Support NeoGAF

[Sword Of Doom]

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

The game looks beautiful on the ps4 and its running at 60fps so sticking to ps4 should be ok. If it was like most AAA games where they're running at 30fps on consoles then of course PC is a no brainer.

I could have gotten it on PC but I got a physical copy for the ps4 for a good price so I'm happy. My only concern is how loud my ps4 gets when I use the idroid. It's ridiculously loud

I'm going to say something, and for the record I am not disagreeing with you guys. 95% of the time, "console optimization" is not something massive, it is certainly overblow.
However, when I played FH2 last year, I refused to believe it was running on a HD7790 and a laptop CPU. If I wasn't aware of PS4's specs, and you showed me the latest U4 demo and told me it was running on an HD7850, I would've laughed in your face.
But yea, for multiplatform titles and most exclusives, "console optimization" doesn't net a huge difference. Just sometimes, a few developers manage to take it to the extreme.

Yeah games like U4 and The Order looks fantastic for the hardware they're running on. Even MGS 5 running 1080/60 looks fantastic on the ps4. Makes me wish more AAA devs/publishers were willing to sacrifice some visuals for a smooth 60fps. It really makes gameplay so much more enjoyable and it still looks good

 

[etta]

There are certainly advantages to fixed hardware, but the myth of "console optimization" is some of the greatest garbage propagated by console warriors. I would think that now that we're coming on two years from the launch of these platforms, and the several performance analysis since their launch, that the misinformation would stop. To be clear, I'm not implying that you're spreading it.

Exactly.

I'm going to say something, and for the record I am not disagreeing with you guys. 95% of the time, "console optimization" is not something massive, it is certainly overblown.
However, when I played FH2 last year, I refused to believe it was running on a HD7790 and a laptop CPU. If I wasn't aware of PS4's specs, and you showed me the latest U4 demo and told me it was running on an HD7850, I would've laughed in your face.
But yea, for multiplatform titles and most exclusives, "console optimization" doesn't net a huge difference. Just sometimes, a few developers manage to take it to the extreme.

 

[bede-x]

Around the 1:04 minute mark he drops the majority of his settings to high

DF is targeting default settings aside from volumetric clouds and better AF. Is that the same as "high", which is what your guy uses? (Don't have the game). If default is lower than high, they are probably getting similar results.

 

[derExperte]

DF is targeting default settings aside from volumetric clouds and better AF. Is that the same as "high", which is what your guy uses? (Don't have the game). If default is lower than high, they are probably getting similar results.

These were the settings I got when I started the game for the first time:

Compare them to the ones used in the linked video which are still higher after turning some down from the max settings used at first.

 

[Dictator93]

Does anyone have pictures of the volumetric clonds on the PS4 or XB1 version? I cannot find any screenshtos evidencing it and must assume DF made a mistake.

They look like this:

 

[d9b]

That Xbox forehead....

Is SSS going to be patched on Xbox One?

 

[Lockjaw333]

I'm going to say something, and for the record I am not disagreeing with you guys. 95% of the time, "console optimization" is not something massive, it is certainly overblown.
However, when I played FH2 last year, I refused to believe it was running on a HD7790 and a laptop CPU. If I wasn't aware of PS4's specs, and you showed me the latest U4 demo and told me it was running on an HD7850, I would've laughed in your face.
But yea, for multiplatform titles and most exclusives, "console optimization" doesn't net a huge difference. Just sometimes, a few developers manage to take it to the extreme.

Agreed. Console optimization is real, but the returns are usually not that noticeable. There are a few devs however, like you stated with Turn 10, that manage to somehow squeeze as much performance as possible from the hardware and deliver something that feels like it shouldn't look or run the way it does on the fixed hardware. FH2, I agree, was incredible, especially early in the gen as it was. I would also argue from the demo that Forza 6 has similar wizardry.

Same goes for some devs on PS4. Infamous SS is incredible for the hardware its running on.

Outside of first party devs, most multiplatform titles will see some returns from console optimization, but they don't seem to be that massive. So far it seems like comparable PC hardware, the tried and true i3 and 750Ti, matches or exceeds what the consoles are doing, so it doesn't seem like console optimization is netting too much of a return so far this gen.

Lets see what games like UC4 and Gears 4 can do though...

Still I think what MGS 5 is doing on PS4 and Xbone is pretty impressive given the hardware.

 

[Noobcraft]

Does anyone have pictures of the volumetric clonds on the PS4 or XB1 version? I cannot find any screenshtos evidencing it and must assume DF made a mistake.

I don't think it has them. Sandstorms/mist are volumetric but clouds don't appear to be.

 

[adelante]

I don't think it has them. Sandstorms/mist are volumetric but clouds don't appear to be.

Hmmm really? Cool.

 

[Dictator93]

I don't think it has them. Sandstorms/mist are volumetric but clouds don't appear to be.

I think they combine a screen effect, some of those cool flying motionblur black particles, and then bring in the distance fog (which I guess would be the volumetric part). A very awesome combo.

Hmmm really? Cool.

You can see the different layers as it starts, first the screen effect, then those particles whip around as the distance fog clips in.

 

[bede-x]

These were the settings I got when I started the game for the first time:


Compare them to the ones used in the linked video which are still higher after turning some down from the max settings used at first.

Yep, the guy in the video is using higher settings than DF: shadows on high, textures on extra high, model detail on extra high. And we don't know if DF is using texture filtering on high or extra high, only that they go above default settings which is medium, but the video uses extra high. The video is getting 50+ fps for the majority of the duration at 1080p (from 1:14 until he changes it six or so minutes in).

Seems likely that Digital Foundry is right on the money and the problem is more likely to be comparing benchmarks at different settings. And that's without mentioning the impact to performance from recording the video guy probably is getting.

 

[Durante]

Concerning the "console optimization" discussion:
a) optimizing for a specific target architecture is obviously real, but if it's just micro-optimization and not algorithmic changes it won't be too significant.
b) often, people believe that they detect "console optimization" in exclusives -- which makes sense obviously. However, in that case, "console optimization" may often boil down to simply not doing something, or doing something in a completely different way, since it doesn't work well enough on the one HW platform you are targeting.

Yep, the guy in the video is using higher settings than DF: shadows on high, textures on extra high, model detail on extra high. And we don't know if DF is using texture filtering on high or extra high, only that they go above default settings which is medium, but the video uses extra high. The video is getting 50+ fps for the majority of the duration at 1080p (from 1:14 until he changes it six or so minutes in).

Seems likely that Digital Foundry is right on the money and the problem is more likely to be comparing benchmarks at different settings. And that's without mentioning the impact to performance from recording the video guy probably is getting.

This is a good point actually. AFAIK DF are capturing everything externally, including PC. While e.g. Shadowplay overhead is very minor, it's not 0.

 

[Dictator93]

Seriously, anyone have some screens of volumetric clouds in TPP on console?

Also, I made a quick and dirty comparison showing the effects setting and how it affects particles and shadowing on particles.

Link to video here by clicking on the image:
!

My take on it:
low and high use the same shadow filtering for the particle shadows. High uses a few more sprites.

Very high uses a softfadow filter on the particle shadows and uses a LOT more sprites. It does look quite a bit better though.

Anyone care to go to the same spot on console to check out the particle quality and amount? The DF article says "high" but puts forth no evidence for which really.

 

[dezzy8]

They all look good to me. I mean the XBOX One has some minor flaws compared to the others but it's very minor stuff that most won't notice when playing the game. PC on high looks amazing though. Looks like it's a good buy on any platform you choose.

 

[VGA222]

Is there any specific reason why both consoles versions use a draw distance setting lower than the lowest on pc? Are the Xbox One and PS4 hit harder than a pc when it comes to draw distance? It seems that if the reduction draw distance offered a noticeable performance gain then it would be offered on pc, perhaps as a "lowest" model detail setting.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

For me this is a big deal when it comes to something like Metal Gear Solid at least. I often let my friends dictate where my gaming experiences take place but -

Not this time.

Have you even seen the game in person on the ps4. It looks better than those pictures would have you believe

Does anyone have pictures of the volumetric clonds on the PS4 or XB1 version? I cannot find any screenshtos evidencing it and must assume DF made a mistake.

