First MGS4 screens are on the web (!)

[Arty]

Not moot, but still unfair. I still think MGS4 comes away looking better despite the handicap.

RE5 is a closer comparison IMO, but still not quite there. It'll be an easier comparison to make with better media though.

Since MGS4 has a handicap (of being a scan) arent you probably overestimating to compensate for its handicap ? Why not wait a couple of days before we get the trailer, drool over it and when we're done start the comparision ?

And those are the general opinions (timeline) I've seen in this thread, not mine.

 

[therealskywolf]

It's just that your whole view is blurred, different from blur on a model.

Yeah whatever, i give up, GOW looks like shit, MGS4 is leagues ahead, there, you win.

 

[Titanio]

Since MGS4 has a handicap (of being a scan) arent you probably overestimating to compensate for its handicap ? Why not wait a couple of days before we get the trailer, drool over it and when we're done start the comparision ?

And those are the general opinions (timeline) I've seen in this thread, not mine.

I'm taking the scans as-is. I agree the trailer will be the true and full representation, but the scans as they are do have some use. This will indeed be a game you'll have to watch in motion though, not just look at static shots, I think, to get a full idea of how it looks - like all MGS games before it.

 

[therealskywolf]

I'm taking the scans as-is. I agree the trailer will be the true and full representation, but the scans as they are do have some use. This will indeed be a game you'll have to watch in motion though, not just look at static shots, I think, to get a full idea of how it looks.

The scans are pretty high quality. Don't know what's the problem here, any game looks better when seen in motion, we are comparing Stills to Stills.

I guess you are just very very mad that MGS4 doesn't wipe the floor with Killzone and anything on the Xbox 360. Don't be like that, learn to appreciate both worlds, even when you wont travell to one of them.

I will live in both luckily.

 

[Josh378]

The scans are pretty high quality. Don't know what's the problem here, any game looks better when seen in motion, we are comparing Stills to Stills.

I guess you are just very very mad that MGS4 doesn't wipe the floor with Killzone and anything on the Xbox 360. Don't be like that, learn to appreciate both worlds, even when you wont travell to one of them.

I will live in both luckily.

Typical RSW post...seriously...was that comment needed?

Just enjoy the scans before the TGS show comes...

-Josh378

 

[onetimeposter]

I'm taking the scans as-is. I agree the trailer will be the true and full representation, but the scans as they are do have some use. This will indeed be a game you'll have to watch in motion though, not just look at static shots, I think, to get a full idea of how it looks - like all MGS games before it.

The thing is MGS is like Splinter Cell, in a certain enclosed environment with the elements being internals and lighting and shadows. thats not the case with GOW which is an Unreal 2004 like game. We will have to wait for Splinter Cell 4 to see how it compares

 

[scooby_dooby]

Look, you can argue till the cows come home about which looks better.

The fact that neither is clearly superior is the WHOLE POINT. This is Metal Gear Solid, THE flagship title for PS3, and it looks VERY comparable to GOW.

GOW is the flagship title for X360 as of now, until Halo 3 comes out.

So this is the comparison everyone's been waiting for, top-gun exclusives tailored for each platform, how do they match up? Pretty damned close.

If MGS only looks this good I think that's a good indication that the two systems are close, and they will produce the same level of GFX. If PS3 really was so much more powerful, surely Konami would be the one developer to make that power shown on screen. And personally, I don't see it.

It looks good, but not "holy crap" good

 

[Titanio]

The scans are pretty high quality. Don't know what's the problem here, any game looks better when seen in motion, we are comparing Stills to Stills.

You can lose detail and especially colouring with scans. Willing to bet colouring looks quite different with direct media.

I guess you are just very very mad that MGS4 doesn't wipe the floor with Killzone and anything on the Xbox 360.

I am very happy today MGS4 absolutely fulfils the potential highlighted by Sony at E3, and my own original expectations for next-gen games before they were slowly whittled away by first-wave next-gen titles. The reaction here from some has been priceless, but expected, and actually reassuring. I'd be worried if some weren't getting tetchy over it.

The thing is MGS is like Splinter Cell, in a certain enclosed environment with the elements being internals and lighting and shadows. thats not the case with GOW which is an Unreal 2004 like game. We will have to wait for Splinter Cell 4 to see how it compares

MGS4 looks to take place in a city..

Look at the artwork in the first scan for example. We'll see more in the trailer I'm sure.

 

[Bad_Boy]

The shots revealed in the magazine are images running on actual PS3 hardware, and as impressive as they are, they will get better, according to Kojima's comments.

nice

 

[scooby_dooby]

Both GOW and MGS should have new trailers come friday....

 

[DigitalSoul]

MGS4 looks impressive.....so the graphics isn't a [major] concern seeing as how they are/will do a bang up job with it.

Now I'm more interested in seeing what Kojima-san is doing with the gameplay and where he's taking the story this time around.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Whatever about anything else, the Octacon model alone probably looks as good or better than the models in the Killzone vid IMO (I say probably because I remain cautious with scans):
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/650/650853p1.html

Artistically, I have to agree - the KZ video was produced in great haste by an animation studio, whereas Kojima had several titles to develop his artists' skills.

