Rise of the Tomb Raider [Official Thread] PS4 finally experiencing greatness

[spliz]

Rise of the Tomb Raider Graphics & Performance Guide



that's gonna lead to a lot of people with 4gb (or less) cards claiming the game isn't well optimized

U mean the majority of the PC gaming world? Lol

 

[daze23]

I think its more Nividia vs AMD. AMD has features that Nividia lacks in which may require downloads for new drivers etc... Vice versa. I heard Nividia limited some aspects of the game which is hurting AMD GPUs.

AMD has a lot features for gamers that is absent from Nivida overrated ass company. Free sync and computing shyt which can help the developer.

uh, Nvidia had "gsync" before AMD copied it and called theirs "freesync"

Nvidia also had "Dynamic Super Resolution" (DSR) first, and AMD copied that calling theirs "Virtual Super Resolution" (VSR)

 

[Leasy]

Rise of the Tomb Raider Graphics & Performance Guide



that's gonna lead to a lot of people with 4gb (or less) cards claiming the game isn't well optimized

Lmao got damn. What the fukk?

 

[Fatboi1]

Reading online from reddit to other sites that this is a bad port.

That's not true smh. People don't know anything about PC gaming and expect their cards from three years ago to "Max" out a new game. If there were no options it'd be stagnant.

 

[Leasy]

That's not true smh. People don't know anything about PC gaming and expect their cards from three years ago to "Max" out a new game. If there were no options it'd be stagnant

Shyt dont matter to me it will still look better than the console version.

 

[Ciggavelli]

That's not true smh. People don't know anything about PC gaming and expect their cards from three years ago to "Max" out a new game. If there were no options it'd be stagnant

Shouldn't a 980ti be able to max this out at 1080p though? It can't at 60fps

 

[daze23]

U mean the majority of the PC gaming world? Lol

yes, the majority should not be using "very high" textures

 

[Leasy]

But playing GTA V in 3840 is whoa kind of suprising Tomb Raider cant match it as it has limited shyt going on.

 

[daze23]

Shouldn't a 980ti be able to max this out at 1080p though? It can't at 60fps

should they not include/hide graphics options that don't allow the <insert expensive GPU> to get 60fps at 1080p?

 

[Ciggavelli]

should they not include/hide graphics options that don't allow the <insert expensive GPU> to get 60fps at 1080p?

No they shouldn't hide anything, but this is an X1 port, not crysis 4. I'd expect a little better optimization from a game like this. This is harder to run than Witcher 3. That's absurd in my opinion

 

[Leasy]

should they not include/hide graphics options that don't allow the <insert expensive GPU> to get 60fps at 1080p?

Watchdogs did something similiar by capping the graphics right?

 

[Ciggavelli]

Watchdogs did something similiar by capping the graphics right?

Watch Dogs was a messed up game from start to finish. Nobody could play it at high or ultra until 6gb cards came out. It was a stuttering mess. fukk that game

 

[spliz]

yes, the majority should not be using "very high" textures

I don't think the shyt looks great enough to need a damn 980ti to run it decent on very high but hey. that's the story of this gen. lol.

 

[daze23]

No they shouldn't hide anything, but this is an X1 port, not crysis 4. I'd expect a little better optimization from a game like this. This is harder to run than Witcher 3. That's absurd in my opinion

it includes options not found in the X1 version

once again, I'll quote Durante...

Performance at "max" settings, without context and deep understanding what these settings entail, is completely irrelevant for judging the technical quality of a game, and it's highly damaging how often it seems to be used to evaluate the same. I've wanted to make a thread about this for a while, and seeing how there is right now another one on the front page with "max settings" in the title it seems as good a time as ever.

These days, many people seem to judge the "optimization" (a broadly misunderstood term if I ever saw one!) of games on how they run at "max" settings. What does this mean in practise? Let's say I'm porting a game to PC, and I'm trying to decide which options to include. I could easily add the option of rendering shadow depth buffers at 32 bit precision and up to 4096x4096 instead of the 16 bit and 1024² default. But what would this actually cause to happen? Basically, it will improve IQ and image stability, especially at very high resolution. However, let's assume for the sake of argument that it also halves the framerate of my port, when enabled.

In the prevailing simplistic mindset, I just went from a "great, optimized port" to a "piece of shyt port showing how my company is disrespectful of PC gamers" merely by adding an option to my game.

I hope everyone can see how fukking insane this is. As a developer aware of this, I basically have 2 options:

1. Only allow access to higher-end settings via some ini file or other method which is not easily accessible.
2. Simply don't bother with higher-end settings at all.

The first point wouldn't be too bad, but it seems like the much more rare choice. If the prevailing opinion of my game's technical quality actually goes down by including high-end options, then why bother at all?

Of course, gamers are not to blame for this exclusively. Review sites got into the habit of benchmarking only "max" settings, especially during the latter part of the PS360 generation, simply because GPUs wouldn't be challenged at all in the vast majority of games otherwise.

 

[Ciggavelli]

I don't think the shyt looks great enough to need a damn 980ti to run it decent on very high but hey. that's the story of this gen. lol.

Agreed. It's not good enough looking to justify the specs