PDA

View Full Version : Rise of tomb raider for old pcs



francata
8th Apr 2017, 19:04
So far I have played all the games of the serious Tomb Raider since Tomb Raider Legend until 2013. However I am sad that I can not play Rise of Tomb Raider because my pc is already a few years old and does not use the graphics of this game.
Square Enix well could create a version for older PCs because like me, there must be many thousands of people around the world who can not access the game due to lack of requirements.
I apologize for some errors that the translation may have but because I do not speak English I had to use google translate to translate the text from Portuguese to English

AdobeArtist
10th Apr 2017, 16:37
The nature of PC gaming is that it is flexible to operate on a range of specs. There's the myth of how expensive PC gaming is, that one "needs" to spend several thousand dollars (relative to local economy and currency) but that is several times disproven. Sure it's nice if you can splurge to get the best of the best and push every modern game to its ultimate settings. But that's by no means the "requirement" and budget gamers can still play the game on Med settings and enjoy a very satisfactory experience. Some might even be alright with all Low settings. So yeah people can play on lower cost machines or older hardware.

BUT... this flexibility comes with limits. As advancements continue in graphics and engines (encompassing physics, AI, scope of the world, destruction, lighting, shaders, particle effects, texture rendering, facial animation, and so much more), there's always a limit to the range of specs to the lowest end where it can be possible to run an application that is progressively growing in visuals and features. To make new games the most they can be, to offer experiences not possible before, even for having a range of specs to accommodate players in the enthusiast and budget ends of the spectrum, there has to be a cut off point in hardware before the developers compromise too much of the experience they're trying to create.

The simplest way to look at it; the foundation of any PC game offers all the same assets and features, just in a range of quality to what the specs in a particular budget can support. So it's not just for the rich to have access to, the budget gamers can still play it, just not with the same quality, which they'll accept as the reality. But below that cutoff point in hardware, we're talking compromising the quality in too excessive an extent below contemporary standards, or dropping features entirely to make the game run on that way old hardware. Neither is an acceptable proposition, as that's the point they're no longer making the game they want to. Sure they want the game to be as accessible as possible, but that's still within a framework of technological standards, and they shouldn't have to design a game 2 or 3 generations behind the times.

I'm not sure what you're situation is, though I'd guess you're just not in a position to be able to upgrade (be that modular or an entire system replacement) and I can sympathize with that. We've all been there. But you don't seem to have a realistic perspective on the matter. What ever you spent on your machine, and how ever long ago that was, you at one point had to spend some cash to have that in the first place. Just how long did you expect it to last? And I don't even know if we're talking cutting edge or just average for the time. Either way, did you really expect not to buy another PC for another 8 years? 10 years? 15 or 20 before you had to spend more money to keep up?

Developers do design flexibility in their games so it can be played on lower cost machines, but even for older systems that still has to account for PC's that were capable at the time they were new. They can't be expected to code a game to accommodate PC's that are clearly too far out of date, for the reasons I said before about progressive software technology and gaming standards. Otherwise we wouldn't have any of the advancements we now enjoy.

Sorry to say but it's not up to them to make an entirely second version just for your model (and all the others out there with similar outdated hardware), that would require a completely different engine and be nothing like the game they're trying to put out on the market. At some point you gotta give up the ghost and move ahead. If it's a case where you're simply unable to, again sorry for your situation but in the end, technology doesn't wait for anyone. You either keep up or get left behind.

Wooxman
4th May 2017, 07:04
You can get the game on Steam or Origin and if it doesn't run you can get a refund. So why don't you just give it a try? The PC port of Rotate is very well optimised and I know a guy who played it on a laptop that didn't even meet the minimum requirements.

It's always kinda funny when a new console generation comes out and a lot of PC players complain that they've to update their systems in order to play new games (this was also the case when TRU was released). It always have been like that! At one point in the late 90s people had to buy 3D graphics cards in order to play new games since the developers dropped software rendering modes in favour of better graphics, resolutions and framerates. Crazy, isn't it? But I think that if a PC can run TR2013, then it's very likely that it's also able to run Rotate.

Mike_B
4th May 2017, 11:55
I found that ROTTR was pretty well optimized on PC. My pc was around the 3,5 year old mark when the game was released and it ran fine on medium (for reference i5 3570, 16 GB RAM, geforce gtx 760). Hard to fully comment without knowing the full specs of the OP.

I recently upgraded not because it didn't ran newest games anymore but as a hobbyist I like to have new stuff around every 4 years. And the only thing I've added over the span of those 4 years was some extra SSD storage. So it's not always necessary to have the latest equipment for pc gaming it kinda depend on your usage and requirements.

PC gaming does occasionally - or acutally mostly used to - require some extra maintenance although I must say that over the years I haven't come across a game that didn't run.

I've always played on pc and it does require an investment around the € 1200 - € 1500 mark but that's for 4 years and the pc is used for other stuff like programming and video editing so for me that's acceptable. I have no experience with consoles, never owned one, but if money is a bit of an issue a console may be a better investment as it's pretty much guaranteed to run the latest games for a number of years. Although that is too an extra investment that may not be possible and in the OP's case the pc may be used for more than just games.

