Impressions upon seeing Rise of the Tomb Raider on a top-of-the-line rig

So, a week ago I met a friend of mine and he just bought Rise of the Tomb Raider for PC. I had finished the game back in December and I've been regularly using it as a tool to fix a loose impulse trigger every now and then ever since, so the game is very fresh in my memory, right to the tiniest details actually.

Anyhow, I saw it on a i7 processor with 16GB of RAM and a 980ti graphics card. The game was set up to 1080p, individual settings to the very maximum, each of them.

And you know what?

Of course, being able to achieve 60fps (which wasn't actually possible without toning down some settings to lower ones) is a huge difference and one that will make you not want to come back to 30 fps ever (and actually it will make the whole thing even more CINEMATIC but that's not the point).

HOWEVER, the game had already looked VERY IMPRESSIVE on Xbox One, and its settings really were the equivalent of HIGH preset on the PC. What is more - the PC version apart from framerate didn't impress me that much, actually. I expected even bigger, more tangible gains, and they all bore down to superior sampling, filtering solution, maybe tad more sophisticated foliage. I'M NOT DENYING THE BUMP ISN'T THERE. But assets seemed next to identical. Of course one area in which you could see a definite improvement were cutscenes. But that's pretty much it. And each area seemed to have been done on a rendering budget which also carried over to how PC version could look.

So if this was the case of pretty much diminishing returns between PC and Xbox One. Why the hell are you rambling on about such miniscule differences between consoles in multiplats every single time?

Seriously. In terms of pure numbers, this one was probably a lot more tangible in terms of numbers, etc. than any other possible multiplat game face-off, and the difference didn't cause my awe of graphical fidelity on Xbox One to go away. I didn't lose my own sense of being impressed at all.

So, stop arguing over things that are even less tangible and making out them to look like pulverizations on a monumental scale.

BTW I'm not saying this is the case for virtually every single game between PC and consoles. No, not by a long shot. PC is still superior, and there are other games which expose how puny those consoles are. But this is not the message.

Signing off,

Salty (in name but not actually salty)

Play a few months worth of PC gaming at higher resolutions and 60 fps and higher graphical settings. Then sit down at your console again and you'd actually have to adjust.

You saw Tomb Raider being played for a couple of minutes and weren't impressed ? Ok, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, just 60fps alone is worth justifying the switch. But that wasn't the point. ROTR PC didn't eradicate my Xbone memories, full stop.

It isn't about objective raw numbers but perceptible subjective feeling.

I played GTA IV on PC at close to maxed out settings and 1080p. And in my mind it wasn't that different from the console version.

Then I returned to the console version at a mate's house (as my GTA IV disc was destroyed by a faulty 360 drive) and I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It looked drab, lifeless, lacking any colour. Besides that the resolution and framerate also felt really low. Not at all how I remembered it. But was it the exact same game ? Sure.

Same with many HD remasters this gen: in many people's minds Twilight Princess HD is exactly how they remember the game. But actually return to the gamecube version and you'll see how low res and uglier it looks.

As time goes by, a clear image of a game is stuck in your mind. Sometimes that's not the version you actually played.

that it is, enjoyed every minute of it too

The biggest difference between multiplats on PC is the image quality and post-processing. The assets and graphical effects are about the same, though the effects are usually turned up a notch on PC. Honestly, there aren't many PC games that reflect the massive processing power high end PC's have over consoles, so if graphics are the main reason you want to get into PC gaming you might be a bit disappointed.

Still haven't played more than 5 hours due to the atrocious story and terrible main lead, probably never will.

finished the game about a week ago, ROTR is a solid port , it has a really smooth gameplay and a beautiful graphic however it wasn’t as optimized as I wanted it to be, the game plagued by nasty stuttering during cut-scenes but lowering Texture setting would fix the issue

60 frames doesn't magically make the control better.

Apparently the Xbone version had input lag.

