-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Shadow of Mordor DF Face-Off
- Thread starter neogaffer1
- Start date
Horse Armour
Member
There's clearly a massive difference in texture quality between PS4 and PC, not to mention the other benefits like non-neutered LOD pop in etc.There's no IQ difference between the PS4-PC versions
There's no IQ difference between the PS4-PC versions
? The flower is visibly less blurry in the PC shots.
Don't know what AA they are using on PS4, could be that.
Markitron
Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
derExperte
Member
The Ultra textures-picture looks sharper. Scratch that, every picture does if you look at the flower. Not much though and I can't see a big difference when it comes to the textures.
FXAA? Would explain that the whole picture is blurred, seems to be the only AA option other than downsampling on PC too.
jellies_two
Member
sharper or lacking AA.
I'm pretty impressed with DFs analysis this time around.
This is now one of the few games where we know pretty exactly for each console the equivalent PC settings used:
With the highest PC option being ultra for most of those. It would be interesting to do benchmarks at PS4 and XB1 equivalent settings.
Here are some crops:
LOD
Textures & Shadow Resolution
Vegetation Density
This is now one of the few games where we know pretty exactly for each console the equivalent PC settings used:
Code:
| PS4 | XB1
Resolution | 1080 | 900
Vegetation | medium | low
Textures | high | high
LOD distance | medium | medium
Shadows | high | medium
AO | high | highHere are some crops:
LOD
Textures & Shadow Resolution
Vegetation Density
reptilescorpio
Member
PC framerate depends on the specs of the PC. Consoles are locked hardware so you can quote a framerate without issue.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Pretty huge advantage for PS4 again. PS4 seems to be pulling a wider gap on multiplat titles after a short period where Xbone seemed to be catching up. Maybe new PS4 sdk's have been rolled out a while back?
Sad times when stable 30fps suddenly is considered "amazing". Your expectations regarding the experience speaks for itself. The industry really butchered everything regarding framerate.
Nah, people noticed pretty rapidly in our own thread here about the topic.
User 479360
Banned
It still looks and plays very well on Xbox One, so I don't care.
Pankratous
Member
Thank god devs aren't going for parity. Can't wait to get this, but I'll wait until it's cheaper.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Sure but that's not the point of the analysis.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
There were rumblings that it was an inconsistent frame-rate between 30-60, but when people got their hands on the game almost everyone agreed that it was either capped at 30, or barely went above it, and that it was smooth with no stuttering at whatever it was.
User 479360
Banned
I'm just saying that people put too much emphasis into this type of stuff. Unless the game is a lot worse on the other console, due to bugs or a much lower resolution, it doesn't really matter all that much to me and likely many others.
I know some people really care, but this stuff is a bit overblown.
ethomaz
Banned
I don't think the textures have the same quality between PS4 and XB1... the texture filtering seems bad in XB1 version.
Chobel
Member
Are you sure it's not the lower resolution effect? AF seems identical in both versions.
What people are you talking about? No one said Xbone version is broken, and it's not wrong if someone wants to play the best version (in console).
Most mid-range hardware can run it at 60fps, though. This is the game maxed out (sans ultra textures) at 1080p. I consider a 670 a lower mid-end card - lower shadow quality/vegetation distance from ultra to high and you will probably get a very consistent 60fps on a 2GB 2 year old card.
Sorry but I'm not a big fan of blurry post-process AA (DF even mentions that it hides the differences between 900p and 1080p - losing your native res' clarity is not a positive). PC version has bordeless window mode which means you don't need to turn on vsync for a non tearing image.
I'm not sure where you are getting that the console version looks more polished when the PC version has built-in downsampling options as well as other higher fidelity options.
Given the results of the 7850 which is weaker than the PS4 GPU it would be interesting to see what the CPU scaling on this game is like because looking at that graph it seems as though the CPU is a bottleneck in the PS4 version and less so in the Xbox One version.
So had a quick look and it is more clock speed sensitive than core sensitive with the 4 core FX4100 @ 3.6 Ghz outperforming the 6 core FX6100 @ 3.3 Ghz. The low clock speed of the console CPUs does seem to be hurting them slightly although you would expect with lower overhead APIs it would not make as much difference as it does.
The only other explanation is that Motion Blur and the FXAA implementation are rather expensive and if that is the case I would rather a clean 1080p presentation @ VHQ instead of the one they have given us.
ethomaz
Banned
I'm not sure at all... just guessing... yeap can be the resolution.
symphonask
Member
I think there's a way to inject SMAA into the PC version. Check the PC performance thread.
