First MGS4 screens are on the web (!)

[MechanizedDeath]

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.

Just b/c it's said doesn't mean it's true, no matter how many times it's repeated. I can't tell you how many times I had to hear someone say that the Shenmue face demos were as good or better than the PS2 old man face demo. I don't think it matters much besides having a little fun on GAF today. I think the graphics disparity will end up bludgeoning some through repetition as PS3 games actually start getting a regular flow of media. I don't see GoW and MGS4 being even about the same right now, for the same reasons I don't see GoW and KZ3 being about the same.

IMO, it's clearly evident that the scans show character models more detailed and better lighting. Specifics? The weapon Solid is holding looks more detailed than either of the two weapons we've seen in GoW. Otacon not only has the facial detail, but the hair as well. Phoenix's bandana isn't exactly an aesthetic choice. The lighting looking "subtle" is just something I think that comes with good HDR. That's hard for me to claim with no evidence, but I just think about the same kinds of visual lighting differences with Heavenly Sword (fp16) and stuff like 99 Nights or even GoW. Are they using fp10, or just not getting the lighting right? Material shaders seem to be getting better results on the PS3 as well. Even that Endless Saga screen had a look to it that led some...or at least one to believe it was cg. I'm not even arguing aesthetics, I just think on a technical level, it's apparent from the MGS4 and DMC4 shots today that this is a noticeable step up. And GoW is the most visually impressive 360 game right now, which says a lot. All IMO. PEACE.

 

[Kolgar]

Umm no.

Tatanio - sweet dreams!

Care to elaborate?

By the way, our ice skater now looks to be wearing a poorly made Halloween mask.

 

[scooby_dooby]

"Care to elaborate?"

I'm not the one making completely unfounded games about PS3 running UE3 better.

Did you just pull that out of your butt? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

 

[hey69]

wow , he looks exactly like my father.. but with a bandana on his head! woouahhaha

 

[Kolgar]

Did you just pull that out of your butt? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Yes, Scooby, I just reached right in and pulled it out. Innit something?

I'm asking the question: Won't PS3 run the UE3 engine faster/better than X360? It's generally acknowledged that PS3 is the more powerful hardware - the only real question in most gamers' minds is how much more powerful it is.

Given that Epic had that brilliant-looking UE3 demo up and running on a PS3 devkit at E3 - and also that the GOW video footage I've seen so far has been less than smooth - I thought it a question worth asking.

Can anybody give one this a shot?

***Edit: Judging by the E3 video (http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/...ware/media.html), it looks like PS3 can do plasticky-looking character models just as well as X360 and GOW, even on an alpha devkit using only the PPE.

But then, I have to ask why the fram we're talking about GOW in this thread anyway. *looks around* This IS the MGS4 thread, right?***

 

[liverkick]

I don't see GoW and MGS4 being even about the same right now, for the same reasons I don't see GoW and KZ3 being about the same.

Bingo. I hate to nitpick UE3 engine since it looks awesome and is such a clear jump from the previous generation. But I read someone say that the only bad thing about GoW and UE3 in general is that different materials from metal, cloth to skin tend to look like they're carved from more or less the same source for some reason, giving way to that synthetic look a bit. I think thats right on. It has this odd uniformity to it thats hard to put my finger on, perhaps its the heavy bloomy lighting. With MSG4 and DMC4 scans, the models and surrounding all look very meticulously rendered and lit, closer to a natural CG approximation. Just MO...In motion is whats going to truely tell the story here anyway.

 

[expletive]

Are you guys going this nuts over the scanned pictures on the first apge or am i missing another link somewhere?

J

 

[Metalgearih]

I've seen Snake clench his teeth in MGS4 when he's injecting a needle like thing in his neck. Yes, in one of the screenshots it looks like it. But we can see express-able facial emotions there.

Same with RE5, we saw Chris squint his eyes when direct sunlight hit them. Another expression of facial behaviour.

Does anyone know if the Gears of War character has shown anything like that so far?

 

[skaboss]

Tim Sweeney has already said he was happy with PS3 cause it was the first time he was able to run UE3 at 60fps IIRC. So UE3 does infact run better on PS3

 

[expletive]

You guys realize that this is essentially a tech demo, not actualy gameplay right? Ive seen some amazing nvidia tech demos that never really translate to gameplay. I've got high hopes for this and RE but lets take this with a grain of salt, this will be an in-engine movie not gameplay.

