What frame-rate does Shadow of Mordor run at?

I heard that it was above 45 FPS by the IGN reviewer for this game, my friend says it runs close to 60 FPS on his PS4 and when I tried it out a game convention, I was impressed by how good the FPS were over my PS3 games. Unfortunately SoM remains at a steady 30 FPS on my PS4, whether it's in extremely taxing areas or when I'm literally face up against a mountain, and I really wasn't expecting this, even DS2 on the PS3 speeds up in empty areas. Guess the frame-rate isn't unlocked on my game, any ideas to a workaround?

On another note, this game looks amazing, dat Dark Ranger cape has graphics better than real life.

@LordTrexGuy:

Maybe your TV/Monitor is just junk.

It runs at 30fps at native 1080p. Pretty good overall. Don't know what your friend is smoking with his ''close to 60 FPS''.

Wrong, what are you smoking?

It runs at an "unlocked 60 FPS"

Seems console gamers have no idea what 60fps is.

30 FPS locked

Then again, how could an underclocked 7870 possibly run this game at 60fps? Rumors of 1080p/60fps were put to rest a long time ago. It runs at a locked 30fps.

I remember the rumors of 1080p/60fps on PS4 and 720p/30fps on Xbox One. Absolutely ludicrous considering the disparity in hardware really isn't that large.

Again

I'm not a console only gamer, but since your new, its ok to be wrong.

http://www.reddit.com/r/PS4/comments/2hyd37/is_shadow_of_mordor_running_at_60_fps_on_ps4/

Take a read of the IGN guy commenting there, its NOT locked to 30.

It doesn't matter what the guy is commenting. You have an analysis of of the frame rate and you see it locked at 30fps. I swear you're just trolling. As if a freakin' reddit article was somehow proof of anything.

@Juub1990:

Go ahead believe DF all you want.

They have an analysis of the frame rate and nearly all publications that claimed 60fps pre-release were full of shit. Seems the whole console scene is new to the concept of frame rate and think they see 60 when they see 30. This game runs at a locked 30fps and you have no proof to claim otherwise.

Also, the reason the OP felt it was much smoother on the PS4 is because it is. Xbox 360 and especially PS3 have an absolutely terrible frame rate. Sub 30 for PS3.

As shown here.

To be honest, I'm not sure why you'd want fluctuating framerates. Sure, if they were varying between 50-70fps or something you'd be dealing with a pretty smooth experience still, relatively speaking, but 30fps locked is probably more pleasant than a 30-45 fps rollercoaster ride.

Try read what the OP said again, "DS2 on the PS3 sped up in empty areas"

He never said that he played SoM on PS3, he only played PS4.

And like I said, go believe DF all you want, apparently you think they are gods.

I was expecting 40+ frames in the game at all times, with occasional dips to 30. 40+ is so much better than 30 consistent.

Sorry Juub, but the game is unlocked 30 FPS. I just didn't notice it as much, plus I have no idea how DF came up with the 'locked at 30' jargon. I replayed a bit of Killzone 3 and the game remained at 30 FPS and then I switched to the second input for my PS4 and SoM ran much smoother, probably an extra 10 frames or somewhat. I also tried Soulcalibur V then switched to PS4 SoM and the difference between 60 FPS and 40 FPS respectively was quite noticeable.

U wot m8? It's an LG LW65 200 Hz, pretty sure that something worth 2.5k should be running my games nicely except for a bit of input lag. I'll retry SoM with my monitor and see what kind of FPS I get on it.

@LordTrexGuy: Yeah no, you'll have to do better than this. News outlets post-release and frame-rates analysis points the game at a locked 30fps. The fact you feel different levels of smoothness across different games on different platforms is irrelevant. This game is 30fps locked until proven otherwise.

State the entire model number, the LG LW65 is a laptop, and adding the 200Hz doesn't help.

