Mgs4, New Console Graphics King?

Not sure havn't played it just yet, getting it today.

Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.dream431ca

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.MojondeVACA

We get it, you're an Xbox fanboy.

But how about a link to your claims.

Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.dream431ca

That sounds like a direct quote from the Gametrailers review, have you actually played the game yet?

No,gears of war stills looks better and is almost 2 years old game,see i can have opinions too.MojondeVACA

Still hanging onto Gears I see lol.

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.BobHipJames

We get it, you're an Xbox fanboy.

But how about a link to your claims.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.MojondeVACA

Every game has disgusting low textures. Even your praised GeoW. Please, don't live in denial, the limited RAM forces the developers to make some intelligent programming and put the low res textures in the places less likely to be noticed.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.MojondeVACA

Uh huh, even if that's true, the game still looks outstanding. I don't get what any of that matters if it's still awesome.

No,gears of war stills looks better and is almost 2 years old game,see i can have opinions too.MojondeVACA

Agreed.

the graphics are very impressive

it's close to gears quality, but i think it looks a bit better because there's a whole lot more going on all around you

and it all blends in with the sound to make a great atmosphere .. playing in the middle east, it really felt like a war zone

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.Khansoul

That sounds like a direct quote from the Gametrailers review, have you actually played the game yet?

Umm..I played the game for about 5 hours... :| and I will play more of it today, and the next day and the next day, etc...

Anything beyond 720x576 is HD. Wait, I think anything beyond 480p is. Anyways, yes, it is.blitzcloud

As I understand it 720p is the lowest you can go before non-HD. I'm probably wrong though...

[QUOTE="blitzcloud"]Anything beyond 720x576 is HD. Wait, I think anything beyond 480p is. Anyways, yes, it is.Chutebox

As I understand it 720p is the lowest you can go before non-HD. I'm probably wrong though...

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.MojondeVACA

Why don't you just quit already. Before you read anything on a forum, did you look at MGS4 and think, "wow, thats not 1920x1080 with AA, that looks like 1024x768 with no AA"? No, cause that would be impossible, and you don't have the game or a PS3 so you can't say. Who gives a crap what the resolution is. Only fanboys care. If the game looks awesome, it doesn't matter. COD4 is 600P, and? It looks great. The only difference you can see with your eyes is SD to HD. Your eyes can't tell you what resolution a game is running at, only how nice it looks.

[QUOTE="BobHipJames"]

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.MojondeVACA

We get it, you're an Xbox fanboy.

But how about a link to your claims.

Its strange, sometimes mojondeVACA you act like you are not a fanboy, then you just go to another topic and bash the ps3 without thought.

What have you got against the console, and dont go sayingyou are not a fanboy and you justt hink sony is this that... I have heard it from you before, your a fanboy who cannot take that some game looks better than your beloved 360 exclusive.

Sp what if it looks better? all the reviews say it looks stuning, so has everyone who has payed it. Then there is you, someone who has neve played the game and has this strange hate towards everything sonty.

I think I will trust the reviewers and people who have played it. not a fanboy who has no idea of what he is talking about.

No, Gears does not look better, and yes, it is possibly the best looking game to date.

read the damn reviews people.

I dont know if its the best looking game but it looks great.Graphics king in my opinion is either mgs4,gears of war or cod4.Those three games all look awesome in my eyes.loudharley

yeah, gears2, uncharted, mgs4.. they are pretty close i think. but the characters and fases are unparalleled in MGS4.. the fleshtones and face textures are SOOOOOO smooth and so damn pretty. Gears and uncharted really can't hold a candle in that departement .

it amazes me how well gears has done on the graphics front even 2years later it is argueably still one of the best. i would like to see one of these gamers rendered at 1080p with like another 10gigs worth of textures to show there true potential, so basicly a PC port modded.

Gears of war is on the same bar as many games which use the unreal 3 engine, like bioshock etc so it will have its pros and cons over MGS4. I think that its pretty oppion based its like comparing the source engine to the cryengine one or the doom one ( cant remember the exact name). They are better at diffrent things. I like the engine powering SMG and Zelda even though they are not technically the best i just like some of the art in them.

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.mazdero

Why don't you just quit already. Before you read anything on a forum, did you look at MGS4 and think, "wow, thats not 1920x1080 with AA, that looks like 1024x768 with no AA"? Right, you don't have the game or a PS3 so you can't say. Who gives a crap what the resolution is. Only fanboys care. If the game looks awesome, it doesn't matter. COD4 is 600P, and? It looks great. The only difference you can see with your eyes is SD to HD. Your eyes can't tell you what resolution a game is running at, only how nice it looks.

What's funny is the link he gives says the game is HD with temporal AA, whatever the hell that is.

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="BobHipJames"]

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.NinjaMunkey01

We get it, you're an Xbox fanboy.

But how about a link to your claims.

Its strange, sometimes mojondeVACA you act like you are not a fanboy, then you just go to another topic and bash the ps3 without thought.

What have you got against the console, and dont go sayingyou are not a fanboy and you justt hink sony is this that... I have heard it from you before, your a fanboy who cannot take that some game looks better than your beloved 360 exclusive.

Sp what if it looks better? all the reviews say it looks stuning, so has everyone who has payed it. Then there is you, someone who has neve played the game and has this strange hate towards everything sonty.

I think I will trust the reviewers and people who have played it. not a fanboy who has no idea of what he is talking about.

[QUOTE="mazdero"]

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.Chutebox

Why don't you just quit already. Before you read anything on a forum, did you look at MGS4 and think, "wow, thats not 1920x1080 with AA, that looks like 1024x768 with no AA"? Right, you don't have the game or a PS3 so you can't say. Who gives a crap what the resolution is. Only fanboys care. If the game looks awesome, it doesn't matter. COD4 is 600P, and? It looks great. The only difference you can see with your eyes is SD to HD. Your eyes can't tell you what resolution a game is running at, only how nice it looks.

What's funny is the link he gives says the game is HD with temporal AA, whatever the hell that is.

No, I haven't played it yet, but that's bogus.

I'm getting tired of this crap.

I must have missed the Beyond 3d expose that probably got hammered all over cows on System Wars before the mods destroyed the threads and relegated it to some stupid 300 page sticky where no one would ever see it.

I knew that Online was sub-HD, but....Jesus Christ, this is absolutely unbelievable. Either these coders are a bunch of children who don't know how to work the strengths of the platform or they're just trying to screw with us, ruining image quality in the name of poly count and texture....oh wait.

Yeah, let's go ahead and not offer the "graphics king" award to Metal Gear.

While we're at it, though, let's deny that honor to Gears of War and give it to the real console graphics king, Uncharted. Round of applause, please, it deserves it.

What's funny is the link he gives says the game is HD with temporal AA, whatever the hell that is.Chutebox

Temoral anti-aliasing. Basically, intelligent anti-aliasing. When you're standing still adn there's not a lot of stuff going on, the game has anti-aliasing so you can't see evident jaggies. When there's a lot of stuff going on, there will be jaggies, but you won't notice them as you won't be looking the edges of the models/scenarios, you will be looking at how to kill the enemy or run away from all those explosions.

Intelligent programming ftw.

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.mazdero

Why don't you just quit already. Before you read anything on a forum, did you look at MGS4 and think, "wow, thats not 1920x1080 with AA, that looks like 1024x768 with no AA"? No, cause that would be impossible, and you don't have the game or a PS3 so you can't say. Who gives a crap what the resolution is. Only fanboys care. If the game looks awesome, it doesn't matter. COD4 is 600P, and? It looks great. The only difference you can see with your eyes is SD to HD. Your eyes can't tell you what resolution a game is running at, only how nice it looks.

COD4's IQ is hideous, and yes, that's my preferred component of graphics. Drop the poly counts, the texture resolution, the shaders, everything processor-intensive and spare all you can to anti-aliasing and resolution while maintaining draw distance with a less aggressive LoD.

CoD4 has 2xAA and runs at 600p. It's ugly. It looks muddy and I don't like it. The textures are attractive, there are decent normal maps, it runs at a good clip, and the self-shadowing is pretty good. But I would sacrifice each of those, save the performance itself, for better image quality. It hurts in shooting games, it makes the entire experience annoying and unfulfilling. Shooting at muddy shapes does not appeal to me.

But this is a question of developer incentive, not of console's capability. If you guys would quit the crap and acknowledge that IQ>stupid buzzwords and self-shadowing, maybe we'd be getting somewhere and actually be getting the advertised 720p resolution, IMO the single best part of this generation hands down.

[QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"][QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="BobHipJames"]

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.MojondeVACA

We get it, you're an Xbox fanboy.

But how about a link to your claims.

Its strange, sometimes mojondeVACA you act like you are not a fanboy, then you just go to another topic and bash the ps3 without thought.

What have you got against the console, and dont go sayingyou are not a fanboy and you justt hink sony is this that... I have heard it from you before, your a fanboy who cannot take that some game looks better than your beloved 360 exclusive.

Sp what if it looks better? all the reviews say it looks stuning, so has everyone who has payed it. Then there is you, someone who has neve played the game and has this strange hate towards everything sonty.

I think I will trust the reviewers and people who have played it. not a fanboy who has no idea of what he is talking about.

right, so what you are saying is also opinion.

The probloem is your evidence is some forum whoch shows that you will believe anything yo are told. I am not saying that what you have put is wrong, but does it really matter?

since when was 720p bad? upscaling it makes it look a little better. Most games not ust ditch high resolutions to make ither things better. And when TBH out eys cant really see much difference between 720p and 1080p does it really matter.

My opinion is based on reviewers scores. You could say that is opinion but IMO its the best opinion you can find on the internet.

The problem is its hard to respect your opinion when you write it like that as if you see it as getting a goal or something. You are obviously a fanboy who hates all things sony you cant deny it after your posts, and hundreds of other posts you have written.

for once instead of MINDLESSLY bashing, actually think about what you are gojg to say, and get some facts that have meaning, and try to write it in a way that will not make it so apparent that you are a fanboy.

[QUOTE="Chutebox"]What's funny is the link he gives says the game is HD with temporal AA, whatever the hell that is.blitzcloud

Temoral anti-aliasing. Basically, intelligent anti-aliasing. When you're standing still adn there's not a lot of stuff going on, the game has anti-aliasing so you can't see evident jaggies. When there's a lot of stuff going on, there will be jaggies, but you won't notice them as you won't be looking the edges of the models/scenarios, you will be looking at how to kill the enemy or run away from all those explosions.

Intelligent programming ftw.

That's not intelligent programming and it's going to affect image quality.

The Playstation 3 has 1 PPU and 7 SPUs, 6 of which can be used for parallel processing. Why is it that third party developers are having such a hard time squeezing the performance and visuals out of it that first party developers are getting so naturally?

Warhawk, Uncharted, Ratchet, Resistance...

I don't remember seeing a single jaggy in those games, so they're all at LEAST 2xAA and probably more like 4xAA at a FULL 720p, no BS.

And Warhawk and Resistance had superb draw distances, with Warhawk having some of the best and most consistent LoD I've seen in videogames, even rivaling my current favorite, Red Orchestra. Let's put it this way, Warhawk has better distance textures that Red Orchestra while RO has better draw distances ever so slightly.

Meanwhile we've got this garbage from third parties. I will refer to it as garbage because if I were looking at it on a PC, all of the buzzwords and meaningless performance draining crap would be gone, and what would remain would be a crisp game that would offer me a good gameplay experience with good image quality.

It looks beautiful and runs smoothly.... am enjoying every minute of this excellent game !!!!

right, so what you are saying is also opinion.

The probloem is your evidence is some forum whoch shows that you will believe anything yo are told. I am not saying that what you have put is wrong, but does it really matter?

since when was 720p bad? upscaling it makes it look a little better. Most games not ust ditch high resolutions to make ither things better. And when TBH out eys cant really see much difference between 720p and 1080p does it really matter.

My opinion is based on reviewers scores. You could say that is opinion but IMO its the best opinion you can find on the internet.

The problem is its hard to respect your opinion when you write it like that as if you see it as getting a goal or something. You are obviously a fanboy who hates all things sony you cant deny it after your posts, and hundreds of other posts you have written.

for once instead of MINDLESSLY bashing, actually think about what you are gojg to say, and get some facts that have meaning, and try to write it in a way that will not make it so apparent that you are a fanboy.

