Shadow of Mordor Ultra crap settings

http://www.gamersbook.com/News/Article/ID/1461/Middle-earth-Shadow-of-Mordor-Ultra-Textures-Setting-Requires-6GB-Of-VRAM-on-PC

What's that? you saw The Evil Within and you already angry about the 4Gb demands for ultra? well guess what? Monolith Productions f^cked up doing the same thing with Shadow of Mordor - but this time - BIGGER! how big? 6Gb VRAM BIG! - yes! does it look any better than Far Cry 3 or 4? nope, does it look any better than Crysis 2 ultra? nope. So?

Another poorly optimized, wouldn't say game yet but at least for the so called ultra settings it does.

So their basically saying unless you've got Titan Black, Titan Z or R9 295X2 - you can f^ck off because you're not being able to run this game on ultra settings.

There're 2 other cheaper solutions for this manner: you could get MSI 280X 6Gb version for 400$ or EVGA SC 780 6Gb edition for 600$.

If you've got any of those GPUs concider yourself to be lucky =)

It's a conspiracy to deliberately inflate specs to push people towards consoles.

I don't get the issue here, you get better graphics than consoles and you can go one step ahead with ultra textures. That means this game will still look fairly good in 3 years because you can crank it up to ultra.

Just pretend high is the maximum setting unless you have a 6gb card, problem solved.

You get better graphics than consoles that you can't run today unless you probably own a GPU that isn't meant for gaming, don't you see a problem here? you can do better graphics with todays GPUs, look at Nvidias' 9XX series, they're far more powerful than any console if not twice as powerful, why not getting advantage of that?

@PredatorRules

bro it says its only different if u use ultra hd, no 4k no problem i would say however 3 gb for high settings is a lot too,

so pc enthuasiast enlight me here does shared system ram counrs towards requirements?

btw that screenshot looks pretty bad compared to those system requirements. Crysis 2 was a lot better than that and it didnt require 3 gb vram for1080p lol

3Gb of VRAM is a standart today, so I don't mind that (see R9 280 and probably upcoming GTX960 will be the same)

What do you mean shared system RAM? do you mean using 2x 3Gb GPUs? it's not working this way, as far as I know.

Lol I start to think that those rumored 8GB VRAM GTX970 and GTX980 will be sold really fast...

You get better graphics than consoles without Ultra textures. Ultra is just another step up.

It's a multi platform game, you get the exact same graphics with higher resolution, that's it.

I'll be rockin medium on 768mb of vram.. Livin in the world of 720p console style for the last year+ Not worried. I do feel for those who actually love maxing out pc games. But hey going for outrageous settings does make the game graphically last as PC power increases. 2 years from now, you still can have something to look forward too. Linda like how GTA4 was on PC for a long time. Have no problem with it.

Same graphics? I kinda want to see how thigns will stack up. There seems to be some major options here unlike some multiplatforms that have like 3 options total.

so i guess dragon age Inquisition will ask for 12 gb vram ,

the witcher 3 20 gb vram ,,

what the hell ????? 6 gb vram thats really stupid ..

Half Life 3, 30gb VRAM!!! :P

@Coseniath: hahahaha , if you see hl 3 , they did not do anything , steam sales and benefit from games sales got them lazy . i promise you wont be seeing hl 3 for 100000 year . :P

horse..... shit.

your comments are a conspiracy to make me want to hang myself.

How much VRAM wold be needed to max this game at 1024x768?

What if you just turned it on and it didn't do anything?

Says 1080p, not 4k :\ 6gb VRAM for a game released in a week is retarded. There's no way it puts that VRAM to proper use.

How do you install this Ultra HD texture pack anways?

Nah. I suspect nVidia has a hand in this with Bethesda to inflate sales of a overpriced new top of the line graphics card. Sort of what nVidia did with Ubisoft and the Watch Dogs release, another hardware demanding game that underperformed.

They don't really have any mainstream 6gb solutions...even the 980GTX is only 4gb. Doesn't make any sense. 3gb VRam for High and 6gb for Ultra makes zero sense. They'd have to have at least doubled the texture resolution of *everything*, and I really really doubt that's the case.

Unless, of course, we have the next Crysis on our hands here...

6gbs of vram lol wow. I can't wait to get this game sometime and test it out to see how much vram it actually uses.

Still though, i doubt theres any massive difference between high and ultra quality here... so if you have 4gbs of vram just run high quality and your eyes wont know any difference.

I still think that whoever owns Cross/SLI with high end tier GPUs could run this on ultra (780 or higher/290 or higher), if they're not allowing potential raw GPU power - they'd really f&cked up the game.

Another COD ghosts on our hands here. Ghosts lied about the 6gb of ram deal, im sure this is lying about their VRAM too.

i am gonna put it on ultra on my 2gb cards and see what happens.

I bet it will run fine with some stuttering here and there.( i am used it from playing so much modded skyrim)

gonna do the same thing with me 280x. Fuk the lags.

It would have to look chuffing detailed to use 6Gb

Do you think so? Or will it be poorly optimized?

Taking bets!

Lol. I bet if you make a poll more than 80% will say crappy optimised...

It would have to look chuffing detailed to use 6Gb

Yep

I think you got it wrong. Bethesda said they recommend 4GB just to play the game. They didn't say anything about running it on Ultra.

I'm expecting to play Shadow of mordor on ultra with my 3GB HD7950.

Recommended most of the time isn't even the best choice, you should aim higher when you see recommended.

As minial requirements are just a thing so you could run the game, they don't care if you run it at unplayable fps like 5-15, as long as you can "play" it - they covered their asses.

But how is the game?

It differs from game to game.

I sometimes found minimum/recommended specs to be very close to my experience, and at other times it was just a big lie.

Like Wolfenstein recommended an i7. Yet I had no trouble maxing it out on an i5.

I hope The Evil Within is another one of those cases... but I dunno. Bethesda's communication was really weird. You can try running it on lesser hardware but they recommend 4GB anyway.

Wolfenstein had really bad optimization at some specific places where most game ran at 60, on some places for no real reason ran on 20.

There's a review already from GS about it, again not a word about the requirements or no bad stuff at all about the game, corrupted review? they did it before with GW2...

I guess I'll stick with the console version then................

But the Shadow of Morder review that went up was reviewed on PS4.

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-review/1900-6415884/

Well, that expains...

ID tech 5 was far from a good thing for PC gamers: Rage, Wolfenstein and now The Evil Within. All of those have some insane requirements while they could run on 360 and PS3. LOL

It's also sad that the PS4 version always gets supplied for review purposes. Leaving PC gamers in the dark how well the game performs on their system. But luckily there are plenty of youtube channels that do go in to depth about PC versions.