• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Tomb Raider (2013)

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
keyboard + mouse seems pretty good for me. I have the 360 for windows receiver, and I still went back to my kb + mouse...
 
It plays fine with kb/mouse. They also did a good job of indicating which key (as oppose to which button on the controller) to hit during qte (a flaw a lot of gmaes like dark soul has).
-
I have a few complaints but the only one related to controls was that you couldn't look up in a lot of places so vision was restricted. I really don't see how a controller would improve this game over kb/m. Now for dark soul that is another matter.

dagamer34 said:
I don't know if I've said this already in this thread, but I highly recommend everyone play this game with the Xbox 360 controller (preferably the wired one, so you don't have to mess with syncing or dedicating a controller to your PC so you don't turn on your 360). Yes, aiming will probably be worse compared to a mouse, but this game was designed with a controller in mind.
Click to expand...
 
If this was something like Assassins Creed where you could just auto lock your target, I would probably use a controller. This seems like more of a shooter, so I'm sure I'll need my mouse.
 
Childs said:
If this was something like Assassins Creed where you could just auto lock your target, I would probably use a controller. This seems like more of a shooter, so I'm sure I'll need my mouse.
Click to expand...

I'm using my controller and haven't had too many issues with hits, though sometimes I think the hitbox is slightly larger than the target.
 
Childs said:
If this was something like Assassins Creed where you could just auto lock your target, I would probably use a controller. This seems like more of a shooter, so I'm sure I'll need my mouse.
Click to expand...

The controls are very good...I found using a gamepad to be a more enjoyable experience.
 
chimaxi83 said:
About 30 minutes to an hour of this game makes me dizzy/nauseous. Every time :'(
Click to expand...

Maybe change fov in settings. If it has blur turn that off. I haven't played in a while I'm trying to get through my other games first. By the time I get to it bioshock infinite will be here I bet. I've been spending a lot of time in dcs a10 learning stuff.
 
I haven't gotten to play it in the past week but I am in the last area. So I fire it up seeing it has a few patches and things are so much worse for me. I use to run it max'd with TressFX and it ran good, now when I turn TressFX on my FPS goes to total dog shit. Really pisses me off because it was running great with it as I played through 95% of the game with it on till this last area I am in. Second, I liked it better when those effects that weren't being displayed when in full screen (rain drops, lens flare crap) and wish I could turn those off as a camp fire looks a bit nuts now with a giant orange flare going from the top to bottom of the screen.

This is one of those times I really wish Steam would allow us to rollback to a previous version of a game.
 
Just started playing it tonight. Ran into some glitches during the opening cutscenes though, just a black screen.

It looks good so far, though I think its a little poorly optimized. Fully max'd out @ 1440P is unplayable, had to turn AA down to just FXAA from the game's Advanced menu to make it smooth enough to play, and the game's short benchmark puts the score at 27fps average at those settings.

Seems my SnB i5, 16GB of RAM, and Radeon 7950 2GB may need an upgrade . . . or there's some driver optmization to be done. The game looks good, but I don't know if its good enough to max my system out.

Edit - Using Catalyst 13.1s.
 
Last edited:
Bateluer said:
Just started playing it tonight. Ran into some glitches during the opening cutscenes though, just a black screen.

It looks good so far, though I think its a little poorly optimized. Fully max'd out @ 1440P is unplayable, had to turn AA down to just FXAA from the game's Advanced menu to make it smooth enough to play, and the game's short benchmark puts the score at 27fps average at those settings.

Seems my SnB i5, 16GB of RAM, and Radeon 7950 2GB may need an upgrade . . . or there's some driver optmization to be done. The game looks good, but I don't know if its good enough to max my system out.

Edit - Using Catalyst 13.1s.
Click to expand...

It looks like the patches must have changed it because I was able to max it fully on ultimate at 1920x1080 on the same drivers. It looks like now I won't be able to. I was getting around 40-80 fps in some areas. Ill have to reinstall it to see what happened.
 
Necc said:
Can't wait for March 05, I hope Iget 60+ fps maxed with my Trusty GTX 660.
Click to expand...

What "scares" me is that Tomb Raider runs FLAWLESSLY and at a steady 60FPS on my ancient (!) GTX 275. I don't even see the occasional FPS dips I see with games like, say, D3 where I might see some stutter when there's a lot going on.

