Tomb Raider: Legend

First post, yay!

Am I the only one that cannot tell the difference between 2X AA and no AA in the review?

Originally Posted by Splinter000

Am I the only one that cannot tell the difference between 2X AA and no AA in the review?

yes, look at the telephone wires, or her hair, or any straight edge

Originally Posted by Splinter000
First post, yay!

Am I the only one that cannot tell the difference between 2X AA and no AA in the review?

i understand what you mean

AA makes a difference, but its not stunning, some of the wires are still "blocky"

also they dont actualyl say whether their using 2x AA or 4x AA in that picture ....

Splinter000 - you need to click for the bigger screenshots to see the difference.

yahooadam - it's 4x

Everyone else: we welcome feedback on our testing methods. The fact that lots of people have 1280x1024 screens is something we are well aware of. However, I'm slightly confused as to what extra we can deliver in that department.

If we look at the top cards, we maxxed out the detail settings and it was still playable at 1600x1200 and above, hence the Best Playable Settings table. The grey box underneath just re-enforces those settings by providing some FPS scores for those that want them.

We've established that if it's playable at 16x12 then you're more than sorted at 1280. We tested at 1280 (which is how we ended up at 16x12) - did you want us to publish the exact FPS numbers at 1280 as well? The reason we haven't is that, under our somewhat "different" approach to benchmarking, if a game is "playable" in our view at 16x12, and we provide an average FPS of say 28 to support that, then all we can do is say "by the way, it's just as playable at 1280, which an average FPS of 35, but doesn't quite look as crisp as 16x12"

It just seems a little unnecessary. I suspect what you're looking for is the old-school benchmark results, where one sets the game to 1024, 1280 and 1600, run all the cards and the highest bar wins, right? The trouble with that is, does it really matter if one card is 45fps and another is 55fps? The gaming experience is essentially the same ie "playable".

We have moved on from aiming for 100fps in games. We prefer as much eye candy as possible as long as the framerate remains playable. I hope that helps explain things. Post questions below.

Originally Posted by Lazlow
Maybe I'm in a minority, but why not test a low spec too, based on previous generation CPU and GPUs? I know many people who regularly play PC games, and due to most being students - they're still stuck on AMD Socket A, like myself.

You're quite possibly not in a minority mate but the trouble is that if we have to test every game on too many different systems, we'd never get any other work done. :(

We wanted to test TRL on a slower machine but as snobbish as it sounds, we really didn't have anything slower - all our AGP gear has long since gone unfortunately. As it says in the review, the 6600GT is around 9800 level, and the 512MB of RAM was a good test (which the game passed easily).

More like "Best playable options at 1280*1024 on mid-level hardware (ie 7800GT and the likes) no need for it on the high end cards imho.

edit add : and to be more specific I guess, you found 1600*1200 with next gen to be best playable on 7900GTX despite the driver bug, would 1280*1024 with next gen on be playable on an 7800GT ?

Nice review, love the high-mid range coverage!

Now all I got to do is upgrade my rig and then I can play it.

Went in to EB Games today to see this.I could not believe my eyes..honestly! This was running on the XBOX 360 and 32" Samsung LCD TV...it was so stunning

Damn you AMD M2...hurry the hell up...I need to upgrade! PS3 where are you...LCD TV's doh...its going to be an expensive year !

Originally Posted by The_Pope
we'd never get any other work done. :(

True. I'm pleased with the amount of good content you guys turn out - it keeps many of us entertained during the dull times at work.

Originally Posted by The_Pope
We wanted to test TRL on a slower machine but as snobbish as it sounds, we really didn't have anything slower

I suppose I could swap you a low spec machine for a decent one... if you ask nicely.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/04/12/nvidia_fixes_tomb_raider_legend/

It's fixed ;)

That's dedication. Quick turn around for them.

well atleast they fixed it ...

Originally Posted by yahooadam
well atleast they fixed it ...

were you expecting them not to?

They were fast... or kind of as it is a TWIMTBP game and it's a shame to release it with such a major bug. But they were fast.

I'm on my way to test the new drivers, thumbs up for nvidia for the quick release!

The Pope: I totally agree with your statement about testing playable settings and personally I'm more fond of the way BT benchies turn out, it's just as informative as possible without being too complicated...
*expecting to get the "in the details" ppl mad* =]

Originally Posted by bigz
were you expecting them not to?

i would have expected it to work out the box

guess thats just me though ....

complete cock up on nvidias part for their drivers not to be compatible with a WIMTBP game

Originally Posted by yahooadam
i would have expected it to work out the box

guess thats just me though ....

complete cock up on nvidias part for their drivers not to be compatible with a WIMTBP game

It's not just you, otherwise we wouldn't have made an issue out of it. ;)

Cheers Sathy.

I'm glad NVIDIA were able to turn this around so quickly. It's a shame it wasn't ready for release but they really are dedicated to delivering good performance for their customers across a wide range of games.

I look forward to testing Tomb Raider the way it's meant to be played. :D

Originally Posted by The_Pope
It just seems a little unnecessary. I suspect what you're looking for is the old-school benchmark results, where one sets the game to 1024, 1280 and 1600, run all the cards and the highest bar wins, right? The trouble with that is, does it really matter if one card is 45fps and another is 55fps? The gaming experience is essentially the same ie "playable".

No, no, no, no! You got it wrong! :D

I suppose I should have said specifically what was wrong with the 'best playable settings' for the 7800GT series card you used. People will want to switch the ngc on, but might be wary that even at 12x10 it mightn't play very well with this feature switched on. Apologies if I handed you the pointy end of the stick.

Originally Posted by kenco_uk
No, no, no, no! You got it wrong! :D

I suppose I should have said specifically what was wrong with the 'best playable settings' for the 7800GT series card you used. People will want to switch the ngc on, but might be wary that even at 12x10 it mightn't play very well with this feature switched on. Apologies if I handed you the pointy end of the stick.

Yip, thats exactly what I wanted to know. :)

Ah ok - I understand now. TBH we considered two sets of tables: regular and NGC but then it got too complicated, especially with the NVIDIA driver problem causing those pauses.

Now they have fixed that, we're going to run the numbers again. We'll let you know

On the "fixed" drivers:

Having bought the game just a few days ago and playing it with the older and newer drivers, for some reason I didn't notice too much difference...but perhaps it would be more clearly visible with fraps.
The Croft Manor still hitches alot, which bothers me because the way I see it, it's a part of the game. I don't think the problem is related to using too high detail, because the system I'm playing on is pretty much similar to the one used in TRL review High End tests, with one 7900GTX that is....

So I really can't say, honestly, if there is any difference with a single card. But maybe I'm not a very good meter for such things...hard to tell really.

What I can say however, is that the scenery in the game is beautiful at times and it's mostly real fun to play.

One more thing, which I think is driver related but I haven't yet had the opportunity to test, is that when using speakers with my Audigy 2, the sound has some weird crackling on it. There's no problem when using headphones. I updated my drivers last night, but as I had to play with headphones, didn't test the speakers yet. Will get back on it later tonight.

edit:
So yes, the driver update fixed the crackling.

Having now finished the game, I still think the manor hitches like hell, but ofcourse that's not so important...the actual levels..not too bad but I can't say it's 100% hitch free.
The occasionally acting up camera does bother playing a bit, basicly you have know where you're going or else you might have to go backwards (if possible) to find out where exactly you're supposed to go next because in some tighter places the camera just doesn't want to turn.

Anyway, a very enjoyable TR experience, the shortness of it isn't that bad since I rather have a shorter quality story than some half a**ed excuse for jumping around, and it has even got some replaying value with the extra stuff that can be unlocked...after my completion I'm at 94% so some rewards to be found still. Hope the story continues on the next TR game, and that it doesn't take longer than a year to publish now that they've got a decent engine, also hope that they hone the playability some more, it's not bad at all, but it could be better.

Cheers

Originally Posted by Sathy
I didn't notice too much difference...but perhaps it would be more clearly visible with fraps.
The Croft Manor still hitches alot, which bothers me because the way I see it, it's a part of the game. I don't think the problem is related to using too high detail, because the system I'm playing on is pretty much similar to the one used in TRL review High End tests, with one 7900GTX that is....

Think you need to update your sig

apparently your using a 9800pro ....

Originally Posted by yahooadam
Think you need to update your sig

apparently your using a 9800pro ....

Slightly off-topic I'd say, but:
I had the rig on my sig (feel those rhymes) before, but as it is a part of the mod project I'm currently working on, I removed it for now.