The user has closed his/her account. The user is not active anymore.

EXVirtual (User)

  • Contributor
  • 5 bubbles
  • 5 in CRank
  • Score: 32320

Oh noes! It's 30 frames per second!!

EXVirtual | 677d ago
User blog

Recently, Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition was condfirmed to run at 1080p 30fps on the PS4 and XBO. I expected this considering how quiet the devs were about frame-rate. What I wasn't expecting was the reaction.

Obviously, the game is not worth $60, especially for the people who have already played Tomb Raider. Having said that, I have no idea why people are getting so angry from this news. Most people who had anything to say about this port said that they're not interested, from the second it was officially announced at the VGX. So why are people complaining about 30fps for a game which the vast majority don't care about and doesn't need to be 60fps to be good to begin with?

Don't get me wrong, 60fps isn't bad in any sense of the word, but I can only think of 3 genres that need 60fps in order to be good. Fighters, racers and first-person shooters.

Having said all of that, who's to blame for this game not being 60fps? The developers.
At the beginning of a new generation of consoles, developers tend to use brute force with the new hardware they're using. For example, Call of Duty Ghosts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the minimum requirements of the PC version of COD Ghosts included 6GB of RAM.
To my knowledge very few PC games use more than 4GB of RAM and are much more demanding than COD Ghosts in all sorts of ways. That's due to optimization. Keep in mind that the PC isn't even optimized for gaming.

We're talking about a game that is coming out just 2 months after the launch of the PS4 and XBO and is a last generation port. In this scenario, developers will definitely take the easy route and be lazy. It's just a cash grab. They're targeting the people who have not played Tomb Raider and people who want to experience it again with the new consoles.

You can't expect me to believe that this last gen game that ran fine on 256MB of RAM is struggling to run at 60fps on the PS4 and XBO which use 6.5gb and 5gb respectively.

Sometimes, it depends on the developer. Example? Tomb Raider: DF was confirmed to be running at 1080p 30fps, but Yakuza Ishin (also an open world game) was confirmed to be running at native 1080p @ 60fps on the PS4.

Like I said before, this is a bit of an over-reaction. One guy on YT said that he's never buying a game if it's 30fps. Why would you let frame-rate be the only reason don't buy a game? Especially with a game like Tomb Raider. Not saying everyone is complaining like this, just Saiyan.

If you don't like the fact that they're charging 60 bones for a game that's almost a year old and running at 30fps, wait until the price goes down. And trust me, it will go down, very soon. Speak with your wallet, not just with your keyboard.

And if you didn't care about the game in the first place, why even bother complaining?

Thanks for reading, guys. I hope you enjoyed this blog. What are your thoughts? Sound off in the comments.

dedicatedtogamers  +   677d ago
Good blog. This whole issue of framerate has a lot of facets. I don't think it's overblown. But I don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be. Let me explain:

If you're buying a console, you expect quality. One of the biggest problems with the 360/PS3 is that - in order to continue increasing graphical fidelity - cuts were often made. And framerate was what typically took a hit. There are people (and no, not just PC snobs) who want that to stop.

So when people hear 30fps, they have a knee-jerk reaction. "What? Only 30fps? What crap is this?" Framerate and resolution (720p vs 1080p) are the new "jaggies and texture quality" from last-gen.
EXVirtual  +   677d ago
When I say that the frame-rate debacle is overblown, I mean for this game specifically.

I understand that quality is expected when you buy a console (applies to me too), but some people have very unrealistic expectations. For example: 'The PS4 and XBO should be powerful enough to run all games at 1080p 60fps throughout the gen at the price of 400-$500!'
dedicatedtogamers  +   677d ago
Ah, I see what you mean. Thank you for clarifying.
pandehz  +   677d ago
Devs should just create a gamedev union like we have in film.

They can allot the graphics quality level of a game and all games will not exceed that just to maintain 60fps.

One big issue will be watching the pc videos.

Bam again the whining will start.

I think PC has made console gamers demand more without any understanding of their own demands.
#1.1.2 (Edited 677d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report
The_KELRaTH  +   673d ago
Irrespective of what PC hardware can do this new generation of consoles should foremost offer no more non native modes so that means 1080p 60fps.
If there's an effect missing that's on the PC so what but just make sure the texture fidelity are sharp and clear.
Unless console gamers keep making a lot of noise about this I feel the PS4 and X1 will go exactly the way the PS3 did with most multiplatform games trying to emulate the PC effects at a cost of texture detail and game performance.
Crazyglues  +   677d ago
I just feel like if you couldn't get 60 fps then you really didn't do much work at all... Definitive edition my A$$, more like they just got the PC version to run on nex gen, and then they changed the color so you would think some real work was actually done..

