• 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.

Tomb Raider Definitive Edition (PS4/XB1) is 30 FPS

P

Pachinko

Member
This game was 20-30 fps on 360/ps3 and that's where the initial engine was targeted. The PC port had better textures and a handful of DX11 features PLUS the tressFX but it was still the same core game - mean to be played in high detail at 30 fps. That many of us PC owners (myself included) were able to basically max the game out with tress FX off at 1080p and maintain 60fps a good portion of the time is just a bonus for PC owners.

The PS4/XB1 have high end netbook CPUs that were bested by desktops in 2009, they are coupled with a bunch of ram and the equivalent of a 6870(PS4) or a 6850(XB1). These machines aren't miracle workers, especially only a couple months after launch. Expecting them to turn on every bell and whistle while also adding a layer of special effects not seen in any previous version AND a rewritten TressFX hair simulation (when said feature was ridiculously demanding even on a high end PC) while also expecting the performance to double ? It's just a bit much.

I've little doubt in my mind that a direct port , simply plopped into 1080p with the Hires PC textures would likely have managed 60fps on both consoles but they wanted it to look noticeably better then the 360/ps3 release.

Are these systems capable of doing this game at 60fps ? Maybe ? I don't know. It is early and perhaps with 100% custom code , a large team and some damn good programmers they could do it. OR , they just target 30 fps and crank up the details. 60fps does indeed always look better then 30fps but if it means it will be exactly the same game as before versus looking quite a bit better , I'd sooner go for better graphics. Especially if it's locked 30(I imagine it could get close to 60 in low demand scenes on PS4 but drops rather quickly during combat and explosion filled sequences so a stable framerate is better, xbox one probably does 20-40fps , so for parities sake it's better to just say they're both 30).

Ideally , in the future , when sequels and such are being made, I'd like to have a developer weight the type of game they're making with the available horsepower. 1080p 60fps should be a goal for any game sure but it frees up a fair amount of horsepower to knock it down to 30 fps. Roughly as much as switching down to 720p actually. On that note , would people rather square enix kept this port at 720p to maintain 60fps ? Most of us have 1080p TVs now so the image quality will drop substantially in doing so.

On PC, the sky is the limit, everything can and should be supported because PC owners can always spend more money to push things further. With consoles, even these brand new ones, there is a finite limit on what can really be done.

1920X1080 @60FPS should be first priority
1600X900 @60FPS if the res drop guarantees FPS 95% of the time
1920X1080 @30FPS should be used for more cinematic games
1600X900 @30FPS for particularly ambitious titles or xb1 ports

If none of the above can be achieved the scope of the game should be scaled back to make sure it does work. Failing that, if the PS4 can at least achieve 900p at 60fps , then it is acceptable for the XB1 port of whatever this game is to run at 1280X720 @60fps.

That's my personal bottom of the barrel mark. Anything running at less then 60FPS at 720P needs to be reworked. 720P needs to be thought of as a relic now, much like 480p was on the 360 or PS3. If the consolation is high frame rate and the game design requires that level of performance then I suppose it's better then nothing but honestly if I were making a game that I wanted to run at 60fps , hitting 1080P would be equally as important. Lowering the resolution was acceptable mostly for launch titles because they all had a time limit. By the end of this year I'd like to think we won't have 720p games on either XB1 or PS4 anymore.

TL;DR version -

1080P at 30FPS is perfectly fine given the level of visual fidelity in this version versus the previous console release. It is indeed a "definitive version" compared to those. Had I not already played through the game just last summer I would likely buy this version of it for full price. Instead I'll be a bargain bin purchase unless the enhancements come to PC....
 
Mithos

Mithos

Member
scitek said:
They priced it at $60 because they realize it'll actually be purchased at $30 by most people two+ weeks later, just like the first time around. If they priced it at $40, people would just wait for it to hit $20.
Click to expand...

I payed $30/€30 three weeks before the Pc version released, didn't have to wait for it to drop in price.
 
D

Daingurse

Member
Just messed around with the PC version last night after reading this thread. Was like 25-30fps overall @1440p everything maxed with FXAA. With a 360 controller everything was perfectly playable, and I didn't even have a rock solid 30fps! If that shit is locked down, it'll be a smooth experience overall honestly. That kind of framerate is kinda painful with a mouse though, that is true enough.
 
R

RaikuHebi

Banned
Pachinko said:
This game was 20-30 fps on 360/ps3 and that's where the initial engine was targeted. The PC port had better textures and a handful of DX11 features PLUS the tressFX but it was still the same core game - mean to be played in high detail at 30 fps. That many of us PC owners (myself included) were able to basically max the game out with tress FX off at 1080p and maintain 60fps a good portion of the time is just a bonus for PC owners.

