Well, write me the right specs then. As i sad before, those specs are from this forum. And i think it is somewhere from here :
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=676989
-
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
Well, write me the right specs then. As i sad before, those specs are from this forum. And i think it is somewhere from here :
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=676989
Derpcrawler
Member
Math, how does it work. Part 2 - confusion.
When its " so much more advance " to me, that means ps1 vs ps3 No need for considerable time spent. You could visually see it right away.
We just have a different definition of what " so much more advance ' means.
BouncyFrag
Member
Perfect.
Kamina
Golden Boy
And IMO the game looks fantastic on all platforms. I cant see anything that looks like "shit".
I hate when people argument in such a way.
luca_29_bg
Member
And pc will never get exclusives made it for console, these games are the real test of a console power, not stupid multiplatform titles.They are useless. It 's always been so and always will be.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Based on what?
If it would have, they would not have locked it at 30 FPS. As it is now, regardless of what the PS4 could have done, it's stuck at 30 FPS, and even a cheap mid-range GPU can do that.
Teletraan1
Banned
That is strange. I have been running on high textures on a 2 GB 670 and I toned down some other things to get a locked 60 with no stutters at 1080p. The game takes almost the entire 2 GB at all times. Game runs like a dream.
I don't think I can edit video and do my work on a PS4. That's more valuable to me than a Bluray player (though I have a BD drive, too
).Getting a big chuckle at people suggesting Motion Blur is that big of a hit. Yeah, they totally sacrificed 45-60 FPS for motion blur and FXAA, two of the worst effects out there (and ones with very little performance impact). Motion blur is more often used to HIDE performance issues since it can make low frame rates look smoother.
Pretty noticeable actually. Maybe because I'm used to gaming on PC. Then translating that in having an amazing calibrated TV/console set up?
900 to 1080p is noticeable by itself. But add in shadows and foliage and its even more so. I mean you can look at outdated games like world of Warcraft. Put that shit at lower resolution and without shadows and decrease foliage/effects and it looks way noticeble.
High quality motion blur is indeed a demanding effect. Where did you get the impression that it wasn't? It's one of my favorite effects too - ie it's subjective.
LAUGHTREY
Modesty becomes a woman
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.
It's weird to me how low on that list you can go to get 30FPS, but how high you need to get to get 60.
It just seems like if you can grab the 750ti, a $130~ GPU, and play it just fine at 30FPS but need a $500-$600 card to get above 60. They did such a good job optimizing the game at 30, seems like they didn't even bother going for 60 on the PC
Which shouldn't surprise me, developers make the games for consoles and just puke em up on the PC. Another generation of games on the PC being held back by the consoles again. Here we go.
It is if it's high quality. Very few games have it though. Crytek does it well. Most games do not.
As far as where I get that idea, you can look at various tweak guides for dozens of games. Disabling motion blur 9 times out of 10 has very little performance impact. Even in games where it is performance heavy (like Witcher 2) it is not 15-30 FPS heavy.
I swear when I first got the game on PC, I benchmarked with motion blur on and off and saw around a 10fps improvement. It doesn't work at all?
EDIT: Just tried it again and there's no difference now. Could an update have broken it?
thelastword
Banned
In quotes (I took a guess at it) based on the disparity between the hardware and the performance of prior titles like BF4 and Tomb Raider. As I said we can never know for sure (unless the last paragraph in my post is adhered to), but on the flipside saying that the PC version runs at 60fps with no way of knowing how the console version runs unlocked is not a fair comparison either.
Answered above..
I'm sure it can as it would be missing motion blur and AA which the console versions do have. A higher framerate with these bits missing would be natural, it's how hardware works. A good comparison against the PC would include motion blur and the same aa method on PC as they do draw gpu and cpu resources.
krypt0nian
Banned
Not usually a good idea to come into topics to say you don't care.
Exactly. And PC gamers (or should I say, PC elitists) wonder why console gamers despise them.
Of course, PC gaming will always outperform consoles in graphics, etc. Do we really need to hear about it for the umpteenth time? We get it.
It works.
It's a platform that is part of the article, why shouldn't it be discussed, people have no issue saying ''PS4 wins again" when that will probably happen in every comparison, yet somehow no one bats an eye about that.
The performance on BF4 follows close to this one (with the 7850 running at/better than Ps4), and TR are different versions of the game. You should have mentioned Metro Redux instead.
It will happen in every comparison. it won't change unless the Ps4 versions badly crippled or the game never used the system's full power anyway (like several indie and 2D games).
Next time i will write them without those percentage numbers, just pure specs. :-D My bad then.
People have already said that you can get win licenses for like 20.
And if anybody told me he prefers ease of consoles over a PC i'm perfectly fine with that.
The reason i said something was because i'm tired of people acting like these consoles are amazing value and you need to pay 5 trizillions for a pc.
Count me in as someone who finds motion blur (object motion blur specifically) to be a very welcome feature and is disappointed that it currently doesn't function on the PC version. What a bizarre oversight...
I wish people would stop posting this image. The jpg compression is laughably bad - so bad that there is simply no way to discern any texture detail at all.There's no IQ difference between the PS4-PC versions
It's dumb. It's really, really, really dumb. Someone needs to make a better comparison, this time without the awful jpg compression.
krypt0nian
Banned
*giggle*
Maybe because there is no difference between the texture detail?
