Tomb Raider Definitive Edition - PlayStation 4 = ~60fps, Xbox One = ~30fps

[HawkMan]

The Xbox One has a weaker GPU and on top of that it runs three separate OS"s and uses 10% of its resources for the Kinect alone. It also reserves memory for snap features and runs Windows 8 which isn't a light OS.

 

No one should really be surprised that the PS4 can run games faster and/or can have better graphics, we've know hardware specs for quite a while.

You  where doig good untill the the first and. well decently. but after the and, your whole post fell apart

[devBrian]

Its definitely better to have 720p/60 1080p/30. Temporal resolution is more important which is why it was completely backwards for them to target 1080p firm and then see what kind of framerate they could squeeze from there.

 

720p vs 1080p - that would be most embarrassing.  1080p30 vs 1080p60 looks the same in screenshots.

[HawkMan]

If there was a choice, I've always preferred 720p @ 60 fps than 1080p @ 30 fps but that's just me.

 

Probably because I've always been a PC gamer, so 60 fps is the usual and long-standing holy grail for us :)

 

Speak for yourself, I like many gamers would rather turn graphics up and run at 30 than have bland graphics at 60. 

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

720p vs 1080p - that would be most embarrassing.  1080p30 vs 1080p60 looks the same in screenshots.

 

Bingo, if they can keep it to minor texture/lighting discrepancies in the PR/Press/Screenshots it may be less "damaging" than having a slew of those hover over to see the difference screenshots with a resolution drop and inevitable "it looks blurrier".

 

I think something like Tomb Raider can get away with that, but if it was an FPS, it would simply have to be 720/900p at 60FPS.

 

My opinion on it though is they should of gone 900p/60FPS. This is a "last gen title", at least the 60FPS would make it feel different on the Xbox One, and not just look prettier. There is quite a noticeable difference in feeling when playing 30FPS or 60FPS.

[LaP]

Its definitely better to have 720p/60 1080p/30. Temporal resolution is more important which is why it was completely backwards for them to target 1080p firm and then see what kind of framerate they could squeeze from there.

It would have been better to simply run the game at 1080p with reduced gfx quality. But the fanboys online would have complained about the xbox one version of the game not looking as good as the PS4. So instead of reducing the gfx quality (like almost all PC gamers do) they decide for now to reduce the resolution or framerate. Reducing the framerate doesn't show in screenshots. Reducing the resolution just make the real game blurrier (upscaling) but it looks the same, specially in compressed screenshots and videos.

I really hope later this(next) gen dev will chose 1080p over gfx quality. I'm holding off buying a next gen console before this wise decision is made as i had enough of blurriness with my 360 already i expect the one and PS4 to run games at 1080p at the best gfx quality possible no more 720p30 and under plz.

[devBrian]

Bingo, if they can keep it to minor texture/lighting discrepancies in the PR/Press/Screenshots it may be less "damaging" than having a slew of those hover over to see the difference screenshots with a resolution drop and inevitable "it looks blurrier".

 

I think something like Tomb Raider can get away with that, but if it was an FPS, it would simply have to be 720/900p at 60FPS.

 

Indeed, for anything considered an 'e-sport' game, it needs consistent 60fps at least in its multiplayer component.  Perhaps that's what we'll see more often, sub-1080p for multiplayer, while the single player receives the full HD treatment.

[HawkMan]

Its definitely better to have 720p/60 1080p/30. Temporal resolution is more important which is why it was completely backwards for them to target 1080p firm and then see what kind of framerate they could squeeze from there.

 

Except you're forgetting one major thing. most people who buy TV's today and for the last 1-2 years buy 46 inch TV at MINIMUM. 55-60 is getting ever more popular and even 65+ is starting to sell decently. 

 

yes, on a 40 inch, you may not need 1080, but if it's 1080 native 1080 WILL look better, especially since most 40 inches today are considered small, and are in "kids" bedrooms, where they sit with their faces plastered at most a meter from the screen. I know I damn well prefer 1080 over 720 on my projector :) I can live with 720, and with quality scaling like the One can do, it's not terribly bad, but, 1080 is better. and has a more profound impact on graphical fidelity than 60 over 30 fps. 

Bingo, if they can keep it to minor texture/lighting discrepancies in the PR/Press/Screenshots it may be less "damaging" than having a slew of those hover over to see the difference screenshots with a resolution drop and inevitable "it looks blurrier".

 

I think something like Tomb Raider can get away with that, but if it was an FPS, it would simply have to be 720/900p at 60FPS.

 

My opinion on it though is they should of gone 900p/60FPS. This is a "last gen title", at least the 60FPS would make it feel different on the Xbox One, and not just look prettier. There is quite a noticeable difference in feeling when playing 30FPS or 60FPS.

