Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition (PS4/XBox One)

[capcom_suicide]

OK. It does seem confirmed:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-01-23-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-is-60fps-on-ps4-report

At least at the beginning it seems PS4 will be the place for Multiplats. But XB1 still has Kinect and the features of TV integration, so consumers will ultimately choose with their wallets.

I still don't quite understand how the PS4 frames can be so far different, but maybe the devs are using the fancy custom PS4 AMD features for processing that were mentioned as useful further down the line. DF article will be very interesting.

[sj33]

The difference with the PS3 and 360 though is that they were architecturally completely different. The 360 was simpler, and thus developers found it easier to get better performance out of the console. The fact that the PS3 was so different to the 360 was a major problem for developers who used the 360 as their main platform.

With the PS4 and XBox One, we have two consoles that are architecturally actually incredibly similar, more so than in any previous generation (except maybe some of the 8-bit machines). As a result, the difference we're seeing is the GPU and RAM being significantly faster with the PS4. The specs suggest that the GPU alone is 50% faster on the PS4, and developers confirm this.

Things will balance out, of course. But at the same time, I don't think we'll reach a point where both formats reach the same level of performance - the machines are extremely similar, but the PS4 come out significantly further ahead in terms of raw grunt.

[Lebowski]

comparison pics here from the above article*



*comments section

[capcom_suicide]

The difference with the PS3 and 360 though is that they were architecturally completely different. The 360 was simpler, and thus developers found it easier to get better performance out of the console. The fact that the PS3 was so different to the 360 was a major problem for developers who used the 360 as their main platform.

With the PS4 and XBox One, we have two consoles that are architecturally actually incredibly similar, more so than in any previous generation (except maybe some of the 8-bit machines). As a result, the difference we're seeing is the GPU and RAM being significantly faster with the PS4. The specs suggest that the GPU alone is 50% faster on the PS4, and developers confirm this.

Things will balance out, of course. But at the same time, I don't think we'll reach a point where both formats reach the same level of performance - the machines are extremely similar, but the PS4 come out significantly further ahead in terms of raw grunt.

Yeah very interesting. But MS has invested their "Value propisition" in many other features outside of gaming, (TV, kinect etc) so I would think it better to slightly reduce resolution in the game, and maintain framerates. I reckon "Resolution gate" has been negative for the consumer. I am playing BF4 at 900p scaled to 1080p on PS4 and honestly you really can't tell that it sub Full-HD, it looks light years ahead of BF3 on my 360. The same has been said about Ryse.

So if only had an XB1 I would prefer 900p and 60fps over 1080p and 30fps. Whilst resolution has been proven to be hard to differentiate, frame rates are much easier for many of us. Maybe even the option to change the settings in the menus would be nice.

[Brad]

This sort of thing will continue to be news for a while but as Shakey says, the PS4 hardware is simply more powerful and for every trick a dev pulls on XBO they can pull a trick on PS4 so the disparity will always be there for the whole generation. Mark Cerny knows his stuff that's for sure. At it's core the PS4 has a laptop CPU and GPU yet somehow...

Back to the game. I'm tempted to get this. Was going to get it on PC but the sofa is my preferred location for this type of game.

[jimtendo]

Sorry, I just had to repost this from the eurogamer comments:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=98169575&postcount=2004

can you people finally drop this "60fps is better" nonsense

This people is why gaf is the dregs of idiotic videogame ramblings.

Well, my first mistake was going there in the first place.

[Brad]

I visit gaf for the news, but leave before the comments. It's a dangerous practice though.

[Tobal]

comparison pics here from the above article*



*comments section

as much as I enjoy the new Lara game, I do prefer the old style which featured tombs to raid (anniversary holds up the old game pretty well with a bit of control and graphic polish (+extra bugs))

[nonny]

I swear they do this just to keep the fanboys raging.

Does it even matter whether this is 30fps or 60fps or somewhere in between? It's not like its a twitch shooter, even the multiplayer was pedestrian.

I'm not buying this as I've already played it through twice on 360 but does anyone else think its a bit strange that they've only shown us pieces of the single player so far? Where is the multiplayer footage? Or maybe the developers arent so proud of that side of the coin seen as they basically copied Uncharted and didnt even do half as good a job...

[nakamura]

30fps is more cinematic is quite frankly, absolute bull****.

[EvilBoris]

30fps is more cinematic is quite frankly, absolute bull****.

Go read the thread about the Hobbit HDR...

Or ask people who turns on motion interpolation on their TV...

[PaTaito]

Go read the thread about the Hobbit HDR...

Or ask people who turns on motion interpolation on their TV...

Who actually does?

And what were they actually thinking with that weird fps version of the hobbit?

Gaming demands responsiveness, cinema doesn't.

[sj33]

[capcom_suicide]

Who actually does?

And what were they actually thinking with that weird fps version of the hobbit?

Gaming demands responsiveness, cinema doesn't.

I really truely hate high FPS when watching TV/Film. (Soap opra syndrome) same with picture settings that do the same. With games it's quite different though, as then I am actually controlling the experience and I find higher FPS have a tremendous positive effect on my hand to eye coordination and enjoyment. This is especially true for driving games, platform games (The mighty nintendo are 60fps gods) and FPS. For a third person shooter like TR, I'm not fussed at all. 30fps would be just fine, as the game doesn't demand the same twitch responses. One things for sure though, I wouldn't turn off higher FPS in the game, that would be just madness. It's not film/TV after all.....

But I think maybe you were only joking Boris.

[Lebowski]

He must of been joking, silly Dorris he's a kidder that one. what he was referring to was the backlash that the Hobbit got when it was filmed in 60fps, Peter Jackson did this to try and combat the blur and ghosting you get in 3d films, the backlash was because it made the film footage look too high quality (like hidef sports footage was the best comparison i found).

But then gaming and films are two different beasts, fps in games relates to how responsive a game feels, I've never heard anyone say that 30fps in games is better than 60fps, until we have these stupid spec wars, the xbox one is underpowered compared to the ps4 lets just get over that fact and move on shall we.