So we should stop doing that once and for all to elevate the discussion. And stop being hateful at things imperfect to our eyes too because it will ruin the industry some day.
I'm seriously scared of producers/investors reading NeoGAF and coming to conclusions (parity for example) because of those threads (and this one in particular). It's bad.
Shadow of Mirror is a very pretty game on every platform, even on X1. It is pretty much the same too. There isn't much of a difference between those versions, the game is pretty, fine and enjoyable. I'm tired of you platform warriors.
thelastword
Banned
Which is why I find it ridiculous that PC is included in faceoffs against consoles, it makes no sense because I can go down town and buy the spiffiest pc parts and run multiplats better for the entire generation or I can leave my pc as is and just post on gaf and do regular pc stuff. My pc in it's current state barely runs sf4 above 60fps at 720p, there's no way I'm running mordor at all. This just shows that "PC" is not a definitive thing in terms of spec, so you can't say "PC" runs this better than PS4, it all depends on which pc you have.
I'll tell you one thing though, the Ps4 gamer in China, Russia, St Lucia knows that he's running mordor at 30fps locked with motion blur and aa regardless of their individualized locations. That's what console gaming is.
No, I can see the quantization artifacts very clearly. There's very good reason why, for example, the High-Res Screenshot Thread has a rule banning jpgs with visible artifacts from being posted. It obscures too much detail and turns the image into an artifact-ridden mess, which is exactly what I'm seeing in that image.
killatopak
Gold Member
Good god what has the thread become?
Aside from that, it's not like every PC can run Mordor at 60fps.
My current PC right now can't even run World of Warcraft decently. No way I'm gonna play Mordor here.
Aside from that, it's not like every PC can run Mordor at 60fps.
My current PC right now can't even run World of Warcraft decently. No way I'm gonna play Mordor here.
The AA on consoles looks like basic FXAA. Its performance impact is roughly zero.
It has nothing to do with "optimizing the game at 30". Such a thing isn't even possible.
It has everything to do with the natural curve of hardware prices. Twice the framerate requires twice the performance, and high performance hardware is more expensive than mainstream hardware. There's really nothing surprising or special going on here.
There should be no face-offs at all then. The Ps4 hardware holds a clear advantage over the XBOne that won't change, ever.
clutch.as.it.gets.
Member
People warring that PS4 Vs PC fight...people it's 1080p Vs 1080p.
It's fail right there.
Instead let me ask you guys if you know any good/funny LP of this? Will be stuck at work for 3-4 more hours just babying the systems
It's fail right there.
Nah seriously I wish I could take it as seriously as some seem to do.
Instead let me ask you guys if you know any good/funny LP of this? Will be stuck at work for 3-4 more hours just babying the systems
EmptySpace
Banned
because they are? these consoles will be running games 7 years from now, bought for 400 bucks last year. why? locked hardware. devs are going to optimise for it.
give me one 400-dollar pc from 2013 that will run 2020 games at 30 fps minimum. you won't be able to.
"oh no but you have to pay for online, etc." is gonna be the excuse, no doubt.
thunder_snail
Member
So, the conclusion is :
low-end PC or laptop < xbone < mid-end PC or PS4 < high-end PC < ultra-high-end PC < The Pixel Collider.
Oh. and WII U somewhere.
low-end PC or laptop < xbone < mid-end PC or PS4 < high-end PC < ultra-high-end PC < The Pixel Collider.
Oh. and WII U somewhere.
Given the last few years of last gen your 400 buck console won't be running the average game at 30 fps either in 7 years
I can see some artifacts too. Doesn't mean there's basically no difference.
Yea you will at the right settings but ok. A 680 is going to have every advantage over a ps4 in 7 years, as it does now. Its still going to out perform it. There is no console magic. A lot of ps4 gamers getting super defensive here, and making shit up.
LapinAgile
Member
People enjoying a console doesn't diminish your PC enjoyment... or shouldn't. And vice-versa. You just come off as insecure and defensive. These threads always turn into a budget PC buildathon and it's sad to see we can't just discuss the technical merits of the game on what we want to play it on.
pixellated_man
Member
So true. All of us need to stop being defensive when it comes to the technical capabilities of our favorite platform. It's the main reason why there is so much childish nonsense in gaming forums especially at the start of every new console generation. I have a ps4 and I have made peace with the reality that a decent gaming pc will outperform it and this gap will only widen in the coming years. I'm not particularly bothered though, because I knew this when I made my purchase. The convenience (for my household circumstances) and the exclusives (love those sony worldwide studios games) are more important to me than cutting edge graphics. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate graphics (that's why I am in a DF thread and is one of the reasons I chose ps4 over Xone) and appreciate discussing this aspect. I just wish people wouldn't get so hung up about this one aspect of a game and devolve every DF thread to bitter squabbling instead of an enjoyable civil discussion.
John Bender
Banned
Then what are you doing here in a tech-thread?
Perhaps it would be interesting for DF to suggest what PC would be necessary to run at the equivalent of the best performing console version? So after working out what detail level each setting is at, benchmark different PCs at those settings and match the framerate. Eg set it to 1080p and all high settings and what GPU would get you a solid 30fps?
Exactly what's been going on in threads such as this one about "PC gaming is always superior & you don't need consoles at all," etc. This attitude is tiring, & it gets old.
killatopak
Gold Member
I think optimizations will help though especially on consoles. 7 years from now, a 680 will be having less optimizations because by then all the new iGPU would have more priority.