@LordTrexGuy: it always was 30 fps for consoles

My bad, says LW65 on the sticker at the back but it's actually LW6500, some Smart 3D stuff etc. too and it is clocked at 200 Hz, I know it doesn't help but just letting you know that it is way above 60Hz so I should see 60 FPS.

But why does it feel so much smoother even when I compare it to PS3 games running at 30 FPS? I believe it runs higher than 30 FPS, and DF is the only place I've seen it locked at 30 FPS.

DF did a frame-rate analysis. It's not like they pulled these numbers out of nowhere. Gamespot(or was it IGN) also has the game at a locked 30fps in their list of frame-rate/resolution. Pre-release, people thought it would be 1080p/60fps but it turns out the game is 30fps. Also, I suspect the reason you feel it is much smoother is because the frame-rate hardly drops. It stays a very consistent 30fps whereas I wouldn't be surprised a game like Killzone 3 occasionally dips. Either way you're comparing two genres and shooter typically feel far more sluggish than 3rd person adventure games. This is why games like BF and COD aim for 60fps all the time and people complain Halo is slow at 30fps despite the movement speed and aiming being a lot faster in Halo.

Is that really a 200hz TV? I didn't even know that existed...

I've seen 120hz, 240hz, and 600hz, but a large majority of those (when it comes to TV) are dumb gimmicks like trumotion.

Well I guess I should just stop caring about the frame-rate then. I also believe that the 'smoothness' may be due to how good the animations are, I was impressed by Torvin's arm-gesturing and the amount of Graug vs. Caragor animations. But I still have a feeling that the game is breaking 30 FPS...

I can vouch for TruMotion, it is absolutely necessary if you wanna watch movies in 3D. Also, TV shows which depend on HD cameras for effects, like the slow-mo effects in Sherlock or the action in Game of Thrones looks much better with the TruMotion turned on. Football is also miles easier to follow with it on. You should really try it for yourself by asking the clerk at a store to switch it off then on for you, the difference is QUITE visible.

@LordTrexGuy: I have a 55" LED LG TV with TruMotion and I personally don't like it for movies. Don't watch much sports anymore though.

Not going to get into all this mumbo jumbo it runs pretty good on PS4 what ever the frame rate.

but to call out DF like there not right is pretty bad, DF run the game through a lot of programs to get the frame rate and it's hard facts not just there say so why you wouldnt trust what they say is beyond me.

Who cares..... its not like it stutters..... right ?

And again, whats all this praise for DF? its not SW.

They are just some company who IMO are a PoS.

What is your beef with DF? They are run by Eurogamer... What makes you more reputable than DF? They use hardware and software to get the readings they do... It's not like they just look at the screen and guess.

Why do you call Eurogamer a piece of shit?

240hz, not 200hz, like I thought.

And I highly doubt it is actually a 240hz screen... Just 240hz via TruMotion.

Hook a laptop or whatever to your tv, run any game with vsync and fraps on and see what framerate it runs at. Bet it's 60.

I bought my big LG TV because it was advertised as 120hz. It is not a 120hz screen.

TruMotion actually adds input lag when playing games.

They incite this argument, Eurogamer are fine, I just don't like DF.

They are providing -facts- though. From a technical standpoint I find what they do interesting, but when people tie their own self worth into it.... wtf are you doing with your life. :P

Exactly DF don't kick up a fuss nor do they start an arguement all they do is state facts hard evidence of game code which they recieve and run frew multiple software to give us a good reading on frame rate and resolution how can you not like there out come when it's not even just hear say it's fact. :S baffling

10 yrs ago, no-one cared about framerates, resolution, AA, AF etc on consoles. We just played the games because we liked them, not because they were cutting edge and pretty.

My very first console game was Super Mario Bros. on the NES, did that run at 60 FPS or even 30 FPS? Nope, did I care? Nope, it probably ran at sub 25 FPS, but people playing/watching didn't care because they were having fun.

With DF, they are a technical marvel, they do these in-depth analysis of games, I agree that its interesting, but just glance at SW and you'll see what I mean by looking at them from another viewpoint, its all about "me beating you, this is better than that."

