• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Metal Gear Solid V: TPP PC vs. PS4 vs. XBO DF Face-Off Definitive Edition

Just like Ground Zeroes before it, Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain is one of the best-optimised titles on PC, and a superb way to experience Kojima's swansong to the series. It suits a wide range of setups - with even a Core i3 budget PC with a GTX 750 Ti capable of matching and even exceeding the PS4 experience in certain areas. It's a scalable game too - at its highest presets at ultra HD, it can even give the GTX 980 Ti and Titan X a run for their money - but ultimately, a 1080p target is very achievable on just about any enthusiast gaming hardware setup.

And crucially, Kojima Productions gives PC users plenty of options to tinker with its Fox Engine. The lack of support for frame-rates above 60fps is a shame, but everything else is present; from toggles to scale lighting quality and geometry LODs, to adjusting the quality of post-effects. Ultimately, the gains over PS4 and Xbox One are welcome; shadows are cleaned up, texture filtering is much improved, and the draw distance is broadened. However, the core elements are the same up close, and all three versions are highly recommended.

All in all, the Fox Engine once again rises to the challenge on PC, showing us its adaptability in the face of multiple hardware configurations. It's a shame that the only upcoming title to use this technology is Pro Evolution Soccer 2016 - and with Kojima Productions disbanded, we're unlikely to see the speculated open-world remake of the Metal Gear Solid using the engine. Even so, let's hope Metal Gear Solid 5's success here spurs Konami to return to more AAA projects in this vein - and that this engine forms the basis of its efforts.

T7kE6o8.png

tiuqdfp.png

LVnQnrV.png

Q6WnNef.png

m6v68Ir.png

hGccOxk.png

xig6dZ5.png

41m0rhg.png

bQriSiR.png

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...best-pc-hardware-for-metal-gear-solid-5-on-pc
 

kanuuna

Member
The missing subsurface scattering seems to make face look real, real rough.
I'm disappointed PC didn't get tesselation or more a physically accurate ambient occlusion option (HBAO).

Regardless of which of the three platforms you play it on though, I think the game looks really good. The lighting is really good and the colors are vivid but natural.

edit: Oh, Nvidia did actually throw in the option for HBAO enabled via drivers. My bad then.
 

Macrotus

Member
So PC best version but most of my friends play on PS4 what yo do?

I was in that boat and bought the PS4 version for that reason.
But with the online servers hardly working thus making FOB unplayable, I'm having doubts that MGO will launch without problems....

Either way, since I'm really liking the game, I'll probably double dip and buy it for PC as well when it goes cheap during Steam sale.
Having high hopes that someone would make mods. Like skins, texture enhancement mods the GTA or Skyrim ones. And maybe a huge project like a MGS1 fan remake via modding?! =P
 

oti

Banned
Ask yourself if your friends are going to be playing the game in a month when the multiplayer becomes available.

They did play a lot of GTA online which I missed out on since playing on PC. I didn't really regret that though. PC perks made up for it.

But something tells me they won't be playing MGS Online.

MGS Online ain't out yet, screw having friends.

PC for now.

You're a dog. I like dogs. I'll do as you say.
 
My only complaint with the PC version is there's no tessellation. Flat rocks really stand out, ironically. That said it's very stable on PC and the engine is obviously well made. A few more bells to go with the whistles would've been nice, though.
 
I remember thinking this when GZ comparisons came out, but goddamn does the PC version look more populated when I can actually see everything.

All in all, a great performing title on all platforms.
 

Rising_Hei

Member
I don't see the PC version to be that much better... and it doesn't even hold a framerate advantage this time around
 
I finished the game on PS4 as I got it early, but my plan was always to finish the story and then start again on PC to go for 100%.
GTX 970, running at 1080p - I barely notice the difference from the PS4 version. It's better, but it's hardly night and day, plus the sensitivity of the right stick (same DS4 as I use on my PS4) for aiming feels strangely off.
I'm sticking with my PS4 save.
 

Maxximo

Member
I don't see the PC version to be that much better... and it doesn't even hold a framerate advantage this time around

The difference in image quality when downampling is absurd.

In this game in particular the shimmering at 1080p is quite irritating.
 
I finished the game on PS4 as I got it early, but my plan was always to finish the story and then start again on PC to go for 100%.
GTX 970, running at 1080p - I barely notice the difference from the PS4 version. It's better, but it's hardly night and day, plus the sensitivity of the right stick (same DS4 as I use on my PS4) for aiming feels strangely off.
I'm sticking with my PS4 save.
970? Go for 1440p.
 
The difference in image quality when downampling is absurd.

In this game in particular the shimmering at 1080p is quite irritating.

Isn't that only at mother base where there's lots of railing? Out in the field it looks much cleaner ( well on console)
 

Rad-

Member
Maxed PC version looks quite a bit better than the rest but that's no surprise. The game still looks great on all of these versions.

In this game in particular the shimmering at 1080p is quite irritating.

Hmm I disagree. MGS5 has way less shimmering than most PS4 games I have played this gen. It's the first thing I noticed as far as graphics go because I'm usually very sensitive to it.
 

Hasney

Member
Isn't that what KojiPro stated? That it was built for PCs and then to scale down?

Or am I misremembering?

It was being built when the specs of the consoles weren't known so that's all they could aim for while making it stupidly scalable. They assumed there would be a large pool of fast graphics RAM like PCs which is why the engine has always had a harder time on XBox 1.
 
Suprised they didn't mention number of lights at a distance the PC version has over the consoles - that's like the most obvious difference.
 

Mechazawa

Member
tiuqdfp.png


3 images that look pretty much the same, then one that doesn't.

Some of the pictures OP chose are weird as hell. For instance, the picture he chose for SSR doesn't even show the difference:

ssr36ssu.png


As for the draw distance, the best example between the default PC settings and the consoles is actually where the cursor is already automatically placed in the article:

lodfss1i.png
 

stryke

Member
Suprised they didn't mention number of lights at a distance the PC version has over the consoles - that's like the most obvious difference.

This is only the definitive edition article. Wait for the definitive edition remastered article :p

In case anyone missed it -

7HNuR1N.gif
 

Kezen

Banned
LVnQnrV.png


Quite a drastic difference AF makes, I wonder once again why 16xAF is not standard on consoles.


Game is absolutely superb on PC, just like GZ and definitely a very significant cut above any console versions on burly hardware.
 

Synth

Member
How many games 900p 60 fps locked you seen on xbone?

How many 1080 60 fps locked you see on PS4? I don't think that's really important. The disparity between two with Fox Engine games has been atypical compared to most other games.
 

Kezen

Banned
How many 1080 60 fps locked you see on PS4? I don't think that's really important. The disparity between two with Fox Engine games has been atypical compared to most other games.

Not with MGS 5. 900p vs 1080p is what you'd expect considering the hardware gap.
 
Top Bottom