Tomb Raider On PS4 Is More 'Definitive' Than On Xbox One

Tomb Raider On PS4 Is More 'Definitive' Than On Xbox One

And both versions look better than the PC version. For the most part, I really liked last year's reboot of Tomb Raider. As time has gone on, my feelings about it have only increased, both for the stuff I liked — A main character with a real arc! Nods to my favourite horror movie! A sick bow! — and the stuff I didn't like — Weak side tombs! Easy puzzles! Unfortunate combat/puzzle ratio!

But on the whole: I like the game. I was looking forward to playing through the "Definitive Edition" on next-gen consoles, particularly after seeing how many visual improvements Crystal Dynamics had made to the game. I was also curious about how the game would run on Xbox One as compared to PS4.

Turns out, the PS4 version is indeed the superior version. After downloading it earlier this week, I fired up the game on PS4 and played the introductory sequence. My first thought was:

"Holy shit, this looks good."

As Lara made her way along the cliff face, climbed the dangling aeroplane and fell down into that first wooded area, I couldn't help but notice how excellent everything looked. Man, the level of detail! The wind, loaded with leaves and debris, whipping off of the ocean! The foliage, blowing in the breeze! Mist everywhere!

And… could it be? Is this console game running at 60 frames per second?

The PS4 sadly doesn't offer any app like FRAPS to tell me what frame rate my games are running, and my retail PS4 has copy protection so I can't capture video on my own. But over the last few years I've become something of a frame-rate obsessive, and I was all but certain that the game was running at 60fps, or at least close to it.

Shortly thereafter, the Xbox One version was halfway downloaded, enough to fire up the game and start comparing the two. I started it and… wait a minute. It still looked great, still had all the visual bells and whistles I'd seen on the PS4 version… but it was not running at 60fps. It was noticeably more sluggish, closer to 30fps.

Of course, by now, most people who care about this kind of thing have already heard about the framerate difference between the two versions — it was reported a few days ago on NeoGAF, among other places. Reading that, I felt vindicated: My eyes were right after all; the Xbox One version of the game doesn't run as smoothly as the PS4 version. (Note: I had previously been under a review embargo until next week, but some retailers started selling the game early so Square Enix lifted the review embargo about an hour ago. So! Here I am telling you about it now.)

My frame-rate obsession borders on unhealthy, so this stuff makes a difference to me. Will it matter to you? Well, it depends on how much you care about frame rate. I've already outlined why it matters to me that Assassin's Creed IV, Battlefield 4 and Call of Duty Ghosts all run at higher resolution on PS4 than on Xbox One. Jason's also weighed in on why talking about this kind of stuff is important. And hey, from our unscientific poll, it sounds like more of you guys care about frame rate than resolution. But your individual mileage may vary.

The Xbox One version certainly doesn't stink or anything. If I only had an Xbox One and played that version, I'd think it looked fine. But the difference is there, and it's evident when you put the games side by side. The PS4 version is noticeably smoother and as a result feels better to play.

I asked Square Enix PR if they could get the developers at Crystal Dynamics to elaborate on why the game runs at a higher frame rate on PS4, and what it might be about the PS4 that makes it easier to develop for, but all I got back was the standard reply I've seen elsewhere:

"Both platforms offer the same outstanding Tomb Raider experience. Delivering the core Tomb Raider gameplay at native 1080p and running at 30fps was always our primary goal given the type of experience Tomb Raider is and the exploration we want players to do. Anything beyond 30fps for this version is gravy."

I'm sure that Eurogamer's Digital Foundry will have a painstaking, in-depth report on the differences between the two versions, but since the embargo lifted early, I might as well tell you what I see when I play it: On PS4, Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition hangs at around 60fps a lot of the time, but dips down to what feels like 40 or 45 at some more complicated areas, like the shantytown and some areas where there's a lot of on-screen fire. On Xbox One, the game hangs at bit above 30fps and gets smoother if you pull in close to Lara in an enclosed space where it doesn't have to render lots of objects or long-distance detail.

Any way you slice it, this is yet another third-party cross-platform game that runs better on PS4 than it does on Xbox One.

For Once, The PC Version Comes In Third

Also interesting: both next-gen versions look better than last year's PC version in some respects. A couple of weeks ago, when we ran that IGN video detailing the new features in the Definitive Edition, a bunch of readers were quick to say "So, it's basically just the PC version on ultra settings, ported to consoles." Ah, but that's not the case.