The PS4/XB1 have high end netbook CPUs that were bested by desktops in 2009, they are coupled with a bunch of ram and the equivalent of a 6870(PS4) or a 6850(XB1). These machines aren't miracle workers, especially only a couple months after launch. Expecting them to turn on every bell and whistle while also adding a layer of special effects not seen in any previous version AND a rewritten TressFX hair simulation (when said feature was ridiculously demanding even on a high end PC) while also expecting the performance to double ? It's just a bit much.

I've little doubt in my mind that a direct port , simply plopped into 1080p with the Hires PC textures would likely have managed 60fps on both consoles but they wanted it to look noticeably better then the 360/ps3 release.

Are these systems capable of doing this game at 60fps ? Maybe ? I don't know. It is early and perhaps with 100% custom code , a large team and some damn good programmers they could do it. OR , they just target 30 fps and crank up the details. 60fps does indeed always look better then 30fps but if it means it will be exactly the same game as before versus looking quite a bit better , I'd sooner go for better graphics. Especially if it's locked 30(I imagine it could get close to 60 in low demand scenes on PS4 but drops rather quickly during combat and explosion filled sequences so a stable framerate is better, xbox one probably does 20-40fps , so for parities sake it's better to just say they're both 30).

Ideally , in the future , when sequels and such are being made, I'd like to have a developer weight the type of game they're making with the available horsepower. 1080p 60fps should be a goal for any game sure but it frees up a fair amount of horsepower to knock it down to 30 fps. Roughly as much as switching down to 720p actually. On that note , would people rather square enix kept this port at 720p to maintain 60fps ? Most of us have 1080p TVs now so the image quality will drop substantially in doing so.

On PC, the sky is the limit, everything can and should be supported because PC owners can always spend more money to push things further. With consoles, even these brand new ones, there is a finite limit on what can really be done.

1920X1080 @60FPS should be first priority
1600X900 @60FPS if the res drop guarantees FPS 95% of the time
1920X1080 @30FPS should be used for more cinematic games
1600X900 @30FPS for particularly ambitious titles or xb1 ports

If none of the above can be achieved the scope of the game should be scaled back to make sure it does work. Failing that, if the PS4 can at least achieve 900p at 60fps , then it is acceptable for the XB1 port of whatever this game is to run at 1280X720 @60fps.

That's my personal bottom of the barrel mark. Anything running at less then 60FPS at 720P needs to be reworked. 720P needs to be thought of as a relic now, much like 480p was on the 360 or PS3. If the consolation is high frame rate and the game design requires that level of performance then I suppose it's better then nothing but honestly if I were making a game that I wanted to run at 60fps , hitting 1080P would be equally as important. Lowering the resolution was acceptable mostly for launch titles because they all had a time limit. By the end of this year I'd like to think we won't have 720p games on either XB1 or PS4 anymore.

TL;DR version -

1080P at 30FPS is perfectly fine given the level of visual fidelity in this version versus the previous console release. It is indeed a "definitive version" compared to those. Had I not already played through the game just last summer I would likely buy this version of it for full price. Instead I'll be a bargain bin purchase unless the enhancements come to PC....
Click to expand...

Nice post. I don't know much about PC spec stuff so it was nice to have it laid out.
 
C

CmdBash

Member
meh, there'll be a mod soon enough that will allow the importing of the new face to the pc version plus any extras.
 
Selvaria

Selvaria

Member
The PS3 version was sub 30 fps and on my PC it looks almost like a PS2 game... For me the PS4 version will be the best way to experience this game.
 
F

flattie

Member
puzl said:
It depends how low your standards are. I pay hundreds/thousands of pounds to ensure my games look the best they can, at a minimum 60FPS. I don't expect consoles to match this, but it's stupid to consider a 30fps version with slightly altered (I won't say better.... yet) models/lighting as a "definitive" version. Definitive for consoles sure, but when you've previously played the game at 1400p in 60fps on PC with everything set to maximum, it just makes you look a bit silly. It'a a marketing buzzword, nothing more.
Click to expand...

My point was more about the game remaining enjoyable despite being 30fps. The developers' wisdom in using the term 'definitive' was not being debated (by me). Still, I agree that it doesn't seem the most tactful choice of words, knowing how sensitive people who

puzl said:
pay hundreds/thousands of pounds to ensure my games look the best they can
Click to expand...

can be.

That being said, if the descriptive inaccuracy really does cause you concern, you could always go to your local Game at launch and inform all would be buyers that despite it saying 'definitive edition', their brand new £350 console isn't quite up there with your expensively assembled machine and they might not get quite as smooth a playing experience.

To end my comment on a (slightly) less flippant note, (as you point out) it's a marketing term. If you don't know it isn't true, depending on your definition, then you're hardly likely to be part of the tiny minority that care about such things. We, the enlightened, are lucky enough to be able to make an informed choice, which means the power is in our hands, which means what the fuck are you whinging about?
 
C

Coolbgdog12

Member
Pachinko said:
This game was 20-30 fps on 360/ps3 and that's where the initial engine was targeted. The PC port had better textures and a handful of DX11 features PLUS the tressFX but it was still the same core game - mean to be played in high detail at 30 fps. That many of us PC owners (myself included) were able to basically max the game out with tress FX off at 1080p and maintain 60fps a good portion of the time is just a bonus for PC owners.

The PS4/XB1 have high end netbook CPUs that were bested by desktops in 2009, they are coupled with a bunch of ram and the equivalent of a 6870(PS4) or a 6850(XB1). These machines aren't miracle workers, especially only a couple months after launch. Expecting them to turn on every bell and whistle while also adding a layer of special effects not seen in any previous version AND a rewritten TressFX hair simulation (when said feature was ridiculously demanding even on a high end PC) while also expecting the performance to double ? It's just a bit much.

I've little doubt in my mind that a direct port , simply plopped into 1080p with the Hires PC textures would likely have managed 60fps on both consoles but they wanted it to look noticeably better then the 360/ps3 release.

Are these systems capable of doing this game at 60fps ? Maybe ? I don't know. It is early and perhaps with 100% custom code , a large team and some damn good programmers they could do it. OR , they just target 30 fps and crank up the details. 60fps does indeed always look better then 30fps but if it means it will be exactly the same game as before versus looking quite a bit better , I'd sooner go for better graphics. Especially if it's locked 30(I imagine it could get close to 60 in low demand scenes on PS4 but drops rather quickly during combat and explosion filled sequences so a stable framerate is better, xbox one probably does 20-40fps , so for parities sake it's better to just say they're both 30).

Ideally , in the future , when sequels and such are being made, I'd like to have a developer weight the type of game they're making with the available horsepower. 1080p 60fps should be a goal for any game sure but it frees up a fair amount of horsepower to knock it down to 30 fps. Roughly as much as switching down to 720p actually. On that note , would people rather square enix kept this port at 720p to maintain 60fps ? Most of us have 1080p TVs now so the image quality will drop substantially in doing so.

On PC, the sky is the limit, everything can and should be supported because PC owners can always spend more money to push things further. With consoles, even these brand new ones, there is a finite limit on what can really be done.

1920X1080 @60FPS should be first priority
1600X900 @60FPS if the res drop guarantees FPS 95% of the time
1920X1080 @30FPS should be used for more cinematic games
1600X900 @30FPS for particularly ambitious titles or xb1 ports

If none of the above can be achieved the scope of the game should be scaled back to make sure it does work. Failing that, if the PS4 can at least achieve 900p at 60fps , then it is acceptable for the XB1 port of whatever this game is to run at 1280X720 @60fps.

That's my personal bottom of the barrel mark. Anything running at less then 60FPS at 720P needs to be reworked. 720P needs to be thought of as a relic now, much like 480p was on the 360 or PS3. If the consolation is high frame rate and the game design requires that level of performance then I suppose it's better then nothing but honestly if I were making a game that I wanted to run at 60fps , hitting 1080P would be equally as important. Lowering the resolution was acceptable mostly for launch titles because they all had a time limit. By the end of this year I'd like to think we won't have 720p games on either XB1 or PS4 anymore.

TL;DR version -

1080P at 30FPS is perfectly fine given the level of visual fidelity in this version versus the previous console release. It is indeed a "definitive version" compared to those. Had I not already played through the game just last summer I would likely buy this version of it for full price. Instead I'll be a bargain bin purchase unless the enhancements come to PC....
Click to expand...
What about 1280x720 @ 24fps?
 
cripterion

cripterion

Member
Acquiescence said:
Not that I give a shit about 60fps, but they're charging full price for this and calling it the Definitive Edition and they can't even be bothered to up the frame rate on new gen tech? It can be done, they just can't be bothered because it's a cheap and cheerful port for some easy money. Anyone who pays £30 or higher for this is a mug.
Click to expand...

This.