This topic is quite old and not sure if the OP will retunr so to expand the discussion a bit how long do other posters here use their gaming pc for, at what price range and do you use it solely for gaming or for other usage as well?

Wooxman
4th May 2017, 21:23
I've always played on pc and it does require an investment around the € 1200 - € 1500 mark but that's for 4 years and the pc is used for other stuff like programming and video editing so for me that's acceptable. I have no experience with consoles, never owned one, but if money is a bit of an issue a console may be a better investment as it's pretty much guaranteed to run the latest games for a number of years. Although that is too an extra investment that may not be possible and in the OP's case the pc may be used for more than just games.
I would say that if you invest up to € 1,500 into a PC, then it will serve you at least 5, if not 6 or more years (not necessarily all parts). And of course you don't have to upgrade every piece of hardware at the same time and you also don't have to get the most expensive parts if you're on a budget.


This topic is quite old and not sure if the OP will retunr so to expand the discussion a bit how long do other posters here use their gaming pc for, at what price range and do you use it solely for gaming or for other usage as well?
I played mostly on consoles for about 5 years before returning to PC gaming in 2015. Before I started playing on consoles, I always used one PC configuration for about 3-5 years. I invested about € 1,000 into my current build and plan on getting a GTX 1080 TI. Though I don't think that I'll get a new graphics card every two years.

Edit:
And I use my PC for more than gaming. Occasionally I edit and render videos or pictures, watch videos etc.

SicParvisMagna2
27th May 2017, 20:35
I would recommend simply getting a Xbox One. It's incredibly cheap right now I think you can get one for $300 US. You will be able to run lots of new games and they will be specially optimized for your system. PS4 is quite cheap now too.

Driber
29th Jun 2017, 18:56
The nature of PC gaming is that it is flexible to operate on a range of specs. There's the myth of how expensive PC gaming is, that one "needs" to spend several thousand dollars (relative to local economy and currency) but that is several times disproven.

Just the replies from Mike and Wooxman alone clearly show that this is no myth at all. While it is certainly hypothetically possible to play PC games at reasonable settings using budget builds, real life PC gamers time and time again show that they are forking out hefty cash for their hardware.

Buying consoles is still the most cheapest way.


I would say that if you invest up to € 1,500 into a PC, then it will serve you at least 5, if not 6 or more years (not necessarily all parts).

A console will last you that long as well (if not longer - xbox 360 lasted a good 10 years) and you only pay a fraction of that price.

AdobeArtist
29th Jun 2017, 19:26
Just the replies from Mike and Wooxman alone clearly show that this is no myth at all. While it is certainly hypothetically possible to play PC games at reasonable settings using budget builds, real life PC gamers time and time again show that they are forking out hefty cash for their hardware.

Buying consoles is still the most cheapest way.




What I said was that it's the perception one "needs to spend a lot" to make PC gaming playable, as being the myth. Not necessarily that high spending can and does happen. Spending a considerable amount is a choice, not a requirement. If you're OK with the console level of performance, then spending the same on PC can get you about the same graphical details (or even somewhat better depending on the game) at native resolution (not upscaled) and more often 60 fps, or at least 45 minimum. But just to get roughly the same details and not be limited to 30 fps is already a step above.

Of course the budget is open to each according to their own discretion. Willing to go at just double the console cost? You'll get the benefits of 1080 to even 1440 resolution with Ultra or near Ultra settings (Ultra and High mix) and 60 fps, even higher. If you seriously want to game in real 4K, or expand your resolution with multi-monitors, of course that's gonna cost you a king's ransom. But if you're sticking to 1080p prices are the best they've ever been.

My main point being, apart from the flexibility of budget and how much some people spend compared to others, is that for really good gaming experience, it does NOT cost your kids college fund to get into it. It's not all about "All Ultra, all the time", many more gamers average at High settings. But then even going at Med with unlocked frame rate can still be very satisfying. Sure there are those that are willing to pay for the premium experience (that's their prerogative) but the preconception that "it MUST cost $1800 or $2400 to be a good gaming PC" is the myth. It can still be good at far less, once you get past the notion that it "has to be Ultra". Keeping realistic expectations will go a long way towards a satisfying investment :gamer:

Driber
29th Jun 2017, 19:40
What I said was that it's the perception one "needs to spend a lot" to make PC gaming playable, as being the myth. Not necessarily that high spending can and does happen.

It is absolutely a myth that you can build a budget PC and have it play all current games at high settings and not have to upgrade for as long as an average console generation lasts. So yes, you do need to spend a lot more on PC than simply buying a console and be set for a long time without any worries.


But if you're sticking to 1080p prices are the best they've ever been.

You've got to be kidding me. Prices are at an all time high right now. You pay DOUBLE the amount of money for a stick of RAM or an SDD than only a year ago!

Now is arguably the worst time to be building a new PC. I know since I'm about to do so myself :/