Metal Gear Solid Rising getting re-done graphics engine

Uggghhh, its coming out for both, so why don't y'all settle this when you actually see the new engine.

better learn to wait, I'm thinking 3-5 years before we're playing this game.

anybody want to take that bet? :P

Put me in the "I don't care how it's made, I just want it" boat please.

It better be either 1) A CG movie at a movie price or 2) A hell of a lot more entertaining for me to buy this sequel. I feel a little screwed after buying the Metal Gear Solid bundle after my first PS3 died.

well yes but like some others posted, I am afraid this will take a years. They should rather use the MGS4 engine imo.

Who cares about graphics engine?

Let's just hope that since Raiden is a bad-ass now, that can take on MG's by jumping on them Mario-Luigi style, Konami doesn't forget that the MGS series is about stealth, not balls-out action.

@Foetoid: Go and ask a developer to make a game on the 360 from scratch and make the same game on the PS3 from scratch and not porting it like almost everyone does. Oh wait there is one game like that called Red Alert... go and compare those 2 games and not some g@y-@$$ ports.

Stupid Reply Button >_>

Hey I want powerful graphics in the game. I so agree stealth and game play first. But the game looking even more real will add to the tension of the game (which will be nice).

yeah they're probably just updating the engine

why not, the 360 renders textures better.

Engines and sequels usually look better. Why do you think this wont be the case? MGS4 didn't look impossibly beautiful.

infamous1 - "*cough* bullshit *cough*"

my thoughts exactly, if its going to "look better than MGS 4" then get ready Xbox fanboys for a 5 disc game.

Because MGS4 wasn't released on the 360 cause the graphics would split the game over multiple discs, from what I understand/remember.

@ Bigg Bozz

wow, how stupid are you?

MGS4 graphics have little to do with the storage medium & much more to do with the hardware.

Saying MGS4 is not possible because of DVD is just stupid.

@K1LLER HORNET

actually graphics have to do with both

Damn sprinkles that was one hell of a fast downvote. Almost beat Fernando's record there.

It was the uncompressed audio that took up the majority of the space, not the graphics. Excluding the character models, the texture work was hit or miss sometimes, and that has more to do with RAM limitations as opposed to disc space.

You know, if your fantards were going to use what's possible and what isn't in your little retard slapfests, at least do a little research.

Fact 1: The bulk of MGS4's content was actually in the audio department. Sorry, it just was.

Fact 2: Most of the graphical assets to any given MGS4 chapter was installed on the hard drive itself. Which means that, given the idea that MGS4 never exceeded 6GB on your hard drive, the assets needed to make each chapter is 100% feasibly fitable on a DVD. Just, well, without a lot of audio. Of course this lends credence to the MGS4 = 5 360 discs but still.

Fact 3: MGS4 was planned and designed specifically with the PS3 in mind. Period. So converting to 360's abilities would take a massive amount of engine and game code restructuring. Especially with the way Kojima did it. What this means in "retard language" is "ZOMG, MGS4 never for 360, argh." For the more intelligent, this simply means that the engine used for MGS4 and it's core design wouldn't be easy to work into 360s pipline... so don't. Make a new engine which accepted both.

I don't know why I got downvoted, since that's just what I remember. I don't own a PS3 or are a fanboy of any system.
The audio aspect makes sense, since uncompressed audio will take up quite alot.

Either way, a claim that states this game will look better then MGS4 is fine by me. We'll see, either way I think graphics are a bit on the over-rated side. Gameplay is what I care most about, I'm sure I'm not alone.

The graphics are part of the reason. The PS3 version of Bioshock was said to look better because of the increased storage for textures. Of course it also had more time in 2K's hands for polishing, but that was the official reason I heard.

Dear god. The majority of this thread reminds me why I don't normally comment on these kind of threads.

Why did nofrendo get downvoted. It's well known multi-platform games look better on 360 thanks to it's far superior graphics chip:

http://au.gamespot.com/features/6162742/index.html

http://au.gamespot.com/features/6171831/p-2.html

http://au.gamespot.com/features/6191251/index.html

Stevie Wonder could see in almost every game of every example from those 3 links that not only does the 360 have better graphics, but runs a lot smoother. The Ps3 is a joke. It's like building the latest PC right now, but putting in a 7800-series Nvidia graphics card.

