Shadow of Mordor - Face-Off @ Eurogamer

Couchpotato

Couchpotato

Part-Time News-bot
Supporter
Joined
October 1, 2010
Messages
36,351
Location
Spudlandia
Eurogamer's Digital Foundry posted thie usual "Face-Off" performance analysis of Shadow of Mordor that compares all three versions of the game.

Considered a curveball for PC users, Shadow of Mordor's whopping 6GB video memory requirement for ultra textures makes it - at first blush - appear the version to beat. On the other hand, the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One releases boast graphics settings tailored to each platform in order to squeeze the most consistent rate of performance. Visual features are cut back to this end - to varying degrees for both - though curiously we see certain visual effects exclusive to console. But on balance, does Sony and Microsoft's hardware realise the same satisfying, open-world Middle-earth experience?

Built on a new revision of Monolith Productions' LithTech engine, the commitment to the new wave of consoles is evident. With PS4 and Xbox One alike patched up to version 1.02, the differences at first glance are few owing to a heavy use of pre-rendered cut-scenes of matching compression settings. As is often the case, resolution is a divisive point on the console front. The Xbox One release is immediately on the back foot, with our pixel count tests highlighting an upscaled 1600x900 resolve for the platform. In contrast with the full native 1920x1080 output on PS4, it's undoubtedly a downgrade that echoes the state of many multi-platform releases this year. However, catching this disparity does take very close attention to side-by-side shots - in part due to both versions' use of a heavy post-process anti-aliasing effect.

Curiously, this post-process setting is entirely absent from the PC version's menus. Instead, PC users are left with a raw image, which in our comparison shots is set to output a straight 1080p. As a net result, PS4 and Xbox One are able to reduce flicker when panning across foliage, while these elements appear harsh and pixelated on PC. As a fix, it's possible to set the PC resolution to 3840x2160, allowing the game itself to super-sample the image down to a pristine 1080p output, but given how GPU-intensive this is, a less taxing, console-style AA option would have been welcome.

But are the console versions dialled down from PC significantly? As it turns out, the PS4 and Xbox One come close in most metrics, but fall short in specific areas. For one, texture quality on both is equivalent to the PC's high setting, making for a contrast in mapping quality when planted next to the ultra-HD artwork pack. However, console textures still hold up well from a distance; though the definition on castle walls takes a hit, the gap is marginal in other areas.
Click to expand...
More information.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
36,351
Location
Spudlandia
This would be a nice example of a game where graphics don't matter so much. You play the whole game in Mordor which just isn't much to look at. The enemy textures/shapes seem to be the only place where the graphics get interesting.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,253
Location
Kansas City
I couldn't really see a difference with ultra textures but change ambient occlusion from high to ultra looked like a noticeable difference.

Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me.

Also down sampling from 3840x2160 looked to be a good difference as well.
 
Why are they comparing this particular game on different platforms?

It was crystal clear nextgen consoles still can't come even close to PC when modders unlocked Watch Dogs deliberately disabled graphics spectacle on PC.
It's obvious the publisher locked the amazing graphics so console versions don't look so inferior to PC game, the excuse was they wanted to avoid glitches, but actually there are no glitches.

Oh and... If it matters I'm not buying Tolkienesque game where you play solo. Tolkien's world is antisolo. The only soloists in it are enemy bosses.
This game up there is IMO a design fail or should have not been named after a chapter in Tolkien's masterpiece.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
These new consoles are particularly weak because they built them as cheap PC's. However you really a need a graphics card with a lot of VRAM, that's where the consoles are strong.

Time for me to get a something better.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
That VRAM scandal is a separate thing.
I honestly don't see anything better looking than Watch Dogs modded. And Watch Dogs doesn't need 6Gb VRAM.

I bet it's the same let's not optimize strategy like Wolfenstein 50Gb size installation where textires are superhuge but still crap.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
I've got a 980 GTX now and I'm obviously running it on maxed settings, but even I didn't bother with the ultra textures. I just can't see the difference. Is anyone actually able to see that difference?

That being said, the PC version is the obvious winner even without those textures. Not a big surprise, considering how "weak" this console generation is relative to the previous one (the PS3 was a proper high end machine back in the days).

It's a bit depressing to know that hardware will essentially be locked down by the consoles for years to come. The reason I find it a bit sad is not because of graphical limitations, however, but because of world building. Constructing full 3D worlds where a lot is going on at any given time requires very strong hardware, and I'm not sure the PS4 and XB1 is a big enough step in the right direction.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,586
Location
Bergen
They are not that used to coding for the new consoles yet, but I think they'll be able to squeeze at least 4 GB of vram usage out of the console architecture so I wouldn't get a new GPU with less than 4 GB of vram.

You'll only notice the difference with the ultra texture if you go really close to something.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
I've seen direct comparisons between High and Ultra (you can google them) - and I really struggle to see the difference.

So, in this case - it's a completely superfluous feature that may have hurt the game more than helped it.

I mean, if it actually made a visible difference - they'd have a point about including it for super high-end cards, but since they've clearly wasted that extra space, it smacks of incompetence and a PR blunder.

That said, the game plays extremely well on maximum settings (minus the Ultra textures - which occasionally cause stuttering) on my rig - and it's one of the better console-oriented titles I've tried.

Too bad about the generic and repetitive nature of the game, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom