Am I the only one that thinks that MGS4 was never all that impressive visually?

I keep hearing that MGS4 was supposedly a graphics king and I just don't get it.

It would seem that it would have to look better than everything out at that time and honestly, it doesn't look better than UC1 in any way shape or form.

Whereas Uncharted really "popped" because of amazing lighting and strong textures, MGS4 just looks flat and sterile in comparison and has some really shoddy texture work.

Sure, they made the cutscenes look amazing and character models and really clean and well done, but the game just doesn't look all that impressive in regular gameplay. The environments are just too generic looking whereas Uncharted is filled with the kind of detailed vistas that are a feast for the eyes.

Thoughts?

BTW, I thought I'd put in some comparison pics:

Its character models were pretty good, along with good animations.

The enviro's in act 1 were nothing stellar but the game did look really good later on in the likes of act 4 and 5 i personally thought.

I thought it was very good ! Still do ! I don't own my copy anymore, because I don't have time to sit through those infamous cutscenes thesedays ;)

I thought it was very good ! Still do ! I don't own my copy anymore, because I don't have time to sit through those infamous cutscenes thesedays ;)

xXShortroundXx

press start, promt to skip :P

Its character models were pretty good, along with good animations.

The enviro's in act 1 were nothing stellar but the game did look really good later on in the likes of act 4 and 5 i personally thought.

razgriz_101

Yeah, Shadow Moses did look pretty nice.

And I'm not saying the game isn't pretty in its own way. It just never amazed me visually whereas I still find UC1 impressive.

I think it was a great looking game for it's time. Most the of the hype was from the high-quality, real-time cutscenes.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

Its character models were pretty good, along with good animations.

The enviro's in act 1 were nothing stellar but the game did look really good later on in the likes of act 4 and 5 i personally thought.

GreySeal9

Yeah, Shadow Moses did look pretty nice.

And I'm not saying the game isn't pretty in its own way. It just never amazed me visually whereas I still find UC1 impressive.

Its close but i cant decide cause i love both of them, but some bits of MGS4 just felt like a bigger scale like towards then end of shadow moses....every time i play i think damn...konami give me a real goddman remake of MGS1 i dont care if you use the old music and VA :P

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

Its character models were pretty good, along with good animations.

The enviro's in act 1 were nothing stellar but the game did look really good later on in the likes of act 4 and 5 i personally thought.

razgriz_101

Yeah, Shadow Moses did look pretty nice.

And I'm not saying the game isn't pretty in its own way. It just never amazed me visually whereas I still find UC1 impressive.

Its close but i cant decide cause i love both of them, but some bits of MGS4 just felt like a bigger scale like towards then end of shadow moses....every time i play i think damn...konami give me a real goddman remake of MGS1 i dont care if you use the old music and VA :P

Yeah, it would be hella awesome if they did an MGS1 that looked like the MGS4 Shadow Moses instead of rather plastic looking Twin Snakes.

The character models look pretty good, but the enviroments are brown, low res, grainy and just washed out.

it's the character model and animation that make it impressive. it also have good graphic.

but saying MGS4 graphic is like killzones 3. the have good graphic but loss in aesthetically

I feel the exact same except with Uncharted 1 and 2. (and 3).

Uncharted is the most overrated franchise this gen (possibly of all time) and I am mostly a cow. I cannot wait for next gen when Naughty Dog abandons this franchise and puts out something new.

I was just playing the beta BTW.

To the people voting for MGS4 in the poll, what looks better about it? :?

MGS4 was ugly and dull and it remains ugly and dull.

The game is the best this generation imo, no other game can give you the feel of "NEXT generation" experience like this game.

I personally didnt like MGS4 at all. very dissapointed to be honest. Graphics were decent for its time but if you look at it now its nothing special

Lol @ the ugly MGS4 pics, and bullshots of Uncharted 1.

Not the only one.

MGS4 looks like trash. It has good character models, but it get's ridiculous praise here from the cows.

The gameplay is great though.

Tired of these forums... Where's that haters gonna hate pic when you need it.

