• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

IGN, tomb raider ps3 vs ps4 comparison video

kitzkozan

Member
If you don't have a gaming PC and passed it up on PS360, then this is for you. But this is probably a small audience considering the game sold very well despite SE's absurd expectations. I don't expect it to move many copies. But then again, it was an easy port. They just take the PC version, find the right balance of High/Ultra to get 30fps stable, modify Lara's face (probably the most resource demanding thing they did) and voila - easy profit assuming it sells at least some.

I honestly feel Bioshock Infinite should do this too. The game looks beautiful in 1080+ on High/Ultra on PC, but most of the people who played this game unfortunately suffered through it on PS360. For those who have PS4 and don't have a gaming PC, I think that option is good for them.

The $60 price is silly though. It should be $30, maybe $40 tops.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a definitive edition of Sleeping Dogs on the PS4/Xbone since there's a precedent from SE with Tomb Raider. There's a ludicrous amount of DLC and the PC port of SD has the luxury of having a high resolution texture patch.

Ports such as these aren't worth the full price, but I'm sure they will make some easy profit since there will be a lack of games/content for these new consoles until the end of 2015.
 
I just want to know the framerate...

Why is it so hard to get a solid answer on this 2 weeks before release? :(


Also, it might be telling that they are using the PS4 version to showcase the game everywhere.



I am willing to bet it is 30fps. If it was 60fps, I guarantee you that the developers would be touting that at the top of their lungs as a feature.
 
D

Deleted member 57681

Unconfirmed Member
Can't polish a turd, but damn, her face really looks nice. Them smooth lips.
 
Are kids finally getting their parents to make them a PC? I don't understand this sudden trend of, "Oh my god! PC games look better!". PC has always looked better and has generally always been a viable option, if not a better one. And also, there is no, "PC" there will always be someone out there with a superior rig than yours, so you are constantly on inferior hardware. It's just an odd comparison to make... Completely different markets like it has always been.

I love gaming on both platforms.
This game is going to be $60. The PC version was $5 on Amazon recently and can usually be bought for $15 or less normally. This really highlights just how much next-gen console owners are getting fucked here, so of course PC is going to be brought up.

You should be more concerned with the people defending the blatant exploitation of gamers here instead of turning it into a PC vs Console thing.

Defending from what?

Just don't buy it. Congrats, you are victorious.
 

Ysiadmihi

Banned
Side note: not toward the poster I responded to.

When will threads involving PS4/XBone games and graphics stop becoming PC evangelist shitfests?!?!

If I wanted a PC for gaming, I'd get one. I don't care if the fancy whiz-bang 4000 can run at ultramax settings and a steady 1,202,048 FPS. It has nothing to do with the topic. I don't get how that irrelevant discussion/latent port begging hasn't been more banworthy?

I don't trounce into 3DS topics or Vita topics trumpeting vice versa or WiiU, PS4, etc....

This game is going to be $60. The PC version was $5 on Amazon recently and can usually be bought for $15 or less normally. This really highlights just how much next-gen console owners are getting fucked here, so of course PC is going to be brought up.

You should be more concerned with the people defending the blatant exploitation of gamers here instead of turning it into a PC vs Console thing.
 

Elios83

Member
Some minor improvements but nothing that will make the gaming experience much better. Definitely not worth $60. Also the hair still looks weird.

Not true, the improvements are the best they could do without actually remaking the game from scratch....if they're so noticeable in a IGN video comparision just think how's gonna look on a full HD TV. The gap with the PS3 version is huge.
Sure 60$ is too much to pay for people who have already played the original version but it's useless to cry sour grapes :p
 

Selvaria

Member
I'm always baffled by the amount of hate this game gets.

I think it looks great, and the $60 price doesn't really bother me much.
 
I loved the game on 360, it ranks up there as one of my top 10 games last year, but i just cant double dip , especially at full price again.

I am one of those people who finish a game and never replay or go back, so its hard for me to replay a campaign , and the multiplayer was pretty crappy from the little i played of it.

If they had added some new adventures/tombs or some kind of single player add-on i would probably jump back in.

