First MGS4 screens are on the web (!)

[Phil]

You don't get it Scooby don't you? While you altered your GOW picture to make it more realistic - the Otacon model was practically unaltered with only the face being sticked into a photo with a similar bland lighting condition. The point wasn't to show that GOW can look better when you alter the colours - the point was, I believe, to counter the point that GOW looks more realistic. It doesn't - no matter how many people you ask, it's just not true. It looks much more CGI, that much should be obvious even to you. Does that make it less impressive? Hell no, but it doesn't make it look more realistic either.

You can't argue art-direction.

 

[_phil_]

I'd say MGS serie is like an iceberg ,where what you don't see is way bigger than what you see,GOW on the other hand is all in what you see.

Overall ,hardware usage have opposit approaches.

There is no miracle : if you want 15k poly + 1024 textures (NM +Difff+Spec +AO..) then you probably won't be able to diplay more than 15-20 of them.If you need more characters on screen,more non-static geometry ,you trade off .

Still ,i've no doubt that MGS4 engine will be much more dedicated to the ps3 hardware than the UE3 can even dream of.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I think you guys should wait for a higher res shot - an actual screenshot instead of a scanned picture - of that Otacon character. I believe that it will look quite different, with all the filtering effects of printing and scanning removed...

 

[Titanio]

Oh dear lord, Scooby, it was meant as light relief. You're so defensive.

It really is 2000 all over again.

"Tatiano" sends a kiss - MWAH!!

 

[PC-Engine]

GoW > MGS4

 

[PC-Engine]

He's already regarded as the clown on other forums.

Yeah? Like which ones?

The attention to detail in just about any MGS game have been in a new world few have been able to keep up with.

I have MGS:TS, it's not the second coming. You seem to exaggerate too much. Your descriptions of the MGS games are more suited for a game like RE4.

The GoW pic is fairly more detailed than the MGS pic however.

Yep, anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial.

What this para does point to is that YOUR EXPECTATION that MGS will look better than anything else informs what you see more than whats actually presented in the scans. They do look great though.

Exactly, It's like people who buy an expensive $150K Ford GT and expect it to perform better than a car that's $40K, but in reality a Lotus will rip the Ford a new one. They are just lying to themselves to make reality meet their expectations.

This image just killed every Fool that was saying things like "Omgz, Ps3 teh Win, Gen starts when PS3 launches, look MGs4, the War is teh OVer"

Seriouslly. Just look at the pics. That pic tells the whole story.

Exactly...people are just in denail here. MGS4 looks like a single textured polygon face with fake lightmaps. GoW looks like a face with flesh and bone with real wrinkles, rough skin and real lighting.

I'm sorry, but I like the more natural lighting in the MGS4 game already than the bright and shiny GOW game.

That Otacon picture actually shows MGS4's weakness which is the lighting. It doesn't look REAL at all. Everything just looks flat. Look at his clothes! Lot's of fake lightmaps. It's kinda ironic that GoW actually looks more solid than MGSolid.

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

That's exactly why these MGS4 pictures disappoint since even I was expecting better.

 

[liverkick]

Its fun when PC-Engine goes quote for quote. You can formulate his predictable response in your head and see how close you get. They should make a flash game out of it. I scored 6/7 and got to punch Osama in the head for a free 360.

 

[PC-Engine]

So this means that if a multiplatform game is better looking than a PS3 exclusive, then both consoles have equal graphic power, this is what you're trying to prove all along , stop hiding behind words.

That's actually a very good point, however, that's not what I'm saying. I was expecting MGS4 to look real like SH kind of real.

a) Low polygon models in MGS4
b) Simplistic shaders in MGS4
c) Little draw distance in MGS4
d) Low resolution textures in MGS4

Any of those? If not maybe you can add your own answers to the questionnaire. And if one of the above DOES represent the area in which you regard MGS4 to be inferior to RE5 can you please explain how the example scan provide enough information on which to make a well consider judgement on such matters?

First of all the lighting is flat. Second you can see polygon edges on the chin/neck area. Third the shading doesn't look very complex at all. Looks like single layer textures with fake lightmaps. Skin is 2 dimensional. Happy now?

