Pc version big difference?

#1 Posted by Carryboy (880 posts) -

Hey Duders was hoping to pick this up today after work but not sure whether i should get the pc version or the Xbox version. My PC is capable of running the game on max but as i will be playing with a controller I prefer usually to play on console. So my question is is the graphical upgrade over the Xbox version large or is it only slight and how is the hair?

#2 Edited by zenmastah (1058 posts) -

Yes, no and the hair is fabulous.

Plus of course you can use your controller to play the game on PC just fine.

If however you have nVidia card theres no good drivers atm cos Nixxus forgot to send the game over to nVidia, so the fabulous hair cost fair amount of frames and tesselation out of the gate will most likely cause crashes.

AMD cards seem to work just fine though.

I played it thru without the fab hair and tesselation and enjoyed it very much, will do a second run downsampled when Nixxus and nVidia sort things out to get the maximum glory out of it.

#3 Edited by handlas (2910 posts) -

The hair is so ugly that it's not worth having on anyway tho. So...take that! I don't need ur stupid hair!

Looks great on PC. I can't run it smoothly on "Ultimate" but it runs fine on "Ultra." (There's Low / Medium / High /Ultra /Ultimate)

For whatever reason it gets the most framey during cutscenes. It's better when you are actually playing. If you have a PC capable of playing on at least High then I don't see why you would consider getting it on a console especially if the reason is the controller... just get a Xbox controller for ur PC.

#4 Edited by psylah (2273 posts) -

In Dog's Life 2 you play as an Afghan hound with TressFX.

#5 Posted by Carryboy (880 posts) -

@zenmastah: @handlas:

Thanks for the response, its worse I already have a xbox 360 pc controller, i just feel weird sat at a chair using it. I would hook the pc up to my tv but it doesn't fill out the whole screen when playing games. Just wanted to make the sure the improvement was say sleeping dogs console to pc rather then dishonered where it looks only a little nicer.

#6 Posted by cloudnineboya (941 posts) -

@zenmastah: what is all this downsample you keep going on about in different threads?

#7 Posted by zenmastah (1058 posts) -
#8 Posted by thetenthdoctor (303 posts) -

I have an older system and still play this at a mixture of high/ultra settings. Looks way better than a console, and you can get your PC to fill the TV by changing your resolution settings and playing fullscreen instead of windowed.

Best part is you can use GMG's 20% off code to get it for $40 vs $60 on a console. I say go PC.

#9 Posted by mtcantor (965 posts) -

TressFX is totally overrated and looks completely wonky half the time.

But yes, on a good PC, Tomb Raider looks amazing.

#10 Posted by Jams (3043 posts) -

It would be better if I didn't have to ditch a bunch of high settings to keep the game running. I also noticed huge frame drops at 1/4 through the game for no real reason. It still looks a lot better than the console variations but not as good as it could be.

#11 Edited by thetenthdoctor (303 posts) -

Even if you drop everything to low settings to maintain a high frame rate, it still looks almost identical to the console version, but much higher resolution and fewer jaggies (AA isn't needed as much @1080p, but FXAA is practically free anyway, performance wise). But unless your rig is older than my dual core i5/gtx470, you won't be on low settings. I'm well above 30fps on high/ultra settings, with 60fps in the tight caverns where it's not drawing a mile of scenery in the background. Console versions never go above 30, and frequently dip below.

Better frame rate, higher resolution, sharper image with fewer jaggies and $20 less. Win/win.</p>

#12 Posted by Carryboy (880 posts) -

I bow to all you infinite wisdom and am currently downloading the pc version!

Thank you all.

#13 Posted by AiurFlux (921 posts) -

When I can get it running it's fucking beautiful. But I have to disable some things and shut off tesselation otherwise I do get some CTD's that seem to be because of nVidia's drivers. But it still looks better than the console version, is optimized fairly well outside of driver issues, controls well, has plenty of options, and is cheaper than buying it for a console. And it's a pretty good game. The story at times is hit and miss... but overall this is the best game of 2013 so far at this time. They did a hell of a job bringing back Tomb Raider. A lot of comparisons to Uncharted have been made, justifiably, but it's a lot darker and more mature than Uncharted. And on the PC I would say it looks better. If they make more I'll eat it up because it is one of the few reboots that have ever been any good.

#14 Edited by thetenthdoctor (303 posts) -

Sweet. When you hook the PC to your TV, change the desktop resolution to whatever your TV's native res is. Then when you fullscreen the game in options, it'll be just like playing on a console (no border or toolbar).

#15 Posted by OfficeGamer (1120 posts) -

@carryboy said:

My PC is capable of running the game on max

Then you shouldn't be asking that question about any game! For years the PC version has been better in every way of almost any multiplatform game, it should be your default pick. Always. sadly I only joined the club a while ago, but now that I have, you really shouldn't be asking this!

My Xbox controller works on PC just fine, so go get this fabulous PC version :D

#16 Posted by cloudnineboya (941 posts) -

@zenmastah: cool thanks for the info. gave it a try and pumped up my 1600+ 900 too 1080 but it didn't look any sharper to me .

#17 Posted by zenmastah (1058 posts) -
#18 Posted by thetenthdoctor (303 posts) -

Why bother with this down sampling when Super Sampling does the same thing and is built right into most modern games' options? The SSAA option will render the frame internally at double or quadruple your desired size, then internally downscale it to fit your native res, eliminating jaggies.

A lot easier to change a setting in the game than modifying your display settings.

#19 Edited by zenmastah (1058 posts) -

Ive been using it for awhile now, and can say that in terms of IQ its just better.

Depending on the GPU though its not for every game cos framerate takes a big hit of course, but i can tell that downsampling while running the game at 60 is quite a treat.

#20 Posted by thetenthdoctor (303 posts) -

Better than Super Sampling AA, even though they're doing the same thing? Okay.

#21 Posted by zenmastah (1058 posts) -

Heres a couple of captures i just took downsampling from 2880x1800 to 1920x1200

Now to me, that looks better than running it in 1920x1200 with SGSSAA, and ive used SGSSAA a bunch before.

Of course it all comes down to what pleases the eye in the end.

#22 Posted by thetenthdoctor (303 posts) -

I suppose that's true.

#23 Posted by thetenthdoctor (303 posts) -

And for the topic starter, here's how it looks on an older CPU and video card at High/Ultra settings. Neither of the consoles will give you textures, lighting and depth of field like this.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.