Putting the two versions side by side, there are a number of differences. Most immediately noticeable is how much more alive the environments feel in the new version: Howling winds and low-hanging clouds blow through most areas, where in the PC version there was only open air and the occasional bit of fog. Trees in the Definitive Edition blow in the wind where on PC they stand still. In some places in the Definitive Edition, flocks of birds circle in the air, while on PC the air is empty.

The definitive edition also has much more high-contrast, dramatic lighting, and everything looks somehow heightened — every time I'd switch back to see a similar scene on PC things would look flat and less active.

Of course, these are all cosmetic differences. But I do notice them. Here's a gif of the PC version on ultra settings:

Tomb Raider On PS4 Is More 'Definitive' Than On Xbox One

And here's the Xbox One version:

Tomb Raider On PS4 Is More 'Definitive' Than On Xbox One

(Remember, I can't capture video from the PS4 version. But for this particular comparison, the Xbox One version is fine.)

Here are the videos that I grabbed those gifs from, running on PC on ultra:

...and on Xbox One:

Check out how on Xbox One the trees are all blowing all over the place in the wind, while on PC they're just sitting still. Everything in the Xbox One version just looks richer and more alive. That kind of thing carries over through the rest of the game.

I haven't done anything close to the sort of deep-dive analysis that I'm sure Digital Foundry or similar sites will do. How is the tessellation on PS4 versus PC? How does the Xbox One handle antialiasing compared to PS4? I can't tell you. But I can tell you that to my eye, the next-gen versions look much richer and more alive than the PC version.

(As to why the Definitive Edition isn't available as an upgrade for the existing PC version? No idea. Hopefully that'll come out at some point.)

I Like Lara's New Look

Much has been made about how different Lara Croft looks in the Definitive Version. And it's true, and noticeable throughout. Two screenshots I captured from PC and Xbox One:

Tomb Raider On PS4 Is More 'Definitive' Than On Xbox One

(Note: I'm running the PC version on "Ultra" with TressFX turned off, so that's part of why her hair looks different in the screenshot above.)

But really, I like it! She looks more like a person, and her face is more defined and easier to read. For a game that relies so heavily on getting us to identify with its protagonist, that's a good thing.

Stray Notes On The Other New Features

The Definitive Edition adds a few other features to both versions, but they're all pretty skippable. Still, some impressions:

  • The game offers voice commands, which are activated through the Xbox One Kinect or PS4 Camera. I found the voice commands to be incredibly annoying in both versions, mostly because the game is far too sensitive. It kept pausing and unpausing as I spoke — the irony was my early exclamations about how good the game looked on PS4 caused it to freak out and pause. You can switch weapons or open the map with your voice, but who cares? After suffering through an hour of unintentional pausing and unpausing, I turned voice commands off for good.
  • The Xbox One version offers a humorously un-useful "alternate camera" trick that works with the Kinect. During some sequences, when a green camera icon pops up on screen, you can tilt your body to the side on the couch and view things from another angle. It's strange and awkward and pretty pointless, from what I've seen of it.
  • The PS4 version of the game also has some fun with the DualShock 4's light bar, making it flicker red and orange when Lara holds a torch and causing it to flash white every time she shoots a gun. It's… silly. It didn't really add immersion to the game or anything, and it probably caused my controller's battery to drain faster.
  • I should note that the PS4 version of the game has had a recurring technical issue for me, of the Error Code Ce-34878-0 variety. My save was never corrupted, but the game occasionally would crash or not load properly before giving me the error. It always has loaded fine after that, at least so far. Fingers crossed that keeps up. Since the error pops up on all manner of PS4 games, I get the sense that it's more Sony's issue than the fault of any specific game developer, but it still got me more than a few times.

So, there you have 'em — my (somewhat hurried, sorry!) impressions of Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition. It really is definitive, better-looking than it was on last-gen consoles or even PC. And if you're making a choice between the PS4 and Xbox One versions, the PS4 version easily wins out.

We'll have more on Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition soon.


    They redeveloped the entire game, how is this been compared to PC farely ffs

      But it was fair back when people were comparing the PC version to the PS3 /360 versions?

        well yeah because it was the same game.... the PC version is the same game as the PS3/360 version, this is now a redeveloped and tweaked version of the game, and if they released this version on PC it would still look better on PC if you had the right PC (the normal tomb raider version is pretty taxing on my mid-weight machine)

          It wasn't the same game. It was enhanced to take advantage of the additional power available on that platform. That's why it looked better.