I 100% the game on pc, and while it was good, I'm not double dipping when It ran flawlessy on my rig. TressFX was cool to see at first but so buggy (on Nvidia cards), even if it still ran well with it the hair effect was so overdone I quickly switched to the normal hair which seems more natural to me.
 
B

Bundy

Banned
The Definitive Edition will be 1080p, 30FPS on both PS4 and Xbox One, Amos said.
Click to expand...

b03i.jpg
 
UnrealEck

UnrealEck

Member
delta25 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because it's still gaming hardware. It's the consoles. It's a big part of gaming and it's a big part of technology.
There's people that build budget PCs or small form-factor PCs or Steam Machines. These all sort of fall into the same area.

Even though I don't play as much console games as I used to, if I had spare cash, I'd probably have bought a PS4 and an Xbox One just because I have an interest in graphics and hardware. It's like I just have an urge to have it. It's the latest thing. I just like seeing the machines, the parts and the games and how they run on the machines. What they can do with them. Where they need to cut corners. How well they cut corners etc.

Also I think you replied before I got my edit in but I basically said it's also about criticising the developers. If they're charging $60 for a game that was released (I think) not even a year ago, we want to see why they're charging that much, if it's worth that price and the "definitive edition" tag on it.
 
RedAssedApe

RedAssedApe

Banned
Jack cw said:
Whats the deal with showing only the PS4 version of the game? Is there any Xbone footage?
Click to expand...

moneyhats! or like last gen where they are just stuck with whatever version they are sent for previews/reviews. which often times just happened to be the 360 version and most of the time the better version.
 
J

Jack cw

Member
henhowc said:
moneyhats! or like last gen where they are just stuck with whatever version they are sent for previews/reviews. which often times just happened to be the 360 version and most of the time the better version.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure this ist the reason and the xbone version is running inferiour to the PS4. Its funny how things have changed.
 
A

Aizu_Itsuko

Member
Pachinko said:
The PS4/XB1 have high end netbook CPUs that were bested by desktops in 2009, they are coupled with a bunch of ram and the equivalent of a 6870(PS4) or a 6850(XB1). These machines aren't miracle workers, especially only a couple months after launch. Expecting them to turn on every bell and whistle while also adding a layer of special effects not seen in any previous version AND a rewritten TressFX hair simulation (when said feature was ridiculously demanding even on a high end PC) while also expecting the performance to double ? It's just a bit much..
Click to expand...
The equivalences you are using for both consoles are quite inaccurate. Just wanted to point that out.

But yeah, expecting this game to run at a solid 1080p/60fps at launch on both consoles, with all the extra bells and whistles of the PC version (optional hair simulation included) plus a couple more is a bit unrealistic, to say the least. Other than that, we will get much better looking stuff on both systems in the coming years (this is a cross-gen launch title after all), but I think this is a pretty decent effort if it wasn't for the price. I think price is what is affecting people's reaction more than anything else, That, and the false perception that it's just the same PS360 game running at 1080p, which is not.
 
D

dsk1210

Member
Selvaria said:
The PS3 version was sub 30 fps and on my PC it looks almost like a PS2 game... For me the PS4 version will be the best way to experience this game.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the spec of the pc you were playing it on, but you are still talking nonsense.

The pc version looked beautiful with dx11 advanced DOF, dx11 tessalation, high res textures, advanced ambient occlusion and not to mention that it ran at 60fps at 1080 on a 670.
 
S

SmokyDave

Member
dsk1210 said:
I have no idea what the spec of the pc you were playing it on, but you are still talking nonsense.

The pc version looked beautiful with dx11 advanced DOF, dx11 tessalation, high res textures, advanced ambient occlusion and not to mention that it ran at 60fps at 1080 on a 670.
Click to expand...
You have no idea what the spec of his PC is, yet you think you know more about how well the game ran and looked for him? Huh.
 
D

dsk1210

Member
SmokyDave said:
You have no idea what the spec of his PC is, yet you think you know more about how well the game ran and looked for him? Huh.
Click to expand...

You do realise that he said it looked like a ps2 game? even at its lowest settings it's still a nice looking game,

I don't really care that much for the game but it was really impressive looking with good performance, well except the tressfx, to much of a hit for how it looks.
 
S

SmokyDave

Member
dsk1210 said:
You do realise that he said it looked like a ps2 game? even at its lowest settings it's still a nice looking game,

I don't really care that much for the game but it was really impressive looking with good performance, well except the tressfx, to much of a hit for how it looks.
Click to expand...
Again though, that depends on your PC. It's possible that you could drop all the settings to lowest and still struggle to hit 720p/30.

