You sure motionflow wasn't on the set you viewed it on? It could have also been motion blur tricking your mind.I played a preview build today and unless they've changed it for final release, it was definitely 60FPS.
You sure motionflow wasn't on the set you viewed it on? It could have also been motion blur tricking your mind.I played a preview build today and unless they've changed it for final release, it was definitely 60FPS.
The game is very unoptimized on PC (or was when I played it). I beat it using a 7970 and the FPS was all over the place. I don't know what settings I used but I did have the hair tech enabled. The frame rate got very very low during the shanty town ambush area. While the game ran at 60 FPS in linear areas. The hair tech really kills the performance big time
So basically, if someone were to repackage an Atari 2600 for you and assuming you've never played one before, you'd be happy to pay full price?
Isn't the PS4 more than capable to handle this game on 60fps?
You can test yourself again setting resolution to 1080p, AO to medium, aa to FXAA, disabling tessellation, shadows to high, and enabling multithreaded rendering
Obviously not.
Prey tell how you know this?.
Common sense, for one thing. You are seriously misinformed if you think the PS4 could run this game with TressFX enabled at 60fps. Shit ain't magic.
I'm sorry, i got used to the previous generation jumps. You know, the time when each generation had a huge gap. The PS3 didn't have any problem running a late, taxing PS2 game at 60fps and HD graphics (Shadow of the Colossus).
Edit: wrong game
at 30fps i definitively wont be adding this to my backlog.
How so common sense, built from the ground up for the system i bet it could. He just flat out said it couldnt which we dont know either way, id say kz looks better than tomb raider does with more on screen in bigger maps on multiplayer and that hits 60 fps regular.
How so common sense, built from the ground up for the system i bet it could. He just flat out said it couldnt which we dont know either way, id say kz looks better than tomb raider does with more on screen in bigger maps on multiplayer and that hits 60 fps regular.
I played a preview build today and unless they've changed it for final release, it was definitely 60FPS.
Really? If someone else can confirm, I'll place a preorder ASAP.
It's not like I have a burning desire to play this game in the first place given my huge PS3 backlog. The 60 frames would certainly sway my decision a bit.Really? Are you basing your pre-order on how many frames-per-second it is?
Really?
How so common sense, built from the ground up for the system i bet it could. He just flat out said it couldnt which we dont know either way, id say kz looks better than tomb raider does with more on screen in bigger maps on multiplayer and that hits 60 fps regular.
Really? Are you basing your pre-order on how many frames-per-second it is?
Really?
Really? Are you basing your pre-order on how many frames-per-second it is?
Really?
...should I assume you were at the same event?I saw the PS4 build today too running at 60fps, but maybe not completely locked.
Bear in mind this is a new version of TressFX. It might not look or thus perform the same. Oh and there's the difference of AMD and NV hardware running it.
...should I assume you were at the same event?
I was at the same event, the build was PlayStation 4, and the game did indeed look like it was targeting 60fps, though with a number of dips. On average it was well and truly >30.
Unlocked Frame rate maybe?
PC Ultimate comparisons don't make a lot of sense when taking into consideration engine optimisation for consoles, sampling rate of numerous effects, and what build of TressFX (and thus performance cost) is being used. From memory on PC TressFX was simply on/off. That does not mean the PS4/Xbone build is sampling TressFX at the same rate and complexity just because it's implemented.
It's not a copy/paste PC Ultimate port.
No. Ran like shit on AMD-hardware too. Neither a 6870 or a 7870 could handle it above 30fps at all times. Both manufacturers ran well in most cases, but as soon as you came in close to Lara's head the performance dropped like a stone in water.
I was at the same event, the build was PlayStation 4, and the game did indeed look like it was targeting 60fps, though with a number of dips. On average it was well and truly >30.
What are the odds they lock it down to 30? I'm thrilled it's running at 60 (mostly) but didn't they already say it was going to be 30?
I really do think it was pretty bloody close to a consistent 60fps on PlayStation 4. And I played it too, so it didn't feel like shitty 100hz motion plus. Control response felt on point for a 60fps game.
I really do think it was pretty bloody close to a consistent 60fps on PlayStation 4. And I played it too, so it didn't feel like shitty 100hz motion plus. Control response felt on point for a 60fps game.
I really do think it was pretty bloody close to a consistent 60fps on PlayStation 4. And I played it too, so it didn't feel like shitty 100hz motion plus. Control response felt on point for a 60fps game.
Disclaimer: I do not recall PR saying it was 60fps, or any FPS for that matter, so please don't take my word as fact. However, as I was playing other games there as well, the Tomb Raider build on PlayStation 4 definitely looked 60fps with slight dips by comparison to other titles on show and my own experience with 60fps titles. If someone were to ask me "What framerate was Tomb Raider HD on PS4 running?" I wouldn't hesitate to say "Targeting and seemingly usually hitting 60fps".
I was at the same event, the build was PlayStation 4, and the game did indeed look like it was targeting 60fps, though with a number of dips. On average it was well and truly >30.
I'm a bit confused, so the target was 60fps but based on various drops throughout they decided to use 30fps as the baseline, meaning the games framerate fluctuates anywhere between 30-60 fps?
No, I mean, I don't understand where the reports of "Tomb Raider runs at 30fps" are coming from when having seen and played the PlayStation 4 build today it seemed on average to be far closer if not sitting on 60fps. The framerate is unlocked in the sense that it's not locked 60fps; it did have some dips. But the dips were pretty small of the little I played/saw. I like to think I know a 30fps game when I see it, and this did not look 30fps. It looked 60fps, or very close to.
If we compare apples to apples though, PS3 ran this game at 720p and sub 30fps at times. PS4 is running the game at 1080p and 30fps (locked?) With updated bells and whistles. Which is pretty much the same thing here. The only problem most people have with this game is the $60 price tag.I'm sorry, i got used to the previous generation jumps. You know, the time when each generation had a huge gap. The PS3 didn't have any problem running a late, taxing PS2 game at 60fps and HD graphics (Shadow of the Colossus).
Edit: wrong game
No, I mean, I don't understand where the reports of "Tomb Raider runs at 30fps" are coming from when having seen and played the PlayStation 4 build today it seemed on average to be far closer if not sitting on 60fps. The framerate is unlocked in the sense that it's not locked 60fps; it did have some dips. But the dips were pretty small of the little I played/saw. I like to think I know a 30fps game when I see it, and this did not look 30fps. It looked 60fps, or very close to.