            This has new textures, animations for environment etc. Diff ones to the pc. This makes it a different product based on that alone. If the pc version gets patched with those plus the extra animations etc you would have a level playing ground to compare. As of now though you dont.

              Other than the environmental effects the PS4 and Xbox One offer, as noted in this article, the game does not compare graphically. If you want to say the aesthetics make it better, so be it. But the PS4 nor the Xbox One can run the game on what are "Ultra" settings that can be run on a high end rig. That's aside from the impossibility of the consoles using the tressfx settings which most PCs cannot even run. Tomb Raider on PC is still used as a benchmark for the latest power video cards. If you were to take the textures from the PS4 to compare it to a high end PC, you'd see a huge difference still in favor of the PC version. The water effects (ocean waves, streams and waterfalls) are noticeably better on the PC version as examples. I will admit that having some of the environmental effects are a nice addition and especially Lara's updated looks, she looks awesome.

            The only thing the pc version has additionally to the console version is tresfx for amd cards, other than that it's the same game, the pc just takes it further.

              I'm relatively sure the def. ed has tressFX, at least in the PS4 screens I have seen. TBH though, IDK if this is one that I'll be grabbing. I feel that I got my worth out of the PC version. But it's great more people will get a better experience, especially with the PS4 version apparently chasing 60fps a lot of the time according to eurogamer.

          But pc has better specs back then and now. Why wasn't the original version the same or better than this?

        of course it was . They where released at the same time as the same game

      People on KOTAKU USA in the comments for this article have pointed out that the writer did not have real ULTRA for his PC picture. The author was involved in the discussion but when people started posting the exact same picture from the PC looking very different he dissapeared.

      Not even worth mentioning. PC is always superior if it's the same edition of a game. I don't even know why people compare pc and console. They are completely different to me. (Just my opinion) If I wanted the best graphics I would play pc. Game over. Fortunately I don't really care about that and I play consoles :)

      With respect, I think you completely missed the point of the comparrison.

    Rather sad their not offering a PC port as well - modern machines would be more than enough for it. The future of PC games is rather rosy - ports should be much better in the coming years when focus shifts from ps3/x360 to the ps4/xbone

    Atm the development focus seems to be still on x360/ps3 with visual gimmicks for the ps4/xbone versions (its just texture and post fx mainly) - after a couple of years most publishers are hopefully focused on the ps4/xbone.

    Personally i think the exclusives will be the first real demonstration, especially naughty dog (if its a PS4 exclusive and not available on ps3). Witcher 3 might be worthwhile too as it's not coming out on x360/ps3 to my knowledge.

      Actually to have it looking better than the current gen console your pc would have to be a monster, i doubt anything other than a 780ti or equiv would run it even near maxed at 30fps+.

      So your claim is just not true, since the % of people with that kind of rig is well you know like 1% it wouldn't be worth releasing (which is probably why they haven't).

      Last edited 26/01/14 11:09 am

        Not this again, potato. Your notions about PC graphics are absurd. Cross-platform engine benchmark information is becoming available, including one on texture generation that shows an entry level i7 CPU almost doubles the generation speed over the PS4 hardware. The graphics card in the PS4 is the equivalent of the HD7870, which the GTX780 doubles in performance.

        Last edited 26/01/14 10:51 am

        I think I've read some of your stupid comments before.. You really have no idea potato.

        Last edited 26/01/14 11:01 am

        "i doubt anything other than a 780ti or equiv would run it even near maxed at 30fps"
        Then obviously you've not checked the technical specs for the GPUs of the PS4/XBone. Here, I've done the work for you:

        Theoretical max throughput is 1.31Tflops for Xbone and 1.84Tflops for PS4.
        Even taking the higher of the two, that's comparable to a 660 or 7850/R9-270, both of which can be had for around $210-$250.

        Sorry, but your claim is just not true.

        Also, a redeveloped and remastered version of a game is better than the original version? Next you be telling me that Halo Remastered has a higher resolution and better visual fidelity than the original release. Saying the PC edition doesn't compare isn't really accurate because it's not been given the reworking that has been applied to this Definitive Edition.

          You guys are all so wrong it beggars belief. You go buy a pc with the exact specs of an xbox 360 and go get it to run crysis 3, yeah not going to happen is it. The pc likely wouldn't even run the windows 7 os, and by some miracle you got it to turn on, the pc wouldn't be able to render even half what the 360 version of crysis would look like.

          There is a reason consoles punch way above their weight, its the optimisation and the lack of a resource hogging OS. Every time i see a muppet try and claim otherwise and simply state a DIRECT comparison I laugh at their stupidity, because that is what it is.

          The same thing applies to the current gen, to get a pc to out put the the SAME graphical POTENTIAL as a XB1/ps4 that machine needs to EXCEED its base specifications. Simply looking at the GPU and saying 2T flops and then getting a 2T flop card won't give you the same experience The console will still out perform graphically. (Though this will be lessened by steam os but still not the same)

          It's the very reason the XB1 demo units were using Titans when the actual console wasn't available.

          For further proof.,3663-10.html?

          The OLD TOMB RAIDER manages 80 fps on 780ti, so yeah likely it would handle this remake on pc looking this good at 60, who knows. So yeah i overshot just a bit (It is the one of the top single gpu's after all), but the point still remains. To get this Definitive edition of Tomb raider looking as good or better on a PC than it does on the ps4 you would need a very high end machine. Which is only 1% of all computers, which likely makes it non profitable (I.e. the reason its not happening)

          You can try and argue this till your blue in the face, but I am right and your delusional crying won't change that. Goes for all above posters.

          Last edited 26/01/14 11:26 am

            you are correct wouldn't it be nice and simple if every argument over performance can be settled by comparing flops and transistors? unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Looking at the benchmarks for tressFX PC Tomb Raider on 1080p ultra it brings the most uber rig to its knees. PC game development needs all the extra horsepower because it is wasting so much having to cope seamlessly and without bugs, with everything from intel integrated graphic laptops all the way up to SLIs.

            Sure Tomb Raider Definitive could be coded to run at 60fps on a large noisy Titan rig at 1080p -- if running it on any other lessor PC can put up a message "Game will not run - buy a better PC". PC games are appallingly inefficient, and will remain so.

              my modest rig was completely unfased.

              I still don't know how they are still arguing against this point.

              Wtf are you talking about? I ran Tomb Raider EASILY and at high fps on ultra on my two year old build which was never any more than mid-range to begin with. You're an idiot, Potato is even worse.

              Last edited 28/01/14 3:11 pm

            Wouldn't run win7? Of courses not 360 has a triple core risk based CPU as far as I'm aware windows doesn't come out on PowerPC.
            There seems to be a Lott of statements made but no facts or reasoning to back it up.

              Well, no recent version of Windows runs on PowerPC. If you're willing to run Windows NT 4.0 though, you might be in luck. It ran on x86, Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC.

            Everything you say, without exception; is irrelevant.


            Comment was in moderation so long it's no longer relevant. -_-

            Last edited 27/01/14 10:42 pm

            There is simply no way this game would have any trouble running on an average gaming PC (78xx/660 or better). Most of the improvements you can see are simply because the newer consoles support way more effects due to them FINALLY supporting DirectX 11.2 or equivalent which finally puts them on par with the PC.

            This whole amazing optimization thing you are on about doesn't give you the massive benefit you seem to think. Sure you can get more out of the console but its not anywhere near as huge as you believe.

            If they actually developed this purely for PC it would put this definitive edition to shame.

              That was and never will be what the argument was about.

              No this was always about getting a pc to run this game to look as good or better than the current console versions. Which is almost impossible on anything outside a high end pc machine WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT.

              If's don't mean shit here either, whether or not they could make a pc only version and optimise it is not the argument either. (Hint it's impossible to optimise for all pc's, best you can hope for is a boost to a few cards and screws everyone else)

              I would also add the benefit of console is exactly as large as I'm stating, its why a pc with identical specs (OR PC equivalent parts) as a 360 wouldn't even run a windows 7 let alone run a single game on top of it. The more each of you try's to state how irrelevant this is when it is the EXACT point of the argument, the sillier you all look.

              Just in case people are confused too, current gen consoles are Ps4/Xb1, technically a wii U too I suppose.

              Last edited 27/01/14 11:13 am

                Just my two cents: I have an almost 10 year old laptop with "PC equivalent parts" to a 360, and it runs windows 7 be fair I don't run many games on it, but it certainly can run win 7 alright.

                  Bullshit, there is no way you are running Windows 7 'admirably' on 512MB of RAM...

                  @poita A less patient person may not describe it as 'admirable', but it does what I want it to do.

            potato, this is Kotaku. Some of the people here are current game developers, some like myself are former developers. You're not talking to a room full of 14 year old fanboys, you're talking to an audience that includes industry professionals. You really need to listen when people who are in a far greater position to know tell you that you're mistaken. I have former colleagues working on cross-platform engines right now that think you're an idiot.

              The only idoits here are the ones trying to claim exact parity between a console specs and a pc giving identical performance, which is you guys.

              Every argument i have had with you you try and claim otherwise, that there is no difference and that im talking out my ass which just makes you look like a muppet.

              All I have ever stated was that you can not do a direct comparison, which is 100% unequivocally true. Anyone who argues against that is just plain stupid. I also never said a mid range machine would be unable to play this game or that it would look bad.

              No, in fact, all I have ever said was that to get a PC to run a current gen console optimized game designed specifically for consoles and for that PC to run the game AND LOOK JUST AS GOOD. It needs to be a high end machine.

              Again you can not argue this point, it is true and there are no if's or buts. There will be a time when this isn't true (every generation this gap closes) But it is not now so why are you still arguing this point when you are wrong on every single level?

              Last edited 27/01/14 11:03 am

                You have serious comprehension issues, mate. Not a single person has mentioned exact parity except you, that's a strawman of your own construction. We're telling you the advantage to singular hardware distribution is nowhere near as significant as you think, and that even with that advantage, console hardware is still behind the curve compared to PC capabilities.

                "All I have ever stated was that you can not do a direct comparison, which is 100% unequivocally true", absolute bullshit. In this very thread you claimed that for a PC to look better than a current generation console it would need a GPU that nearly doubles the performance of console GPUs, and in the previous thread you made the easily falsifiable claims that you'd have to spend five times the cost of a console to get a PC capable of equal performance.

                I've worked with graphics rendering before, potato. I have at least a basic understanding of the pipeline and what's involved getting a scene rendered on-screen both in software and in hardware terms. I'm familiar with many of the bottlenecks that both hardware and software present. Are you? Do you actually know anything about how this stuff works before you run your mouth, insulting other people and telling everyone they're wrong and you're right?

                You tell me, in your own words, where you think the software bottlenecks are that hinder performance in PCs, and tell me to what extent those software bottlenecks affect GPU throughput. I'm a developer with past games experience, I will understand any technical answer you give me, so hit me. Give me your best explanation why at the technical level you think the software bottleneck is drastically higher in Windows machines than consoles.

                  Every new console release this happens. Somebody starts proclaiming the benefits of consoles over computers. For only a short time span, the honeymoon phase if you will, consoles sit on a throne, wearing a crown inscribed with "PC or better quality graphics and effects for a 1/4 of the cost, because we're optimized. We're not being bottle-necked by clunky OS".

                  I've grown tired trying to explain to these people that my Windows OS uses minimal hardware resources. That there online capable consoles (xbox360/ps3 onwards) are in fact running an OS with multiple applications running/sleeping in the background. That running Windows 7 on any computer that originally came with Windows XP is completely viable (turn off aero ;). That my computer may be what he calls 'the 1%'...

                  If Kingpotato's argument is that my computer is so expensive it places me in a "1%" club, then I will argue that Zombie Jesus is correct when he inflects that you are a 14 year old trying to convince other people of that age. Any student undertaking a bachelors or higher in computer arts will likely be amassing and/or paying off an immense government loan (granted for studies) and is also likely holding a part time job whilst living with parents. These are the people that work at your corner store, your fast food restaurants and retail outlets. They buy awesome rigs upwards of $2000 AUD, either laptop, PC or both.

                  You strike me as somebody that still tells his parents what he/she wants for Christmas. You only seem to bring facts to the argument that I can Google and likely find verbatim from other forums. You don't seem to have any technical insight to either platform (PC or Console).

                  I'm but a student of programming, freshly dipping my toes into the water; but even I can see that you don't ask the right questions or answer questions asked of you.

                  "You have serious comprehension issues, mate. Not a single person has mentioned exact parity except you, that's a strawman of your own construction. We're telling you the advantage to singular hardware distribution is nowhere near as significant as you think, and that even with that advantage, console hardware is still behind the curve compared to PC capabilities."

                  That is the exact opposite of what you have argued on your very first post and the last part isn't even the argument nor has it even been mentioned by either of us. Because Yes a very top of the line pc will outperform a console, but top of line does NOT= high end and that is still years away from being even close to regular mid range.