@GTR12: Ah, I never read system wars. Don't see the purpose of it.

@MethodManFTW:

I only read it for news more than anything.

I think that comes down to the people in SW and not DF, as they don't knock games or put them up against any games they just give the information out.

and I know it really seems that way about us not caring about graphics back then, but you have to realize back then, those graphics were cutting edge for the time, even to the point that Sega and Nintendo used to sell there consoles and companies sold there games just on it being 16bit games cutting edge tech, even to the point advertising there consoles even mentioned there console was better than it's rivals in graphics, it's always been there, it's just the internet is here and people can talk even more rubbish than ever before. it's easy to forget how far we've come in such a short time, but trust me this sort of thing was going on then as it is now. we was just younger and didn't care for it and there was no internet for us to chat.

Just thought I'd this in for a small perspective back then

People have always argued about this stuff - I remember kids butting heads over graphics with DOS games. And Sonic 2 had serious framerate drops in some areas that were problematic; reviewers and gamers alike were definitely aware of it and critical of it. I think this stuff is just more front-and-center these days for a number of reasons (including the internet, as bezza said). But it was not some big love-in in the early '90s where everyone was satisfied with whatever they got and didn't argue about anything

@MethodManFTW Pretty sure it's not going at 240 FPS, but running Battlefield 4 at minimum seems to be running at around 80-90 FPS and the extra 30 frames are definitely noticeable.

Just my two cents but there have always been graphic debates and these "current-gen" consoles' weakness doesn't seem to be helping. As far as I remember, the PS3 could out-do any computer at the time for $500 and the graphics back then for LAIR were pretty impressive (imagine if it had graphics like TLOU at release o.0). Yeah, Killzone SF looked better than Crysis 3 on most PCs, but the graphical leap is tiny compared to what we had from the PS2 to PS3 (Killzone and Killzone 3 give a pretty good idea).

Can you hook it up to a laptop or PC and run a game with vsync? I'd really bet that is a 60hz monitor. And TruMotion (and all these frame interpolation programs) add input delay.. For some single player games it can not matter that much, but for a game like Battlefield it is definitely hurting you.

And as someone who has Killzone and Crysis 3.... No. Maybe if you are using a crappy laptop or something, but on a decent gaming PC Crysis 3 will look much more photorealistic... if that is your thing.

Playing with VSync on, I think I could push for a higher frame-rate if I had the $$$ to upgrade, it's still in the 80-90s. And of course I don't use TruMotion with games, the input lag is horrendous.

I said 'most PCs' and most PCs fail to meet the recommended requirements for Battlefield 4 (I think only 5% of tested PCs could play the recommended settings), which means most computers can't play Crysis 3 on the Master Race's touted 4K and 60 FPS. Yes if you have a $2000 rig, then you can do that, but then again not everyone has a PC like that, and I'm pretty sure if consoles were $2000, they could do the same thing and more.

I enjoy reading topics like this. Most people wouldn't know or care if a game is 30 or 60. Console gamers like myself have been running at 30 (or lower) for years and the only time I notice is when they get too low and cause the game to become unplayable or problematic (Trapt on Ps2). While I can certainly tell the difference, I find it funny people have to ask if it is or is not.

In my experience gaming on PC, when you tweak your graphics settings and the framerate changes in that range, THEN you notice ("oh it's much smoother now").

In my experience gaming on console (where you can't make such tweaks), you don't notice (except in the examples where it starts to chug, as you said).

So IMO it's of course perceptible, but it's rarely ACTUALLY problematic in practice, and it's easiest to notice when you can actually change back and forth or the framerate varies back and forth (poor optimization, etc). In other words, when you're rolling along at 30fps its usually just fine (under 30 things do start to perceptibly "chug"). It's like the 900p vs 1080p stuff - if you have the two images side by side and can squint at them... sure, you can find the differences. But when it's by itself... eh. Just play the game

*ducks head to hide from the pixel counters and framerate junkies

I totally agree.