Middle-Earth: Shadow of War PC System Requirements Revealed

Middle-Earth: Shadow of War PC System Requirements Revealed

shadow-of-war-320

One day after it was announced, we now know just how much PC you'll need to play Middle-Earth: Shadow of War.

Yesterday, Warner Bros. announced that the sequel to Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor is coming later this year. Titled Middle-Earth: Shadow of War, it sees the Ranger Talion and the Wraith Celebrimbor forging a ring of power to take the fight to Mordor.

Now, just one day after the announcement was made, we already know just how much PC you'll need to take the fight to Sauron's forces of evil. Thanks to the game's Steam page, we can share these system requirements:

Minimum Requirements

  • OS: Windows 7 SP1 with Platform Update for Windows 7
  • CPU: Intel i5-2550K, 3.4 GHz
  • RAM: 8GB
  • GPU: GeForce GTX 670 or Radeon HD 7950
  • DirectX: Version 11
  • HDD: 60GB available space

Recommended Specs

  • OS: Windows 10 version 14393.102 or higher required
  • CPU: Intel Core i7-3770, 3.4 GHz
  • RAM: 16GB
  • GPU: GeForce GTX 970 or GeForce GTX 1060 / Radeon R9 290X or Radeon RX 480
  • DirectX: Version 11
  • HDD: 60GB available space

While the minimum requirements aren't all that onerous, you will at least a GTX 970 to hit the recommended. On the plus side, if you need to upgrade you've got sometime on your hands to get it done.

Middle-Earth: Shadow of War is set to launch on August 22 for PC, PS4, PS4 Pro, and Xbox One. It will also have support for Project Scorpio when it launches in holiday 2017. Warner Bros. is planning a gameplay reveal on March 8.

Permalink

After Arkham Knight, I don't trust WB with any PC release.

RaikuFA:
After Arkham Knight, I don't trust WB with any PC release.

Well, they did alright with the first Shadow of Mordor, but I'll wait till there are reviews for the PC version before I even think about getting it.

dragongit:

RaikuFA:
After Arkham Knight, I don't trust WB with any PC release.

Well, they did alright with the first Shadow of Mordor, but I'll wait till there are reviews for the PC version before I even think about getting it.

I'd say Monolith has a better track record overall, despite being under WB's umbrella so, yeah. Arkham Knight was terrible, absolutely and largely because of a poor plan for porting, but I think perhaps WB knows how they fucked up last time. Also Monolith has made more PC games than Rocksteady and also Monolith while a subsidiary of WB is not an in-house developer, like Rocksteady. How this actually affects release, we'll see, but I'd imagine its less likely to happen.

RaikuFA:
After Arkham Knight, I don't trust WB with any PC release.

On one hand, that and MKX are good reasons to be cynical. On the other hand, Mad Max and Shadow of Mordor were actually really good ports. I guess the best course of action would be to wait till after launch.

I played SoM on a 770 and it still stuttered like a mf despite recommended specs being 660. Between that and Arkham Knight I'd take this with a pinch of salt.

Battenberg:
I played SoM on a 770 and it still stuttered like a mf despite recommended specs being 660. Between that and Arkham Knight I'd take this with a pinch of salt.

That's odd. My 770 ran the game incredibly well. like 80+ fps well. I guess that's the nature of the PC platform sometimes.

OT: Monolith did a great job with the first game, (or at least I and many other people had a good experience) and has a ton of PC experience, so I'm confident this game will run well. I believe Avalanche kept the PC port in house and Mad Max ran great too. Seems to be a pattern here. When WB lets developers do what they are good at and build the game for PC things go well. When they farm a port out like in the case of Arkham Knight things go less than smoothly.

Side note- Arkham Knight runs at a pretty acceptable level now. I enjoyed it on my 770 and now my 1080.

That reminds me. I really need to get buckled down and finish Shadow of Mordor. I've tried a few times, but I eventually hit a point not too far in where I end up unsure of where to go to continue the game, and when I should do it rather than do other stuff to get stronger.

I guess I'm an odd PC player. I never had much of a problem with Arkham Knight, even at launch. I just lowered the settings to medium, for a better framerate. I don't care that much about graphics. The anti-aliasing is ugly anyway. It ruins the details.

Look at all the lights that are dimmed and lost.

Imperioratorex Caprae:
Also Monolith has made more PC games than Rocksteady and also Monolith while a subsidiary of WB is not an in-house developer, like Rocksteady.

The PC version of Arkham Knight wasn't even handled by Rocksteady (initially at least - they took over after the port turned out to be a disaster), which in fact was probably cause of the problems. The PC versions of both Asylum and City were done by Rocksteady themselves, and were perfectly fine.

Battenberg:
I played SoM on a 770 and it still stuttered like a mf despite recommended specs being 660. Between that and Arkham Knight I'd take this with a pinch of salt.

and i played with a radeon hd 5000 with no problems. i guess the problem was on your part.

OT: 60GB???? come the fuck on. what is there that costs so much space? yes i know games are getting this big but im still salty

sagitel:

Battenberg:
I played SoM on a 770 and it still stuttered like a mf despite recommended specs being 660. Between that and Arkham Knight I'd take this with a pinch of salt.

and i played with a radeon hd 5000 with no problems. i guess the problem was on your part.

OT: 60GB???? come the fuck on. what is there that costs so much space? yes i know games are getting this big but im still salty

Well I know that the first game had super ultra texture packs available that the game advised you not to use unless you had a specific amount of VRAM. I'm sure the usual uncompressed audio files are in there as well, but there might be some goodies for PC players. Obviously I'm guessing a little. Games are getting bigger and bigger so 60gb doesn't surprise me that much now. Shit, even DOOM with all of its updates is like 75gb now.

sagitel:

Battenberg:
I played SoM on a 770 and it still stuttered like a mf despite recommended specs being 660. Between that and Arkham Knight I'd take this with a pinch of salt.

and i played with a radeon hd 5000 with no problems. i guess the problem was on your part.

OT: 60GB???? come the fuck on. what is there that costs so much space? yes i know games are getting this big but im still salty

It's possible but since I didn't have issues with more strenuous games both before and after SoM I'm disinclined to assume my rig was entirely the issue.

Battenberg:

sagitel:

Battenberg:
I played SoM on a 770 and it still stuttered like a mf despite recommended specs being 660. Between that and Arkham Knight I'd take this with a pinch of salt.

and i played with a radeon hd 5000 with no problems. i guess the problem was on your part.

OT: 60GB???? come the fuck on. what is there that costs so much space? yes i know games are getting this big but im still salty

It's possible but since I didn't have issues with more strenuous games both before and after SoM I'm disinclined to assume my rig was entirely the issue.

maybe it was bad luck?

IT's like they're purposefully trying to royally piss me of over my 'Can You Run It?' score (www.systemrequirementslab.com/) that says my i5-2500k (w/gtx970) won't be be able to run the thing on high When in fact, it can.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here