                  "The graphics card in the PS4 is the equivalent of the HD7870, which the GTX780 doubles in performance."

                  Key word there is Equivalent, yes in a basic comparison it could be a 7870, but it doesn't output the same as a 7870 would on a pc, which is the ENTIRE argument. Your single sentence both implies that it performs identically at its job to the PC version (It performs better), and that a 780 would be double that, which would be incorrect because the ps4 as I stated earlier punches above its weight.

                  Those words are talking about EXACT PARITY, you are implicitly stating that the ps4 gpu will not out perform its PC spec'ed equivalent and in fact that they are basically inter changeable.

                  This then implies that ANY pc part above said spec will out perform the ps4, which is also false.

                  This has nothing to do with me and everything to do with your poor choices of words. You keep thinking one thing and arguing another. I could tell you im a nasa engineer or a scientist trying to build a quantum computer and it would have just as much relevance as your "game designer friends" and claimed job. (Not that I don't believe you, it's just not part of the argument).

                  This isn't even about bottle necks either, each pc is different and trying to compare that is just stupid. It's not even so much about the windows os hogging all the resources comapred to a consoles, what it is about is optimisation.

                  Console games are programmed and designed with 1, count it 1 spec sheet, it doesn't have to play on a 6 yaer old GPU with a mish mash of ram cpu and OS configurations. No, it is one graphics card one cpu, one set of ram and a singular OS.

                  This is about this knowledge and how that helps game devs fine tune their games to take full advantage of every single facet of this configuration. The longer the console is around the better they get at this, as is evident between the likes of Gears 1 and gears 3.

                  But no matter how you try and spin it this makes its performance far greater than the simple sum of its parts. It's not a simple it has 2 T flops of GPu therefore it loses to the 2.5T flop PC card.
                  No this is about the fact that that PC card isn't optimised, it might use all its grunt at 40% efficiency compared to 60/70/80 of the consoles. 40% of 2.5 is really only 0.9, while even 60% of 2 is 1.2.

                  That is the point that was being made and it is undeniable, yet AGAIN and again everyone here is trying to argue that this isn't the case, that this is negligible and I honestly don't know why. Just because certain game developers can't optimise (cough cod ghosts) for a console doesn't change the basic facts.

                  So the end result is we have a game, Tomb raider redesigned, recoded to specifically take advantage of the current gen hardware ONLY (its not cross gen release and as such doesn't water itself down) and you somehow think that a some mid range pc will totally eclipse the end result, its sheer delusional.

                  Not going to post anymore because at this point if you still disagree you probably have some serious denial going on.

                  Last edited 29/01/14 10:07 am


                  See, this is exactly what I mean when I say you have reading comprehension issues.

                  "The graphics card in the PS4 is the equivalent of the HD7870, which the GTX780 doubles in performance."

                  What do the first three words say, potato? Does it say 'The system's output potential'? Does it say 'How the system performs under load'? No, I'm pretty sure it says 'The graphics card'. My statement was correct, the graphics card in the PS4 is the equivalent of the HD7870. At no point did I or anyone else here say the systems themselves had exact parity, that is and has always been a strawman of your own construction, which you continue to attack even when it's pointed out to you that it's a strawman. Try actually reading what's in front of you next time.

                  Last edited 29/01/14 11:13 am

                I'm still waiting for you to provide a technical explanation of why you think Windows graphics card performance is so bad it's less than half that of consoles on equivalent hardware. Are you going to present your evidence and explanation?

                Last edited 29/01/14 11:14 am

        My PC runs it on max everything except tressfx at 90+fps on a 690 running on a single core.

        has anyone actually considered that the PS4/XBONE aren't running on ULTRA settings @ 1920x1080?

          They aren't, judging by the texture quality comparison gif someone posted below. The console version has considerably lower quality environment textures.

    Really, arent we at the point where graphics are good enough for us to lose ourselves in a game world? I think this is a nice gesture for those who missed it first time around, but the original looked fine.

      I'm not buying a game that I just bought last year because it looks better. There are plenty of 'hd remakes' worth my time but this isn't one of them.

        Like what HD remakes? FFX and FFX-2? Its 2 months away. Kingdom hearts 2.5? Unknown ETA.

        Resident evil 4? Not out yet as well.

        Unless you mean self modded HD there isn't any worth the money right now.

          Wind Waker HD and Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate.

            Many people complained about wind waker HD due to the bloom and stuff and said it is worst than GC version. I kinda gave up when people complain about a HD port and expecting it to look like the original.