 

Why would they have to ? we have been playing FPS games just fine at 30 for ages. The real noticeable difference between 60 and 30 is that there's a sharper picture and less blur with 60. But the reality is that it's not going to be game deciding, especially not on a console and in a real world test I doubt even two world champions in repeated blind test the guy who got 30 instead of 60 would consistently lose. 

[spenser.d]

I am not sure why people feel that gameplay and graphics cannot be talked about together. That one somehow dismisses the other.

It goes without saying gameplay trumps graphics. Any true gamer knows that gameplay is what makes the game good.

With that said, why she would also not expect the best graphics as well?

 

Also a common defense/argument I see is the One has untapped power. This is true, no doubt. However can the same thing not also be said about the PS4? Or is the overall consensus and belief that developers have somehow already figured out all of the power and capabilities of one system but not the other?

 

And if the defense / argument is somehow "it is only a minority who cares about this," well the minority must be large enough that Microsoft's own VP Phil Harrison deems it necessary to discuss the fact when a game is capable of 1080p / 60 FPS...

 

 

So if no one really cares about it, or it is not important, why is the VP of Microsoft making sure people know about the fact Forza 5 is in fact 1080p / 60fps?

The answer is an incredibly simple one and that is a rhetorical question. Harrison makes it a point to let it be known that Forza 5 is capable of 1080p / 60 fps because it does matter. To say it does not matter and no one cares is simply just crazy talk imho. 

A higher resolution along with 60 fps makes for a better overall experience. This is a fact.

It does not mean a great experience cannot be had if a game is in fact neither of those specifications. No one is saying otherwise. Hell, some of my favorite games of 2013 were not even 720p, but that does not dismiss the fact when a game is both, it creates the better overall experience as the visuals are that much better.

 

So really if it is your opinion none of this matters at the end of the day, you are entitled to that opinion. But to take it one step further and say it is irrelevant to everyone and it is stupid to even discuss such details, that goes against logic.

 

1080p / 60 fps is a selling point. Both companies feel it is a worthwhile bullet point to discuss when talking about their first party AAA releases. So either they are dead wrong and you are all right and / or maybe, just maybe, it is something as consumers we should expect out of this machines, and when they do not reach this goal, we should be slightly disappointed and expect more.

 

Phil's talking at a high level about the potential of the Xbox One.  On a game-by-game basis it means very little.  As you even said, there are plenty of games that fall well short of supposed "expectations" that are far more fun than many games that do meet them.

 

They're nice together, but fact is is that it's irrelevant to most people (most, a thing I said in the first place).  So to sit here and continually bring it up as if it makes a big difference is akin to beating a dead horse.  Over. And over. And over.  But to each his own I suppose.

[Lord Method Man]

It would have been better to simply run the game at 1080p with reduced gfx quality. But the fanboys online would have complained about the xbox one version of the game not looking as good as the PS4. So instead of reducing the gfx quality (like almost all PC gamers do) they decide for now to reduce the resolution or framerate. Reducing the framerate doesn't show in screenshots. Reducing the resolution just make the real game blurrier (upscaling) but it looks the same, specially in compressed screenshots and videos.

 

 

And I think we've found the reason why they are sacrificing framerate before anything else...

[BajiRav]

So the author of the article says this now

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=98188580&postcount=2729

http://www.rocketchainsaw.com.au/exclusive-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-ps4xone-framerates-revealed/

 

AMENDMENT (24/01): There appears to be a little bit of confusion of the framerates reported, and the fault is our own and our poor wording. We inaccurately used the term ?average? when the math, in reality, does not add up. Logistically saying the average is ~30fps implies it exceeds and dips below 30fps, averaging at the number. That is not the case. What our sources have reported is that the listed FPS are roughly the most common targets during performance. So while the Xbox One version can reach ~45fps, for a majority of play it will sit around the ~30fps market, give a few frames. Same goes for the PlayStation 4 build, which in most cases hits around 60fps, take a few frames. Our sources have not confirmed exactly, but our own extrapolation of the information suggests you might say the average (accurate use of the term) Xbox One performance could be ~35fps, meanwhile the average PlayStation 4 performance may be ~55fps. Actual, concrete performance benchmarks will need to wait until the game is out for everyone, as we certainly don?t have them.

We apologise for any confusion from misuse of the term ?average?, and hope this amendment better clarifies performance on both systems.

Lots of may bes and could bes :rofl:

 

I guess their adsense hits target was achieved and hence the update.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Topic cleaned

[-T- Member]

So the author of the article says this now

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=98188580&postcount=2729

http://www.rocketchainsaw.com.au/exclusive-tomb-raider-definitive-edition-ps4xone-framerates-revealed/

Lots of may bes and could bes :rofl:

 

I guess their adsense hits target was achieved and hence the update.