Having said that i hope more companies do hd re-releases on next gen, seems like it doesn't cost a lot of money and there are a ton of games i never played that i would probably buy , however asking full price is a bit much.
 

CalebW

Banned
Are kids finally getting their parents to make them a PC? I don't understand this sudden trend of, "Oh my god! PC games look better!". PC has always looked better and has generally always been a viable option, if not a better one. And also, there is no, "PC" there will always be someone out there with a superior rig than yours, so you are constantly on inferior hardware. It's just an odd comparison to make... Completely different markets like it has always been.

I love gaming on both platforms.

It's a multiplatform game that's also on PC. Why shouldn't PC people discuss the game as well? And as someone just mentioned, it's 60 dollars on PS4 and XB1, and 5-10 bucks on PC. It's worth talking about how they think it's OK to fuck over XB1 and PS4 owners simply because they're in dire need of something new to play. And if it's not 60 FPS, calling it the definitive version just becomes laughable.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a definitive edition of Sleeping Dogs on the PS4/Xbone since there's a precedent from SE with Tomb Raider. There's a ludicrous amount of DLC and the PC port of SD has the luxury of having a high resolution texture patch.

Ports such as these aren't worth the full price, but I'm sure they will make some easy profit since there will be a lack of games/content for these new consoles until the end of 2015.

I held off getting TR because I was pretty sure with the extra work they did for the PC version they'd do some sort of cross-gen release. With SD though I'm not so sure. On the pro column, that game has a tonne of relevant DLC content (not map packs for a multiplayer mode that nobody wanted or asked for). On the against side, its an older game than TR, and its also been heavily promoted post-release with sales, being a PS+ game and now its MS' free giveaway game. After all that they might feel that the audience for the port wouldn't be as large as TR.

Still if anyone at SE is reading this, I would double-dip for a PS4 Sleeping Dogs.

Edit: Also in regards to the 'not worth $60' issue, can anyone remember the reception to the X360 port of TR Legends? IIRC that was a similar situation, a graphically touched up but still largely identical cross-gen game sold for full price.
 

JB1981

Member
This game is going to be $60. The PC version was $5 on Amazon recently and can usually be bought for $15 or less normally. This really highlights just how much next-gen console owners are getting fucked here, so of course PC is going to be brought up.

You should be more concerned with the people defending the blatant exploitation of gamers here instead of turning it into a PC vs Console thing.

Exploitation? No one is being forced to buy this game dawg
 

TheD

The Detective
What the fuck is with all the attacking of people for also wanting to see how it compares to the PC version?
PC vs PS4 versions are going to be the far more interesting comparison due to the changes and unlike the PS3 version, the PC version is not being limited by such old hardware (at least in the effects it can pull off).
The PS3 version on the other hand is not even close to the max this game can run at and so it is a given that a PS4 version is a going to look better than it (even if they did not do the upgrades).
 
I'm always baffled by the amount of hate this game gets.

I think it looks great, and the $60 price doesn't really bother me much.
It's just people. People claim that every game that gets hate like this is a special case, but it's not. People just don't all like the same stuff and often would rather act like they hate something than admit to not liking it like some others.

Me? I liked the presentation, but got bored with the game after a few hours. Felt too repetitive and had too many other games that personally clicked much more worth getting to in my backlog. The added lighting stuff is nice in this next-gen version, but really only Lara herself seems to have benefited from material-based lighting (SSS in this case, something we saw in pre-rendered scenes like in TLOU) and her new facial structure I'm not a fan of, but the improved draw distance and textures are nice to be made available.

That said, from my experience with the game (on PC) the TressFX 2 or whatever is going on here looks a LOT better than the glitchy madness that I experienced when enabling TressFX on PC version and hopefully they ported some of the tessellation and such from the PC version as well, although this too had some weird performance problems in original launch.
 