They look like this:

I'll take some screen shots today

Is there any specific reason why both consoles versions use a draw distance setting lower than the lowest on pc? Are the Xbox One and PS4 hit harder than a pc when it comes to draw distance? It seems that if the reduction draw distance offered a noticeable performance gain then it would be offered on pc, perhaps as a "lowest" model detail setting.

Draw distance is the one thing that bothers me on the ps4 version. It was the first thing noticed

 

[Crimsonclaw111]

Is there any specific reason why both consoles versions use a draw distance setting lower than the lowest on pc? Are the Xbox One and PS4 hit harder than a pc when it comes to draw distance? It seems that if the reduction draw distance offered a noticeable performance gain then it would be offered on pc, perhaps as a "lowest" model detail setting.

CPU limited perhaps?

 

[thelastword]

Considering MGSV has draw distance BELOW the lowest PC setting,...

The difference is so minimal between PS4, low, medium, high and very high settings though, that I don't think it would make any difference in performance even if they enabled the highest setting or even the high setting on PS4. Perhaps they can patch it in, but I don't even think that's necessary. I think AF or Filtering is what's murdering the Consoles IQ in the distance, and we all know that's been free on PC GPU's for an eternity.

This game was spread across many platforms, they've done a pretty good job but with the whole Konami scandal in mind, I'm pretty sure they would've wanted to do more and optimize further. Perhaps we can get a patch before they're disbanded.

I get a near perfect 1080/60. If I drop model detail to Medium (still higher than the console's low) I get locked 60fps during gameplay (2-3 frame dips during heavy alpha scenes during cutscenes).

Please provide a video to show, DF didn't, now you are not. Please bare in mind, the card referenced has a higher overclock than yours or DF's, if you simply followed Df's advice on the +400 memory uptick.....

DF is targeting default settings aside from volumetric clouds and better AF. Is that the same as "high", which is what your guy uses? (Don't have the game). If default is lower than high, they are probably getting similar results.

Please note that DF is being a bit general with their statement, they're never precise, they say console settings, but even then, we know that not all console settings are the same.

They compare the PS4 to the i3/750ti and say it's ahead in some aspects using the default PC settings, but what setting exactly? lod? which is minimal, and filtering? which has been free on PC for an eternity. You just turn 16xAF on you PC GPU and don't bat an eye, it's been that way for all multiplatform games released this gen. The 750ti always had better AF, unless the PS4 had 16x.

Apart from filtering and shadows at medium and model detail on below-low, the PS4 has textures, character detail, per object and movement blur and many of the major settings at the highest quality, and a few at high. On top of that, volumetric clouds are on. I think that's a superior preset overall.

Please note, I mentioned that in order for Santiago to achieve a solid 60fps at 1080p, he placed every setting on high (none on very high) and disabled MB which is on the highest setting on PS4. I think that puts things into perspective, and don't forget he is running a higher overclock than DF too.


All I'm saying is for DF to give me 10-15 minutes of i3/750ti footage with their +400 OC, just make sure to leave the OSD on from afterburner.

 

[MaLDo]

The difference is so minimal between PS4, low, medium, high and very high settings though, that I don't think it would make any difference in performance even if they enabled the highest setting or even the high setting on PS4

Yeah ok.

 

[Dictator93]

The difference is so minimal between PS4, low, medium, high and very high settings though, that I don't think it would make any difference in performance even if they enabled the highest setting or even the high setting on PS4.

Why do you think they are minimal? And why do you think that it would make no difference if they turned it up (in performance or otherwise). Surely their having SSS on PS4, a different resolution, etc... shows that they tailor the versions. As in, the reason it is below the lowest setting on PC is because it needs to be there for the game to hit the required refresh rate.

That would also fall in line with nearly every multiplatform game this generation where the LOD, view distance, shadow distance was decidedly and noticably lower than mid rage, high and even low presets on PC.

I'll take some screen shots today

Video is also appreciated Thanks for offering.

 

[thelastword]

Yeah ok.

Why do you think they are minimal? And why do you think that it would make no performance no difference if they turned it up (in performance or otherwise). Surely their having SSS on PS4, a different resolution, etc... shows that they tailor the versions. As in, the reason it is below the lowest setting on PC is because it needs to be there for the game to hit require refresh rate.

