Holy smokes. Thank you for letting me know!
-
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.
Review Thread: Tomb Raider Definitive Edition
- Thread starter Larson Conway
- Start date
Holy smokes. Thank you for letting me know!
Betta Lines
Member
It may well be from a video, but I wouldn't call that crappy quality. It's clear enough to see that there are some strange texture differences - video compression doesn't have such a drastic effect. A direct feed screenshot would look a bit sharper, but it's not an unreasonable comparison. I could add some extra compression to the PC shot if it's that important...
FaintDeftone
Junior Member
Anybody know if the PS4 version's trophies stack with the PS3 version?
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
They gave the original 5/5 but gave the improved version 3/5? That's ridiculous.
EL CUCO
Member
On a side note, I wonder if more people would be willing to pick this game up on launch week if it would've been $45... seems like the $60 tag is holding a few people back right now, including myself.
NullPointer
Member
Thats just it though - we had a big thread about it here where it was clearly PS4=60fps, Xbox=30fps, and when you drilled deeper into the thread the disclaimer seemed to be that the XBox was 30fps most o the time but could get as high as 45fps, and the PS4 was 60fps most of the time but could drop to 45fps or so.
Crystal certainly didn't advertise it as 60fps so I'm not holding their feet to the fire here, but I bring it up along with other games that have, like Battlefield and Killzone and Warframe, among others, where the end results have been mixed. And the reason I bring it up is that I now have no idea what is meant when somebody talks about a current gen console game being 60fps.
So would it be more fair overall to describe this as Crystal has, as "30fps unlocked" rather than 60fps? Seems that way from the outside looking in anyway.
It wasn't reviewed by the same person.
What i meant is that we are only likely to get an indie developer who attempts to do the formula right, since the big market devs are all risk averse and design by checklist now.
However, come to think about it... I bet a Kickstarter that played off OG Tomb Raider fans desires would be quite successful. Someone should do that. Ask me for the design document, 'cause I'll guide that team onto the greatest Tomb Raider game in fifteen years. We'll just call it Ruin Raider.
There's no point in dwelling on it really. It's best described as unlocked framerates capped at 60 max and achieves no lower than 45 based on reports. But like it's been said, until DF or similar entity does a full on framerate measurement, it's all guesses.
NullPointer
Member
I wish. Please do, somebody!
I also wish Crystal has a "come to Jesus moment" with the next game, pushing dem graphics and presentation towards more puzzling, exploration and risky platforming.
Yes, I'm still in denial ;p
It has to control like the old ones or no sale.
nope they dont
theytookourjobz
Junior Member
Yeah. Wonder when DF is gonna finish their measurements. It's bound to be a priority because it will probably get more clicks than any other recent analysis by a country mile.
Personally, I'd rather have 30 locked than dips. 60fps rules but if you can't keep it stable, it's kind of pointless.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Wonder why it didn't happened already!
Its unreasonable because its showing what appears to be a texture error and trying to pass it off as what to expect for the entire game.
The texture there is obvious stretched. Meanwhile a few feet down the path there's a glorious new high res ground the texture that puts a bland PC one to shame.
My guess? Either a glitch or just good old human error going unfound.
That said it does seem that some specular maps in the caves are missing on the rock textures (bigger deal). Could be due to new lighting system though.
MHWilliams
Member
Because they have tools to measure this stuff?
Different reviewers. The site as a whole backs their reviews, but they certainly don't have to link up.
While my choice of words may be a bit hyperbolic my analysis is objective. It's fine if you didn't get into the old Tomb Raiders. The PS1 games could be fairly difficult and Lara's movement could be tedious. But that's not an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The platforming and puzzle solving is greatly dumbed down compared to the old Tomb Raider games, and while the combat requires more skill than the old Tomb Raider games because you actually have to aim that's not saying much because the old Tomb Raiders featured auto-aiming and didn't focus on combat.
You spend most of the game in combat scenarios and most of those are waves of guys rushing at you. The environments change, but the AI and your tactics for dealing with them do not. You fight the same guys with x-ray vision and laser aiming throughout the game while others rush you and throw bombs at you to flush you out of cover. It gets repetitive. The old Tomb Raiders may have had tediously slow movement, but at least it had variety. There are a couple of moments in the reboot where the game puts emphasis on stealth, and those segments are pretty good; however, if you alert even one enemy they all become alerted and it is impossible to go back into stealth due to the aforementioned x-ray vision.
The problem with the platforming and exploration isn't that you have markers on your map. Knowing your destination is fine. The markers are superfluous. The problem is that getting to your destination takes no real skill, thought, or effort. Despite what people claim, there are very few open environments in the game where you could get off the linear paths. The paths are very obvious and marked with glowing white paint and you just follow them. You can hardly call the traversal platforming because the jumping and climbing is almost automatic and the paths are linear and unchallenging. There's no skill or planning involved. Whether or not this is acceptable to you is opinion, but it is what it is.
There are collectibles, but they are not well hidden and/or take skill to get. At most they are behind an obvious weapon door that you need to break down. Like the rest of the traversal getting to the collectible isn't a challenge. The good collectibles like the relics and documents are strewn about the linear paths. The only challenge in finding collectibles is finding the ones that are basically pixel hunts, and that's not a fun kind of challenge, that's just tedious. Design should be smart.
I said the game feels like a proof of concept because they could make something requiring more skill and thought with what they produced but they did not offer it here. There are a few glimpses but most of the gameplay is shooting. The game does not instill confidence that they will endeavor to tone down the combat and make the rest of the gameplay more involved. People ate this game up and the developers have no reason not to make the sequel just like it.
WordsintheWater
Member
I've seen that gif before the game released and looked for that part when I played it, it didn't look as bad as that screenshot, but I guess you can still see the differences regardless of image quality.
The game targets 30fps. Anything else is "just gravy".
lucius
Member
I would have for sure and I already 100% it on Hard on PS3, now I will just wait for Thief, Second Son or some Plus/indie game sales. $60 not adding more difficulty or new game+ is not worth it, but it's probably still a decent buy for those who never played it.
Coolbgdog12
Member
"Just gravy" with buttery smooth biscuits.
Fredrik
Member
In my opinion it's still a solid game for those who played it and a fantastic game for those who never played it. I actually see no reason at all to not get this unless someone truly hates third-person action/adventure games. It's a great game. And I for one want to vote with my wallet on this to get more polished ports from last generation, to me it's a pretty amazing achievement to get a last generation port to look equal to or better than games built for the new generation from the ground up.
mullet2000
Member
Polygon's Review is in, 9/10 on both platforms. (it's added to the bottom, scroll down)
Larson Conway
Member
Fair points I suppose, especially from fans of the way Tomb Raider used to be. It just wasn't my style. I admit I never played much of the older ones, but the controls and the design of the games didn't click, I think it had more to do with the shitty Playstation technology that just didn't flow with me.
But yeah, it's easy to say that the game is very streamlined. But in a way, considering they are billing it as the 'origin' story, and the fact that Tomb Raider as a series was on the down and out, they needed to do something to make it successful. They had to make some bold decisions, and some people just aren't going to like the style.
Most of the games I play are already very long and deep in terms of mechanics, so personally I find it nice to be able to play a game like Tomb Raider that has enough exploration so that it doesn't seem like a giant hallway, and yet the game takes you on a 'ride.' That's how I would describe the game.
I think the mechanics are good, not amazing; however, it's the attention to detail in Lara herself and her animations, the way she goes through the experiences that really captivates me. Personally I think that makes up for some shortcomings.
As I said anyway, the game has room for improvement, and perhaps they will expand on the tombs and puzzles in a sequel. Probably not to your liking, but any bit would be great for me.
You guys are kind of making these wild assumptions. There's not much to read into it, it is pretty much exactly like others have described.
And in theory, locked 30 mostly would be better, but the way it is with the DE on PS4, I prefer unlocked 60. The smoothness is worth it even with the dips.
Another person mentioned "should they just call it unlocked 30?" and the answer is NO, because the game does not go to 30 as a standard. The game rests at 60, and gets there enough to call the game a 60 fps game. It does dip, but they are generally short dips. On occasion you do notice the dip and rarely you do feel it jerk if it drops heavily.
But to put it simply, the game sits at 60 or 'very, very close' to 60 for long periods of time.
BotoxAgent
Member
yea, thats what it seems like
The game my have some variance below 60, but because it never even dips anywhere near 30, smoothness is constant.
Jerkiness, judder, and hiccups are much more noticeable below 30 fps....that's when you reach "cinematic" (lol) film-like territory because a lot more frames are missing in between.