And for those people who keep posting this picture...

care to post pictures of the main character in the SH3 game for PS2? Not that big of a jump at all is it?

 

[rabidrabbit]

i didn't notice polygon edges in the bigger Solid Snake picture, just some roughness that's the wrinkleiness of his ageing skin (note to self: begin using some skin moisturising products before it's too late)
Besides, that was a fairly close-up of Solid Snake (and honestly, that GOW pic is not exactly what you see ingame as it's a prerender done for a presentation booklet. Expect a little less detail, flatter lighting and less AA while playing. That pic is what can be called a "prerender using ingame assets")

 

[Shifty Geezer]

First of all the lighting is flat. Second you can see polygon edges on the chin/neck area. Third the shading doesn't look very complex at all. Looks like single layer textures with fake lightmaps. Skin is 2 dimensional. Happy now?

Happier

I disagree with some points. Assuming you're talking primarily of this Otacon image, the flat lighting is more a matter of style. Both this pic and the GOW have fairly realistic representations of illumination, but one's gone for dramatic lighting and the other's gone for a more subdued 'available light' style. Take the GOW character and place it in the room that Otacon's inhabiting and the resultant image too will have flat lighting. In the world of photography adding depth to lighting uses various tricks to add more 'richness' than real-life illumination offers, such as fill in lights and reflectors. This is more a matter of style than engine capabilities. As for the shading that's something you can't really tell from stills. I could take a perfect photo and map it onto a poly model and it'll look amazing in a still, until you move it around and find it doesn't interact with the environment lighting. The diffusion of light on Otacon is okay, but it still has a excessive smoothness to it not present in GOW. I rate it higher than RE5 though (http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/734/734381/img_2932652.html) where the skin shader has unnatural specular highlighting. Also, what's a 'fake' lightmap? And for baked on lights how can that look worse than realtime calculated lighting? You can use hours of offline rendertime to calculate perfect GI which realtime will never match. A collection of game stills based on carefully constructed GI maps will always look better than calculated lighting until we have realtime GI. eg. The PGR scenery made god use of GI maps to add realistic depth to the illumination. The only time prebaked lighting falls down is where it doesn't match the lighting in scene or where the model's has been transformed away from it's ideal position so areas that should be in shadow are lit, or lit areas are still texutred with the shadow area of the baked light. Neither of these can be discerned from the Otacon picture. If prebaked lighting there's no artifacts to give it away as such, and in a static screenshots there's no other evidence. What evidence do you look for to determine number of textures and differnce between realtime and baked lightmaps?

Regards poly visibility the angles on Otacon are no more obvious to me than those of Marcus, plus Otacon has some realistic hair which the GOW character has avoid in wearing a bandana.

For me I can't see there is enough evidence form a few stills to determine which game is better, and so far the points raised by people generally cover artistic style more than achievements of the rendering engines. One factor not present in these stills is animation. For eaxmple what i've seen of GOW to date hasn't had sterling animation or silky-smooth framerates, and a different game with a few more visible polys but much improved animation could be considered 'better' overall if factoring in all the different aspects that constitute what a game looks like.

 

[London Geezer]

care to post pictures of the main character in the SH3 game for PS2? Not that big of a jump at all is it?

Yeah let's compare tiny crappy mag scanned pictures to PS2 shots!! WOW PS3 has worse IQ than PS2!!1!11

We get it, PC-Engine, you don't like the look of the game, it's flat, it's low-poly, it's a comic book scan, it's a Big Mac, and think RE:Code Veronica looks better. Repeat it another 10 times and you win and inflatable doll.

 

[PC-Engine]

Yeah let's compare tiny crappy mag scanned pictures to PS2 shots!! WOW PS3 has worse IQ than PS2!!1!11

We get it, PC-Engine, you don't like the look of the game, it's flat, it's low-poly, it's a comic book scan, it's a Big Mac, and think RE:Code Veronica looks better. Repeat it another 10 times and you win and inflatable doll.

I'm not hammering down a point over and over to get my point across. I'm responding to questions.

Take the GOW character and place it in the room that Otacon's inhabiting and the resultant image too will have flat lighting.

