Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain & Ground Zeroes

I find this a problem on pretty much every game. Only a few of them ever put that in. Not sure why it doesn't make the cut for graphics features.

 

Strangely I think GTAV on PS360 does have shadow casts from headlights.

 

That would be strange.

 

Almost all games have had shadow casting flashlight for the past few years now. As for car headlight shadows, the only game I can think of which did it was GTA4 PC. I wonder if it's any more expensive than a flashlight shadow (since GTA5 did these).

 

Can you list some of the more recent games that have shadow casting flashlights? I can only count a few on my hand.

Metro
Thief (torches)
Alien:Isolation

 

The Last of Us
The Order
Until Dawn
Evil Within
Tomb Raider DE
Maybe a few more.

 

Consoles going for 60fps is a bad move, at 30/1080p at least on PS4, it should have all of the PC exclusive features and then some. Stealth games like this doesn't require blazing fast fps really.

 

It doesn't need it but it's so nice to have. To be honest they could just add screen space reflections and everything would look much, much better. Not sure how taxing it is.

 

Yeah I do reckon SSR is the biggest difference, I can live with a few less JJ Abram lens flared lights but them reflection adds so much to the scene tho.

 

They may not, but do they require the latest exclusive PC features? I couldn't care less if there's a slightly better draw distance, more trees in the distance or nicer reflections on the ground unless it makes the actual gameplay better. The way framerate seems to be wanted to be traded-off for any little visual improvement makes me wonder why people decide to play on consoles at all - all you need is a PC. Or in fact, how do people even stand playing on the Xbox One if the majority of games are that slightly worse on it than on the PS4? Maybe they should start trading off some framerate there too to reach visual parity with PS4 games?

 

Well I can't say for everyone else but personally I feel a very shiny looking console game is a much better experience than the same one with half of the graphics but twice the framerate, presuming the former being a stable 30fps or even rare dips here and there. So why not go full on PC? For hundreds of reasons, convenience, stability and console exclusives being a few. Again personally speaking, I've grown out of being super competitive in games that require knee jerk reactions, I just need a good visual experience from a game with hands on controls and adequate difficulty after a day of work. Not saying all genres should be the same but for a stealth tps like this, 30fps is more than enough. As for XBone owners I'm sure they can get by just fine, just not as luxurious as PS4 or PC users, also not to forget individual tolerance of iq and the size of TVs etc. See it's not all black and white as you say, it all comes down to personal preference and having more options is always a good thing.

 

IMO, visuals are rarely something that enriches the actual game experience (Note; of course in the context where the tradeoff is 30/60fps on the same given resources). If it was - people wouldn't be playing 30fps games on the Wii-U, the Xbox One, or even a PS4. They'd be all playing on the PC. So, by the same token; are the games that are that bit "nicer looking" on PS4 actually better games? No, clearly not. Despite a half terraflop difference (or whatever it is) in hardware, that extra performance doesn't amount to a better gaming experience in a game to game comparison. Yes, the PS4 might have slightly higher res, some nicer textures/filtering on average... but as a game, they both offer give or take an identical experience. Why is that? Perhaps it's because at the end of it, we get used to what we are seeing/playing and become emerged into the gameplay that our brain overlooks whatever is missing in terms of visuals. Similarly to reading a book, you often find yourself so emerged that you are "seeing" what's unfolding in the book, rather than the letters/characters you are reading. Which is why in my opinion, any slight visual improvement you are trading off for framerate and playability is a shallow one. Which brings me to GTAV which I have just recently bought for the PS4 (after completing it on the PS3). It looks a lot better, but it's still the same game. And when I turn it off and think back about both versions, I'm hard put to put my finger on what is actually better (despite the clear knowlege that one just looks a lot better in pretty much all places). But it's still the same game, the same experience. Actually, the thing that stands out most about the PS4 remaster is the more consistant framerate. Framerate.