Foetoid, then why do some games like Call of Duty 4 look virtually identical on the PS3 vs 360? Hm?

Some exclusive PS3 games made by developers with mostly or only PS3 development experience look fantastic. Maybe the PS3 is difficult to develop for like its predecessor, maybe developers don't bother as much due to its smaller install base of customers, etc.

Those that have enough PS3 development experience can crank a lot out of the system and those that don't, cannot. Such as with Grand Theft Auto 4 for the PC, current PCs today kick the shit out of the PS3 and 360 but the developers delivered a mediocre port at best.

Foetoid, you're a complete joke. If there's anything those pictures showed us, it's that there is such a negligible difference between each system in screenshots that it's not worth bickering over. The only time you can tell that the textures are blurrier on the PS3 is if you stand right the fuck in front of a wall and stare at it with a pic of the 360 game next to you. Take, for example, Fallout 3. On a 42" 1080p plasma, we ran the 360 version, then right afterwards, the PS3 version. We didn't see ANY DIFFERENCE. It's only when you take a zoomed in screen shot and compare over and over that you can tell which is better, and most of the time you can only see they are different not better or worse. Most of the differences in those screens were just in the lighting, and neither was superior, they both just looked like different lighting scenarios. Now this:

"Stevie Wonder could see in almost every game of every example from those 3 links that not only does the 360 have better graphics, but runs a lot smoother"

REALLY? YOU CAN TELL THAT A GAME RUNS SMOOTHER FROM A SCREEN SHOT COMPARISON?? Wow. People like you are the reason I question why I ever read these comments, ESPECIALLY post here. Thanks for that.

Levi - OF: I posted some VGL youtube videos. Check out the user, rhaylol, over on youtube. I remember you wanted some footage of it from another thread.

Also, obligatory "lol fanboys fighting over xtreemr grafx on shiny bocks of choice" statement here.

People need to stop believing that the audio isn't compressed at all. That rumor (I guess it's a rumor) from over a year ago needs to die. Kojima might have wanted to use uncompressed audio.

Well, being Dolby Digital assumes that it uses a lossy compression. If not, lossless data can be compressed and unpacked later (what might be happening during installs), and it will still be lossless.

And finally, some FACTS directly from MGS4 sound engineers about the audio data here:
http://forums.highdefdigest.com/1015530-post236.html

LOL That's what i thought. I think they are "RE-making" the MGS4 engine due to MGS4's engine being AGAZILLION gigabyte's. So they might low res it or something.

No Levi, i can tell they run faster because i read most of the little articles that go with each set of screenshots, and a lot of them say the 360 version has double the frame-rate. Idiot.

" It's well known multi-platform games look better on 360 thanks to it's far superior graphics chip:"

I'd argue that's it actually because most games are developed for the 360 and ported to the PS3. A game like Bioshock that took a year before coming to the PS3 actually looked a bit better on the PS3 because they had extra time to fine tune the port. And, of course, many of the PS3 exclusives look fantastic... every bit as good or better than the best 360 games.

The CGI and uncompressed audio (for hours and hours of cut scenes) couldn't be done with the data restraints of a single DVD. The graphics on the other hand could easily be done without any problems.


Ask yourself; Did I like the cut scenes in MGS4? If no, then I wouldn't worry.


Or buy the game on the PS3. Whatever.

@Foetold or whatever.

PS3 GPU - Based off of Nvidia GeForce 7800-series

360 GPU - Based off of ATI Radeon X1800-series

Those two are neck-in-neck in performance, the advantage the 360 does have over that is the 10MB of eDRAM embedded next to the GPU, allowing it to apply AA effects on the fly without much of a hit on the frame rate, while the PS3's GPU has its own dedicated GDDR3 RAM, not having to share with the 360, not to mention it can borrow some of the Cell BE's XDR Rambus memory if needed.

@ thelionazzalle

I'm a sony guy, but I cant help but agree with you. I would rather have changed discs instead of waiting for ANOTHER INSTALL for each act of MGS4. Sony fanboys take the disc changing thing WAY too seriously.

@foetoid

Umm... if the 360 had double the PS3s framerate all it would do is exceed the refresh rate of almost every TV and look less smooth because of shearing... thought you'd like to know that. So either:

1) You're lying and you're bad at it
2) You don't know what you're talking about (likely in any case)
3) The articles you got that from are positively false or from a site like xbox360fanboy.com (also likely)

I've already post the Gamespot links This_Time, have a look.

Oh and Johnny not sure where you read about the X1800 but:

Ps3 Gpu: http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=7

360 Gpu: http://dpad.gotfrag.com/portal/story/35372/?spage=8 (plus the next page)

Quote: "This GPU here inside the Xbox 360 is literally an early ATI R600, which when released by ATI for the pc will be a Directx 10 GPU"

R600: http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/01/ati-r600-graphics-card-benchmarked-cruises-by-nvidias-geforce/

Quote: "Lvl505 got their palms on a pre-release ATI R600 graphics card and put it up against the best NVIDIA currently has to offer (at the time, GeForce 8800 GTX), and the results thus far show ATI's device as "the clear winner."

For those to lazy too read through all that evidence:

Nvidia 8800 > Nvidia 7800.

Does anyone want to read through the DPAD article and try to debunk any of it, especially since every piece of info in the article is sourced from Sony, Microsoft, ATI and Nvidia themselves? Try not voting me down too quickly in the future without reading facts hey? I don't dribble shit.

/thread

@Foetoid: Go and ask a developer to make a game on the 360 from scratch and make the same game on the PS3 from scratch and not porting it like almost everyone does. Oh wait there is one game like that called Red Alert... go and compare those 2 games and not some g@y-@$$ ports.

I'll just assume you didn't read my post above yours and you didn't wanna read the truth from the links inside my post cause it hurts too much to read. Facts > Fanboy Opinions.

Anyway this argument is futile, games look amazing for both. My point is, that MGS:Rising will look better than MGS4 just like Konami are saying and both consoles will run the game brilliantly. In fact, the frame rate should be higher on the 360 version thanks to it's graphics chip.

@ohyeahcola

Not When You Have 7.5GB's To Play With!

It only becomes an issue when the disc does not have sufficient space for the engine/textures/levels, which DVD DL clearly does have.

what DVD DL does not have sufficient space for is the *addition* of hours of 1080p FMV videos.

Some games looked better on XBox, some games looked better on PS3, yes, even ports (Mirror's Edge, Assassin's Creed, GTA4). This is more to do with lazy porting versus good porting more than anything else (hardware Depth of Field, and post-processing are PS3 specilities for these examples).

What this new game really means is a probable 42gig less content. And we all love less content, right?

p.s. MGS4 didn't use 1080P fmv, but 720. It also wasn't uncompressed, look carefully and you'll notice lots of grey squares during the FMV to save space.

If Crysis can fit on a DVD, why can't MGS4?

They could EASILY fit it on one. As somebody above said, graphics have nothing to do with the size of the disc.

Sorry baughgoth.

GTAIV: http://au.gamespot.com/features/6191251/p-3.html
Analysis: Almost perfectly even, 360 version slightly crisper.

Assassins Creed: http://au.gamespot.com/features/6191251/index.html
Analysis: Xbox 360 has sharper textures with better 3D-depth simulation readily noticeable in the flat cobblestone streets.

Didn't REALLY mean to burst your bubble.

@ foetoid

Killzone 2 and Heavy Rain ... that's all I have to say you stupid fuckass.

Nice and mature i see. Hey i never said good looking Ps3 games didn't exist and i also did not at all say there are no Ps3 exclusive games that look better than 360 games. What i'm saying is, validated through links and proof, is the 360 has a much much better graphics chip than the Ps3. Games made from the ground-up for both using 100% of the power of both consoles WILL look better on 360. It's basic hardware facts. It's like comparing 2 PCs. One has a 7800GT graphics card with a quad-core i7, while the other has a 8800GTX with a quad-core phenom. The 2nd PC will have better looking games running smoother. I'm not a fanboy, it's just plain logic and facts.

ok basic hardware fact the 360 has a 3 core cpu and a one core gpu and thy can cross comunicate as in if the gpu is over loaded it will dump to the cpu as wher the ps3 has a 1 core cpu with 8 sub prosesore 1 shut off for a backup 1 oversees the others and 6 for whatever and it has 1 gpu and all 10 processors and share info back and forth so if the gpu is over loaded it will just sing the info to a spu (sub prossesor unit) and keep on going and yall keep comparing erly ports and if you have ben keeping up to date almost all the devs are saying if you port from 360 to ps3 the ps3 will look bad cus of the way the ps3 prosses it but if you make it for ps3 and port to 360 it will look better for both and the devs are also saying that the 360 has ben maxed out thing will not get any better for 360 but the ps3 is still not fully taped even mgs4 and kz2 have only hit 50% of what the ps3 can do even if you look back a gen every thing looked better on ps2 but the xbox was superior in hardware why cus every thing was made for ps2 and ported to xbox but in the latter end of the gen thy looked equal cus thy were making it for xbox and ported to ps2 so to compar the power of one to the other you would need to have two exlusiv games to the consoles like compare halo 3 cutseens to mgs4 or kz2 cus both those games were out in the same cycle erea of the system thy were for cus remimber the 360 has a year on the ps3 so halo 3 came out in i think year 3 of the 360 and kz2 came out in year 3 of ps3 and im sher every one can agree kz2 looks better then halo 3 so remimber you cant compare ports

Wow bud. Longest, Sentence, Ever! http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/files/2008/12/comic-book-guy.gif

Ya have to agree the article is bullshit, it doesn't quote any reference referring to making it look better. In fact my interpretation is make it look as good as we possibly can. Which means as close to MGS4 or around it's level most likely under it's level to be honest because if it was going to be better they would have said "better".

Honestly we know this just means we're going to try to match what we can do on the PS3 on the Xbox360.

@Foetoid, I don't think you understand the articles you put up.

At the very end it point out people like you in detail, "Hopefully this article has helped to dispell some rumors surrounding the processing power of these two great consoles and demonstrate some of the differences that give them their unique feel. There are many attempts on both sides to distort the numbers or misconstrue their importance, but looking at the features as a whole allows the opportunity to determine how these consoles will operate overall. While both consoles shine in some areas, they do have their softer spots. Ultimately, the good features of each of these consoles outweigh the bad and the amount of high quality games being released this winter will give Sony and Microsoft fans alike a lot to be happy about."

Also the power of the PS3 GPU is comparable to the Xbox360 however this is not where the PS3 gets it processing power. The PS3 CPU is where it gets it's power. Which in this place is FAR more powerful than Xbox360's CPU. This enables the high amount of data on screen, such as particle effects, background streaming, shader processing (offset) and so much more.

The Xbox CPU is not even comparable because it's incapable of 7 streams. Where as the PS3 can.

@ Foetoid

Actually, I do agree that some multiplatform games do run better on 360, take Fallout 3 for example. HOWEVER(!), this is only because some of these games are developed for the 360 and then ported over to the PS3. Thus, due to compatibility issues, some things get moved around. But when multiplatform games are developed for the PS3, they look better on the PS3 (Mirrors Edge for example).

Also, how can you possibly say that the 360 can run better graphics?!! Have you looked at Killzone 2? Nothing on the 360 comes close! You should look at real evidence, not stupid screen-shot comparisons.

Stop being a fanboy.

@ThermoPants I think a more comparable one is Red Alert. Very few companies will put in higher textures and better graphics if it's made for one console and ported like your example. However in Red Alert the water physics were increased and the textures were turned up. You really have to ask yourself if the Xbox was capable then why didn't they do it for that system? Simply put it just isn't capable.

Since the PS3 can multitask almost at quadruple (3.57) an Xbox360 it just can't do some of things a PS3 can. This is why you see such a huge line up of MMOs on the PS3 and so many MMO's that have become vaporware on the Xbox360. Since in an MMO that processing and streaming power is so important.

Also when you compare the ram to the two systems. You have to add in PS3s on board CPU ram, which many companies barely use (Bethesda). When you compare it in this way the PS3 has over 1G of ram and then some where as the Xbox360 only has 512MB.

Also when you compare the HTZ the cycles per sec the PS3 also wins with a higher throughput. This is without the fact that the GPU can offset calculations to the CPU. So the processing isn't as separated as people think it is.

So if you have the same amount of code passing through the Xbox GPU and the PS3 GPU the PS3 will calculate it faster if the SPUs are being used to offset the PS3 GPU.

However ya if you compare the GPU's directly they are close in some aspects. However that is not how the systems work.