60 bucks for that... you gotta be kidding me.. I'm just surprised people really think they went in and really did something.. -yeah ok - it's a graphics bump. period, no new story, no new maps, no new enemies, not even new guns.. please tell me again whats so definitive about this one..

sorry gonna pass on this..

||.........___||............ ||
#2 (Edited 677d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(9) | Report | Reply
pandehz  +   677d ago
Lol you have no clue.

The PS4 hardware is slightly weaker than my 2 yr comp at the moment and basically I had trouble getting my game to run at max settings with hair fx on and getting about 35fps.

If this definitive edition has even better graphics n such then 30fps at 1080p kinda makes sense.

Their engine is also a factor, maybe it has limitations and redoing an entire engine may not be the best business decision either.

If you enjoyed Uncharted and many other games this shouldn't be a problem.
#2.1 (Edited 677d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
GarrusVakarian  +   676d ago
"If you enjoyed Uncharted and many other games this shouldn't be a problem."

Crazyglues  +   676d ago
@ Pandehz

I think you guys are missing my point, I understand your PC reference, and how a high-end PC can have trouble running it past 35fps..

-but I was just saying that I don't see the work, I don't see the real work put into the game to justify a $60 dollar price tag.

if they in-fact had 60fps at 1080p like BF4 I would have said wow, amazing - they didn't
if they would have added new enemies, new maps, more story, something...

all they did is bump up graphics--

So here we have Battlefield 4 upgrade to the HD version for 10 dollars..

Then we have Call of duty Ghost upgrade to the HD version for 10 dollars..

Assassin Creed 4 upgrade to the HD version for 10 bucks...

--------------------------- Then you have Tomb Raider the Definative version - A.K.A - HD version for $60 bucks (60 bucks?)

What did you do different from BF4, COD, AC4 - it sounds like you went in and made the game HD and while you where there you changed the color tone and added the hair Tressfx (A graphic effect update) so it will make hair look more real- So it gives a new look.. they didn't create it, they just added the effect to the game.

That's a 60 dollar upgrade -- Are you kidding me?

I don't doubt it's a good game, and that if you liked Uncharted you will enjoy the game. I just don't like when game companies insult my intelligence and act like there is something really amazing here - when it's really the same game with an HD update.

||.........___||............ ||
#2.1.2 (Edited 676d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(3) | Report
Army_of_Darkness  +   676d ago
GOd of war 1-2 HD collection was 1080p @60fps on ps3 for a game that was made for the ps2....
Now your telling me the developers of tomb raider was incapable of producing a game that was made for last gen consoles couldn't enhance the overall game to 1080p @60fps on the PS4?? LOL! that's complete bullshit and unacceptable considering the price tag and capability of the PS4.
and like I said before, 60fps makes any game from "any genre" look and run that much better and you have to be blind to not notice it.
pandehz  +   676d ago

I dont mean to attack you but your ignorance is astounding.

PS2 to PS3 leap in tech <--------------------->

went from few hundred megahertz to 3ghz, if you have any clue you'd stop commenting bs.

PS3 to PS4 leap in tech <-------->
Here not that big of difference, significant but not like making crysis 1 run maxed out 60fps with 3d on or anything.

Not exactly but relative if you know what I mean.
Also an HD conversion is way different. HD ports are nowhere as good graphically as actual games of that gen.SOme textures, models, some polishing here and there done. Did Halo Anniversary actually look anywhere close to Halo 4?

Btw dont teach me about being blind to 60fps. Thats the only way I play on PC so yea ZIP IT

Also the best way to compare would be the PC version and thats just what I just said if you read carefully . I mean READ CAREFULLY.

#2.1.4 (Edited 676d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report
Army_of_Darkness  +   676d ago
PC versions Obviously look better than the console versions, that's a given.
So you're telling me that after playing killzone shadow fall, you seriously think the PS4 is incapable of running Tomb raider at 1080p@ 60fps?? LOL! I'm no expert, but I certainly think it's possible. Especially if it's a last gen port priced at $60.
What your basically telling me is the ps4 is only capable of going from 720p-->1080p for last Gen ports?? and that's all it can achieve due to the slight next gen tech improvement?? LOL! I don't think so. I'm sure the choice was made because of the developers themselves, not because the ps4 couldn't achieve it.

