Is MGS 4 still one of the best looking games of all time?

@SolidGame_basic:

Great artists on that game. They know how to build with what they have. Every Metal Gear game still looks great, even the first. Even high end pc games don't measure up.

I want to game primarily on PC, doesn't help when there's exclusives such as Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted 2, The Last of Us and Bloodborne...

You wouldn't be missing much considering the vast array of similar games available on the PC.

@GreySeal9: Coming from you? Lol that's funny short bus!

@ConanTheStoner: There is no lack of reading comprehension. You said it's a series not known for visuals. When in fact the MGS series has consistently had some of the best visuals in relation to every console it was released on. You can't say the series isn't known for visuals when MGS2 and MGS4 won more best graphic awards then any game the years they were released. Then you said it was behind PS2 games in some areas? No it wasn't. MGS4 wasn't perfect but it was miles better then anything the PS2 was doing.

@foxhound_fox: You said anyone who had seen a video of Crysis would laugh at MGS4? Well nobody was watching videos of it on medium settings. And it wasn't anything special at medium settings.

@AM-Gamer:

Yep, same as before. Reading comprehension/selective reading issues. I'm a bit busy man, I don't have time to spell out everything that you're misinterpreting or all out ignoring.

Please, try to read my post again. Then if you respond with something resembling an understanding of what I said, I'll gladly discuss this further when I have the time.

Hint: Don't boil down everything I said down to all encompassing absolutes. You can do this man!

Looks muddy.

@ConanTheStoner: No it's called DC and backtracking and you are doing both. It's simple really. You said a series wasn't really known for its graphics when that series has consistently produced some of the best looking games for its time.

It's not rocket science and I shouldn't have to break down your post for you. You made a bogus statement and I simply called you out on it.

You gave credit to one game in the series.

Played it in 2013 for more than 5 minutes finally....and had no problem with textures or anything.

Game looked good.

Not the best....not the worst. Lets not act as if it was Duke Nukem Forever.

Like its predecessors I think it was one of the best-looking games at its time for consoles. MGS1, MGS2, and MGS3 all ranked as some of the best-looking console games in their time. MGS4 was no exception, although I think its impact wasn't as big as its predecessors since there were several console games by then that looked significantly better. But that TGS 2005 trailer for MGS4 was some mind-blowing shit, though it wasn't exactly what the final product ended up looking like.

But the game has not aged well and the muddy color palette and poor texture quality stands out a lot.

MGS4 has great character models, but it doesn't excuse how drab and poorly detailed everything else looks. It's really not a good looking game all things considered.

good CG + crappy gameplay visuals, easy to tell a few 20 past gen games with better gameplay visuals

It is an excellent looking game that holds up today.

MGS1 and MGS3 were some of the best-looking PlayStation games at the time, but not some of the best-looking console games in general, since they came quite late in the PS1/PS2's life and were up against better-looking N64/Xbox/GC games. But MGS2, that really was one of the best-looking games of its time, by both console and PC standards, as it had some of the best physics and particle effects the industry had ever seen. Its E3 2000 trailer was mind-blowing stuff, and became a killer app for the PS2, before the final game had even released.

As for MGS4, the final product not only ended up matching the TGS 2005 trailer, but actually surpassed it in some ways, technically. But what changed was the addition of a colour filter that ended up giving it a yellow-ish "muddy" look, which had more to do with art design rather than technical graphics. Also, I don't remember any console games in 2008 looking better than MGS4. That was the best-looking console game I remember from that year.

The game just lack color for today's standards.

The art direction is fantastic. But the textures are terrible.

Artistically speaking, MGS is one of the most bland, lifeless, colorless, soulless and uninspired series out there, in MGS4 alone I could maybe forgive the abominations known as the Gekko and the Beauty and the Beast Unit if everything in the world didn't look like it was wearing black latex.

The MGS series has never used CGI. The cut-scenes have always been rendered in real-time by the actual game engines.

This game didn't age well at all!

There are far better looking games on PS3 and 360. Let alone PC and current generation consoles.

I like the art style and I think MGS4 was overall a good looking game at release, probably among the best looking console games even. It didn't blow people away like MGS2 did. It hasn't aged well though, probably because of the muddy textures and blocky shadows. And ofc the hd twins were too weak to compete with Crysis on higher settings.

This. Maybe the overall thing looked nice but a lot of the textures were PS2 quality.

Texture quality hasn't always been a strong point for the MGS series. Even when it came to MGS2's groundbreaking graphics, its texture quality wasn't as good as Shenmue on the Dreamcast, which even MGS3 was able to barely match (due to the PS2's limited texturing capabilities). It wasn't the texture quality that made the MGS series' graphics stand out, but things like the polygon models, animations, physics, particle effects, filtering effects, etc. There's a lot more to graphics than just the textures.

MGS4 was and still is a stunning looking game. People saying that game looked like crap at release are seriously full of themselves. The lighting and animation in that game was seriously something else. The game captured the atmosphere of each act perfectly.

Yes, Crysis is a better looking game, but that's a petty argument. Witcher 3 will very likely look better then MGSV, but the achievements in MGS will still be amazing.

nah. but Banjo: Nuts and bolts still looks freaking great

MGS4 looks better than most games released today.

It doesnt look it had aged particularly good. Especially looking at the textures. Looking other games of the era that still look quite stunning even today like mirrors edge, Crysis, battlefield bad company 2 it looks quite outdated

Yet i remember my 250euros 8800gt ( probably the best value Gpu even released ) that was able to almost max it AA aside ( 30-40fps ) at a resolution well above what then Ps3 and 360 could do

Graphics dont effect me when i'm playing a game, if the game-play is spot on who cares about how the game looks, and this is coming from someone that plays on pc and consoles, with that being said, Metal Gear Solid 4 was a really good looking game for consoles at the time it came out, i remember people saying during the unveiling trailer that it rivaled killzone e3 tech demo. The story was excellent though it wasn't very memorable.

Not a single MGS game looked good to me, not even MGSV. So many games both on PS3 and PS4 looked better at or beyond its launch. Although I do like its art style and cinematography, Kojima simply knows how to direct a compelling scene.

Yeah it still looks great that's why I'm disappointed in MGS V's visual's looking last gen

@adamosmaki: Yea, it wasn't maxing anything. It also had dips into the 20's.

Agreed.

Sony should've contacted Konami to remaster the game. It stands to benefit more than any other remastered game so far(well, besides TLOU).

It hasn't aged very well, but it looked nice when it released.