I don't think so. The UE3 has very realistic lighting whether you're in brightly lit areas or dimly lit areas. That Otacon picture doesn't offer realistic lighting. Just look at his clothes, lighting is fake.

The diffusion of light on Otacon is okay, but it still has a excessive smoothness to it not present in GOW. I rate it higher than RE5 though.

I think a better comparison is the old man Snake to Chris in RE5 since both are in brightly lit areas. Snake just looks flat and the skin just looks like paper. Chris looks like he's sweating and his skin looks soft and moist. The specular highlight looks real too because moist skin or oily skin reflects more light like it should.

You can use hours of offline rendertime to calculate perfect GI which realtime will never match.

Sure but it's only useful if it actually matches the direction of the realtime lights, otherwise it would look out of place from the rest of the environment unless you use GI lightmaps for the environments too. Regardless it's still only usful for static lights. Unless you update the lightmaps each frame according to the direction of the dynamic lights, it'll look off.

What evidence do you look for to determine number of textures and differnce between realtime and baked lightmaps?

Because realtime looks correct and consistent with everything else. Really good lightmaps are difficult to spot, but bad lightmaps are easy to see. It's something you learn how to recognize overtime. It's not something you can show to someone how to do.

 

[bRoNx]

Calling All Mods To The Rescue!!!

OT: Sorry to derail this (I don't even think this can be derailed anymore than it already has)!!!

It wasn't that long ago when these boards were "rested" due to constant bickering, and it's already started again! It just baffles me that some of you guys can sound intelligent & mature in one thread, and then sound like complete f**kers in another. I hate to see a threat on my beloved MGS get torn to shreds by f@nboys (I actually think that word is too good for some of you!)...so Mods, please do the just thing and close it, and you can all start throwing rocks again when they release a trailer later this week!!!

So if you've won an inflatable doll, please collect it from the front desk on your way out! Bastards!

 

[_phil_]

pC engine makes some sense.

But only if we are allowed to compare a PRrender shot to a scan.
Without some rules , every thing is good to win cheap points.

 

[one]

Watch out this page after 16 hours

http://www.konami.jp/tgs2005/live/index.html

 

[scatteh316]

Exactly...people are just in denail here. MGS4 looks like a single textured polygon face with fake lightmaps. GoW looks like a face with flesh and bone with real wrinkles, rough skin and real lighting.


That Otacon picture actually shows MGS4's weakness which is the lighting. It doesn't look REAL at all. Everything just looks flat. Look at his clothes! Lot's of fake lightmaps. It's kinda ironic that GoW actually looks more solid than MGSolid.


That's exactly why these MGS4 pictures disappoint since even I was expecting better.

Can i PLEASE see ur High resolution screen shots you are using please....because all i can see is extrmely poor shots that are to low in quality to even see the game properly.

 

[PC-Engine]

Can i PLEASE see ur High resolution screen shots you are using please....because all i can see is extrmely poor shots that are to low in quality to even see the game properly.

Lighting has very little to do with pixel resolution. A 320x240 photograph will look just as real as a 640x480 one.

 

[two]

Watch out this page after 16 hours

http://www.konami.jp/tgs2005/live/index.html

Konami conference (streaming)?

 

[scatteh316]

Lighting has very little to do with pixel resolution. A 320x240 photograph will look just as real as a 640x480 one.

Were did i ever mension resolution???

So by your statment above a picture of the same resolution will have the same lighting even if 1 is a scan and the other is'nt???

Kid go home, a scan has ALOT to do with the lighting quality of that pic, so why the hell are you TRYING to slagg the game off by these few EXTREMELY low quality scans???

 

[PC-Engine]

Were did i ever mension resolution???

So by your statment above a picture of the same resolution will have the same lighting even if 1 is a scan and the other is'nt???

Kid go home, a scan has ALOT to do with the lighting quality of that pic, so why the hell are you TRYING to slagg the game off by these few EXTREMELY low quality scans???

Then stop asking me for high resolution screenshots. Have you seen scans of RE5?

Go away kid, I'm a busy person..don't have time for your nonsense...