BTW, if you see the difference from 30fps to 60fps because that's all you apparently game with, why would you have an issue with me wanting 60fps for tomb raider?....
Playing it on a 120hz HDTV is as close of an experience that I can get to playing TR@ 60fps and it looks so much better and smoother which is why I would have bought it again if it was 1080p@ 60fps on the ps4. But it's NOT therefore it's not the definitive version to pay full price for.
Irishguy95  +   675d ago
Army of darkness, Ps2 - Ps3 does not compute with this game

This game had 2 versions. The crap versions(console ones), and the Version that was pretty much next gen - PC version. Whats coming out on the Ps4 is the PC version with some tweaks.

It's the same thing as BF4 which is on X360, X1 and PC. BF4 is a next gen game thats drops alot of **** to be on the 360
The_KELRaTH  +   673d ago
I did enjoy Uncharted but could have done without some of the screen tearing that used to occur on some of the faster moving sections.
the_hitman3000  +   677d ago
I'm not defending them but I believe we should actually see the game in action not in a trailer to really judge its graphics. I'm not saying to by it but to just see how it really looks before we get all bent out of shape anyways.
Software_Lover  +   677d ago
My only response is........... if people think they can do better, then they should go out and do it.

I'm not saying every game or dev should just get a pass when they don't meet certain standards, but the internet has made our culture seem like the biggest whiners in the history of mankind.

Some things we should fuss about. Expensive and ridiculous DLC. The pay to win format. Multiplayer passes. Game breaking glitches. Etc Etc.

30fps? Last gen was the first gen I could remember where people actually cared about that. I never talked about it at all and I'm mainly a pc gamer.
_QQ_  +   677d ago
Sure it doesn't need 60fps, as long as you are fine with admitting that it is in fact NOT the definitive version.
#5 (Edited 677d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
EXVirtual  +   677d ago
Ok, it's not the definitive version. Don't know why the word definitive being on the box is such a big deal though. It's just marketing. Btw, did you read the entire blog?
#5.1 (Edited 677d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
_QQ_  +   677d ago
My comment wasn't really directed to you as much it was a statement where "you" would be anyone who says framerates don't apply when deciding what a "definitive version" of a game is.

I did read it, and i agree that some devs can be lazy, but this isn't a ps3 game running on a ps4, Not only are textures reworked but they added dynamic lighting, AA, hair physics. pretty much the PC version with some different textures and character model.

personally i think the port itself is horse, but i don't think its a lazy job.

Also i haven't looked into Yakuza, but i doubt it looks as visually impressive as tomb raider. Not saying the PS4/xone aren't strong enough. But It is possible that tomb raider is more demanding.
beatled  +   677d ago
got the definitive edition for $7.50 on steam a long time ago

1440p native at 60 frames for the price of a beer in a bar
ExCest  +   677d ago
Holy crap beer is expensive.
SlapHappyJesus  +   676d ago
It's the truth though.
I grabbed the game for $20 maybe a month or two after it came out and I never once had to deal with the limitations that you are seeing with the port.
That's my issue with the 'Definitive Edition'. I know it is just marketing, but it is jackass marketing aimed at presenting the content as more than it is.
wishingW3L  +   677d ago
a last gen game that can't achive 60 frames on a next-gen console... =/
MysticStrummer  +   677d ago
Your comment only makes sense if it's a straight port from last gen, which it's not.
memots  +   677d ago
How could I ever have enjoyed , the last of us, uncharted , god of war , halo , gears of war , bayoneta, tomb raider , deus ex. Splinter cell , ac3/4, dishonored, infamous, super Mario 3d, metroid prime .... They're only 30fps ..

I feel dirty just at the thought of me enjoying those lesser games.


#8 (Edited 677d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
MrBrookwood09  +   675d ago
God of War games on PS3 actually ran at an unlocked frame rate :D BTW
memots  +   674d ago
still wasn't the elitist required 60 fps.

Somehow if a game doesn't reach 60fps its not next gen or its going to get trolled.
isarai  +   676d ago
30fps is fine for the vast majority of games, 60fps is just a luxury for anything that isn't a super fast paced game requiring split second reflexes/actions. and game on PC all the time with 60+fps, still doesn't bother me one bit going back to 30. sure as hell hasn't bothered me in the hundreds of games i've played over the past 20years, nor has it made any game less enjoyable
SlapHappyJesus  +   676d ago
Honestly, outside of just the feel of 60 (though I disagree and feel that a 60+ framerate aids all but a small amount of genres), there is also the visual boost that comes with gaming at 60 frames or higher.
e-p-ayeaH  +   676d ago
Definite edition should be more than just graphical enchancements that´s where the framerate comes in.
#10 (Edited 676d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Bladesfist  +   676d ago
I think it depends on what you are used to. I have been gaming at 1080p / 60 fps for a long time now and playing at something worse than that feels wrong. Not to mention non native resolutions look like carp on most monitors. I find 30 fps to be unplayable, especially when it dips.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login