J

 

[expletive]

Tim Sweeney has already said he was happy with PS3 cause it was the first time he was able to run UE3 at 60fps IIRC. So UE3 does infact run better on PS3

This is a ridiculous statement. Can we just drop the comparisons based on nothing of substance? Thanks.

J

 

[mckmas8808]

You guys realize that this is essentially a tech demo, not actualy gameplay right? Ive seen some amazing nvidia tech demos that never really translate to gameplay. I've got high hopes for this and RE but lets take this with a grain of salt, this will be an in-engine movie not gameplay.

J

I see you're new here so I going to tell you this first to try to help you. The gameplay will look like the in-engine movies. Everybody here knows that so you shouldn't repeat it again.

On Topic: I wonder what Hideo was talking about when he said there will be things in the game that we don't see. And from the E3 video I wonder how desructive the environment will be. We all know that Hideo is the master of certain special effects in games, so I would like to know what MGS4 will have in it.

 

[Acert93]

Tim Sweeney has already said he was happy with PS3 cause it was the first time he was able to run UE3 at 60fps IIRC. So UE3 does infact run better on PS3

Link, please.

And as if it mattered in this thread... Epic would have just received final dev kits in the last month. They do NOT have final PS3 kits, but instead machines with 6800U SLI. So I want to see a link about the PS3 running UE3 better because the available information says no such comparison could exist at this time.

Further, this thread is typical. Sony fans jumping up and down flaming the 360, Xbox fans being defensive. All I can say is "meh". Did ANYONE ever consider the difference between *art direction* and *technology* and *theme*.

If you want to talk about the technology then do so--but at least be informed (which, btw, no one knows much about MGS4, and neither has been seen by the public running on final HW for the most part).

As for art direction, the question is one of *preference* and analysing if it fuses well with the theme.

Take any good looking game/render targetL Killzone, Gears of War, MotorStorm, etc... what do they ALL have in common? Their art assets, art direction, and rendering scheme are paired with the game direction and "feel" VERY WELL. To put it simply:

MGS4 art probably would not do the big creepy creatures much justice.

GOW art probably would not do Snake and his real world exploit much justice.

If that is too hard to understand, sub the above games with HL2/BF2/Doom3/FarCry.

If you cannot see how different engines and artistic styles, themes, direction, and assets need to be matched to an engine and hardware and how calling one "better" is a relative/preference thing then you either need to grow up or just admitt you are a Company X fan and every post you submitt is with that orientation. If that is the case don't pretent to pass it off as objective...

 

[liverkick]

Whats especially encouraging about the MGS scans is before all this came out in every interview Kojima seemed to be trying to downplay the emphasis on graphics saying he wanted to capture detail and atmosphere in others ways (hinting an emphasis toward physics and animation rather than "prettier sets and models"). And then these scans role out and it looks absolutely incredible. If this is what Kojima Prod. has in store for a game not looking to focus on being pretty in pictures, Im utterly dying to see how the whole package is going to look in motion, and the gameplay possibilities he has in store.

 

[Atsim]

Acert93 speaks the truth.

One thing I remember is being amazed by the MGS2 trailer and not being amazed when the game finally came out. Remember the whole shadow thing? Where if an enemy sees your shadow they can catch you? I thought that was gonna be awesome! There was ONE TIME that that happened.

MGS 3 I had no complains about and was actually shocked that it looked better than anything I had seen on the xbox (The fight with the Boss? Holy Shit!)

With that being said, it looks like these shots are a step above MGS2, but isn't as big of a step as between MGS1 and MGS2...

 

[DigitalSoul]

Ahh, well said Acert :smile:

EDIT: I read somewhere once that there is no point in comparing graphics when the art styles are compelety different.....something along those lines.

Different developers, different visions......

 

[liverkick]

With that being said, it looks like these shots are a step above MGS2, but isn't as big of a step as between MGS1 and MGS2...

Id say its looking about the same generational leap, even only in stills.
http://web.telia.com/~u48019550/otacon.png

 

[pso]

Link, please.

And as if it mattered in this thread... Epic would have just received final dev kits in the last month. They do NOT have final PS3 kits, but instead machines with 6800U SLI. So I want to see a link about the PS3 running UE3 better because the available information says no such comparison could exist at this time.

