the Xbone version would be 60fps too. Looks like owners of that platform get the last laugh. Don't have to deal with that soap opera look for a game that's MEANT to be played at closer to film frame rate.

But have fun with fast motion gameplay if that's your thing; me, I like my games to progress the medium and it won't happen at innapropriate frame rates meant for 2d games from the 90s