Technically, KZ looks better, especially because of the soft lighting. But wait until final screens to see the quality difference in AA, filtering etc.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

GoW = fake plastic faces.
MGS4 = realistic faces.

That's not true. MGS is even more stylized than GOW. GOW is more like, exaggerated, whereas MGS has an intentionally nonphotoreal look. It's more like a painting, with muted colors, at least based on what I've seen from MGS2/3.

However, de gustibus non est disputandum...

 

[Metalgearih]

In your debate of GoW vs. RE5 vs. MGS4, you guys are forgetting that MGS4 could have a music score from a Hollywood composer(Harry Gregson Williams most probably).

The reason MGS2 stunned the 150+ journalists at the 2000 E3 wasn't just because of the way it showed them PS2 visuals. Let's just break it down hypothetically, almost 25% of the *awe* and *wow* contribution came from the music score. Another 25% was the cinematography/direction that Kojima had implemented with his genius. The rest of the 50% were ofcourse the graphics.

So if you crazy judges of quality think you've seen all of MGS4 just by 2 pages of scan. It may be perfect to say, "There is more to Metal Gear Solid than what meets *the eye*". Visuals my very well be the secondary awe factor this time dear friends.

 

[Titanio]

Artistically, I have to agree - the KZ video was produced in great haste by an animation studio, whereas Kojima had several titles to develop his artists' skills.

Technically, KZ looks better, especially because of the soft lighting. But wait until final screens to see the quality difference in AA, filtering etc.

True, based on the I can see small technical differences in KZ's favour, but as a package (tech + art) I much prefer the Octacon model.

That's not true. MGS is even more stylized than GOW. GOW is more like, exaggerated, whereas MGS has an intentionally nonphotoreal look. It's more like a painting, with muted colors, at least based on what I've seen from MGS2/3.

True also, MGS4 is stylised..you can see it particularly in the tank shots. At the same time though, it has a very "real/natural" look to it. It's hard to express. In crude terms, some of the shots almost look like they could be (scanned) photos run through some photoshop filters. Like this one:

(I also think the picture from which I cropped the above would have been a much more suitable candidate for comparison with the GoW pic posted earlier..)

GoW looks more traditionally like computer graphics IMO.

 

[scooby_dooby]

sheesh, talk about splitting hairs.

I bet, if you ask 10 casual gamers which is "better", GOW wins handily.

The bottom line is it's really too close to call.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm sorry, but I like the more natural lighting in the MGS4 game already than the bright and shiny GOW game. Just look at the blinds in the background. It's just wow!

Wow, blinds! That's what next gen really needs - blinds!

I don't know how anyone can complain about GOW's lighting. It matches very well the typical dynamic lighting you might get in an action movie and I think the shading captures pretty realistically the optical effects you'd get in a photo. Stick a guy in that armour in the same lighting and the results would be pretty similar I bet.

This really is a most ridiculous discussion. Just looking at the RE5 screenshots on IGN, how on earth can any of you people qualify 'game x is better looking than game y'? There's very little between them. Well, between what we have of GOW, what little we have of RE5, and what tiny insight we have of MGS4. They all look pretty darned good of what pics we have.

For all those saying 'game x is better looking than game y' at least make an effort to explain WHY! At least mckmas's complaint includes a pointer to what he prefers. Things like...LOL resident evil 5 looks miles better than both MGS or GOW. is meaningless and intellectually sterile. If RE5 is better, why is it better? A movie critic or restaurant critic will explain what they liked and didn't like of a movie or meal. When discussing a book or TV series with friends you'll talk about points you like and don't like and don't understand and find interesting. Why is your capacity to consider the merits of different screenshots limited to 'das game iz da bestest game evvar. It's ten trillion times bedda dan da uvver gamez.' Is people's capacity for discussion and debate on this matter really only limited to rigid assertions of subconcious and unexplainable preferences?

 

[Titanio]

It's ten trillion times bedda dan da uvver gamez.' Is people's capacity for discussion and debate on this matter really only limited to rigid assertions of subconcious and unexplainable preferences?

We're dealing with a rather sophisticated level here, ask someone why the real world looks "real" and they might similarly stumble. Here's where "a picture paints a thousand words" simply can be explanation enough. Don't confuse someone's inability to articulate WHY for not being genuine.

That said, there has been a discussion of "why", and it's not all purely technical. Why do I think it looks better? More subtle, natural lighting, better modelling, better design and direction, a lifelike quality to character expression. And yes, don't mind if I do throw in that more intangible "it simply looks better" quality. Because IMO it does. Despite its stylisation, It just looks more "real", a more natural image.

And just for fun (taken from GAF), don't lynch me for it:

Good night!

 

[Kolgar]

Wow, damage control has really kicked in!

Doesn't GOW use the new Unreal engine - and doesn't PS3 run that engine better than 360?

Sorry, had to say it.

 

[scooby_dooby]

doesn't PS3 run that engine better than 360?

Umm no.

Tatanio - sweet dreams!