NinjaMunkey01

Quaz51 is literally the source of every single shred of resolution information that you have ever learned about any game this generation. He isn't just "some forum," he's a guy that's respected as the best pixel counter on the internet by a hell of a lot of competent people with technical understanding that supports the theory behind his work, including actual game developers.

Doesn't mean you should just trust him on the out, but if you hope to criticize him, bring something to the table, please.

720p is just fine. 1080p is even better. But sub-720p is unacceptable, and that's all that there is to it.

These consoles are more than capable of it. It's happening on 360 because they need to keep it at sub-720p to avoid tiling to fit the image into the eDRAM for a performance hit, and I haven't the slightest idea why it's happening on PS3. Both cases, it's avoidable, and both cases it doesn't have to happen.

So how about you stop taking it from these guys and complain, trying to get better image quality? Remember playing MGS2, filled with jaggies at low resolution? I do, I played it two weeks ago. I'm done with that crap. Ever since I started playing on PC my standards have changed. I want to see my target, at distance, and that's all there is to it.

[QUOTE="mazdero"]

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.BobHipJames

Why don't you just quit already. Before you read anything on a forum, did you look at MGS4 and think, "wow, thats not 1920x1080 with AA, that looks like 1024x768 with no AA"? No, cause that would be impossible, and you don't have the game or a PS3 so you can't say. Who gives a crap what the resolution is. Only fanboys care. If the game looks awesome, it doesn't matter. COD4 is 600P, and? It looks great. The only difference you can see with your eyes is SD to HD. Your eyes can't tell you what resolution a game is running at, only how nice it looks.

COD4's IQ is hideous, and yes, that's my preferred component of graphics. Drop the poly counts, the texture resolution, the shaders, everything processor-intensive and spare all you can to anti-aliasing and resolution while maintaining draw distance with a less aggressive LoD.

CoD4 has 2xAA and runs at 600p. It's ugly. It looks muddy and I don't like it. The textures are attractive, there are decent normal maps, it runs at a good clip, and the self-shadowing is pretty good. But I would sacrifice each of those, save the performance itself, for better image quality. It hurts in shooting games, it makes the entire experience annoying and unfulfilling. Shooting at muddy shapes does not appeal to me.

But this is a question of developer incentive, not of console's capability. If you guys would quit the crap and acknowledge that IQ>stupid buzzwords and self-shadowing, maybe we'd be getting somewhere and actually be getting the advertised 720p resolution, IMO the single best part of this generation hands down.

I can't agree with you bruh. Thats your preferred method, but my eyes tell me different. I played Crysis on my PC with the resolution on 1024x768, with everything on High or very high no AA, and it looked way better that way then turning up the resolution, AA and running everything at medium.

COD4 does not look muddy. it is often breath taking, and has awesome lighting. If you have time to search for muddy textures in that game you are playing it at the lowest difficulty level and frankly just being overly picky.

720p-1080p doesn't matter. in the end its what my Eyes tell me. What good is a 1080p game with crap textures and low poly counts?

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.mazdero

Why don't you just quit already. Before you read anything on a forum, did you look at MGS4 and think, "wow, thats not 1920x1080 with AA, that looks like 1024x768 with no AA"? No, cause that would be impossible, and you don't have the game or a PS3 so you can't say. Who gives a crap what the resolution is. Only fanboys care. If the game looks awesome, it doesn't matter. COD4 is 600P, and? It looks great. The only difference you can see with your eyes is SD to HD. Your eyes can't tell you what resolution a game is running at, only how nice it looks.

Never played gears of war so for me, these are the best graphics i have ever seen.jcwkings

i guess you and all the cows must feel the same way! :lol:

you haven't seen graphics like this for a good game before have you?! don't worry im sure the year old bioshock will blow you away when it finally comes.

[QUOTE="NinjaMunkey01"]

right, so what you are saying is also opinion.

The probloem is your evidence is some forum whoch shows that you will believe anything yo are told. I am not saying that what you have put is wrong, but does it really matter?

since when was 720p bad? upscaling it makes it look a little better. Most games not ust ditch high resolutions to make ither things better. And when TBH out eys cant really see much difference between 720p and 1080p does it really matter.