Pachinko

Member
I was in the camp of "this is just the PC version ported to ps4/xb1" but they've been trying to hammer home quite strongly that it isn't actually. They rebuilt their game engine from ground up to utilize all the features present on the new consoles graphics chips. This rewrote engine added actual physics to everything and a more accurate lighting engine as well as the much vaunted new Lara Croft model. Really the only thing leftover from the PC game is the higher res textures and environment models. I suppose the core game is the same as well, it was just ported to the new engine.

I only finished this game a few months ago(on PC) and loved it but I have no intention of picking up either next gen system anytime soon. I would consider replaying it on say a PS4 if I did have one though.

If I had to wager a guess, the framerate is probably 20-30fps on xbox one and unlocked on ps4 (never lower then 30 but sometimes hits 60). Otherwise I imagine both versions will be pretty much the same. The TressFX on consoles has been reworked and toned down quite a bit compared to the PC version , so I don't think it'll be quite as much of a performance hit. Also, given that both consoles have CPUs with 8 cores- this reworked engine probably uses more of them then even the PC port did.

My biggest curiosity is actually whether there are plans to port this version to PC and perhaps offer it for a discount on steam for those who already own the game. I'd be very surprised if they didn't bother.
 

IzzyF3

Member
I'm starting a new job. Maybe I'll buy a PS4 and this game to celebrate. Tomb Raider and The Last of Us teeter back and forth for me as my GOTY.
 
I beat it on PC at launch, and the Xbox One/PS4 version definitely looks better. Not worth double dipping at $60 for just some prettier graphics though, but plenty of people never played it the first time around so this may be tempting.
 

statham

Member
I was in the camp of "this is just the PC version ported to ps4/xb1" but they've been trying to hammer home quite strongly that it isn't actually. They rebuilt their game engine from ground up to utilize all the features present on the new consoles graphics chips. This rewrote engine added actual physics to everything and a more accurate lighting engine as well as the much vaunted new Lara Croft model. Really the only thing leftover from the PC game is the higher res textures and environment models. I suppose the core game is the same as well, it was just ported to the new engine.

I only finished this game a few months ago(on PC) and loved it but I have no intention of picking up either next gen system anytime soon. I would consider replaying it on say a PS4 if I did have one though.

If I had to wager a guess, the framerate is probably 20-30fps on xbox one and unlocked on ps4 (never lower then 30 but sometimes hits 60). Otherwise I imagine both versions will be pretty much the same. The TressFX on consoles has been reworked and toned down quite a bit compared to the PC version , so I don't think it'll be quite as much of a performance hit. Also, given that both consoles have CPUs with 8 cores- this reworked engine probably uses more of them then even the PC port did.

My biggest curiosity is actually whether there are plans to port this version to PC and perhaps offer it for a discount on steam for those who already own the game. I'd be very surprised if they didn't bother.
I would rather have a locked 30 then sometimes hits 60.
 

JDSN

Banned
You can put it next to Congo's Caper and I still wouldnt pay $60.

Im not implying Congo's Caper is anything less than awesome.
 

Ntsouls

Banned
How is this worth 60bucks? I mean if it were like what Starbreeze did. Where they redid the old game plus added content. Then you might see it at 40 ot 50$ as a good deal.
 
So it's just painted over, or by their explanation "less greyed out".

This re-release is bullshit but it is great if you've yet to play the game like I have. I'll get it whenever I deem the PS4 worth buying.
 
I liked Tomb Raider a lot, so I will probably eventually get it most likely when it gets a little cheaper. Honestly though, besides Lara's model I do not see a huge difference. Yeah, it looks better, but I was expecting a little more for $60.
 

Jomjom

Banned
iy2u.jpg

Um that is a huge difference. Image on the right looks human, the one on the left doesn't.

Glad I missed this on the ps3.
 

Nimby

Banned
It seems all the focus went to Lara and graphics. I would have liked some new tombs, that would be the only reason I would justify double dipping.
 
Lara's new face looks much better. Do the complainers ever get tired of being wrong?

Otherwise, the game just looks a little sharper. I'm not convinced.

If "otherwise, the game just looks a little sharper", then how are the complainers wrong? A substantially better face doesn't prove people wrong who think the game as a whole doesn't look much better and the price seems too high.
 
Top Bottom