Ah, no they didn't. People were pretty bent out of shape due to the game being unoptimized. How true that was at the time I don't know, but there was a lot of negativity.
-
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 offers Ultra texture optional download, recommends 6GB VRAM @ 1080p
- Thread starter Regret Truth
- Start date
Ah, no they didn't. People were pretty bent out of shape due to the game being unoptimized. How true that was at the time I don't know, but there was a lot of negativity.
No? What is that supposed to mean? Don't insult me because I called you out on your ignorant comment. You suggested that people complaining about the VRAM requirement have old cards, when the reality is that some people who have brand new cards are also amongst those complaining because they also don't have the necessary memory.
MrTroubleMaker
Gold Member
:O I wonder how my titan will run.
Baron_Calamity
Member
BreezyLimbo
Banned
While it's minimized, it looks like art. Maybe it's just me.
UnrealEck
Member
It does look quite nice. But not better texture quality than many games I've seen running on 2GB of VRAM.
I'm guessing that quality in the screenshot will likely contribute to a total requirement of 2GB. I'm sure those aren't the highest textures you'll get and those that are the highest are probably going to be best used at 4K.
Why's that?
Never said it does. Or am I missing your point?
TheUsual
Gold Member
Exactly. No problem adding it an additional option like this.
Doesn't the Witcher 2 still have some settings that people can't fully max out? (I remember reading something about Uber settings or something along that line).
We're not losing anything if not all of us can play at the absolute maximum (especially when this additional setting is an optional download).
Prophet Steve
Member
How so? We aren't suddenly going to make an absolutely huge jump in GPUs after the consoles are released.
Ubersampling it was called. And yeah, that was the case but it was announced in advanced that you weren't supposed to use it now. And later they patched the option to show up in red. It can run on plenty of GPUs now.
I think VRAM requirements usually go up quite a bit in open world games, but I am not sure.
But it is a bit of a bad screenshot to look at texture quality. You presented the screenshot as: "The game doesn't look so good graphically, why does it use so much VRAM." But it isn't about the total picture.
Also, since this is an extra optional package I doubt whether that screenshot includes those textures.
Gipsy Danger
Member
Because two games have higher than average VRAM requirements?
One of which my card can match.
The problem is not that the option exists. The problem is likely that option implies they not spent time looking for the right balance between resolution of every texture for every "Texture preset" in the game. For example, I can imagine a thrid person camera game where the main character texture is 4Kx4K in consoles while the rest of the textures are 2Kx2K or 1Kx1K. On the other hand, the pc version of that game uses 2Kx2K textures for high quality in every asset filling 1.4 GB of VRAM and 4Kx4K textures for every asset in ultra quality textures option filling 3.2 GB of VRAM. So, you will need a 4 GB gpu to match main character texture quality of consoles when a simple mod that put that singular texture in the high quality preset could fill 1.405 GB for a way better experience.
Another problem in games with development centered on consoles (probably not for Mordor) is they use the console framerate for calculations. Watch Dogs (and Dead Rising 3) have streaming routines that are designed to work on 33 ms frametimes. Max number of shaders and textures streamed per frame in watch dogs are fine for 33 ms but in no way are ok for 16 ms frametime.
Twenty7KVN
Member
More like a step. Shit it didn't even get out of the starting gate,it just fell over.
The_Hitcher89
Member
I've really got to make a note of my PC's specs. Don't have a clue whether I can use this 
Corpsepyre
Banned
Yeah, I don't know about this. Will wait for DSOgaming's performance analysis before I get this. Shit seems outrageous.
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
the birds are using 4k textures
jim2point0
Banned
Yes, console now having more ram is causing some bad porting
I kinda thought this would happen. Gonna stick with my 780 Ti Classy till the next set of cards come out next year around the time Oculus Rift CV1 comes out.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Holy crap, the thread went +12 pages overnight.
grandwizard
Member
Good on them for pushing the limits. Are people forgetting that Monolith made FEAR which was also using advanced tech at the time, and as a result still looked fantastic on the PC years later?
I have to imagine that the people having meltdowns that they won't be able to max this game are the summer childs of PC gaming, who got in last gen when you could max everything on a $500 budget build and are now for the first time having to turn the sliders down.
This is how progress is made, learn to live with 'only' high settings, these ultra high end options are just that: options for later down the line when you have better hardware.
I have to imagine that the people having meltdowns that they won't be able to max this game are the summer childs of PC gaming, who got in last gen when you could max everything on a $500 budget build and are now for the first time having to turn the sliders down.
This is how progress is made, learn to live with 'only' high settings, these ultra high end options are just that: options for later down the line when you have better hardware.
Its more than likely mostly larger mip maps for 16x af at 4k .. which means that the actual texture resolution might not be much larger but there is no texture LOD.
That is my guess anyway.
Papacheeks
Banned
Wish people who are complaining about their PC setups, understand that this game is a ported game, that has obviously an engine that's -unoptimized for PC?
Case in point Battlefield works fine for the most part on most PC setups, because the Frost Bite 2 Engine they are using is optimized for PC.
Monolith has become more of a console developer as of late, so it's understandable to see an unoptimized game from them on PC.
Especially when you compare this to other Next gen console games on PC.
The issue I think will be if this continues to become a trend. But I think it's just going to take time to get the kinks worked out of new software for developers so they can have some sort of parity across Console and PC, in terms of just optimization on their engines.
It happened last generation, it took them a while to get their engines somewhat optimized for PC when they ported. We still get crap ports, but most games now I feel run fine on most moderate hardware.
Also who's to say they won't patch this later? Sleeping Dogs I believe had some performance issues on PC when it first came out, they patched later down the line, and it ran smooth as silk.
Case in point Battlefield works fine for the most part on most PC setups, because the Frost Bite 2 Engine they are using is optimized for PC.
