Old ps2 question: MGS3 graphic quality

[DUALDISASTER]

I know PS2 has wonderful overdraw quality which allows added effects...fine. But since PS2 has no hardwired "shader" programs in it's GPU or pretty much anything for that matter. So i ask how in the world did Konami manage those water effects on PS2? It completely reflects everything. I thought for a second that they redrew the area upside down under the water surface then added post effects on the surface of the water but that seemed to be less efficient than creating a reflecting "shader". Also when something explodes like a grenade, the area around the explosion has this per-pixel looking bump mapped light illuminating the area. Can anyone please anwser these queries.

 

[London Geezer]

I know PS2 has wonderful overdraw quality which allows added effects...fine. But since PS2 has no hardwired "shader" programs in it's GPU or pretty much anything for that matter. So i ask how in the world did Konami manage those water effects on PS2? It completely reflects everything. I thought for a second that they redrew the area upside down under the water surface then added post effects on the surface of the water but that seemed to be less efficient than creating a reflecting "shader". Also when something explodes like a grenade, the area around the explosion has this per-pixel looking bump mapped light illuminating the area. Can anyone please anwser these queries.

Reflections and refractions never needed pixel-shaders. And about the explosions, to be honest i was so bored of MGS3 that i stopped playing something like an hour or two into the game (having done very little apart from reading dialogues), and never played it again. So i'm not sure i've seen anything exploding...

 

[DUALDISASTER]

Reflections and refractions never needed pixel-shaders. And about the explosions, to be honest i was so bored of MGS3 that i stopped playing something like an hour or two into the game (having done very little apart from reading dialogues), and never played it again. So i'm not sure i've seen anything exploding...

Well i have no idea why anyone would be bored of MGS3. Maybe you didn't explore the gameplay elements like the A.I.. Anyway if you shoot a barrel, the illumination happens. Back to the reflections, i also knew that shaders are the names of programs nvidia gave the per-pixel effects. That's why i put quotation marks around shaders. So what do you need to create those kind of effects?

 

[akira888]

The term shaders, for a program which calculates the properties (color, opacity, etc.) of certain point on a surface, first appeared IIRC in Steve Upstill's 1989 Renderman specification.

As far as PS2 per-pixel effects go, they're accomplished the same way as they were on PC for years - through repeated texturing passes on the same geometry. The "bump mapping" that you're seeing in that game, for instance, was probably just a specular texture that modulates the interpolated per-vertex specular color. I've noticed this being used in a few PS2 games in the past.

 

[Npl]

Well i have no idea why anyone would be bored of MGS3. Maybe you didn't explore the gameplay elements like the A.I.

Laughable enemies screeming their codenames during combat, hide, look around, hide, look around. It really sucks having to remember the movement-patters of enemies blindly.
MGS1/2 had a more action-based gameplay, where you could enter an area, figured out how to proceed, then to it. MGS3 has long pathways and open areas - you get bored to death, then you try to run through the empty areals and get spotted if you forgot routes of enemies. I very soon scrapped the idea of playing to the rules and gunned down anyone - hard, but atleast the time doesnt feels wasted.
The point I put down controller was the fight with "The End" - I never ever could imagine a more boring fight (And I know he would be death if I just continued playing, but why should I?).

Hope MGS4 gameplay will be more "unrealistic", "actionoriented", or in short: "fun" again.

 

[Fredag]

Hunting down "The End" is something I'll never forget...

A great battle. Patience. Sneaking. Dead Parrot. More sneaking. Headshot 1 feet away. Victory.

MGS3 had a long intro, but i felt that after the end was dead, the plot really got started. To stop there is comparable to stop/eject Matrix just before he takes the pill...

 

[DUALDISASTER]

Laughable enemies screeming their codenames during combat, hide, look around, hide, look around. It really sucks having to remember the movement-patters of enemies blindly.
MGS1/2 had a more action-based gameplay, where you could enter an area, figured out how to proceed, then to it. MGS3 has long pathways and open areas - you get bored to death, then you try to run through the empty areals and get spotted if you forgot routes of enemies. I very soon scrapped the idea of playing to the rules and gunned down anyone - hard, but atleast the time doesnt feels wasted.
The point I put down controller was the fight with "The End" - I never ever could imagine a more boring fight (And I know he would be death if I just continued playing, but why should I?).

Hope MGS4 gameplay will be more "unrealistic", "actionoriented", or in short: "fun" again.

This all sounds like a personal preference. MGS1 and 2 had a very linear feel...very "set uped" and robotic. Areas felt repeated:in other words, no variety. In MGS3 things felt more organic less robotic and overall more alive. I'm a fan of action adventure and just the sheer ways of going through this game made me feel right at home. This games was ight-years ahead of it's predecessors.

 

[DUALDISASTER]

The term shaders, for a program which calculates the properties (color, opacity, etc.) of certain point on a surface, first appeared IIRC in Steve Upstill's 1989 Renderman specification.

As far as PS2 per-pixel effects go, they're accomplished the same way as they were on PC for years - through repeated texturing passes on the same geometry. The "bump mapping" that you're seeing in that game, for instance, was probably just a specular texture that modulates the interpolated per-vertex specular color. I've noticed this being used in a few PS2 games in the past.

People tend to pin the word "shader" on NVIDIA...thanks for the clarification. I once thought about those textures as being specular textures but then once while i was lying down, waiting for an enemy to pass i noticed as i was turning, the ground seemed to be modulating the moonlight as if it were a bump map. What's that? Also any word on how that water in MGS3 is created?

 

[nintenho]

Well i have no idea why anyone would be bored of MGS3. Maybe you didn't explore the gameplay elements like the A.I.. Anyway if you shoot a barrel, the illumination happens. Back to the reflections, i also knew that shaders are the names of programs nvidia gave the per-pixel effects. That's why i put quotation marks around shaders. So what do you need to create those kind of effects?

Kind of off-topic but:
Is there any link to Nvidea saying that's their name for per-pixel effects?

 

[Squeak]

I know PS2 has wonderful overdraw quality which allows added effects...fine. But since PS2 has no hardwired "shader" programs in it's GPU or pretty much anything for that matter. So i ask how in the world did Konami manage those water effects on PS2? It completely reflects everything. I thought for a second that they redrew the area upside down under the water surface then added post effects on the surface of the water but that seemed to be less efficient than creating a reflecting "shader". Also when something explodes like a grenade, the area around the explosion has this per-pixel looking bump mapped light illuminating the area. Can anyone please anwser these queries.

I can't remember exactly how the water looked, but there are plenty of other games that has both reflection and refraction going on at the same time. The first that springs to mind is Primal. I believe there was some videos floating around back then (try searching "primal seas").
Buy it's all vertex based, no pixelshading going on (the framebuffer is used as a texturemap and is distorted by geometry).
It is quite expensive polygon wise to get high frequency bumps/dimples that way though.
There is a "hack" to get a decent small bump effect, where the geometry is rendered twice or more, and the UV coordinates is shifted according to the light vector.
You can only get same height bumps that way though. It really is emboss bumpmappings answer to environment mapped bumpmapping.
I think the mud in MGS3 is using that effect.

A pixelshader is really only an ALU that does math between two registers. The PS2 lacks that ALU, but is can still do some simple math between renderbuffers and manipulate the CLUT for a variety of effects, and sometimes that’s all it takes, a lot of simple steps, done really fast, instead one big “smartâ€￾ one.

 

[NANOTEC]

Also any word on how that water in MGS3 is created?

I think that was already answered above...

 

[DUALDISASTER]

Kind of off-topic but:
Is there any link to Nvidea saying that's their name for per-pixel effects?

No, it wasn't them saying that. Just people on forums.

 

[DUALDISASTER]

I can't remember exactly how the water looked, but there are plenty of other games that has both reflection and refraction going on at the same time. The first that springs to mind is Primal. I believe there was some videos floating around back then (try searching "primal seas").
Buy it's all vertex based, no pixelshading going on (the framebuffer is used as a texturemap and is distorted by geometry).
It is quite expensive polygon wise to get high frequency bumps/dimples that way though.
There is a "hack" to get a decent small bump effect, where the geometry is rendered twice or more, and the UV coordinates is shifted according to the light vector.
You can only get same height bumps that way though. It really is emboss bumpmappings answer to environment mapped bumpmapping.
I think the mud in MGS3 is using that effect.

A pixelshader is really only an ALU that does math between two registers. The PS2 lacks that ALU, but is can still do some simple math between renderbuffers and manipulate the CLUT for a variety of effects, and sometimes that’s all it takes, a lot of simple steps, done really fast, instead one big “smartâ€￾ one.

Bravo! I never thought of the framebuffer method! Very thorough. Now, could you play MGS3 again and shoot a barrel and check out that weird lighting please. Sorry about the excessiveness.

 

[Npl]

This all sounds like a personal preference. MGS1 and 2 had a very linear feel...very "set uped" and robotic. Areas felt repeated:in other words, no variety. In MGS3 things felt more organic less robotic and overall more alive. I'm a fan of action adventure and just the sheer ways of going through this game made me feel right at home. This games was ight-years ahead of it's predecessors.

First, you couldnt imagine why anyone could get bored with MGS3 and now you speak of preference
For me MGS3 is a total letdown as I expected it to be more like its predecessors and less like Splinter Cell (you can probally imagine what I think of these series...). MSG1 is still king in my book and the direction the series took is hurting me badly, sorry for taking this thread offtopic.

 

[nintenho]

No, it wasn't them saying that. Just people on forums.

Oh, sorry.

 

[compres]

Well i have no idea why anyone would be bored of MGS3. Maybe you didn't explore the gameplay elements like the A.I.. Anyway if you shoot a barrel, the illumination happens. Back to the reflections, i also knew that shaders are the names of programs nvidia gave the per-pixel effects. That's why i put quotation marks around shaders. So what do you need to create those kind of effects?

You better believe it, MGS is a very booring series for me, I won't even bother to try the next releases.

Basically what I am saying is just becouse you like the game everyone else does NOT have to like it. And it should not be hard to believe either.

 

[DUALDISASTER]

You better believe it, MGS is a very booring series for me, I won't even bother to try the next releases.

Basically what I am saying is just becouse you like the game everyone else does NOT have to like it. And it should not be hard to believe either.

To say MGS, let alone MGS3 is a boring series without any eveidence makes it hard to believe those statements. There's a thin line between bias and truth!. So tell me, why is it? I guarantee the next words you type are opinionated. What's that you say? The very words i speak are too? Hmmm, the only way to discover the truth is to find more opinions...just to make sure this game is truely boring and not just an opinion from someone who doesn't prefer this type of gameplay...

"I have to mention that the sheer amount of gameplay in MGS3 is colossal and going over it all again would make this article far too long a read."http://ps2.ign.com/articles/694/694781p1.html

Genre:Action
http://ps2.gamespy.com/playstation-2/metal-gear-solid-3-snake-eater/

"For starters, itsreplay value is absolutely phenomenal"
http://www.psxextreme.com/scripts/reviews2/review.asp?RevID=336

"Join us as we go undercover and find out why MGS3: Snake Eater sophisticated mix of action, stealth and, cunning make it another landmark in the series' evolution"
http://www.the-laser.com/mgs3.htm

"Lifespan
You will find yourself restarting the game hours in just because of one mistake. That, in addition to the tons of extras like boss camo, face paint, and other little easter eggs, you'll never get tired of playing."
http://ps2.gamebattles.com/game/metal-gear-solid-3-snake-eater/review_242p1.html

Now based on those reviews, not one of them said that MGS3 was a boring game. So one of two thngs has happened 1.We're all wrong or bias or 2. you're wrong or bias. Majority wins by default!

 

[compres]

To say MGS, let alone MGS3 is a boring series without any eveidence makes it hard to believe those statements. There's a thin line between bias and truth!. So tell me, why is it? I guarantee the next words you type are opinionated. What's that you say? The very words i speak are too? Hmmm, the only way to discover the truth is to find more opinions...just to make sure this game is truely boring and not just an opinion from someone who doesn't prefer this type of gameplay...

"I have to mention that the sheer amount of gameplay in MGS3 is colossal and going over it all again would make this article far too long a read."http://ps2.ign.com/articles/694/694781p1.html

Genre:Action
http://ps2.gamespy.com/playstation-2/metal-gear-solid-3-snake-eater/

"For starters, itsreplay value is absolutely phenomenal"
http://www.psxextreme.com/scripts/reviews2/review.asp?RevID=336

"Join us as we go undercover and find out why MGS3: Snake Eater sophisticated mix of action, stealth and, cunning make it another landmark in the series' evolution"
http://www.the-laser.com/mgs3.htm

"Lifespan
You will find yourself restarting the game hours in just because of one mistake. That, in addition to the tons of extras like boss camo, face paint, and other little easter eggs, you'll never get tired of playing."
http://ps2.gamebattles.com/game/metal-gear-solid-3-snake-eater/review_242p1.html

Now based on those reviews, not one of them said that MGS3 was a boring game. So one of two thngs has happened 1.We're all wrong or bias or 2. you're wrong or bias. Majority wins by default!

I am not wrong or biased. You need to accept in reality there are people who dont like MGS3. I don't like it. And my point was it should not be hard to believe someone does not like a game you like.

I am not going to write an essay on why i don't like it. Is that clear?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

To say MGS, let alone MGS3 is a boring series without any eveidence makes it hard to believe those statements.

This discussion on what games are good or not are off topic and should be in the gaming forum (but the original post is okay here), but I will add to it just to correct this little fallacy. Something being 'boring' isn't a scientific property that can be measured and explained. It's totally subjective and individual. There's many a game or book or film I find boring that others don't, and vice versa. You can discuss points you liked or disliked, but you can't prove something is or isn't boring. You can't scientifically prove a game is not boring and therefore observe all those that find it boring are wrong, no more so than you can scientifically prove everyone's favourite colour should be green or everyone should scientifically prefer dogs to cats. If a person says they found a game boring, that's how they found it (unless they're being awkward!) and they're allowed to feel that way.

 

[DUALDISASTER]

I am not wrong or biased. You need to accept in reality there are people who dont like MGS3. I don't like it. And my point was it should not be hard to believe someone does not like a game you like.

I am not going to write an essay on why i don't like it. Is that clear?

Sure, but say this game wasn't my cup of tea. Don't just say it was boring or bad because it will deter others from playing a great game. That was my point.