'Shadow of the Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition' Launching November 5 on Mac

[GeneralChang]

Disagree. I loved it. I didn't pay $60 but still loved the game. Erbody different I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Really? It felt like such a huge let-down versus the other two to me. The story has always been what's drawn me to the franchise, and I finished Shadow just because I wanted to see the end, but dang that was largely a joyless slog. Compared to Rise I thought Shadow felt bland and unengaging. The exception to that is the core movement, traversal, and combat gameplay, which is highly refined and very good, but also basically the same as Rise of the Tomb Raider so if that's the main draw... I'd say just go replay Rise. Basically the same gameplay, nearly as good graphics, vastly superior tombs, and a way better story with way better performances.

It's not the worst game of last year by any stretch, but even with the DLC I don't think it's worth $60. Especially since I swear I just saw the thing on sale on Steam for like 60% off a month ago.

 

[69Mustang]

Really? It felt like such a huge let-down versus the other two to me. The story has always been what's drawn me to the franchise, and I finished Shadow just because I wanted to see the end, but dang that was largely a joyless slog. Compared to Rise I thought Shadow felt bland and unengaging. The exception to that is the core movement, traversal, and combat gameplay, which is highly refined and very good, but also basically the same as Rise of the Tomb Raider so if that's the main draw... I'd say just go replay Rise. Basically the same gameplay, nearly as good graphics, vastly superior tombs, and a way better story with way better performances.

It's not the worst game of last year by any stretch, but even with the DLC I don't think it's worth $60. Especially since I swear I just saw the thing on sale on Steam for like 60% off a month ago.

Really. I rank them Rise, Shadow, and Tomb. I've replayed all 3 on both my XBox profiles and on PC. Rise was the best, but I still loved Shadow. Oddly enough, I played none of them on my PS4. If I find a decent sale I might play Shadow on the PS4 too.

 

[GeneralChang]

Really. I rank them Rise, Shadow, and Tomb. I've replayed all 3 on both my XBox profiles and on PC. Rise was the best, but I still loved Shadow. Oddly enough, I played none of them on my PS4. If I find a decent sale I might play Shadow on the PS4 too.

Huh. There really is no accounting for taste.

 

[69Mustang]

Huh. There really is no accounting for taste.

I was think the exact same thing about you.

 

[Reindeer_Games]

Bonus tip - if you do this, you might as well run windows 10 with boot camp to let yourself dual boot and open yourself up to a larger library of compatible games.

Many of us have been dual booting to play the "Windows Only" games for years-with great results (at least mine have been IMO). RX580 runs just fine at 1440p with Medium settings and 50 FPS. High to Ultra settings are over-rated, IMHO-but I don't care about bragging rights of having the newest gear/GPU. ?‍♂️

 

[Icaras]

What? No Mac App Store version?

 

[44267547]

Sorta unrelated, but this is one of the main games I have to play that is on my ‘backlog’ for my PS4 Pro. I really like the Tomb Raider series, and this one looks a lot fun. It Makes me think a lot of ‘The last of us/Uncharted Series’ how it’s rendered with the graphics and overall gameplay. Awesome it’s coming to the Mac.

 

[BWhaler]

Awesome game. I wish it was available on the iPad.

 

[Justanotherfanboy]

They're about the same actually. PC and Console gaming combined only tally for about 50% of the online gaming revenue, each contributing about 25%. As far as active users, it's still pretty much split 50/50 between PC and Console.

Huh.
Well, I stand corrected then!

At any rate... as far as Apple Arcade goes; I think it IS their 1st salvo in a war on consoles.
I know I like the convenience of my Switch, in portable mode & on my 75”. That was my only experience at having the “best of both worlds”, until I experienced Apple Arcade... same game: played on my iPad Pro (touch interface) in bed for puzzle areas of a game, then on my Mac mini (w/ xbox controller) on my 75” for more intense action sequences.
If they get their glasses to also do some Oculus-like gaming goodness, as a natural extension of Arcade next year, we may see a viable 4th console choice emerge from Apple.
The patents I’ve seen describe a stand-alone console, sending data to the head-unit via WiGig, which is a new wireless protocol, capable of speeds 50% faster even than thunderbolt 3!!! (60gb/s vs 40gb/s, iirc).
Thats fast enough to send a 4K image to each eye... & if they made a console w/ say- 4 latest gen A-series chips, it would handily outbeast the consoles we have now.

 

[vir2l2k]

Many of us have been dual booting to play the "Windows Only" games for years-with great results (at least mine have been IMO). RX580 runs just fine at 1440p with Medium settings and 50 FPS. High to Ultra settings are over-rated, IMHO-but I don't care about bragging rights of having the newest gear/GPU. ?‍♂️

it‘s not bragging to play a game how it was designed to play it and not be happy with a crippled down quality. there was a time when mac users were quality people and not satisficers hehe

 

[Justanotherfanboy]

it‘s not bragging to play a game how it was designed to play it and not be happy with a crippled down quality. there was a time when mac users were quality people and not satisficers hehe

Oh yeah, I remember that too!!!

Back in the day I would ALWAYS play Myst on my Performa on Ultra settings.
*sigh*
I sure do miss being a “quality person”.

/s

 

[GeneralChang]

it‘s not bragging to play a game how it was designed to play it and not be happy with a crippled down quality. there was a time when mac users were quality people and not satisficers hehe

If it was running at 50fps at greater than 1080p and higher than lowest settings I'm pretty sure it was designed to be played like that, considering that's right about where the Xbox One X and PS4 Pro versions of the games sat in terms of performance and those versions of the game were literally half the targetted player-base...