The only way MS will get parity this gen is paying for it, you just can't get it on weaker hardware regardless of you having the best engineers
KojiKnight
Member
It's normally not an issue in the main threads or performance threads to say things like that, but you should be careful in a thread that's dedicated to the technical discussion and analysis like digital foundry threads. These kinds of threads are meant to be nitty gritty and discussing details that many people don't care about and downplaying them isn't a good idea. Many people have learned that the hard way in previous DF threads.
Here is the cpu benchs from gamegpu analysis:
http://gamegpu.ru/rpg/rollevye/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-test-gpu.html
Not the most cpu intensive game on pc... but yeah, it's probably not the easiest thing in the world to make it run on the console cores.
KojiKnight
Member
I wonder what went wrong with pc version.
No clue, no loss for me (motion blur gives me terrible headaches/motion sickness) but it does suck for people who want the option for it not to work.
GhostTrick
Banned
So, it seems that it is a great PC version, it even achieve parity with consoles on the same framerate on lower end GPUs ! 
NumberThree
Member
All the shitting on the PC version (inflated system requirements, console versions matching its visuals etc.) in the ultra textures thread looks real dumb now.
FXAA at work here? Even the PS4 version is incredibly blurry.Vegetation Density
CaptainTiptop
Member
Errrm, plenty of people noticed the game was 30.
perineumlick
Member
I can see where some people would think the PS4 version runs higher than 30fps at times. I don't know if it's the motion blur or what, but certain scenes seemed to run extra smooth to me. The game can be a real looker at times.
Confused Cheeseburger
Member
The writing is on the wall for performance between consoles for the near future. It is becoming mainstream knowledge. I was looking for this game yesterday, and finding the PS4 version took a while. Eb games was sold out of the ps4 version across east Toronto . I went into a Walmart and me and two random dudes with the same idea bought the last copies in that store.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
I did...
... but you guys are giving other posters (with a few notable exceptions like shinobi) way too much credit. Lots of people were saying that it rarely approached 60, as if it ever did.
Monolith uses some dark magic in their engine.
There can be up to 15+ orcs on screen and there is almost zero frame drop when shit hits the fan sometime in these chaotic battles.
Probably one of the best action openworld game that I have ever played with its refined and smooth combat gameplay.
In addition, I actually went out of my way to complete all missions and collectibles.
I rarely if never do this in an openworld game because these tasks are so tedious; but not in SoM though. Fast travel(LITERALLY means fast travel aka in the perfect place), fast climbing, fast run speed, fast killing=enjoyable gameplay and not tedious...I hope Ubisoft takes some notes from this game.
There can be up to 15+ orcs on screen and there is almost zero frame drop when shit hits the fan sometime in these chaotic battles.
Probably one of the best action openworld game that I have ever played with its refined and smooth combat gameplay.
In addition, I actually went out of my way to complete all missions and collectibles.
I rarely if never do this in an openworld game because these tasks are so tedious; but not in SoM though. Fast travel(LITERALLY means fast travel aka in the perfect place), fast climbing, fast run speed, fast killing=enjoyable gameplay and not tedious...I hope Ubisoft takes some notes from this game.
symphonask
Member
Yeah, it hurts to look at.
Here is the cpu benchs from gamegpu analysis:
http://gamegpu.ru/rpg/rollevye/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-test-gpu.html
Not the most cpu intensive game on pc... but yeah, it's probably not the easiest thing in the world to make it run on the console cores.
Yea I checked them out after I posted and then I edited it but since the thread is moving on I will post my edit here too.
So had a quick look and it is more clock speed sensitive than core sensitive with the 4 core FX4100 @ 3.6 Ghz outperforming the 6 core FX6100 @ 3.3 Ghz. The low clock speed of the console CPUs does seem to be hurting them slightly although you would expect with lower overhead APIs it would not make as much difference as it does.
The only other explanation is that Motion Blur and the FXAA implementation are rather expensive and if that is the case I would rather a clean 1080p presentation @ VHQ instead of the one they have given us.
It looks a fair bit worse than FXAA.
It was always dumb as shit. Just people who built their first PCs in 2008 getting scared that they might not be able to arbitrarily slide the sliders all the way over for the first time because the entire point of modular hardware apparently eludes them.
Probably just the motion blur at work, which is borked on PC atm. Not that I'm complaining, though. Game looks fantastic for me gsync'd up at around 80 FPS avg on my 780.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Next gen, maybe?
NumberThree
Member
Good point, could be motion blur's doing. Either way I really dislike it when games look like that, it's not that big of an issue when I'm playing on the TV (as I play SoM) but looking at an image like that on a monitor is awful.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Kinda missing the point of the face off.
This kind of face-off is going to be pretty standard for the rest of the generation.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
They didn't test hard enough. Camera motion blur works on PC, it also adds an edge sampling effect.