Rumor.Shadow of Mordor 720p 30FPS on XBO.?

That explains it.

Is to big of a gap and i know what the performance should more of less be between the to,and 900p 30FPS vs 1080p 60 on PS4 scream lazyness of Shadow Of Mordor has by far the worse performing engine ever recorded on xbox one.

First of all did you even read first post.?

This isn't a flame thread and rumors threads have been posted here for years.

Have you forgot how the xbox one specs and no used game,kinect included DRM 24 hour check up started.?

Can we blame lazyness though or can the x1 just not do things in some engines that the ps4 can? I mean i've seen it mentioned pretty often the x1 struggles with some forms of lighting in the fox engine. a 900p to 1080p difference is fine, almost unnoticeable to me.. 60 fps to 30fps screams of technical limitations though. I'm more shocked then anything that the X1 is struggling this much.

@RyviusARC said:

I will run the game at 1440p completely maxed with ultra textures.

There was a user running it on a single GTX 970 and with Ultra he only got a 1-2 second stutter around every 40 minutes when loading another area.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=132208286

That is pretty much what happens in an auto save scenario in a lot of games so It won't bug me.

Besides that he gets 60-70 fps at max settings which consoles are not running anywhere near.

Here's his vRAM usage on high.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

And here is his vRAM usage on Ultra

Interesting that it does'nt actually use all 4 GB.

Nothing can be rule out there are developers that do simple port,it happen to the PS3 all gen long,hell Activision was so lazy that some modes in COD on xbox 360 block party chat,we all know the PS3 didn't have party chat,yet those modes on PS3 also read no party chat allowed..lol

This is what you call a lazy port,they were so freaking lazy that they leave no xbox live party chat inside the PS3 version..hahaha

But if it wasn't lazyness then it is an engine problem,the game engine been a huge impact on ESRAM,there is no other way to explain such a gap,since the xbox one also have enough memory to run this game.

Remember that is what it has use it can increase or decrease,one thing is for sure on high is uses more than 2GB so the recommendation of running it on medium on 2GB cards apparently is right,problem is most PC gamers don't have 2GB cards,i have a R270 and i would probably had to play it on medium,if i go high i am sure the frames will suffer.

@tormentos said:

@Bishop1310 said:

Can we blame lazyness though or can the x1 just not do things in some engines that the ps4 can? I mean i've seen it mentioned pretty often the x1 struggles with some forms of lighting in the fox engine. a 900p to 1080p difference is fine, almost unnoticeable to me.. 60 fps to 30fps screams of technical limitations though. I'm more shocked then anything that the X1 is struggling this much.

Nothing can be rule out there are developers that do simple port,it happen to the PS3 all gen long,hell Activision was so lazy that some modes in COD on xbox 360 block party chat,we all know the PS3 didn't have party chat,yet those modes on PS3 also read no party chat allowed..lol

This is what you call a lazy port,they were so freaking lazy that they leave no xbox live party chat inside the PS3 version..hahaha

But if it wasn't lazyness then it is an engine problem,the game engine been a huge impact on ESRAM,there is no other way to explain such a gap,since the xbox one also have enough memory to run this game.

I've never seen that picture before, that is unreal. how does something like that get through testing?? Maybe our standards are just too high now.

I have a 2gb card right now in my laptop. it's an 880m but only a 1gb card in my desktop. So although I don't use my laptop for much gaming I'll be giving it a go on there tonight. Hopefully I can play on or around high settings.

Upgrading to a 970 soon tho so that's when I'll really enjoy it.

lol playing this game on consoles. vastly superior on PC.

It maxed at 3580 but yeah, I guess you can't expect to hit 4GB precisely.

I almost want to buy it just to see how it runs on my 4GB GTX770 lol.

to quote the cows from last gen when games ran on a lower resolution than the 360:

'LAZY DEVS'

I kid, but i doubt many lems.....or cows or sheep or even hermits care that much about this game in the first place.

But that's not an official quote. Why don't the devs just flat out tell us anyway' Eh

Ok, so here's the thing. If you look at some 770 benchmarks on YT, with everything maxed out, it gets between 45 to 55fps.

While not the best comparison, the 770 is, on average with other games, powerfull enough to deliver ultra pre-sets gameplay while still averaging better frame ratethan consoles (maybe not 60fps locked though).

If the PS4 is indeed 60fps natively unlocked, i sadly expect it to average around 46FPS, or anywhere between 40 to 50 during action scenes and some others.

Ofcourse, i might be wrong. Who knows. The point is, last time the PS4 tried to do 60fps was with Sniper Elite 3, and that ended up jumping around 40 and 55 too.

Regarding 2GB cards, like i pointed out with my example, on NeoGaf, 2GB card users are able to max out at 1080, with texture at high (unsurprising, it's WD all over again), and are getting frame rates between 40 and 55, depending on GPU and configuration.

So, the game seems to be well optmized after all, minus the lack of AA options and the ultra HD textures.