I have a Phenom II / 5850 setup currently and there's no doubt in my mind that the PS4 version will look and run better than the PC version for me.
 
K

kyser73

Member
As I didn't buy this on PS3, and generally don't use my PC for gaming (for a number of banal reasons) I will be buying this and not objecting to the cost because it will be a better experience than the previous platform both visually, and assuming it's a locked 30, gaming since I would imagine the PS3 version slows down when there's lots happening.

Same with Black Flag - the locked 30fps changes the game completely when you need it to, and since I'm using a controller not a m/kb, and have been a long-time console gamer, I don't feel I'm missing anything.
 
M

mephixto

Banned
It's kinda a heavy game, my 680 SLI had problems with steady framerate at launch don't know if it impoved with later drivers of nvidia.

I doubt that the game runs flawless on a single 670 at max settings.

Trojan X said:
The PC version wows me. It seems more surreal.
Click to expand...

Its because the definitive version its just a PC port with some code optimizations and some settings adjusted, and the new model of Lara is probably one of the many they discarded while the games was on production.

Eidos its just taking advantage of the new consoles launch and lack of games to charge $60.
 
1

10k

Banned
I'm not surprised. I expected this. My gtx 780 ran this game maxed at 1080p60 but with TressFX on it would dip to 45 during big battles or when lots was going on. Better to lock it at 30 with all the eye candy then have it be unstable.
 
D

dsk1210

Member
In my own opinion, they would have been better removing the tress fx for the ps4 and xbox one as it offers very little and the gpu would have had much more room to breathe with a higher framerate, the higher framerate really makes the animation shine in this game, but hey people will still enjoy it I am sure, I have unfortunately been spoiled with 60fps and find it very hard to go back nowadays to 30fps.
 
B

Brandon F

Well congratulations! You got yourself caught!
Not bothered by 30fps, still really pissed about $60 pricing though. I'm still waiting for an Injustice PS4 drop as well.
 
M

Massa

Member
To the people disgraced by this game, what would you say to a $60 PC/PS4/Xbox One port of GTA V? Or a $60 PS4 port of TLOU?
 
A

antronoid

Member
I probably would have waited for this game if I didn't already have it on 360. But not work double-dipping for I don't think.
 
D

Dahaka

Member
dsk1210 said:
The pc version looked beautiful with dx11 advanced DOF, dx11 tessalation, high res textures, advanced ambient occlusion and not to mention that it ran at 60fps at 1080 on a 670.
Click to expand...

No, it did not and this is what I was mentioning before in this thread. Many people are lying about the 60fps thing in this game and need to be more honest and not try to make it look as if the game is fluid on their machine.

I posted my specs already and the game is NOT a "60fps at 1080", it drops a lot at times with everything maxed + TressFX.

So considering that a PS4 cannot match my 4,5Ghz i2500k with a 670 at all I think it's completely unrealistic to think it could run with steady 60fps while also using better assets/fidelity.
 
S

Shepard

Member
People pissed about 30fps either have no idea of how much of a performance hog tressfx is or seriously overestimate the capabilities of the new gen consoles. It was pretty much expected.
 
D

dsk1210

Member
Dahaka said:
No, it did not and this is what I was mentioning before in this thread. Many people are lying about the 60fps thing in this game and need to be more honest and not try to make it look as if the game is fluid on their machine.

I posted my specs already and the game is NOT a "60fps at 1080", it drops a lot at times with everything maxed + TressFX.

So considering that a PS4 cannot match my 4,5Ghz i2500k with a 670 at all I think it's completely unrealistic to think it could run with steady 60fps while also using better assets/fidelity.
Click to expand...


I was not using tress fx, I mentioned in another post that the hit was to big for the effect, there is no way I could have held 60fps with tress fx on at 1080, your running almost the exact same set up as me.

It's a damn good looking game, but I bored of it pretty quickly unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

After almost a decade, Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition is finally available on PC as a Microsoft Store exclusive
News
33
2K
RickSanchez replied
Tomb Raider I-III Remastered – features detailed, new key art Revealed
News 2 3
112
9K
MonkeyClaw36 replied
Coming to Xbox Game Pass: Little Kitty Big City, Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, and More
News
42
2K
Kerotan replied
[Digital Foundry] Final Fantasy 14 Arrives on Xbox Series X/S + PS5 Update
Analysis Review
19
1K
Celcius replied
The Amiga's gaming legacy is pretty amazing when you think about it
48
2K
Mephisto40 replied
Top Bottom