Take Fusion Trials, a 60fps game. A brilliant game. What you are effectively saying is that it would be even better at 30fps with "shinier graphics". This is where I disagree. There's absolutely no enhancement to the overal gameplay if they added to the visuals. The same applies to MGSV. I'm looking at the above Ground Zeroes screens from the PC and am thinking; yes, the better graphics looks nice, but it doesn't enhance the gameplay in any way. The AI isn't better because of the enhanced visuals, so effectively, it's not going to make any difference. Things of course change when you add visuals that have a bearing on gameplay: For instance more complex grass/foliage (like in Uncharted 4) where hiding inside it becomes crucial to the gameplay you are striving for. But in the case of MGSV, we aren't seeing this kind of improvement. Effectively, any improvement you are looking for when looking at the better PC version are just plain visual improvements with absolutely nothing that actually enhances the gameplay. And contrary to belief, 60fps does in fact improve gameplay. And while MGS might be regarded as a stealth game - you still have a FPV (first-person-view) and at all times (TPV) a free moving camera that you can freely rotate where framerate makes a huge difference. Not to mention that there are quite a few faster paced passages, i.e. when you are on the escape, or driving vehicles. It's not as if MGS is a slow game where everything is slow moving.

At the rate we are talking about framerate in just about every 2nd game related topic, makes me think we need a poll to ask the people playing The Last of Us: Remaster (PS4) if they prefer playing the game at 60fps or 30fps with the slightly improved graphics (better shadows). If nicer visuals @ 30fps is all that is important for most people (like it obviously is for you), I have no doubt that you'd also be playing the 30fps version, even if the visual enhancement is that miniscule - which to be honest, I just don't really get. But then, there are people who can't really appreciate older games anymore either - it's as if the sole knowlege of there being prettier games on the market today somehow made the old games lose their appeal... Which then makes me wonder how people cope still playing on last generation consoles. Or why people are buying Xbox Ones if the all important visuals are better on the PS4. Or why they are buying a PS4 when there's a PC.

Personally, as I said, the PC screens are nice, but when thinking about MGS5; I'm actually more excited about the prospect of the actual gameplay (which in all MGS since the very first have been rock solid), Kojima's storytelling, his film-/ art-/ game-direction, humour and unique style and the MGS type cat & mouse game with enemy A.I. I could care less that there are other games that look 10 times better at whatever tradeoff, because I'm more interested in playing the game rather than looking at it...

/rant.

 

I personally, humbly, don't-cruficy-me, believe that a game like MGS does benefit quite a bit from a nicer presentation which immerses you into the gameplay even more, if the framerate is kept stable. Because MGS is all about the immersion and it's obvious from the production values that Kojima wants to make something that resembles a movie as much as he can.

I don't think you can compare it to Trials as that game is really not about losing yourself in a cinematic story and an environment which should be as convincing as possible. Trials is about reflexes and the controls benefit greatly from the higher framerate.

It's not all so black and white, with regards to framerate just as much as with graphic quality.

The real shame is having to choose between 30 and 60, with nothing in between (unless we start tearing).

 

*phil jumps out of window crying*

PS: You are right that Fusion Trials might not be such a fair comparison... but then, what is? The common denominator is that they are all games, where IMO gameplay should be put first. The problem I see in most framerate related topics is that some people draw the line with racing games, others at shooters - and then there are some that just make up cases as they go. Even if we stick to racers, the case isn't clear cut, as suddenly (latest case being DriveClub), it's being narrowed down to only racing "simulators" that benefit from 60fps. It's as if the whole games industry is heading more and more towards visuals being the only factor irregardless the tradeoff; and for everything else, there's just an excuse.

Personally, I think when we are discussing about trading-off framerate for visuals; there are two critical points: a.) how crucial are the controls and how fast do the majority of pixels move across the screen (pretty much all racers, or games with free moving cameras) and b.) do the nicer visuals that are being traded at the expense of framerate actually have a bearing on gameplay.

And in this particular case, I think point B.) falls short. The improved visuals as seen in the PC version do not enhance the gameplay in any way. If they were about to trade-off framerate for perhaps much more complex gameplay (as I said, example Uncharted 4 with very dense foliage that's central to the hide & seek gameplay), then obviously, the trade-off might have merit. If however we are simply trading off framerate for some nicer effects here and there with absolutely ZERO bearing on gameplay..... --- then... from the bottom of my heart... no fricking way in hell!

And as for more immersiveness due to those slightly nicer graphics... do they really make a difference while actually playing the game and being immersed? Does the knowlege of there being a nicer version of the game actually change how immersed you can be when playing the one before you?

 

Come on Phil, you're just a framerate junkie and in your opinion every game should be 60fps and you'd be ok with games looking like in the PS2 days. But yes, of course better graphics help with the immersion otherwise we wouldn't be here salivating at new hardware and new generations to achieve those better graphics.