LOOOOOL

Well one thing for sure, they didn't try very hard, because Kinect is still on, meaning they didn't use the extra available power.

The ride never ends for xboners.

Well that is one of my theories if the game ended been 720p 30FPS vs a 1080p 60FPS PS4 version.

But i think is 900p on xbox one probably 60 FPS and 1080p 60 on PS4.

Or 30 on both on 900p and 1080p.

The quoted was on a video.

Well not all GPU with 2Gb are like a 770,many are considerably weaker,my R270 is considerably weaker and also has 2GB of ram.

Other benchmarks on neogaf stated 30FPS with their 2GB cards,soon enough i will test mine.

trust me, in this game it does not matter what system you play on, you lose equally. The game really is not that good :\ and the insane enemy respawning is enough to make me want to question some very basic design decicions as they see mto be made for killing the fun.

I think you are probably going to end up right on that one, one thing is for sure it will defo be a higher resolution on the Ps4.

Xbone is weaker than the Ps4 granted but the XBrick is defo capable of running the game at higher than 720p at only 30 FPS.

After the generally low quality of LOTR games since two towers on the Ps2 i don't hold much hope for this game being any good anyway.

They didn't even bother patching War in the north which left the game with a major game breaking Bug and corrupted save games.

Favorite comment from Reddit:

"You may not be able to tell the difference, but it's there. " Whats the point of arguing about it if you can't tell the difference ? Simply claiming the superiority of the PS4 over the Internet ? how cool is that ? My PC can run games in 4k, does that make the PS4 a shitty console ? You're being a dick, you know that right ?

Why of course you're first to post a crap rumour

Come on man 1080p looks sharper than 900p just like 1440 is sharper than 1080p,and just like 4K is sharper than 1440p.

This thread is not about flaming the xbox one no need to run DC here.

First of all been a rumor is the least concern here,since many of the xbox one facts started as rumors.

But the thread isn't to downplay the XBO version or the xbox one,all the contrary i my self state that if the gap is that big it was probably a lazy developer job,or rather a horribly optimized engine hurting the xbox one version.

So...is there a resolution and frame rate difference or not? The game is out, should be pretty easy to just look at Mordor running on an Xbox One and instantly tell if it's 30fps or 60fps.

For you console peasants, if you can't see anything at all on the screen, that must mean it's 60 since the human eye can't see above 30 anyway.

Funny how when i mentioned 4k before you tried calling me a fake hermit, then when i explained how you didn't read my post and the my TV upscales my PS4 and X1 to 4k regardless you never replied. So whats the difference if everything i played is upscaled to 4K? I don't notice any difference in any of the games. But i see you still keep up the good fight in being a stupid fanboy. good job for you to ignore everything dumb you say ;)

lold

What TV you have that upscale your games to 4K.?

Upscale is blowing up pixels,is not the same it introduce artifact and blur the image.

Take 720p for example is 1280x720 that = 921,600 pixels

1080p is 1920x1080p which = 2,073,600

Now is your game is natively 1080p you get 2,073,600 pixels.

If your game is natively 720p you get 921,600 pixels if you want to display that 720p game in 1080p,and you upscale it,what the hardware does is stretch those 921,600 pixels to fit a space that should be fill by 2,073,600 pixels,which is why the image blurs because you are stretching the pixel.

If you upscale a 720p game to 4K it wold be a total blur fest but i do believe that you don't have such a TV and i don't think 4K TV upscale your PS4 or xbox one games on its own,that is a job of your console which is not doing now either.

The fact that you claim your TV upscales to 4k is enough to know you are a blind biased lemming who knows sh** about what youre talking.

Actually People with GTX 680s have reported running the game fine on everything maxed except for textures on high at 1080p.

Basically the game will allocate more textures to vRAM if you have the space but it doesn't necessarily mean you need it.

I don't even see the Ultra HD textures floating around anywhere on the internet, so how could people have them already?

@delta3074: difference is that the PS3 was legitimately as powerful, if not more powerful than the Xbox 360. Calling them lazy devs was acceptible because it was simply the case.

This gem however the Xbox One is notably weaker than the ps4. It's just a simple fact. It's not lazy devs. The ps4 is simply a more capable machine and easier to program for.

If it is true, it reflects pretty poorly on the developer because heaps of other games manage to do better than that.

http://www.gamersyde.com/thqstream_shadow_of_mordor_ps4_1080p_60fps-DtMGjJcKPuy4DlzN_en.html

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=904565&page=100000

Early results show a 1080p 30+fps result for PS4. Definitely not a locked 60 experience. Expect a 900p 30fps result from Xbox One. Not Digital Foundry but better than some random YouTube video. Did we fall for PR speak again? Looks likely.

If this stuff really matters to you as a gamer, why are you playing it on a console?

It's on the game's store page on Steam under DLC.

Thats what I've been reading as well. Where did this 1080p 60fps rumor start? lol

Not cows, I can tell you that much. Salt of the earth, those folks.....

ahaha, very true bro.

did you read the part where i said i was kidding?