My opinion is based on reviewers scores. You could say that is opinion but IMO its the best opinion you can find on the internet.

The problem is its hard to respect your opinion when you write it like that as if you see it as getting a goal or something. You are obviously a fanboy who hates all things sony you cant deny it after your posts, and hundreds of other posts you have written.

for once instead of MINDLESSLY bashing, actually think about what you are gojg to say, and get some facts that have meaning, and try to write it in a way that will not make it so apparent that you are a fanboy.

BobHipJames

Quaz51 is literally the source of every single shred of resolution information that you have ever learned about any game this generation. He isn't just "some forum," he's a guy that's respected as the best pixel counter on the internet by a hell of a lot of competent people with technical understanding that supports the theory behind his work, including actual game developers.

Doesn't mean you should just trust him on the out, but if you hope to criticize him, bring something to the table, please.

720p is just fine. 1080p is even better. But sub-720p is unacceptable, and that's all that there is to it.

These consoles are more than capable of it. It's happening on 360 because they need to keep it at sub-720p to avoid tiling to fit the image into the eDRAM for a performance hit, and I haven't the slightest idea why it's happening on PS3. Both cases, it's avoidable, and both cases it doesn't have to happen.

So how about you stop taking it from these guys and complain, trying to get better image quality? Remember playing MGS2, filled with jaggies at low resolution? I do, I played it two weeks ago. I'm done with that crap. Ever since I started playing on PC my standards have changed. I want to see my target, at distance, and that's all there is to it.

sorry I did not realise that.

But like you saud 720p is no way sub par, and thats what MGS4 does. I have complained about graphis if I dont think they are good enough.

But looking at the gameplay videos (I will be getting MGS4 soon) the game looks very good. So I am not complaining. In fact MGS4 looks very good.

Of course I want games to look as good as possible. MGS4 looks amazing, thats it. I dont complain because its apparent that the devs that made this game have tried really hard with this game, I dont think that at this time in the ps3's life they could have made it look much better without sacraficing something. Konami said that this was the level they could get to. they used 5ogig blu ray disks to make this game look as good as it is.

And Warhawk and Resistance had superb draw distances, with Warhawk having some of the best and most consistent LoD I've seen in videogames, even rivaling my current favorite, Red Orchestra. Let's put it this way, Warhawk has better distance textures that Red Orchestra while RO has better draw distances ever so slightly.BobHipJames

Hardly dude. Warhawk LoD scales make them look like pitch black guys, there's no armor over them, just the base mesh. It's baaad. On the other side, I don't really like the fact MGS4 lacks LoDs for models (to my eyes at least). If they did, I'm pretty sure we could have native 720p and even better framerate

Temporal AA is intelligent programming, actually, and lack of AA doesn't make a blurry effect, actually, so you still see the very same stuff, with just some more jaggies.

[QUOTE="jcwkings"]Never played gears of war so for me, these are the best graphics i have ever seen.thegoldenpoo

i guess you and all the cows must feel the same way! :lol:

you haven't seen graphics like this for a good game before have you?! don't worry im sure the year old bioshock will blow you away when it finally comes.

well, some of us played both and in terms of character models..... there is no way gears even comes close. faces in gears just look horrible when you've played mgs4. truelly...

[QUOTE="mazdero"]

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="dream431ca"]Technically, MGS4 has the best graphics on any console. Texture wise, there are some soft textures, but they are pretty hard to notice when you're focusing on the brilliant technical aspect of the game.haols

Why don't you just quit already. Before you read anything on a forum, did you look at MGS4 and think, "wow, thats not 1920x1080 with AA, that looks like 1024x768 with no AA"? No, cause that would be impossible, and you don't have the game or a PS3 so you can't say. Who gives a crap what the resolution is. Only fanboys care. If the game looks awesome, it doesn't matter. COD4 is 600P, and? It looks great. The only difference you can see with your eyes is SD to HD. Your eyes can't tell you what resolution a game is running at, only how nice it looks.

If you read the context in which that statement was said, it is true. your eyes can't tell whether its 1280x720, or 1024x768, or 1600x1080 etc..., thats what i mean. When you know something is HD already, you can tell a 720p image from a 1080p image, but thats as far as it goes. You can't tell what specific resolution it is.