Rise of the Tomb Raider's just a good looking game, but no. The Xbox Low and Mediumstation 4 do not play games up to snuff with the PC's high settings.

@R4gn4r0k:

Lag is worse. People forget the details. Controls are up to the developer, but the physical controller matters as well.

@the_master_race: Might be a VRAM bottleneck. The textures are extremely hungry.

How in the world did his 980ti not get way higher than 60 FPS on 1080p? That game runs above 60 FPS maxed out at 1440p with that card.

Maybe his friend enabled SSAA 4X?

Also, funny thing, when I was a kid I used to play a lot of superhero games. One of my favorites was Marvel Superheros: War of the gems on the SNES. I then played MvC on arcades and actually thought they looked the same until I went back to the SNES.

This. It's a night and day difference at times.

Yep. GTAIV was dirty garbage on consoles. I also couldn't believe just how bad it was after playing the PC version. It was unplayable after having experienced the PC version. The framerate was poor, and the draw distance was awful in comparison. I played the PS3 version though, which was worse than the 360.

If the xbone version didn't have as much shimmering and jaggies, i'd agree about the fact that the game looks great. It ruins the image quality unless you sit 20 meter from your screen.

TC salty as usual

Star Citizen, Witcher 3, Crysis 3, Total War series, Arma all show the difference in computing power nearly immediately. Ultra Witcher 3 with hair fx, lighting mods and 60fps blows the console versions out of the water. Like a generation behind in overall immersion and performance.

A console originating platform/adventure game isn't the greatest source of graphical ingenuity.

I always felt the same way. Moving up to at maxed/higher res PC version is always like, "Yeah, I guess it looks a little better" and then playing it again on consoles is like "Oh my god I'm going blind!!!" while my nose begins to bleed. I've experienced this with games like GTA V, BF Hardline, Titanfall and even Rocket League. But I can still play them on consoles after my eyes get over the momentary shock with no problem. The overall experience is nearly the same.

@jg4xchamp: lol yes they do.. MOST are medium/high this myth you created is false.

@Juub1990: I loved that game. Do you remember X-men mutant Apocalypse?

You should see it running in a proper resolution like 1440p. You would never want to go back to a console gain.

Of course I do. I used to be after all the superhero games. Mighty Morphin Rangers, X-Men Mutant Apocalypse(that soundtrack), Spider Man and the X-Men in Arcade's Revenge, Marvel Superhores: War of the gems. They were amazing when I was a kid.

Exactly... choose your platform and enjoy it. You can't go wrong.

Not me. If that were the case I wouldn't still play Genesis and Dreamcast games along with PS1,2,3, 360. I never have to "adjust". These things just are not so important as to make a fun game not fun to me.

Very strange. So you switch to Genesis and Dreamcast games and don't notice those games have worse graphics ?

Hmmm, I find that hard to believe.

Heck, I still play SNES and Gamecube and Xbox360 games too for example. But I notice how they look worse than games on my PC.

I'm playing Gears 2 at the moment, and I find it a beautiful looking game at times. But the framerate and resolution leave a lot to be desired. That's just something you notice.

So perhaps you don't notice these things. Or perhaps you are not entirely honest.

I find it shocking that an intelligent person would need and adjustment period just because one is playing a game on older tech. How sensitive are you? How about when you play poker? If I bring a ten year old deck over with worn cards will you need time to "adjust" from brand new cards? That's stupid. The second I decide to play the older game I know what I am going to see and play.

I think what he's saying is that when you play those systems your expectations meet what you actually end up seeing, there's nothing visually jarring so you can switch between those old consoles without issue.

The problem with the current generation systems is your brain makes you think the games look the same as they do on PC, you play the PC version, and then you go back to the current gen console version, and it's quite shocking how different they actually look. You're seeing the same thing but your mind kind of melds them together like there's not a big difference when there actually is, so every time you come back to it it's jarring.

