First MGS4 screens are on the web (!)

[Atsim]

I agree, the skin doesn't look very good when compared to GOW. The scans look high enough quality to allow for comparison I think...

 

[PC-Engine]

I agree, the skin doesn't look very good when compared to GOW. The scans look high enough quality to allow for comparison I think...

Yep here is the hi res scan:

http://www.strain.nl/ps3/mgs1.jpg

You've got to be joking

Looks like jokes on you.

 

[mckmas8808]

I agree, the skin doesn't look very good when compared to GOW. The scans look high enough quality to allow for comparison I think...

Now you've got to be joking too.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So you're saying MGS4's goal was to make character's skins look like painted paper?

Yes, they went for a painted look and obviously it works because that'a what you think it looks like.

BTW you asked why I think RE5 looks better so I told you. Time to move on...

Move on from what? You've said your bit, now I'm saying mine. It's called a discussion.

I think you're starting to grasp for straws now seeing you have a weak case trying to disprove my argument.

You are mistaken. I'm not trying to disprove any argument. I'm just having a polite debate on the merits of different game engines, trying to understand your criteria to the basis of your assertion that GOW and RE5 look better than MGS4.

Nobody said the skin shader in RE5 is duplicating reality, but it does look realistic whether you think so or not.

To look realistic a renderer needs to try and simulate the shading and lighting of real life. One way to gauge a renderer's realism is to compare it to real images. Like I say you won't find that sort of specular colouring in real-life photographs. It's not realistic. Whereas the soft lighting of MGS4 or the high contrast, controlled specular highlights of GOW are to found to photography. Of course the Otacon image has weaker cloth shading which you've pointed out. I wonder why you notice that but not the obviously 'plastic' look of RE5?

MGS4's character skin looks single textured, flat, and paper like.

How can you determine from looking at a screen-grab how many textures a model uses? What does single texture look like? Does a single texture photo of a house mapped onto a rectangle look like a single texture, whereas a model of a house with bricks, dirt, bumps and lighting textures look like a multiple textured model? How many textures does Marcus have and what are they for?

Again you point to the look, the flat, paper-like artsy look, which is the art direction you are criticising. You don't like the illustrated style. That's subjective - there is no better or worse between GOW and MGS and RE5 based on this tiddly bit of evidence we have to hand, only personal opinion as to which you like the look of more. Why are you unwilling to accept this?

Personally, as i said earlier, I like this sort of 'airbrush' style. It's refreshing and lends itself to the sci-fi concept.

 

[PC-Engine]

Now you've got to be joking too.

Why is it a joke? Because it doesn't agree with you?

LOOK AT THE OLD GRANDPA SNAKE!!!

 

[mckmas8808]

Why is it a joke? Because it doesn't agree with you?

LOOK AT THE OLD GRANDPA SNAKE!!!

That post reveals why you are saying what you are saying. I bet even when you see the video you will have something negative to say about it too. Do you have anything good to say about the MGS4 pics?

 

[PC-Engine]

That post reveals why you are saying what you are saying. I bet even when you see the video you will have something negative to say about it too. Do you have anything good to say about the MGS4 pics?

I already said something good about MGS4 about 6 pages back, but it wasn't to make you happy.

Yes, they went for a painted look and obviously it works because that'a what you think it looks like.

It looks bad, not as good as RE5 whether intentional or not.

To look realistic a renderer needs to try and simulate the shading and lighting of real life. One way to gauge a renderer's realism is to compare it to real images. Like I say you won't find that sort of specular colouring in real-life photographs. It's not realistic. Whereas the soft lighting of MGS4 or the high contrast, controlled specular highlights of GOW are to found to photography. Of course the Otacon image has weaker cloth shading which you've pointed out. I wonder why you notice that but not the obviously 'plastic' look of RE5?

Your assertion is rediculous. It doesn't need to duplicate every single detail to look realistic, unless you're talking about complete photorealism which nobody is talking about.

Cloth textures are weak on both MGS4 and RE5 so there's no point in arguing that.

 

[Phil]

MGS4 is possible on 360 also it would just take a different progamming approach. Unfortunately it will be easy to benchmark the Unreal engine across platforms but impossible to do with the MGS engine.

So in other words, since it's "impossible" to use MGS as benchmark across other platforms, you do in fact agree that your prior sentence is completely unsubstantiated.

In fact, without knowing what Kojima is using, I doubt it would be easily possibly simply because CELL and Xenon are quite different. I'd say that any game using both CPU's full potential would not be possible on either other hardware. Of course, *if* Kojima's team forgot that there are SPEs on CELL and all other architectural strengths that are unique to each platform - you'd maybe have a point. But how likely is that? Err... not at all. There's no need to be making unfounded claims.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Your assertion is rediculous. It doesn't need to duplicate every single detail to look realistic, unless you're talking about complete photorealism which nobody is talking about.

