First MGS4 screens are on the web (!)

[Shifty Geezer]

Regarding GOW - from what I've seen, animation isn't really up to the visuals

I concur with this. The GOW stills are gorgeous but when I saw the game in motion I was disappointed. Looked very current-gen motion-captured sets of movements. Of course that's understandable seeing as it's a first-gen title and only running on one core. That's perhaps the next big move. This gen we've seen better and better hardware to the point any game on a modern GPU can have great stills if the artwork is put in, but animation hasn't progressed much. The first games to make headway in that department are going to garner more attention I think than than the prettiest stills, especially now lots of hardcore games turn to internet movies for insight on games.

 

[onetimeposter]

OMG! Don't start this game. Please, please don't start this. The darn video for MGS4 hasn't even been shown yet.

Can you guys picture what people will be saying come next week?

no but im just saying both scans of DMC and MGS are considering in different degrees, one as a realtime render and one as a realtime ingame. I think Kojima was trying to state the graphics of the game will be upto the mark of the realtime scans

If you guys have played Splinter Cell Chaos theory there is a difference between realtime cutscene and realtime ingame. the difference is the quality of textures, graphics but if you look at them from far away they look similiar. the same will be the case, you can bookmark this message until this game is released

 

[BlueTsunami]

so how do you explain DMC having the same level of graphics, or is it realtime render in this case, i dont think its realtime ingame , i think its realtime cutscene (which were always better than ingame if you played MGS3 and MGS2)

Alot of people that are commenting on these MGS screens seem to have not played before...or played very little. ALL cutscenes in MGS looked the same..be it cutscene or in game no matter what. Kojima makes a point of this. He even (if I remember correctly) stated that he dislikes CGI (or anything of that sort) because it brings you out of the game. Realtime Cutscene in game, its all the same in the Metal Gear series...I would honestly wait for TGS also before saying case closed.

If you guys have played Splinter Cell Chaos theory there is a difference between realtime cutscene and realtime ingame. the difference is the quality of textures, graphics but if you look at them from far away they look similiar. the same will be the case, you can bookmark this message until this game is released

Its not a good idea to compare Splinter Cell and Metal Gear Solid and say since Splinter Cell has one thing Metal Gear follows suit. If you've played Metal Gear Solid games...especially Metal Gear Solid 3...you would know that the Cutscenes and in game are exactly the same.

EDIT: I just remembered the feature in Metal Gear Games where you can zoom in and out during a cutscene and manipulate the camera during a cutscene.

 

[onetimeposter]

Alot of people that are commenting on these MGS screens seem to have not played before...or played very little. ALL cutscenes in MGS looked the same..be it cutscene or in game no matter what. Kojima makes a point of this. He even (if I remember correctly) stated that he dislikes CGI (or anything of that sort) because it brings you out of the game. Realtime Cutscene in game, its all the same in the Metal Gear series...I would honestly wait for TGS also before saying case closed.

i think if you play the game there is a difference, maybe there was little difference on PS2 but might be as a 1st gen game on PS3. the graphical quality is done apparently from 7800 or RSX i dont know if RSX versions have been shipped yet. there is also the similiar difference in splinter cell chaos theory

 

[blakjedi]

Regarding GOW - from what I've seen, animation isn't really up to the visuals (apart from the fact that they're really aiming for a much different art-direction all together) - something Kojima's team have never failed in - in fact, I'd say the most impressive thing from all the Metal Gear Solids over 2 generation of hardware have always been it's interaction with AI, movement, animation and realistic behaviour/simulation across the entire gameplay mechanics - all perfectly and flawelessly accomplished in rock-solid gameplay. There's no other way to put it. The attention to detail in just about any MGS game have been in a new world few have been able to keep up with.

You are right. The animation in GoW is NOT up to par and that may taint your view of the graphics, but they are separate things truthfully. The GoW pic is fairly more detailed than the MGS pic however. It doesnt make it it better but the detail is greater and obvious.

For my money if I were MS I would have had Ubisoft pull out all the stops for a next gen x360 exclusive Splinter Cell. For my money that series is the pinnacle of the genre both in terms of graphics and gameplay. Imagine SC4!

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.

Call it hardwork, call it effort. Call it technical expertise - or heck, a combination of everything. Inspite of this, I'd take the MGS4 scans as much more impressive feat than anything I've seen to this date that could be realtime. Of course, I'm assuming quite a bit here and we still don't have any evidence beyond some scans - but knowing what this team has achieved in the past, I'd be damned if they don't impress with what they have to show come TGS.

Or call it youthful exuberance ;-) See my last sentence. 8)

GOW certainly doesn't look bad - but the trailers and feeds I've seen really has me wishing for better in many aspects other than how it looks in still screen grabs IMO.