As I said it's not so black and white. I agree with you that throughout history some tradeoffs and certain decisions leave some doubts but you have to accept that just as you want 60fps for everything and their granma, a lot of people are really ok with a nice 30fps if the controls don't suffer - which is the majority of games. They really are ok with it, they're not pretending to be ok with it just to get more shiny shine.

 

A lot of games only render some shadows with a flashlight. Not all objects are considered shadow casting.

 

I've been tinkering with the steam release of Ground zeros myself.
....The lighting and characters do look realler than even the first vids of mgs4...nuff said. the current gen isnt that far apart either. The old E3 vids of mgs4 had strong color filters applied.

In some places GZ's visuals do sort of disjoint with shadows and slick surfaces, but the technology is far more properly color and lighting coordinated. It's almost up there in realism. The fox engine it's self is very close to realism, using their people scans.

I'm almost blown away to see metal gear in this lighting, I'm so use to seeing metal gear in a less realistic artistic form. I wonder if the next MGS will use a real person scanned for Snake.

 

Why not play with cubes and spheres then ? Of course these games are nothing without visuals. What's a Dark Souls/Bloodborne without their visuals? What's a Metro without its visuals? Whats a SOTC without its visuals. Whatsvis Journey without its visuals? Heck, what's a GTA without its visuals?
Of course visuals matter. The better the textures, cleaner the IQ, better the lighting/shading model....better is the game world ! The more u can focus on playing as artifacts vanish and don't break ur suspension of disbelief !What's a game if the creators vision of its world does not come across correctly ?

Its like the saying that in a novel, the words that the writer uses don't matter, only the core story does. :-/

As for why gaming on consoles:
Fixed hardware for years, no upgrades required.
Games are tailor made for the hardware.(the days when games were made for PC are long gone)
Exclusives which are turning out to be the actually the meat of this passion called gaming.
Focussed services and full use of my hardware unlike on PC where half of my money's worth is never used by any game.

 

Perhaps we are moving too far away from the core argument here. To clarify and restate; I never claimed graphics don't matter. They do. There is no point in bringing up legacy hardware, because in the scope of this discussion, it's about the trade-off between 30 and 60fps under the same given hardware. No one is proclaiming that 60fps should come at the cost of games looking like PS2 games.

To keep this specific to MGS: Ground Zeroes & TPP - this discussion was sparked by the recent available PC showing of the game that, with little surprise, look quite improved. As a result, some have voiced criticism at this generations rather underwhelming hardware and stated that because of that, they [Kojima] should consider dropping the framerate to make the game look closer to what has been shown on the PC.

To clarify, lets look at two gif posted a page back that shows the difference between the PS4 and the recent PC showing:




As mentioned; the improvements are nice - but they are not central to the gameplay aspects of the game. Essentially, the game will play exactly the same, irregardless if one version offers better (more) lights and better reflections or not. To want those improvements at the cost/trade-off of better playability through a better framerate would be a big loss. Immersion might be slightly better due to marginally better graphics, but if those differences are really crucial to anyone to even consider cutting framerate for it - I do have to wonder why people even entertain putting up with other platform ports, like Xbox One in this case (or a generation before that, with PS3 games when X360 versions were better).

It is obviously clear that this is a technical orientated forum where people spend hours a day discussing, analyzing and obsession over screenshots to marvel over what a developer is getting out of our consoles - and looking at fixed screenshots that show a snapshot from a 1/30th or 1/60th is obviously easy and convinient - whereas framerate specific discussions are rather difficult because even video footage seldom captures it (either through compression and/or limiting to 30fps when uploading to Youtube) - not to mentioned that the biggest advantage of 60fps is not only in smoother motion, but also found in the controls - so it effectively gets overlooked more often than not. I also sometimes wonder how many people here who speak about downgrading framerate often for marginally better visuals actually play these games. I certainly know that I myself have participated in game topics where I've discussed/debated/argued over graphics without ever playing those games. This is a technical forum after all. But in this particular instance; I have played all MGS games and as such, can very much appreciate that Kojima is going through some effort to deliever this game at this framerate. And looking at the above differences between the PC and PS4 version, I can say with some certainty that improving the graphics to PC level at the loss of framerate would not improve the experience for me.

Now, if the graphics improvement actually yielded a substantial difference that also had an impact on the actual gameplay.... then it would be a different discussion all together.

 

If that was the core of the discussion, then that's why I said that they could just put some more SSR in there - that's really the biggest difference here - but I certainly wouldn't trade 60fps just for that, and I'm not sure whether SSR are so taxing as to demand halving the framerate.