I have to agree with you TC. I have never found MGS4 to be all that impressive as far as graphics are concerned. Uncharted Drake's Fortune looked a lot better. To be honest, even games like Assassin's Creed had better graphics than MGS4. It was a damn fun game though.

All of those look pretty ugly. Of course MGS doesn't look great. It's less than 720p...

I would say so, but also Halo, and Mass Effect are also horrendously ulgly games that people never admit are unimpressive so I don't rag on MGS4 either.

I would say so, but also Halo, and Mass Effect are also horrendously ulgly games that people never admit are unimpressive so I don't rag on MGS4 either.

casharmy

Which Halo? Reach looks good. And Mass Effect 2 is one of the best looking games on consoles.

i said this before and people bashed me and i had to show photos of a ps3, the game and em playing the game. mgs4 is a very ugly game the only reason it got grpahical award because gs are big fans of this game. game dont have to be hd to be impressive visually but mgs4 is one veryy ugly game uncharted 1 is way better visually than mgs4

[QUOTE="casharmy"]

I would say so, but also Halo, and Mass Effect are also horrendously ulgly games that people never admit are unimpressive so I don't rag on MGS4 either.

waltefmoney

Which Halo? Reach looks good. And Mass Effect 2 is one of the best looking games on consoles.

It was impressive by the time.

It was never awesome. When it released it looked very good, even excellent, except the textures which was a weak point.

It won a GS graphics award, but not because it looked great, per se. What set it apart, and was brilliant and still is brilliant, is the seamless transition from gameplay to cutscene and how all of that was handled. A related factor is how the scenes were shot, so not only was the transition seemless from a technical point of view, but also from an artistic point of view. That is why it won the graphics award.

It did not win because it had more pixels or better textures or better lighting or draw distance or whatever sack full of things you want to call impressive visuals. It won because of the way it handled all those things to blur the difference between gameplay and cutscene and make the whole seem so much more immersive. That part was brilliant and deserves the praise it got.

Ugly jagg fest with washed out colours. The 1st game i got on console. Silly me thinking console games looked good from youtube videos... I blamed my TV for a while:evil:

Great Game though.

No your not its the ugliest game i have played on the ps3 its got a very bland art style with low resolution textures everywhere and to top it off all running in sub-hd with little to no AA(game uses 2xtemporal aa and switches on and off depending on the scene) resulting in a blurry jag fest of a game. Now with graphics of such low quality you'd expect it to at least maintain a solid framerate but no the ps3 struggles at time to keep it running at 30fps. At least was game was pretty good but i enjoyed mgs2 alot more.

Uncharted looks better imo. So does Gears.

its sub 720, so considering that it looks amazing. The devs were very resourceful.

Uncharted 2 > MGS4 > Uncharted 1

for graphics

Ill be honest even though I love MGS4 and it did look amazing when it was released other games have cleary passed it since then.

All you did was dis-prove your point by adding pics. MGS4's Snake looks more detailed than those Nathan Drake pics. The level detail is better in Uncharted though. Either way, your debating the graphic quality of a game that has been out for years, which was impressive when it was released. But, bringing this up in 2011 just seems so ignorant. Good luck with your research.JKnaperek

Ignorant in what way? I'm saying that it wasn't all that impressive even for its time since UC1 (which came out a year earlier) looks alot better.

I didn't disprove my point with those pics at all. The UC pics are far more detailed and have fair better lighting and texture work.

At the time they were beast

Tired of these forums... Where's that haters gonna hate pic when you need it.

Aboogie5

If you're tried of the forums, there's an easy solution.

I didn't think it looked that great either.

The characters models were good.

Act 1 had a lot of decent areas

Act 2 was pretty barren and inconsistent visually

Act 3 had some pretty good light work, but the environment was monotonous as hell--the quality of the act itself didn't help.

Act 4 good

act 5 was here and there.

Verdict? Act 1,2 and 4 did it for me. But they were nothing special really in a lot of areas.

Outside of that, again, the characters models were pretty good--I mean, I ended up staring at most of the beauty and beast units ass for a significant amount of time. They were hot so, again, I give a nod to the character models.