Again that taint got you.

 

[one]

Hey lets try and not exagerrate this completely ok ChrisUK?

http://shawnblais.com/gow_mgs.jpg

From which pic did you pick the GOW one?

EDIT: found it. It's in the E3 booklet and it's one of concept renders... is it realtime?

http://www.cheatcc.com/imagesx360/gearsofwar_5a.jpg
http://www.cheatcc.com/xbox360/media/gearsofwar_media.html

 

[one]

And one thing, why do some of forum members doubt its real-time-ness now when there's another thread in this very forum about it?

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22799

The Konami website says they'll show the demo on the actual PS3 hardware at TGS.
(Also, in the mag scans Kojima confirms it's realtime to the interviewer who was of course amazed at the image quality and asked him if it's realtime or prerendered.)

 

[two]

From which pic did you pick the GOW one?

GoW = fake plastic faces.
MGS4 = realistic faces.

 

[onetimeposter]

GoW = fake plastic faces.
MGS4 = realistic faces.

Doom Engine - Plastic
Unreal Engine - Realistic
MGS Engine - Natural

 

[therealskywolf]

Hey lets try and not exagerrate this completely ok ChrisUK?

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.

 

[one]

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.

So can you confirm the GoW pic in the left is indeed realtime, in-game?

It's in the E3 booklet and it's one of concept renders... is it realtime?

http://www.cheatcc.com/imagesx360/gearsofwar_5a.jpg
http://www.cheatcc.com/xbox360/media/gearsofwar_media.html

 

[blakjedi]

GoW = fake plastic faces.
MGS4 = realistic faces.

Hunh? I asked people in my office (non videogamers)which pic seemed more realistic and they 7 - 2 chose the GoW pic.

When I asked them why they pointed out a few things:

Lighting,
skin shading,
hair,
pock marks
skin coloration.

 

[Phil]

blakjedi: (damn I wish the quote wouldn't stall my i.explorer)

You are right the animation in GoW is NOT up to par and that may taint your view of the graphics but they are separate things truthfully. The GoW pic is fairly more detailed than the MGs pic however. It doesnt make it it better but the detail is greater and obvious.

I'd have to disagree, unless you want to define "more detailled". The only thing I see in that screen is a high usage of shine and glossy look to the characters - and you're comparing it with a very close close-up of snake which obviously has quite a different artistic approach to it (in fact, just about every MGS game always went for that special colourless look). I'd say the grab of Otacon also shows how much detail is already going into those characters as a whole. I'm also basing this off the other screens of the battlesceen which seems to show a lot of action going on. I'm not hoping for 60fps in MGS4's case (would be wishful thinking IMO and sadly), but I'm willing to take this as fact that whatever Kojima releases will be at least as rock-solid 30 fps as MGS3 on PS2 - with top-notch animation. It's not evidence, yeah, but not one without substance if you have come to respect Kojima's work across all his efforts. I'm sure you can as well, biased or not biased.

Of course, if the TGS trailer reveales everything to the exact contrary to what I just stated, then I will stand corrected, but until then, I have no reason to believe otherwise. GOW on the other hand and the way it looks in motion is something that I have seen and it's challenging to imagine it without the flaws. Screen grabs only tell one part of the story..

I'd also disagree that animation and visuals are two seperate things. Animation is an integral part to framerate (and art) and those two again go and in hand with the visuals. Visuals demand performance but so do fluid and smooth animation as well. And everyhing that adds to AI and gameplay mechanics again competes for the very same resources - which is why it makes comparing games in general so difficult to compare (I'd actually go as far to say quite impossible because it always boils down to art and personal preference in the end which are by all means subjective).

In the end though, I'm sure both will be great in their own way and that's what counts. MGS4 with better graphics won't make GOW look or play any worse as a game and vice-versa...

I'd say we at least wait until we see the MGS4 trailer and how / if GOW's framerate/animation is improved... and then draw all the guns.



EDIT:

Ask your collegues again, but show them Otacon this time. On the other hand, there are many games on various platform that long surpassed MGS3, yet I still think it's one of the most realistic things I've seen and puts many next generation efforts to shame. Art direction ( animation / smooth framerate goes a long way when trying achieve realism... (--> or why GT4 still looks better than most even with less)

 

[Synergy34]

I wonder if Kojima will make use of the dual outputs. Would be pretty cool to have another TV hooked up to use as the view finder for the remote controlled robot, instead of having it on the main screen.

 

[Synergy34]

Hunh? I asked people in my office (non videogamers)which pic seemed more realistic and they 7 - 2 chose the GoW pic.

When I asked them why they pointed out a few things:

Lighting,
skin shading,
hair,
pock marks
skin coloration.

