Oh, cool. I hadn't paid attention because I assumed it was exclusive.
Printable View
Oh, cool. I hadn't paid attention because I assumed it was exclusive.
I doubt the 15 FPS drop will be worth a bit of flowing hair. But I will post some benches soon ;p
The benchmark (just a spinning view of Lara, almost like a really slow Quake timerefresh mode with some animation) on HIGH no AA @1080p: 60 FPS capped
With TressFX on: 38 FPS
That's with a 660 vanilla, which I believe has inferior Direct Compute performance to some of the older cards, so maybe the dip isn't as bad with older cards. But still, expensive hair.
They introduce characters that could be interesting if only they weren't cannon fodder? It starts strong and then wanders for a few years before trailing off into incoherency? It swears it knows what it's doing, that everything is planned, but is obviously lying as things get sillier and sillier?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chux
James
Everything but the last part, yes. I thought I was near the end and something else happened. I'm getting tired of the shooting gallery.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
So it went back to Uncharted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chux
Yup. Take uncharted, lose treasure quest, add fighting for survival and switch genders, also lose charismatic cast of characters that you care about.
Square Enix really does awesome PC versions.
Looks and runs very well on my pc with everything but AA (just using FXAA) at its highest level with that TressFX hair thing on. Only played about an hour but the game is nice so far.
My archaic 200 series graphics card doesn't support DirectX 11, so no fancy hair for me. Otherwise it's working like a champ: The benchmark showed a decent 55 FPS with everything cranked, and the little that I've played of the actual game looks great.
My only disappointment as of right now is that the in-game render of Lara doesn't look nearly as good as the pre-rendered one. I don't know why, but I was expecting more.