Tomb Raider - Rise of the Raider PC

Yeah the performance has definitely improved in the big open areas, more consistent now. I still feel that it could be better though.... Hopefully the dx 12 patch will see a big boost in fps.
 
As someone who loves the tombraider games especially the 2013 flavor ( finished it 4 times maybe 5 ) i really am looking forward to being able to afford a copy of this. Just curious however as some of you guys will probably be able to answer for me.

How long does the game take to complete if just following story
Roughly how much performance difference is there compared to the 2013 game as my system is pretty diabolical.
How big roughly is the download.

Thanks a lot :) trying my best to avoid any spoilers at all. I don't even know where the game is set this time around. Not seen a single image from it. Hope to keep it that way ^^
 
Nexus18 said:
Yeah the performance has definitely improved in the big open areas, more consistent now. I still feel that it could be better though.... Hopefully the dx 12 patch will see a big boost in fps.
Click to expand...

How do you come to the conclusion that it could be better? Just because a game runs poorly, doesn't mean it's badly optimised. Some things just take lots of computing power and there's no obvious way around that. Also, I think people have a bad habit of slamming every graphical setting to its max and expecting perfect performance. You only need to reduce a few settings to get a significant improvement in performance for a marginal reduction in perceived image quality. This is not to say that the max settings are useless, it's probably a case that the improvements are so fine that you are simply are not noticing the increase in detail. This could be for variety of reasons (e.g. your screen resolution is too low to capture the increase detail). Of course, it could also be an issue that is specific to your system, but most people seem to be happy with the performance.

Anyway, just finished it and I'd give it a solid 9/10. So glad they kept to the same formula as the previous game and just made small improvements everywhere. Story was also engaging and well developed. Things I didn't like were that I actually thought the game was too short, well at least the main campaign anyway and especially the firefights. I think the core game was good enough to accommodate a much longer and fleshed out campaign without becoming boring or repetitive. For the next game they should do away with all the extra crap (expeditions, leaderboards, marketplace, etc) and expand the main campaign and playable areas. Even adding more side missions would be better.

Can't wait till the next one! Some more pics.

Lr8pAnq.jpg

H6zRVil.jpg

bWUCwuw.jpg

J1Vni7y.jpg

fmWJIg1.jpg

Z6RYg80.jpg

nmlTqJR.jpg
 
It is indeed a superb game, well optimised in general and the bugs that did exist are actively being patched as evidenced by 2x patches already out. The latest has improved outdoor performance and I game with everything maxed anyway - Happy!
 
titaniumx3 said:
How do you come to the conclusion that it could be better? Just because a game runs poorly, doesn't mean it's badly optimised. Some things just take lots of computing power and there's no obvious way around that. Also, I think people have a bad habit of slamming every graphical setting to its max and expecting perfect performance. You only need to reduce a few settings to get a significant improvement in performance for a marginal reduction in perceived image quality. This is not to say that the max settings are useless, it's probably a case that the improvements are so fine that you are simply are not noticing the increase in detail. This could be for variety of reasons (e.g. your screen resolution is too low to capture the increase detail). Of course, it could also be an issue that is specific to your system, but most people seem to be happy with the performance.
Click to expand...

Of course not but given that there are a few other games out there that run far better on max settings and are arguably better looking i.e. the division beta & assassins creed syndicate as well as taking into account that they are FAR more open as well as having a lot more going on in the game world, more so ass. creed syndicate.... I think this game in comparison is lacking big time for the performance. Of course, completely different games and different game engines but either way, my point still stands especially if you take battlefront into the equation, easily the best looking game to date imo (especially for textures) and it runs so damn well.

Even with EVERYTHING set to low/off on my pc, the game looks considerably worse and still runs worse than the above games on max settings, this was before the patch so perhaps it is better now although I can't see it being much better:

oWyt2W5.png
Maybe it is my system but given the amount of steam threads and posts on other forums ****ging performance of in the open areas with lowered settings, even on systems way more powerful than mine, I think it is safe to say it is simply a case of most people being easily pleased or not noticing/being prone to low FPS.

And yes, perhaps it is my system for whatever reason although given that the last patch has fixed the constant crashing as well as improving the performance stability, I think it is also safe to say the problem was on the game's end.... otherwise I would still have my FPS fluctuating from sub 20's to high 50's regardless of settings and still be crashing every 5-10 minutes.....
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
I just think a bunch of people have system configs that don't play ball with some games is all :p
Click to expand...

Yup no doubt something going on!

As mentioned earlier on, batman arkham knight ran really well for me with kaiden's tool but for the vast majority, they still had non stop crashing and crap performance, come the 3rd/4th patch, it breaks my game but fixes the game for the majority of other people :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom