Tomb Raider Legends Discusion

sulakwide · Post by **sulakwide** » 02 Apr 2006, 11:04

IÃ‚Â´m sry for my bad english Paddy, the glitches have nothing to do with widescreen or else, i just wanted to show that this game is based on realy old technology and the developers have to give the game some love/time/fixing. Specialy the Lara Modell...

@ajg compare my 2 screenshots mentioned above (16:10 vs 16:9 with black bars), look at the head of lara, then you should see the difference.

CodE-E · Post by **CodE-E** » 02 Apr 2006, 18:45

i just wanted to show that this game is based on realy old technology and the developers have to give the game some love/time/fixing. Specialy the Lara Modell...

What the f*** are you talking about? This game looks exceptionally awesome!

I also don't know why you guys are having those black bars. I've got the full version and the game looks damn good at 1680*1050. Here are some screenshots links:

http://www.code-e.net/images/misc/tr1_normal.jpg

http://www.code-e.net/images/misc/tr1_nextgen.jpg

I'm getting fairly contant 60 frames per second at 1680*1050 on my system in "normal" mode (AA turned off - with AA on it's slightly lower). "Next gen" mode gives me an unplayable 12-20. I guess you need a state-of-the-art card to play it on "next gen" mode. Note that the "normal" mode still looks very nice. "Next gen" has loads of fancy shader, lighting and bumpmapping effects, and some textures (such as water) look a lot funkier in that mode, but if you've got a 6800GT like me, you can definitely enjoy this game in widescreen glory!

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 02 Apr 2006, 18:55

He did apologise for his bad English ... :wink:

What he was trying to say was that the FOV is no different between 16:10 and 16:9 ... :(

I agree it looks awesome ... but it will look better once the "Next Generation" content is enabled ... see my pictures above.

Killik121 · Post by **Killik121** » 02 Apr 2006, 18:59

Bah! Where'd you get the Next-Gen edition! Link pls.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 02 Apr 2006, 19:06

But it doesn't look anywhere near as nice as the 3D Gamers pic above ... :?

CodE-E ... could you take a shot in the same location as that D Gamers pic above ? ... please ...

CodE-E · Post by **CodE-E** » 02 Apr 2006, 19:12

I made a little video which shows the difference between "normal" and "next gen". It's ~28 megs large. If somebody wants to host it for me, send me a PM. I've only got room for 10MB on my host. >_<

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 02 Apr 2006, 19:16

Sorry I can't host it for you but could you do this ...

CodE-E ... could you take a shot in the same location as that D Gamers pic above ? ... please ...

ajg · Post by **ajg** » 02 Apr 2006, 23:23

thought the demo without next gen lighting etc looked 3 yrs old. not a single good thing to crow about. Hope the next gen stuff makes a difference

pubjoe · Post by **pubjoe** » 03 Apr 2006, 00:05

This reminds me of the old sinclair spectrum and C64 days of lying screenshots.

Post by **ctrlsteef** » 03 Apr 2006, 07:49

I know for sure next gen is going to make a difference.
Have you ever played a game with shaders off and right after that with all kinds of shaders on.
The complete game is affected by it. Nothing looks the same.
Especially something as simple as bumpmapping makes a HUGE difference on textures.

So i think it would be best not to take any conclusions before you get your hands on the complete game. :D

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 03 Apr 2006, 08:08

I agree with you ctrlsteef but CodE-E claims to have a copy with the "Next Gen" stuff and his screenshot above doesn't look that much better than the non next gen one ... unlike the one from 3D gamers which looks sooooo much better than the one I took in the same place ... :?

zig · Post by **zig** » 03 Apr 2006, 20:23

Yeah unfortunately the PC version bears little resemblance to that 3dgamers screenshot even with "next generation content" enabled.