I just tried Far Cry 3 on my Xbox 360 after only playing it on PC at Ultra since it came out, my mind was fucking blown, it looks so horrible, it looks like an original Xbox game in comparison....

Explain to me how that is not adjusting.

You just said the exact same as what I described.

Adjusting can literally take a fraction of a second. What is an "adjustment period" ? I have never heard of such a thing when it comes to gaming or when I switch from PC to console, which frankly I do all the time and multiple times per day.

Yeah it's especially confronting with multiplats. Going back you just can not believe they looked like that originally. Like your imaganiation makes you think a different thing.

Exclusives hold up way better because there was never a PC version to compare it to.

Tip : Top of the line Pcs are not gaming on 1080p ..... That was the case like almost 10 years ago.

Not really, 10 years ago for PC 1600x1200 or 1280x1024 was basically the standard, and CRT's were still prevalent and superior.

@R4gn4r0k: Now go back and read our dialogue again. I guess I am wrong, but your use of "you'll have to adjust" didn't come across as miniscule as you are now down playing it to be.

Dunno, I just don't think our definitions of adjusting are that far apart.

In fact I love 16 bit graphics. Now early 3D graphics like Super Mario 64 take more adjusting from me.

But I also noticed this: play a game with amazing or bad graphics for a long time and you'll grow used to them no matter how good or bad they are. At first it can be like: OMG this game looks amazing, OMG this game looks so bad. But play it long enough and you'll adjust.

It's really a case by case basis.

He said top of the line. I don't even consider my PC top of the line and I game at 1440p and can easily reach above 60fps in most modern games at max settings. 4K is top of the line.

1080p was top of the line in 2006. Roughly the equivalent of 4K today.

Depends the title , and dont take 10 years like granted , it can be 9 or 8. I said almost for a reason

Well computer chair and sitting 6" away from monitor, would take some adjusting to a couch and a 60" TV. Good points.

I play PC games on both my monitor and TV because they are like 4-5 feet apart. Same with my chair and couch.

I also doubt a 60 inch TV or larger can make sub 720p and sub 30 fps games look better. But you might have a different TV than me, so I don't know.

You can't be serious, 1080p was still a new thing in 2006, LCD monitors were still a relatively new thing in 2006 for PC gaming and technologically they were dramatically inferior to anything that CRT could provide. 1080p LCD displays in 2006 were not top of the line, and they most certainly were not the standard, they were the newest thing, but were still inferior.

Did you even game on PC in 2006? Jesus, I remember people with LCD monitors back then and what a joke it was, horrible response times, 60hz maximum, severe ghosting, green appearance to the back lighting, insane prices... It was a joke... Top of the line... Pfft...

Hell, a Sony FW900 is still arguably a better monitor than anything available today... Back in 2006 you couldn't pay me to own an LCD over my Lacie Electron Blue...

I never need to adjust is my stance I guess. I take each game as it is. I don't need to adjust just because graphics tech is not as advanced as the game I was playing 5 minutes before. They're fucking video games. I have to adjust to my mother's growing dementia and the fact she doesn't always remember me. I don't have to adjust from Rise of the Tomb Raider to KOTOR on Xbox.

Sorry man, we can bullshit about video games all we want, but that is some serious stuff you need to deal with.

It's so hard to have this women you love and that always loved you not recognize you anymore. It'll only get harder and harder. My mom works with demented people day in day out. And it's heartbreaking to see family not drop by anymore. But never give up on your mom, man !

XO version , PC version.

As seen in the windows phone store...

Don't worry pcgamers you need a GTX TITAN X to have the same quality and resolution as Xbox One!!!

@Salt_The_Fries: The Rise of TR had 360 assets, it's not a good showcase for either PC or Xbone.

Rise of the TR would obviously would look nice, like TR2013, since we can't compare Rise or TR 2013 to an actual TR that was designed only for modern current gen hardware), but the game being designed for the 2005 360 hardware is limiting.

Too many cross gen games these days held back by last gen assets, but the tide is turning.