And no it wasn't Acceptable last gen because the Ps3 may have been marginally more powerful on paper but the 360 had more useable RAM a better GPU and a single Pool of RAM and better more Developer friendly architecture.

You can blame the developers to a minor degree because they obviously didn't want to spend the extra Money and man hours to bring the Ps3 versions of games up to SPec with the 360 version but the Lions share of the blame falls on SONY for creating a machine with completely Alien architecture and then Expecting Developers to Fork out Extra Money and man hours to optimise there Perfectly good engines to Run on the Ps3 properly.

Besides the point that until you have actually done there job you have no grounds to judge developers at all.

Walk the walk then talk the talk sunshine.

Bang on the money there tormentos, it's the console that upscales the games not the TV, the guys talking utter bollocks.

Remember, we used to 'debate' the difference between the Hardware upscaler in the 360 (which coincidently caused the E74 errors on the 360) versus the software upscaler in the PS3.

Well pointed out, on the ball today eh?

Resolution and FPS of the wii u version?

ps4 is not 60 fps, well have to wait for DF to get an idea of the framerate, but its definitely 30+

I just ran the Shadow of Mordor benchmark and with Maxed settings at 1440p (yes I downloaded the ultra hd textures pack) I get 94fps average.

Looks like the 6GB vRAM was a lie because I am using 4GB vRAM.

1080p -> 4k is perfect scaling on any tv that has a 1 to 4 scaling mode. Some Panasonics have this and what it does is it transposes one 1080p pixel to 4 4k pixels. The image quality is just as good as at native 1080p because there is no interpolation provided the TV supports that mode. Now if the TV does not support that mode then it uses your standard upscaling techniques which add blur to the image and the lower in input resolution the worse the blurring will be.

Rumor, TC loves MS / Xbox. :o

Hey, it's just the rumor I've heard floating around, don't shoot the messenger. :P

Because it was never confirmed, but devs said they were aiming for 60fps (like almost every dev anyway).

Since no confirmation was ever given, and some random people said it was 60fps from reviewes, it was assumed to be 60. Which is abit stupid, because since teh PS4 tends to struggle with 60fps, why would an open world game with tons of assets and AI on screen go 60 frames?

I'm assuming 30 unlocked, with spikes up to 40, maybe 45. Similar case to Infamous SS.

If so, boy they better have a locking option. Fluctuaing frame rates are,. atleast to me, extremly annoying.

That would still be a considerable gap,1080p 30 - 50 or 30 45 + 1080p vs 900p still is a rather large gap,haven't see that since BF4.

Does this thread hurt your fillings.? Is not even a flame thread so you can't take then goggles not even for a second i see.

And i have a PC you know and i will buy this game on PC.

Yes but regardless of having 4GB of textures you have extra GPU power your set up is SLI.

That is also helping your case.

A single 970 would not do 90 frames.

That is the thing there was great videos of the game even a 60FPS one and there is no fluctuation is seems rather smooth,and Infamous didn't have it either Infamous hover over 30 most of the time,but is not 45 or even 40,mostly 35 or something like it and since it rarely drops under 30 you get nothing.

Stop been a cry baby this isn't an anti xbox one thread,read first post.

Well the PS4 version does not run the game at max settings anyway. I know it definitely does not run Ambient Occlusion at ultra (which is fairly demanding) or some of the other settings on ultra, it probably doesn't even use tessellation.

Also I was running the benchmark at 2560x1440 which is almost twice the pixels at 1920x1080 (1080p)

"Damage Control" and "Pointing Our Gross Misrepresentations" are not at all the same thing.

If someone says "Racer A beat Racer B by a mile!", is it damage control to point out that Racer A really won by .3 seconds? I don't think so.

All debating aside - where's the definitive answer on this? The game is out, why do we not know the resolution and frame rates?

Maybe, but there's no mistaking 30 vs 60fps locked on both. There's even a Ryse video form DF that uses the 2x speed playback hack to show what 60fps geenrally looks in motion. That's how cameras operate when at that frame rate

No stream i've seen looks like that, unless they're using some motion blur settings on consoles. Even then, the smooth movement of the characters motions didn't seem so, which is why i've wondered if i was getting capped at 30 on videos.

Still, i stand by my point that consoles generally can't keep the frame rate between 50 and 60. I see no reason to believe SoM would be the expection.

Even on my gtx 760, getting 60 dead locked is difficult. The jump is not just for any GPU/CPU combination, including consoles. 30fps simply sounds perfectly logical for the PS4, which is fine because the game is fun so far at 30 for me.

NeoGaf impressions are pointing to 30. Still, i'm waiting for the official DF analyzes or statement from Monolith. Abit funny though, that many can't pinpoint just by playing the game.

I started playing last night and was getting around 40 to 55, about 46 average on my PC, with everything maxed, and textures high. Capped it at 30.