Here's my comparison, using the full game. All screenshots are taken using identical resolutions/settings/position, with the only difference being the next-gen content option.
1. you can see a pretty huge difference here.
1A. next-gen content enabled

1B. next-gen content disabled

2. in this one you can see some odd artifacts on lara's skin in the second shot, not sure what's going on there but it was very noticeable to me while playing.
2A. next-gen content enabled

2B. next-gen content disabled

3. this is pretty much the same spot as the 3dgamers shot, and the shot paddy took. also you can see some more weird graphics glitches in the second shot around lara's legs.
3A. next-gen content enabled

3B. next-gen content disabled

I actually prefer running with the next-gen content off. With it on I get a pretty inconsistent framerate, and usually it's below 30 fps, which isn't acceptable to me. With it turned off the framerate is usually above 80. It doesnt look as good, but I'd rather play a smooth game than a pretty one (and also Lara looks like a scary ape-woman with it on for some reason). My system: athlon64 3500, 1gb ram, 7800gt.

The strangest thing to me is the focus of light seems to be completely different with the next-gen content disabled. Seems like it wasn't given much attention.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 03 Apr 2006, 20:59

I think the makers have been doing a few marketing tweaks to the screenshots ... :roll: :(

What a rip off !

Thanks for the pics zig ... 8)

Post by **ctrlsteef** » 03 Apr 2006, 21:00

Yeah, for sure. I don't like that kind of tactics. :evil:

Post by **Paradigm Shifter** » 04 Apr 2006, 20:13

I think the makers have been doing a few marketing tweaks to the screenshots ... :roll: :(

What a rip off !

Thanks for the pics zig ... 8)

With as big a money spinner as the Tomb Raider series, are you really surprised...? ;)

pubjoe · Post by **pubjoe** » 04 Apr 2006, 23:11

With as big a money spinner as the Tomb Raider series, are you really surprised...? ;)

Not so much surprised, but I'm actually very very disappointed.

Publishers have resisted the urge to do this (afaik) for a very long time, they might run the game on unrealistic hardware, but every game I've bought for the last 15 years has done exactly what it say's on the tin.

Screenshot touching-up has gone on before in the 8-bit era and since then, the fierce competition for who's got the prettiest graphics has only increased - Yet, publishers have shown remarkable honesty by showing actual screens of a finished game.

Previews may be totally unrealistic (Killzone anyone?? :roll: ), but for a very long time, a finished game's screenshots have been an honest representation.

Lets hope eidos hasn't set a new trend.

CodE-E · Post by **CodE-E** » 04 Apr 2006, 23:56

Here are some screenshots made by myself of the area shown in those 3Dgamer.com screenshots:

(All graphics candy, including AA, turned on).

http://www.code-e.net/images/misc/trl2_normal.jpg
http://www.code-e.net/images/misc/trl2_nextgen.jpg

The water colour is slightly different in the 3Dgamers screenshots. Maybe their screenshots are from the XBox 360 version, or maybe it looks slightly different on ATi cards. Otherwise I don't see any real difference, so I don't think the Eidos marketing dudes have done any screenshot tampering...

Post by **Abram** » 07 Apr 2006, 14:06

Supports WS juuust fine.

I get weird numbers when enabling/disabling stuff....

with Next Generation goodies ON, i get 18-50fps, with or without FSAA enabled. Oh and running at 1400x900

With Next Gen OFF and with FSAA ON i get 12-30fps
With Next Gen OFF and with FSAA OFF i get 100+fps

What the hell is THAT??
It runs better with Next Gen AND FSAA on than it does without the Next Gen on.

Specs:
3800+ Dual Core @ 2.3ghz
x1900 AIW 256mb @ default clock
2gb OCZ PC3200 -- 2.5,3,3,6
7200rpm WD

Post by **ctrlsteef** » 07 Apr 2006, 14:11

I have that too. Really strange.
I hear everywhere that you get a real hit in performance when enabling next gen but too me it's exactly the opposite. :?

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 07 Apr 2006, 14:26

Well I get quite a different picture ...

1920x1200 everything at max including Next Gen ...................... 30 - 100+ fps ...

1920x1200 everything at max including Next Gen but no AA ..... 10 - 40 fps ... :shock: :? ... and it jumps and stutters so I just can't play it.

1920x1200 everything at max without Next Gen ........................ 60 - 100+ fps

Widescreen Gaming Forum