 

So we take the minimum as the Xbox One frame rate, and the maximum as the PS4 frame rate. with no definite answers either way.

 

Good way to generate traffic & NeoGAFUD strikes again :rolleyes:

[kaotic]

I honesty can't believe they released this game again and for $60. I would never pay $60 for this game after already beating it on my PC. 

[firey]

I honesty can't believe they released this game again and for $60. I would never pay $60 for this game after already beating it on my PC. 

 

Lots of companies do that.  They release "Greates Hits" copies for same price as original. It's pretty normal now adays.

[.Ruby]

I don't think anyone should buy the definitive edition, they made Laura look like she had botox injections. It's the exact same game with a $60 mark up and they just bundled in dlc with the multiplayer nobody plays anyway. If it was half price and no one played the original, sure I can understand. But they're asking too much for what changes they made.

Lots of companies do that.  They release "Greates Hits" copies for same price as original. It's pretty normal now adays.

If you compare Human Revolution DC to TR Definitive, there's no comparison.

 

I've seen "greatest hits" for much less than the original asking price, in the states.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

I don't think they had any intention of re-releasing the game on X1/PS4, but the subsequent delays the game went through probably gave them time to port it. A lof of developers use their old games as an exercise in getting to know the new hardware. The price definitely doesn't match the product though, that I'll agree with.

 

Regardless, I suspect we'll be seeing more X1/PS4 ports over the coming months. The big one everyone is looking for is GTA V, which ironically everyone will hail / be excited for.

[firey]

I don't think anyone should buy the definitive edition, they made Laura look like she had botox injections. It's the exact same game with a $60 mark up and they just bundled in dlc with the multiplayer nobody plays anyway. If it was half price and no one played the original, sure I can understand. But they're asking too much for what changes they made.

If you compare Human Revolution DC to TR Definitive, there's no comparison.

 

I've seen "greatest hits" for much less than the original asking price, in the states.

 

However.. Having never played the original version.. then the 60$ for the de edition + dlc is a better deal for me than buying a normal version then paying for dlc on top.

[George P Global Moderator]

Having played the game already it's not the type of fast paced shooter that benefits from being at a higher framerate. If it's in the 40s with some dips to 30 it doesn't change things gameplay wise IMO. 60 is a nice bonus but hey, first the argument was over res, now that we have something at 1080p on both we'll nitpick the framerate, I'm not surprised.

Anyways i'm still sticking with the idea that it's just the start and we have games at 1080p at 60fps on both soon, any graphics advantage will be minor in the long run.

Or we can all just get Nintendo's rumored new 4 teraflop system if we care about who has the better GPU only.

[LaP]

I don't think anyone should buy the definitive edition, they made Laura look like she had botox injections

Laura Croft is so old she surely had botox injections to look so good. I's more realistic this way.

[KeR]

Having played the game already it's not the type of fast paced shooter that benefits from being at a higher framerate. If it's in the 40s with some dips to 30 it doesn't change things gameplay wise IMO. 60 is a nice bonus but hey, first the argument was over res, now that we have something at 1080p on both we'll nitpick the framerate, I'm not surprised.

Anyways i'm still sticking with the idea that it's just the start and we have games at 1080p at 60fps on both soon, any graphics advantage will be minor in the long run.

Or we can all just get Nintendo's rumored new 4 teraflop system if we care about who has the better GPU only.

 

 

We are all worried that since a last gen game can't runt at 60fps on a next gen console, when we get true next gen titles all the Xbox One will have is 30fps ports.

[jerzdawg]

I remember way back in the day when I had a Genesis and a Super Nintendo.... Mortal Kombat was released for both and the biggest thing I had to decide is if I wanted the blood vs "sweat".  Now before I pick up a game I have to go online somewhere to find out which is using better textures, who's 1080p, who 38.5 fps vs 59.3 fps.  Buying games used to be much easier....  from now on I'll only buy games for my Wii U

[firey]

I remember way back in the day when I had a Genesis and a Super Nintendo.... Mortal Kombat was released for both and the biggest thing I had to decide is if I wanted the blood vs "sweat".  Now before I pick up a game I have to go online somewhere to find out which is using better textures, who's 1080p, who 38.5 fps vs 59.3 fps.  Buying games used to be much easier....  from now on I'll only buy games for my Wii U

The Wii u has games?!

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

[jerzdawg]

The Wii u has games?!

3 or 4... with at least another 5 for 2014!!

[firey]

3 or 4... with at least another 5 for 2014!!

oh snap! Ps4 and Xbone betta watch out!