-
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
Every single thead its an e-penis match...
Cant you guys give it a rest every once in a while?
I'm wondering now what exactly the 360 and PS3 versions look like. If they are anything like Ghost recon advanced warfighter was on PS2 compared to the 360 version, it makes me wonder why they even bother with the last gen versions
Cant you guys give it a rest every once in a while?
I'm wondering now what exactly the 360 and PS3 versions look like. If they are anything like Ghost recon advanced warfighter was on PS2 compared to the 360 version, it makes me wonder why they even bother with the last gen versions
Hmm, interesting. I have a fair number of discs and attempted to use a few while visiting my in-laws on a laptop when I had no internet connection. Wasn't able to play any of the Steam games. I'll have to investigate further.
I guess we'll just have to differ on what ownership means. I "own" several hundred games on Steam, unfortunately, but don't really consider that actual ownership. If you do, wonderful. I don't. I only use it out of necessity.
You know, it's actually difficult to explain. I understand what you mean but I really enjoying playing games on hardware it was designed for from a specific era. Playing an old Saturn game is so much more interesting to me than playing a 90s PC game on my modern PC.
If I had the room, however, I would love to build an old Pentium box with a Voodoo card and a nice CRT. I just love hardware and the experience of using it the way it was designed to be used. It's irrational but I can't help it.
It could make all motion blur calculations, but do not compose buffer with final image for example and then a drop in framerate would be viable.
I'd say it's even in my book.
The good thing about developers making you play at their settings is they optimize nicely for the setting, it's a guarantee of zero-hassle consistency. I give my big bro a console so I don't have to do tech support for him, no toolbars and malware too.
KojiKnight
Member
This is a digital foundry thread. It exists to compare the tech specifics of the different ports of the game. Why even come into a thread that exists SPECIFICALLY to talk about these things just to complain that people are doing just that?
Windom Earle
Member
PC>PS4>Xbone as it should be. I could have sworn I saw a subtle motion blur on PC but maybe my mind was playing tricks on me. Game looks great at a locked 60fps@ultra + SMAA.
Wouldn't be a proper DF thread without at least one whining post about comparing versions I guess.
Shin-Ra
Junior Member
People were actually expecting them to be the same apart from the 900p-1080p resolution difference.
Someone was even complaining that people had convinced him to go with the PS4 version.
Well, hopefully that also means it's an easy fix then.
I'll disable it for now and just try to increase something from High to Ultra. When they get it working perfectly, I'll go back to how I have the game running now.
Or maybe I won't, I didn't even notice it wasn't working, so maybe it's not as important to me as I thought it was.
Don't be obtuse. Nobody is complaining about people commenting on DF's findings. What i'm talking about is the constant "lol the platform i play games on is better than yours", "NO U" back and forth.
Its not even about a level headed technical comparison between the versions instead of a constant ego match.
What we seem to have here is a pretty close experience between the 3 versions, but there's always that one person who's gotta be "Lol DF's a shill for PC/consoles/MS/Sony" because of some salty reason. FPS aside, nobody seems to be getting the short end of the stick, and that's good, ixn't it?
This is exactly what happened with Uncharted 3 at launch as well.
How strange that the PC version is missing motion blur effects. Nevermind not having any AA options. I still think the port is unoptimized, or maybe it's an issue with their particular engine. Those ultra textures don't look all that "ultra" at all, not to the point where they require 6GB.
My guess is enemy numbers can get way too high to want to unlock the framerate. The game probably would fluctuate heavily, especially when you go from an empty area to swarming with orcs at the drop of a hat.
But they were successful with Destiny and Diablo 3 in closing the gap.
derExperte
Member
In theory yes. In practice this often isn't the case and we get tearing, framedrops, low res, pop-ins etc since devs can't be bothered to finetune. Not a problem with Mordor and less so right now in general thanks to currentgen but let's not forget the last few years of oldgen and it might happen again.
If you're talking about DF threads then yeah, that is pretty much the sole purpose of these threads, to compare different versions to get a better idea of which one to get which I don't exactly see a problem with. I'd stop with the thread whining tbh.
Care to link to these posts then?
It's really not, it's a great port actually.
Yes, the Ultra textures don't look all that ultra, but that also means that High textures are really close to Ultra textures. The game scales really well. The game will look and run good enough for your hardware, that's what matters the most.
The motion blur thing is weird, indeed, but the game actually has really good IQ imo, I'm not missing AA at all. At least playing on my TV, maybe if I was playing on a monitor sitting closer to it, so there's that.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
another easy win for PC thanks to superior gpu and cpu.
Windom Earle
Member
Yup, funny that the consoles can't even pull off one ultra setting. Anyway, great work overall from Monolith, none of that parity crap. Now patch in motion blur on PC and give us a good SLI profile and I'm happy.
It's a solid port, but it does need a few optimization passes.
Heh, Monolith sure has come a loooooong way.
Early LithTech games from the 90s/early 2000s were such a mess.
That part is maybe not "can't be bothered", but more of sacrifices made on aging hardware.
I'm implicitly trusting devs put best effort on one fixed setting for the latter.
It has been a pretty good PC version for me too, I get an average of about 80-90fps in most areas, including in large fights, but there are odd areas (like a specific place in one of the strong holds) where it drops down to about 55-60fps. But I'm on a G-Sync monitor so it doesn't bother me. This is all Ultra settings, 1080p, high textures.
This is also with less than great SLI scaling, using the F.E.A.R 3 SLI compatibility bit, once an official SLI profile comes out and maybe a new driver for NVIDIA/AMD cards, we should see even better performance. So even better performance for a game that already performs very well is fine by me!