I'm not talking about duplicating every single aspect of realism. I'm talking about the basic systems used for ages, the important key material elements that affect realism. Things like diffuse lighting, specular lighting, bumps, colouring, self-shadowing. Perhaps the terms I used confused you into thinking I was talking about more complicated shading techniques?

The RE5 image shows use of these techniques, but the skin shader produces an artifical 'plastic' look (though of course there's many different plastics with different illumination properties). Certainly it's skin rendering is not to the same calibre as the GOW renders. This fundamentally affects realism just as would a misaligned GI map, unnatural colouring of the facial texture, bump-mapping with a texture that doesn't fit the model, or anisotropic diffuse lighting affecting the range of illumination to give a soft sheen where a human face shouldn't have one. All these things are not present in RE5. But they haven't captured specular lighting correctly. It's a good image, but it has faults just as the likes of GOW and MGS, which is why it cannot be determined to be 'better', especially when the illumination artefacts of MGS are difficult to qualify seeing as it's not itis not aiming for photorealism. We have no basis for comparison to determine if the shaders are producing the look the developers are intending, unlike say RE5 where they're aiming for reality and we can compare images to real images.

You also haven't answered my query about textures which i think is important. As a computer graphics site the scrutiny of computer imagery with a view to considering rendering techniques is part of B3D's raison d'etre. If you know a way to discern from a still screen-grab the number and types of textures used in a rendering it'd be beneficial to know as it'd help consider the techniques used in different products where we can consider texturing power versus shading power in the production of imagery.

 

[dskneo]

pictures look good.

Its not subjective, they look, GOOD.

what you guys are discussing with the Pc-whatever, its saying an American guy PICTURE looks more realistic than am Indian guy PICTURE, just because skin colour makes it more, realistic.

i mean, come on.... if i take a picture of my face painted with War colours, is it less realistic than Gears of war graphics? loooooooooooool

what if i take a picture of my Face with a flashlight pointed at me ?... my face would be very bright! that makes my real-life picture less realistic than Gears of war graphics?

what if you pick the GoW character, clean his face, point a flashligh at him..? is he suddenly less realistic than him self with dirty face?

DIFFERENT ART STYLES PC-whatever!
whats more funny about all this, is that PC-E is deffending the even more flawded pictures from rising of the dead or whatever from X360, but at the same time, he finds these MGS4 pictures absolutly full with low quality stuff....

 

[Titanio]

Anyway the video will prove all.

Don't kid yourself. God himself could bestow us with his brilliance in a game, but as long as it's running on PS3, you're going to have a mess like this. It's best to ignore.

Anyway, any word on whether the trailer will be online simultaneous with its first airing at TGS? AFAIK, it'll be shown at 3pm local time, aka 7am tomorrow GMT. I've heard rumours it'll be on Kojima Production's website, but any confirmation? If it is, I hope they provide a high res version, and if not, I hope they let the press take a DVD of it with them.

 

[blakjedi]

So in other words, since it's "impossible" to use MGS as benchmark across other platforms, you do in fact agree that your prior sentence is completely unsubstantiated.

In fact, without knowing what Kojima is using, I doubt it would be easily possibly simply because CELL and Xenon are quite different. I'd say that any game using both CPU's full potential would not be possible on either other hardware. Of course, *if* Kojima's team forgot that there are SPEs on CELL and all other architectural strengths that are unique to each platform - you'd maybe have a point. But how likely is that? Err... not at all. There's no need to be making unfounded claims.

The rest of what I said was "MGS4 is possible on 360 also it would just take a different progamming approach." It already addressed your whole post.

BTW exactly how is it possible to use the MGS engine as a benchmark across the two systems unless it comes out for both systems (which is very unlikely?)

 

[Phil]

The rest of what I said was "MGS4 is possible on 360 also it would just take a different progamming approach." It already addressed your whole post.

BTW exactly how is it possible to use the MGS engine as a benchmark across the two systems unless it comes out for both systems (which is very unlikely?)

"taking a different programming approach" is as meaningfull as making a port of say, ZOE2 on PS2 and making a Xbox port replacing the cell-shading with bump mapping and what not...

Different approaches != achieving the same result on different hardware

Different approaches == developing to one's strength / weaknesses, thus making something unique to that hardware

A game developed to the strength of one platform is in the very fewest cases going to be possible on a different set of hardware, unless the porting hardware can emulate the first in its entirety. Using different approaches will always give you different results.

 

[Sonic]

This thread is locked. I see of two people in here so far that have contributed to this thread going to waste. One being PC-Engine, and the other being scatteh316. I think both deserve a good week to cool off so they no longer bring down threads.

PC-Engine, you should know better by now. Your arguments might be plausible but the way you go about and act towards other posts still hasn't changed or improved. You're a good poster, but this is becoming ridiculous.