Rise of the Tomb Raider is Coming to PC in 2016

Can people please stop complaining about the graphics? The game still has 6-9 months at least of development and I am sure that at this stage they are not releasing a fully 'turned up' version of the game.

Jeese, please have some common sense.

 

Regardless of this being a PC forum, everyone's allowed to discuss the gfx if they feel they have something to say. Yeah, the game has a few more months of additional dev time, so what? That doesnt make it exempt from criticism and really, the gfx are not going to change that much within the next few months. The majority of the overall visuals/engine will have already been finalized and the devs wouldn't have shown whats completed so far if they felt is was too far from the final product. This isnt ubisoft after all.

 

Lets be real here. While solution may not be looking as best on market (there is only one at a time). It will run without dropping fps to +-30 range (or worse) unlike nVidia solution.
And it will run on consoles.
So, it is either solution available for 10% of people with strong nVidia's hardware, or it is bit inaccurate but still acceptable (since it is not game about making snow angels) and running on 80~90% of gaming hardware today.

 

Not finalized yet .... so just for the moment, lets not judge it by the demo of the E3.. I think they use something similar to Pixar .. ( Who use Bullet OpenCL like all 3D software ( Blender, Maya, 3Dmax,pixar,. etc ).

offtopic, but I really dont understand why Bullet OpenCL is not used much in gaming, when every 3D softwares for creates games, movies, animation are using it for phsyic and particules simulation..

Lets not forget too it was a Xbox demo..

 

I liked TR 2013, but i purchased it on sales, and i plan do the same with this one. Good game remains good, so there is no rush for me to play them all on launch.

 

Pretty sure both of my examples just used tessellation so nothing fancy or specific to Nvidia, did they leverage it because AMD sucked at tessellation sure but that is no different to how AMD starting filling everything with compute effects (Hitman, Sleeping Dogs, Dirt etc.) because Kepler sucked at it so lets keep stupid fanboy stuff out of this discussion please :bang:.

Anyway I guess given the definitive editions also didn't use tessellation like the PC version that's why it's not used for the snow here as they don't have the power. Still I hope they change it as it looks like the sand effect from Uncharted 3 rather than snow and isn't actually compressing it but just moving the effect around the character, but the console version of Arkham Origins still looks better without tessellation.....

I can't remember the last time a AAA game released with better graphics than what was shown in previews, they either stay the same or get downgraded so I think it's perfectly fair to judge the graphics.

Also were it not for the fact it went exclusive I wouldn't even bother questioning it but they claimed the deal was to make a better game and so far the gameplay looks like the same thing and graphically it's the same marginal gains it would have achieved as a same day multi-platform release so forgive me for being critical when someone tries to feed me BS.

 

Thank you for calling me stupid and fanboy in one sentence. At least we know how nice you are.
But that does not change fact that AMD's effects are not making games unplayable on nVidia hardware. Nor they are preventing working implementation on consoles.

 

Guru3D has become a magnet for ill informed fools

 

You know the reason why im not much post anything here since a while so..

 

Umm, no I didn't I said let's keep stupid fanboy arguments out of the discussion which is very different to saying you are a stupid fanboy, I have no interest in it, nor is it relevant. Now I'll assume English is not your first language and thus you interpreted it differently so I will let it slide.

I will however humour you once because perhaps in your revisionist history AMD are the good guy but it wasn't so long ago they were top dog and doing the same exclusive crap. They still do something very similar now as I pointed out with the compute effects as Nvidia initially did with tessellation in stuff like HAWX and Crysis 2 and by the way tessellation is not exclusive to Nvidia so I don't know why you keep bringing up PhysX effects only working on Nvidia.

Like I said before the reason AMD sucked at tessellation and games that used it heavily with the 6000 series is the same reason Nvidia sucked at compute with Kepler because the architectures weren't designed around it and so when each helped implement it in sponsored games the other had bad performance. Guess what that competition now means that both are much better at tessellation and compute which is a win/win for everyone.

You talk about PhysX effects like they don't also have bad performance on Nvidia hardware at the time too because they are just bolted on as an after thought. You seem to think Nvidia owners love it being exclusive when in fact any level headed person can see it helps no one because instead of all the cool effects being implanted directly into the game for everyone and creating cool gameplay experiences nobody gets anything meaningful or it running as well as it could. That being said they are now licensing it to run on consoles too because they are panicking about compute physics taking over but unfortunately for them their poor vision we be the end of PhysX.

It obviously bothers you a lot not getting to use all the pretty effects but let me assure you that you're not missing much outside of a some added visual flair with major framerate drops with low GPU utilisation for no reason in most implementations of it.

Moral of the story is don't believe any PR BS you read, they are both in the business of making money, nothing more nothing less and they will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal.

 

Looks interesting, very good GFX too! Can't wait.

 

Kind of ironic that both of your posts add nothing to the discussion, like the 'ill informed' you speak of! ;-) But also let's be clear that this post of mine probably does not either!

 

trash to trash:

Spoiler

A lot of text, you extrapolate a lot out of thin air. Yet, you think that someone who does stupid fanboy argument (as you called it) is not stupid fanboy (But maybe English is only language where this does not apply since Englishmen are so polite...). I made that reply mostly as a joke.
And with that much extrapolation you made out of nothing, can you write my proper answer to your post and then answer once more to your own post? Kind of like playing chess with yourself. I do not think so.

If you knew how many explosions and shots I have seen, you would not think that I am missing anything on PhysX, because it spits magnitude more particles out of nothing than real world explosions. (with exception of blowing up fine dust/sand)

And the rest, I do not even care about your opinion about old AMD vs nVidia performance in games. I have been there and had chance to code some of those things. What allowed that will be here no more thanks to Vulkan, with DX12 I am not sure yet.

To topic: Nothing can change fact that it is better to have bit worse universal effect than bit better one which will run only on 10% of hardware properly.

 

Actually AMD's effects aren't particularly exclusive given the fact they leverage DirectCompute which is a standard part of the DX API. Nvidia is not locked out of adhering/optimizing to the standard. Gameworks is round-about way of locking out any chance of allow the competition to optimize. GPU accelerated Physx is completely proprietary, locked down to Nvidia GPUs, and further locks out AMD GPUs if you wanted to use an Nvidia card just for physx. Nvidia supported games that crank tessellation beyond what is actually meaningful to the end user is cheap and blatantly harmful. Nvidia harms it own users some, just to know it can do even more damage to the competition. You don't have to be a 'fanboy' to acknowledge a history of anti-consumer behavior.