The main disappointments are the anti-aliasing options and the 99fps cap, I have a 144hz G-Sync monitor and I'm hitting that 99fps cap quite frequently. This FPS limit is there despite the 'FPS limit' option offering three options 1) 30fps 2) 60fps 3) No LImit. Except it isn't actually 'no limit'.
This is also with less than great SLI scaling, using the F.E.A.R 3 SLI compatibility bit, once an official SLI profile comes out and maybe a new driver for NVIDIA/AMD cards, we should see even better performance. So even better performance for a game that already performs very well is fine by me!
The main disappointments are the anti-aliasing options and the 99fps cap, I have a 144hz G-Sync monitor and I'm hitting that 99fps cap quite frequently. This FPS limit is there despite the 'FPS limit' option offering three options 1) 30fps 2) 60fps 3) No LImit. Except it isn't actually 'no limit'.
I remember enjoying Shogo mad immensely and that worked beautifully on my then new PC. Blood 2 was pretty heavy game graphically but i don't remember having problems with that either. It was not that good game though.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Windom Earle
Member
Re-posting the SMAA instructions for PC as people seem still not aware of this:
PC all about dat crisp grass
PC all about dat crisp grass
Ooh, thanks for bringing this to my attention!
alexandros
Banned
Shinobi said this was framerate locked and I didn't believe him. So this is me apologising to him and eating crow at the same time. Good eye, Shinobi! I will not question you again in the future.
Shadows of Mordor is another one in a series of games where PC GPUs compared to the PS4 perform almost exactly as one would expect based on their power rating. Interestingly, even cards that are a bit weaker than the PS4's GPU are able to match or even outperform it. For me this leaves little doubt that the AMD Jaguar CPUs inside next gen consoles are a serious bottleneck so far. Thoughts?
Shadows of Mordor is another one in a series of games where PC GPUs compared to the PS4 perform almost exactly as one would expect based on their power rating. Interestingly, even cards that are a bit weaker than the PS4's GPU are able to match or even outperform it. For me this leaves little doubt that the AMD Jaguar CPUs inside next gen consoles are a serious bottleneck so far. Thoughts?
eso76
Member
Any PC game can do 60fps on the right rig, everyone knows. Since it depends entirely on your HW and everyone will get different results, thats something that's best left out of any comparison. They should just mention how the game performs in general (good / bad port, well optimised or not etc) and maybe tell us what frame rates we can expect with different settings and cards combinations, but there's websites for that.
MS needs to send engineers back in time to when they were designing the Xbone.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Depends on how picky you are about IQ. And naturally, the type of people that are picky about it are going to flock to this type of thread.
Yeah, coming in just to say, "It's better on the platform I happen to own. Suck it." is kind of pointless.
nelsonroyale
Member
Vegetation doesn't seem to even look impressive on PC.
Overall I quite like the look of this game, but geometry seems to betray the last gen origins. I don't think it holds a candle to say Infamous Last Light visually.
Overall I quite like the look of this game, but geometry seems to betray the last gen origins. I don't think it holds a candle to say Infamous Last Light visually.
I can't imagine what kind of system you were running. Those games suffered from wildly unstable frame-rates and the absolute worst data access stuttering. At the time I had a Pentium II 400 + Voodoo 2 12mb with 64mb ram which was quite fast for the time. Unreal ran beautifully but Shogo, Blood 2, and eventually NOLF1 all were horribly unstable. Looking back I do think part of the problem I encountered (without realizing it) was the lack of triple buffering support. The games would bounce between 60 to 15 fps at any point along with the crazy HDD stuttering.
Of course, Captain Claw ran great as a nice 640x480 side scroller and Blood was fine for its day. I still had a good time with their games but LithTech (or DirectEngine as it was originally known) was a stinker. Quake and Unreal engines were so faster at the time.
So the PC version is far superior, didn't know if the console versions were going for 30 or 60. Then the texture talk between PC and consoles is nothing of note since one of them is pushing double/three times the framerate at the same or better textures.
Thanks for the article DF.
Thanks for the article DF.
BruiserBear
Banned
I know exactly what you're talking about, and yes, people are being obtuse. The posts where people's sole purpose for entering the thread is to say how great their favorite console is. Then they attempt to hide behind the "technical discussion" when called out on it. smh
Developer interviews haven't really suggested that. I've seen it said that the CPU is a nice match for these GPU's.
Windom Earle
Member
Also don't forget about that one superior creature fang on Xbox. It certainly might tip some people over.
Vegetation Density
Wow, that's pretty drastic, I recall this being a driving factor for a lot of people when RDR hit and was compared between the PS3/360.
Whitechocolatekrispies
Banned
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.
The cards that can run this game at 60fps all cost roughly the same as an entire next generation console.
Framerate for PC games are irrelevant outside of any broken or capped games in these comparisons.
Quit trying to start a dick size contest in a room full of women.
Sounds like the usual hierarchy of versions is in place, what's the issue? I mean besides some minor fuckery with the PC version that should be fixed before long, obviously?
God, PS4 version comes up short of course, but the Xbox version really does look terrible in this particular comparison.
Vegetation Density
God, PS4 version comes up short of course, but the Xbox version really does look terrible in this particular comparison.
Turn down LOD and textures to high settings and you can achieve 60 FPS on just about anything.
There are currently some optimization concerns with the game.
alexandros
Banned
Then why are cards like the 7850 and the 750Ti able to outperform the PS4 at higher quality settings, even with the console advantage of low level optimizations? It's got to be the CPU, nothing else makes sense.
Doesn't seem that useful when the PS4 version is capped at 30. We have no idea how it actually runs without the frame-rate cap in place.