Monolith has become more of a console developer as of late, so it's understandable to see an unoptimized game from them on PC.
Especially when you compare this to other Next gen console games on PC.
The issue I think will be if this continues to become a trend. But I think it's just going to take time to get the kinks worked out of new software for developers so they can have some sort of parity across Console and PC, in terms of just optimization on their engines.
It happened last generation, it took them a while to get their engines somewhat optimized for PC when they ported. We still get crap ports, but most games now I feel run fine on most moderate hardware.
Also who's to say they won't patch this later? Sleeping Dogs I believe had some performance issues on PC when it first came out, they patched later down the line, and it ran smooth as silk.
Twenty7KVN
Member
I would've done the samething if i had your card. I upgraded to gtx 970 from a pair of 6870s,and i'm very happy with my performance. I'm pretty confident that i can play this,and plenty other games at higher quality than the consoles. So i'm not worried by this news at all,i'm actually very happy that they did this.
UnrealEck
Member
It's not about the total picture? What is it then? I presented a screenshot displaying graphics. I presented my view on whether I think those graphics justify more than 2GB of VRAM.
I'm well aware that textures aren't all that's in VRAM. I said that a few pages back too.
I never said those textures are the ultra textures. I am saying those graphics in that screenshot don't appear to justify more than 2GB of VRAM. Meaning mostly that those are the sort of graphics I'd expect a 2GB card to run. That's the sort of texture quality I'd expect to see possible on a 2GB card.
Maybe 3GB as a requirement, but I'm still thinking that's a stretch.
Ultra textures are another story. That's not what my post was saying.
The Dear Leader
Banned
I'm excited to play it with my 7850 at launch and I'm even more excited to replay when I get my 970 later this year.
Prophet Steve
Member
No, you can't look at a picture and think: "These graphics look like X VRAM."
There are many aspects of graphics that have a significantly lesser impact on VRAM. Texture quality, a very significant one is not particularly well-showcased in that screenshot.
I feel like selling my 780ti and getting one of those ATI 6GBs video cards
Why would you want less performance in all other areas for possibly slightly better textures?
Will you not say whether the game is or isn't optimized well right now? How much hardware a highest settings requires is a very bad representation of whether or not a game is well-optimized.
TheUsual
Gold Member
Ah, okay. Nice to hear there are plenty of GPUs that can run it now. So it's basically the same situation: they're telling us "Hey, if you want to use this setting, you're going to need this much VRAM". They aren't hiding anything from us.
UnrealEck
Member
I feel like selling my 780ti and getting one of those ATI 6GBs video cards
I think that if you're contemplating that move based on this game (and what you think it might mean for future games), you should hold off. Wait to see what the game looks like without the texture pack and ask yourself if you really think you need textures of the quality of the texture pack.
They're possibly factoring in running the game at something like 4K too.
Would a 280X 6GB give that much less performance?
Dictator93
Member
Good point. Texture settings are not clear enough / designed around really good customization for those with lower RAM amounts. It is just kind of a blanket/carpet bomb approach of texture handling.
Also, the second point is also spot on about game performance in a number of ports.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
kevm is telling it like it is, agreed on everything.
On another note, is AMD coming out with any top flight 20nm 6-8gb cards in 2015? I only buy AMD, including my CPU... I know I know, but I'm an AMD/ATI fanboy. They've never done me wrong all these years.
Prophet Steve
Member
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1072?vs=1041
Yes, and the Nvidia ecosystem is preferably too.
I feel like selling my 780ti and getting one of those ATI 6GBs video cards
There are ? Did not know that.
Dictator93
Member
Your ever changing avatar is totally confusing me man.
Galacticus
Member
I find this thread hilarious because people honestly believe the PS4 version is going to be using the 6GB ultra textures AND they are crapping on the Nvidia 900 series.
Sigh....
Sigh....
Projectjustice
Banned
Why would that be a shame? I game on 2 platforms, i built myself a very nice gaming PC. Why would i need the same game to be on 2 platforms?
Looking at how the game looks in general, I'm don't understand why it is so high on VRAM, even at high. Anyway, increasing memory usage isn't the first place I would start to improve the graphics in this game, because I think it looks rather average when it comes to details, geometry and effects.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
No one is believing that.
UnrealEck
Member
There's plenty of other screenshots around. I can absolutely look at a game and question why its using so much VRAM. I can absolutely say 'wait a minute, why are they asking for so much memory?' I can absolutely say 'I don't think this looks like it justifies such high requirements' or 'I don't see why the graphics shown in these screenshots will use more than X amount of VRAM'.
I'm not saying I know it shouldn't. I'm saying it doesn't seem like it should and that if it does, I'm going to be curious as to why.
As for the comment about various other aspects using VRAM, I thought I had covered that already.
Prophet Steve
Member
I don't agree with him at all. You likely still have a great experience with less VRAM and this is only one detail you are paying attention too.
Yeah, they will come with 20nm 6-8 cards in 2015, although I doubt they will be preferable over their Nvidia counterparts.
Yes there are AMD cards with 6 GB.
I am not trying to say that various other aspects use VRAM too, I just say that texture quality is an important part of it and that part is not showcased well in that screenshot. The textures where you need to more than 4GB of VRAM for are likely not even showcases in the screenshots out there now. With 2GB of VRAM the game will likely still look and run very similar.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Performance-wise they might be inferior but price/performance ratio AMD will probably be better again, right? That ratio is a lot more important to me than pure performance. I'll probably upgrade around 3Q 2015.
Felix Lighter
Member
I think you are talking about 2 different technologies. The memory compression is discussed on page 10. However, it only discusses the impact to memory bandwidth requirements, not actual memory usage and I don't know nearly enough to know if it impacts both.