This is with settings at "high", FXAA, shadow medium, 16xAF etc, my standard settings. My monitor is 1680x1050 which is also my standard resolution for any game.

Seeing that TR looks "pretty good" I am actually amazed at the performance and really not sure whether I should upgrade to a 660 TI, unless "ultra" settings on a 660 TI would be a *significant* difference but then I don't believe this.
 
sze5003 said:
It looks like the patches must have changed it because I was able to max it fully on ultimate at 1920x1080 on the same drivers. It looks like now I won't be able to. I was getting around 40-80 fps in some areas. Ill have to reinstall it to see what happened.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much of a difference running at 2560x1440 makes, but I didn't feel like it ever really got into the 60fps range during the hour or so I played last night. Its playable with the AA dialed back to lower levels, but it annoys me having to do this. The game looks good, but given how good other games look(TW2, Skyrim) and how well those run on my system, it makes me believe that either TR is poorly optimized or AMD needs to work some driver tweaks in.

flexy said:
What "scares" me is that Tomb Raider runs FLAWLESSLY and at a steady 60FPS on my ancient (!) GTX 275. I don't even see the occasional FPS dips I see with games like, say, D3 where I might see some stutter when there's a lot going on.

This is with settings at "high", FXAA, shadow medium, 16xAF etc, my standard settings. My monitor is 1680x1050 which is also my standard resolution for any game.

Seeing that TR looks "pretty good" I am actually amazed at the performance and really not sure whether I should upgrade to a 660 TI, unless "ultra" settings on a 660 TI would be a *significant* difference but then I don't believe this.
Click to expand...

If I turned down to 1680x1050, I'm pretty sure it'd run flawlessly on my hardware, thats half the pixels. 😉
 
First trip back into PC gaming and I have to say this game is amazing. I have everything on High. Was running on ultra but during intense scenes frames screen would go to stuttering.

Either way great game. Glad my 7850 got a free copy. Probably going to try to 100% this game.
 
Been fiddling with the new patch and drivers. Chose ultimate then backed shadows to normal, DOF off, gives me eye strain, and SSAO normal. Drivers gave me anywhere from 6 to 12 better on minimum and about 5 on maximum on the benchmark. 42, 62, and 55 were the best I got on the benchmark. I have a save in the same spot the benchmark runs and I was getting 38 to 60 running around there over multiple starts and restarts. Now the last run was a steady 60 everywhere running from the cliff to the airplane. Must have broke it in or something. Checked and rechecked my settings.
 
Yeah i had to get rid of TressFX for my 2560x1600.
I can deal with losing her pretty flowing hair for far smoother fps.
 
Finished the game. A bit over 18 hours with 95% completion (some challenges not finished). It felt just right - not too short, not too long.

It was a wonderful experience, one I have not had in gaming for a very long time. Lara felt alive and real. The story was cool and engaging, it all was flowing really nicely. Controls were great too (played with an Xbox360 gamepad). I didn't mind the QTEs at all, they felt well placed and not overused. Weapon upgrades were cool, as were the new skills Lara gains with more XP. The optional tombs were a bit disappointing... it was pretty much one puzzle per tomb and they were all really easy. Actually, the prepurchase DLC tomb (Tomb of the Lost Adventurer DLC) was the longest and most "advanced" I would say.

The game looks GORGEOUS! All maxed (new Ultra shadow setting in latest patch!) on my PC and the experience was flawless (1080p, FXAA as AA, TressFX ON). And everything looks so pretty! I'm sure this game will come out on the new PS4, so more people can enjoy it with wonderful graphics 🙂 Lara has so many details! It's incredible! Her skin, scars, clothes, blood, the hair, body motion and all the other things - they really add up to a amazingly looking character! Plus how she interacts with the environment - a lot of details here too... the way she jumps, climbs, breathes. walks, runs, protects her face from heat or wind, puts her hands against the wall when moving close to one... those are small details, but they really add up!

Highly recommended, if anyone is on the fence. Best gaming fun I had in a very long time! 🙂
 
Last edited:
Oh hahaa yeah, I could see that. I was just glad to never have to slide down a mountain or jump from collapsing buildings impractically placed on a mountainside again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top