Further, this thread is typical. Sony fans jumping up and down flaming the 360, Xbox fans being defensive. All I can say is "meh". Did ANYONE ever consider the difference between *art direction* and *technology* and *theme*.

If you want to talk about the technology then do so--but at least be informed (which, btw, no one knows much about MGS4, and neither has been seen by the public running on final HW for the most part).

As for art direction, the question is one of *preference* and analysing if it fuses well with the theme.

Take any good looking game/render targetL Killzone, Gears of War, MotorStorm, etc... what do they ALL have in common? Their art assets, art direction, and rendering scheme are paired with the game direction and "feel" VERY WELL. To put it simply:

MGS4 art probably would not do the big creepy creatures much justice.

GOW art probably would not do Snake and his real world exploit much justice.

If that is too hard to understand, sub the above games with HL2/BF2/Doom3/FarCry.

If you cannot see how different engines and artistic styles, themes, direction, and assets need to be matched to an engine and hardware and how calling one "better" is a relative/preference thing then you either need to grow up or just admitt you are a Company X fan and every post you submitt is with that orientation. If that is the case don't pretent to pass it off as objective...

Excellent post.

 

[Acert93]

Btw, my post is not to suggest technologies cannot be compared--although it is well known that a game with great art and a middle of the road engine can outperform a technically excellent engine with poor art.

So that is not to say a certain game is not using better technology, just that one may use what they have better (not what you have, but how you use it). So while one could note that Doom 3 has great dynamic shadowing/lighting, it also lacks the outdoor areas and foiliage of FarCry. So apples-to-apples is VERY difficult.

Further, I think it is fair to compare games using similar technology and themes/art direction. e.g. Chonicles of Riddick and Doom 3 on the Xbox1 allows for a fair comparison in many ways.

There are cases where a game simply looks a lot better than the competition. I am not claiming that. But if such a discussion is devoid of the technical merits and a good measure of discussion on art direction in relation to the theme and how it accomplishes the artists vision then it is really devoid of any value and can be chalked up to fans argueing which of their systems is best.

And I am not defending GOW (have stated numerous of times I dislike the gameplay direction). But from what I have seen--which is very little--of both I have to say I love the MGS face better than the GOW one... but on the other hand I think GOW's monsters are AAA+. The casual guys, the big mother monster, the HUGE T-Rex like thing... if this was a FPS I would be going nuts. I absolutely LOVE the art direction for the bad guys, the sci-fi / monster thing is like the best of the Borg and Klingons

But of course, that is a discussion of preference. Human faces are nice, but I see them all day. I want some artistically innovative enemies with great technology!

As an aside, I would like to see the MGS4 in motion, but it seems the artists have caught the human "touch" to the face better than the KZ video, yet I still like the KZ theme/art better. Hard to say anthing about technology without seeing both in motion, but I quite enjoy the KZ like touch where guys are real, but then not (and the tech/bad guy theme).

And that, of course, is just to point out how one can like something better than something else based on ART when technically, or "realistically" there may or may not be a significant difference.

So ultimately it goes back to how the art theme works with the gameplay and technology (both hardware and engine). Its like comparing Burnout to GT4. Dynamic exploding cars or realistic sim... one looks better static, the other has a ton more interactivy. What looks "best" is dependant on what measure you are using. One gamer may love the "picture" while another may associate good looks with how it interacts. To me it says a lot about those engaging in the "MGS4 makes GOW look bad" type posts, and vice versa for those claiming GOW looks better than MGS4. Wait for the darned final games And if different and both excellent just appreciate how they are different.

 

[Atsim]

Id say its looking about the same generational leap, even only in stills.
http://web.telia.com/~u48019550/otacon.png

Yeah, I hadn't seen the Otacon pic until just a while ago. That pic totally blew me away. I thought it was one of the guys who made the game. Then I went "Wha Wha Wha...WHAT!?" That's next gen graphics right there.

Edit: Acert93, I want to have your babies.

Edit 2: Also, I just saw this pic and one thing I've noticed over the years is that a greyscale picture looks far more realistic than a non-grey scale picture. To offer a more fair comparison I've greyscaled both pics:

I don't know, both are impresive but in different ways..