            Monster hunter 3 ultimate is not an exact HD remake but that is up to you. A few more come to my mind is ratchet HD mgs HD god or war HD and to be honest all those HD remakes looks terrible and I have not seen a true HD remake that is impressive except mods

              Yeah, personally I don't care for them at all. I do think Wind Waker looks worse than the original (I don't expect the same, I expect better), and I have no interest in buying it again nor MH3 because I already spent enough time on both those games, there's no need for me to play them again when I have so many other unplayed games to get through instead. But others seems to really like them, so hey :P

              Metroid Zero Mission is the best remake of all time. Star Fox 64 3D is pretty rad too, I'd rate it above OoT 3D.

        I almost bought this last year but didn't get around to it - looking at this ill wait till I get a next gen console now because the difference is noticeable

    The Definitive Edition looks great. I may have to pick it up on PS4 when I get one.

      This is pretty much my position on the matter, too.

    Lara's thumb position in the bottom images is really bothering me. I can't look away.

    Last edited 26/01/14 11:03 am

    Interesting to see how the extra development time has translated into superior versions compared to the PC port..... That alone is tempting me to re-buy it.

    "My frame-rate obsession borders on unhealthy, so this stuff makes a difference to me. Will it matter to you? Well, it depends on how much you care about frame rate."

    I must admit I am like this as well. Resolution I don't really care about, especially when the reason for the lower res is to keep the framerate at 60; but having a game at 30fps is a different story. In saying that though, there are console games that don't feel 30fps, even though they are running at that; so will have to wait and see what people say I guess.

      It depends alot on the animation and what is happening on screen.

      If you get some really complex movements, even at 30, you can just tell they don't look right compared to a simple movement.

    "For once , the PC the version comes in third"

    Yeah no

    This is a really biased article when it comes to comparing the Definitive to the PC version. I'm not going to say 'DURRR PC IS BETTER. MASTA RACE 4 LYFE', as both versions look good in their own right, but if you're going to compare, at least run the game on true Ultra settings.

    Here is a good:

    If I had a PS4, though, I would get this new version to support Crystal Dynamics and Nixxes (who did the Deus Ex: HR, Hitman: Absolution and Tomb Raider PC ports)

    I've now seen enough to warrant buying this a second time.

    I'm not sure I liked the fact they changed her face....

      I don't like her new face at all. She looks like a completely different person. Who has anger issues.

    Two things here:

    1) I think it's ridiculous that PS4 can roughly DOUBLE the frame rate of an Xbox One (I say 'roughly' because the Xbox One can go slightly above 30fps in a non-complex scene, and the PS4 can dip slightly below 60fps in a complex scene). Nowhere in the last generation did we see this kind of discrepancy unless it was a rare event with the likes of Bayonetta, where the coding on the PS3 was abysmal, resulting in catastrophic frame rate loss on a regular basis. I know on average the Xbox360 had more reliable and more consistent frame rates in multiplatform games, but nothing like a DOUBLING of average frame rates.

    2) People are kidding themselves if they think the PC platform couldn't handle this 'definitive edition'. Crystal Dynamics have done a good job with making this Tomb Raider reboot (so no disrespect intended), but it's pretty obvious that this was planned from day one, for them to squeeze every last dollar out of this game by tweaking it for the next gen consoles. The only way they could justify full price for this definitive edition was to make it unlike the experience on ANY platform previous to this release. My PC can handle a constant 60fps with full settings enabled on Tomb Raider without breaking a sweat. I'm sure a few tweaks here and there wouldn't change that.

      In response to the discrepancy between the One and the PS4, the major issue is the RAM they're packing. The PS4 uses GDDR5 RAM (very powerful) while the One is using DDR3 RAM (not so powerful). The One has a small cache of eSRAM (I think 32mb) which is supposed to offset this but I don't think developers know how to use it yet. The gap between console versions will close over time as developers get used to the hardware.

      In response to everyone wanting the definitive edition on PC: Come on, seriously? I bought the game for PC last year and it looked amazing. It still looks amazing on PC. So what if consoles get 1 game that has a better version? Good for them! I'm glad they can have a taste of what it's like to have a superior version of a game on their system. For folks on PS4 especially, cherish 60fps while you can because that is not a trend that will stick as the generation progresses.