Do they know one is a direct screen grab and the other is from a scan of a mag article? I wouldn't say which is better until I see some high res caps of MGS4.

 

[therealskywolf]

So can you confirm the GoW pic in the left is indeed realtime, in-game?

Uh yes....that's the in game model. Just check the videos, or the G4 interview with Cliff B that has new footage. That pic is taken out of the game itself.

Why? Lol i don't understand, know why GOW looks this good? Because it's a 2006 game, Mg4 should be a 2007 game, we can't compare those games to games that are launching this year.

And even then, i would say that some look particularlly awesome:

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20050914/kameo11.jpg

 

[onetimeposter]

blakjedi: (damn I wish the quote wouldn't stall my i.explorer)

You are right the animation in GoW is NOT up to par and that may taint your view of the graphics but they are separate things truthfully. The GoW pic is fairly more detailed than the MGs pic however. It doesnt make it it better but the detail is greater and obvious.

I'd have to disagree, unless you want to define "more detailled". The only thing I see in that screen is a high usage of shine and glossy look to the characters - and you're comparing it with a very close close-up of snake which obviously has quite a different artistic approach to it (in fact, just about every MGS game always went for that special colourless look). I'd say the grab of Otacon also shows how much detail is already going into those characters as a whole. I'm also basing this off the other screens of the battlesceen which seems to show a lot of action going on. I'm not hoping for 60fps in MGS4's case (would be wishful thinking IMO and sadly), but I'm willing to take this as fact that whatever Kojima releases will be at least as rock-solid 30 fps as MGS3 on PS2 - with top-notch animation. It's not evidence, yeah, but not one without substance if you have come to respect Kojima's work across all his efforts. I'm sure you can as well, biased or not biased.

Of course, if the TGS trailer reveales everything to the exact contrary to what I just stated, then I will stand corrected, but until then, I have no reason to believe otherwise. GOW on the other hand and the way it looks in motion is something that I have seen and it's challenging to imagine it without the flaws. Screen grabs only tell one part of the story..

I'd also disagree that animation and visuals are two seperate things. Animation is an integral part to framerate (and art) and those two again go and in hand with the visuals. Visuals demand performance but so do fluid and smooth animation as well. And everyhing that adds to AI and gameplay mechanics again competes for the very same resources - which is why it makes comparing games in general so difficult to compare (I'd actually go as far to say quite impossible because it always boils down to art and personal preference in the end which are by all means subjective).

In the end though, I'm sure both will be great in their own way and that's what counts. MGS4 with better graphics won't make GOW look or play any worse as a game and vice-versa...

I'd say we at least wait until we see the MGS4 trailer and how / if GOW's framerate/animation is improved... and then draw all the guns.



EDIT:

Ask your collegues again, but show them Otacon this time. On the other hand, there are many games on various platform that long surpassed MGS3, yet I still think it's one of the most realistic things I've seen and puts many next generation efforts to shame. Art direction ( animation / smooth framerate goes a long way when trying achieve realism... (--> or why GT4 still looks better than most even with less)

we will wait and see when GOW is released at the same time as PS3

 

[gokickrocks]

graphics came out as i was expecting it to be...however i didnt expect snake to age that much for the next incarnation of MGS and theres a gut feeling that tells me that they should end the story with MGS3 instead

btw, when's MGS:sustinence due out?

 

[Titanio]

I HATE debates like this, but I'll bite..

The direct-feed GoW to non-directfeed MGS4 comparison is unfair, but - asides from what I think is superior character design, a subjective point - I think the lighting in the MGS4 shot just looks a whole lot more subtle. In GoW, everything seems to "bloom" with white highlights, including his face. It looks less natural. I think this will be much clearer still with direct media.

Also note that there is less complexity in terms of facial and head-hair on the GoW character - he "conveniently" wears a head-covering bandana and isn't wearing facial hair.

Last, but certainly not least - and as mentioned by others earlier - I think watching a face in MGS4 and watching a face in GoW, in motion, will be like night and day, and least from what I've seen so far. The MGS4 shots exhibit a range of facial expression on Snake that simply looks pitch perfect, and this has apparently been a particular area of focus for Kojima. This is something I'd wait for video for, but I'm confident there'll be a marked difference there - and in motion generally - a major strong point of MGS games, and IMO a weak point of GoW thusfar.

So as they say, the devil is in the detail. Throw in the Octacon model and things are clearer still.

All my opinion.

 

[one]

Uh yes....that's the in game model.[/url]

I don't doubt it's in-game model... I wonder if you'll see it runs in game with the same lighting and things. For example, from the same booklet, these are not in-game.

http://www.cheatcc.com/xbox360/media/gearsofwar_screen8.html
http://www.cheatcc.com/xbox360/media/gearsofwar_screen9.html