 

[Colonel Blimp]

Cool, but Macs are practically allergic to GPUs.

Enjoy the 10fps experience, unless you play at something like 1280x720.

it‘s not bragging to play a game how it was designed to play it and not be happy with a crippled down quality. there was a time when mac users were quality people and not satisficers hehe

I played Rise of the Tomb Raider a couple of months ago in macOS Mojave on my iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2019) with the internal Radeon Pro Vega 48, at 2560x1440, with Very High settings, at a consistent 60 fps.

(Edited to correct “Ultra settings” to “Very High settings”; Rise of the Tomb Raider does not have an “Ultra” preset.)

 

[Reindeer_Games]

it‘s not bragging to play a game how it was designed to play it and not be happy with a crippled down quality. there was a time when mac users were quality people and not satisficers hehe

All things being equal, default (A.K.A.-Medium) is how a game was designed to be played. High to Ultra are for those with excess processing power and the desire to have bragging rights (i.e. braggadocios individuals). My Mac Pro can play Ultra on 95% modern game in Windows, I choose to not play it at those levels to avoid the heat, fan noise, and excess power consumption.

You can call that a compromise if you like, I call it common sense considering I'm still playing the same game at UHD whether @ 1440p or 4K. If you have the money-play how you like, and I'll play how I like.

 

[Kobayagi]

I played Rise of the Tomb Raider a couple of months ago in macOS Mojave on my iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2019) with the internal Radeon Pro Vega 48, at 2560x1440, with Ultra settings, at a consistent 60 fps.

I find that hard te believe. Why, you ask? Well, here someone tested the same game on the same iMac as yours and he couldn't get 60 fps even on medium settings.

All of this is even more bad news for this Shadow of the Tomb Raider since it's newer and even more demanding.

 

[klatox]

Hahaha this is like an new game is coming to the Mac!!! Stop the world spinning this is MAJOR news!!’

never mind it came out months ago.. sad really.

I don’t really see the problem here. Red Dead Redemption 2 released like a year ago on consoles and is only just now making it to the PC.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

I find that hard te believe. Why, you ask? Well, here someone tested the same game on the same iMac as yours and he couldn't get 60 fps even on medium settings.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Here are the settings I used:

These are based on the highest “Very High” preset (not the nonexistent “Ultra” preset, as I originally miswrote), with the following tweaks, some up, some down:

Anisotropic Filter: 8X, down from 16X (practically indistinguishable visually)
Sun Soft Shadows: Very High, up from High
Depth of Field: Off, down from Very High (I hate the visual effect, which reduces my sense of immersion)
Level of Detail: High, down from Very High
Vignette Blur: Off, down from On (seems to make no difference to framerate)
Motion Blur: Off, down from On (I don’t like the effect, and at 60 fps it’s unnecessary to smooth motion)
PureHair: Very High, up from On

And here are my benchmark results with those settings, in macOS 10.14.6 Mojave:

I should note that in actual gameplay, I hardly ever noticed Steam’s FPS counter dropping below 60 fps.

(I don’t know what settings Luke Miani was using in his test or how he got the results he did. I can tell you that there are a few settings that make a huge difference: Very High texture quality, in particular, murders my framerate, but not even the “Very High” preset uses the Very High texture quality setting.)

 

[Lalatoon]

To be honest I doubt any single GPU can, check out these benchmarks at 4K resolution:

For games 2k or 1k on 60+ fps is much better. For a single GPU I think you can only have 60FPS in 4k unless if you use 2 GPU then perhaps there is a chance you will reach more than 60fps in 4k+. Maybe if you are a content creator then 4k is a much better option than 60+ fps in 2k or 1k.

Well for Macbook Pro I dont think you can reach 60+ fps on this game

I was actually considering buying a Macbook Pro for work and gaming and luckily I ended up buying Asus ROG Zephyrus S GX502GW with the price of entry level of Macbook Pro. It can reach 70+ fps on Ultra settings of Witcher 3. Macs are really not for AAA gaming.

 

[Kobayagi]

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Here are the settings I used:

View attachment 870385

View attachment 870387

View attachment 870388

These are based on the highest “Very High” preset (not the nonexistent “Ultra” preset, as I originally miswrote), with the following tweaks, some up, some down:

Anisotropic Filter: 8X, down from 16X (practically indistinguishable visually)
Sun Soft Shadows: Very High, up from High
Depth of Field: Off, down from Very High (I hate the visual effect, which reduces my sense of immersion)
Level of Detail: High, down from Very High
Vignette Blur: Off, down from On (seems to make no difference to framerate)
Motion Blur: Off, down from On (I don’t like the effect, and at 60 fps it’s unnecessary to smooth motion)
PureHair: Very High, up from On

And here are my benchmark results with those settings, in macOS 10.14.6 Mojave:

View attachment 870396

I should note that in actual gameplay, I hardly ever noticed Steam’s FPS counter dropping below 60 fps.

(I don’t know what settings Luke Miani was using in his test or how he got the results he did. I can tell you that there are a few settings that make a huge difference: Very High texture quality, in particular, murders my framerate, but not even the “Very High” preset uses the Very High texture quality setting.)

Wow, that looks pretty good then! Thanks for the post!