      Last edited 26/01/14 9:31 pm

        Oh, I am well aware of the differences in the two consoles, and RAM is not the only contributing factor here. The GPU is also more powerful on the PS4 than it is on the Xbox One. Microsoft, in the final yard before the finish line, went ahead and increased the clock speed of the CPU by 150 MHz, and also increased the GPU by 53 MHz, realising its disadvantage in hardware. Problem is that the 53 MHz increase on Xbox One's GPU (with 12 compute units - 768 shader processors) doesn't come close to offsetting the muscle advantage in PS4's GPU (18 compute units - 1152 shader processors). So ESRAM or no ESRAM, the Xbox One's architecture isn't always going to have a work around or an answer to performance advantages found on Sony's console. Not only that, around10% of Xbox One's GPU's time is dedicated to functions on the OS level, particularly Kinect tracking (you know, that thing that no one really wanted to have with Microsoft's next generation console) ... so the GPU is even further crippled.

        And as far as the PC version of Tomb Raider ... I did enjoy the game at full settings, and I don't really think that this definitive version looks much better ... in fact I think there are aspects of the tweaking, especially in Lara's face, that make it look kind of worse. All I was saying is that some people are saying that these tweaks were only possible on the next gen consoles, which you and I both know is just pure BS. But you are right about people on PS4 cherishing 60fps while they can, because if right now that target is a struggle to obtain, then it's only going to get harder and harder. There is no overly 'unique' architecture for developers to get their heads around. There are no more excuses. This is the generation we are going to be stuck with for the next 8 - 10 years.

          Erm, no. Just no.
          If anything the graphics and frame rates will get faster over time on the PS4. Dev kits get better, engines better optimized and the programmers develop better routines as they get experience on the platform. Look at the release games on the original xbox vs say Doom3 towards the end of the little celeron powered machine's life.
          You could make the argument that is too was just a PC running direct X so the graphics and frame rates shouldn't have improved over time. They did, and massively so. The same will be true again with the PS4. The Xbox one is on the back foot though, will be interesting to see wether they can overcome the memory speed disadvantage plus the processor hobbled by kinect. They are going to need some hot exclusives this time around. Titan fall won't do it, the PC version will probably be a better buy.

            Yeah, OK, there might be a gradual increase with programmers squeezing out every technique to make the most of dedicated hardware, but that will reach a peak and drop off ... it's DEDICATED hardware, it's going to reach a ceiling (otherwise what would ever be the point in making new hardware/consoles). And this dedicated hardware is already well behind what is available for PC, where in the past the hardware found in consoles was reasonably respectable ... so it's already behind the 8 ball. I'm guessing the 60fps @ 1080p will start dropping off within 3 years unless they seriously start gimping advanced graphical features found on PC ports.

            And Doom 3 is a poor example on orignal xbox ... it's target frame rate of 30fps was not locked and it faltered in places (plus it was a heavily watered down port). A quote from wikipedia: "However, some criticism was directed towards slow-downs in play due to the game engine, despite being scaled down for the Xbox, still being demanding on the Xbox hardware."

            Last edited 27/01/14 1:42 am

              To be fair the 360/PS3 were worse than a high end PC of the time as well.

                Yeah, I won't dispute that. At least the PS3's GPU was just as powerful as a 7800GTX, which is what I think I had around the time of it's release (at least it seemed like it was trying to reach a little higher). This time around it's a different story altogether ... a 7790 and 7870 equivalent? That was mid range at best a generation ago. Although I can remember the amount of RAM in the 7th generation of consoles being on the low side and surprising people. Oh well, you have to make sacrifices somewhere for the price of the consoles. At least the PS4 doesn't cost more than $900 like the PS3 did when it released here in Australia.

              But you are right about people on PS4 cherishing 60fps while they can, because if right now that target is a struggle to obtain, then it's only going to get harder and harder.

              This is what I took issue with, it is unlikely that the games that come out in a year won't be graphically much more superior and have better performance all round than the launch titles.

              Sure, there is an eventual performance cap, but over the lifespan the games tend to get better, as with a fixed hardware platform, they can optimise it over time, and the dev tools get better over time as well. Stating that because launch titles struggle to get 60fps that it will be harder to maintain that quality over time doesn't seem to make sense.

              See here:

                This is true, but it's still a worry for the future of games with complex scenes on both consoles. I imagine if the X360 was capable of running 60fps, even late period games like GTA5 would likely still have run at 30 to try to maximise the scene complexity.

    Dammit, I didn't want to buy this again... pretty excited now though.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now