I've looked at the differences in lod quite a few times.....and though I can see the few extra brushes of flat grass spread out, it is so minimal. When you look at the lod on GTA5 on PS4 over XBO or Good PC over PS4 you could see a good improvement. I find here, it's just not at all significant. I'm not thinking this affects performance too much or at all. If you guys have further screens, please share them, but I'm watching DF's video and it's not that impactful.

What I will say is this, the better filtering on the PC is the main difference in lod comparison shots, everything just pops and prisitine detail is maintained over a longer distance, but there's nothing extra-ordinary in the extra draw of grass. Look at DF's video again.

I wish these consoles had 16xAf though.......

Is there any specific reason why both consoles versions use a draw distance setting lower than the lowest on pc? Are the Xbox One and PS4 hit harder than a pc when it comes to draw distance? It seems that if the reduction draw distance offered a noticeable performance gain then it would be offered on pc, perhaps as a "lowest" model detail setting.

The crazy thing is, lod has been improved in certain open world games on consoles, like Dying Light.........

 

[MaLDo]

I've looked at the differences in lod quite a few times.....and though I can see the few extra brushes of flat grass spread out, it is so minimal. When you look at the lod on GTA5 on PS4 over XBO or Good PC over PS4 you could see a good improvement. I find here, it's just not at all significant. I'm not thinking this affects performance too much or at all. If you guys have further screens, please share them, but I'm watching DF's video and it's not that impactful.

Minimal doesn't mean what you think

 

[Krappadizzle]

Minimal doesn't mean what you think

 

[MaLDo]

gif

magic for your eyes

 

[Tagyhag]

Minimal doesn't mean what you think

Are we going to have another grassgate thread? Boy that last one was fun!

Edit: If that was X1/PS4 there actually WOULD be a thread by now.

 

[thelastword]

Minimal doesn't mean what you think

OK, these look a little more pronounced than what I saw in DF's video, still not as substantial as GTA though. You are going from low to very high I presume, and AF is the same?

 

[MaLDo]

OK, these look a little more pronounced than what I saw in DF's video, still not as substantial as GTA though. You are going from low to very high I presume, and AF is the same?

If you can't see the brutal AF difference between those shots I think you better talk about different topics.

Those are PS4 versus Very High PC. And they are from DF faceoff.

 

[jmga]

I would like to see modded extra extra high on that gif.

 

[thelastword]

If you can't see the brutal AF difference between those shots I think you better talk about different topics.

Those are PS4 versus Very High PC. And they are from DF faceoff.

Thanks for clarifying, then my point still stands, the AF is the biggest disparity between these shots. Everything is blurred because of the lower AF and it's killing lots of detail. As I said, I do acknowledge the extra tuffs of grass regardless.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

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.

It has nothing at all to do with the ram. It's simply that the Xbox One doesn't have a beefier GPU with more raw computational power and the additional execution units. I think people focus on the ram side of things because it somehow sounds more exciting or technical, but it is the least of the reasons for why the game is 900p on Xbox One. An even stronger GPU, closer to what the PS4 has, with the exact same ram setup as what the Xbox One currently has, would easily allow the Xbox One version to match the PS4 version of this game. Hell, even with the GPU differences it still comes pretty close. So yea, the problem isn't the ram. The Xbox One GPU just isn't quite as powerful.

 

[Dictator93]

Thanks for clarifying, then my point still stands, the AF is the biggest disparity between these shots. Everything is blurred because of the lower AF and it's killing lots of detail. As I said, I do acknowledge the extra tuffs of grass regardless.

Why do you say the AF is teh biggest disparity? The Very high PC image has like 4x as many rocks and bushesdue to LOD difference. While AF only affects the ground texture.

 

[Durante]

Why do you say the AF is teh biggest disparity? The Very high PC image has like 4x as many rocks and bushesdue to LOD difference. While AF only affects the ground texture.

You don't understand, they could run very high instead of lower than low on PS4 easily. The only reason they didn't is because... I'm still working on that part.

 

[DarkLordMalik]

Why do you say the AF is teh biggest disparity? The Very high PC image has like 4x as many rocks and bushesdue to LOD difference. While AF only affects the ground texture.

Honestly speaking LOD and Draw Distance barely matters for MGS V. It is not like GTA V or Witcher 3, which were more populated open world games. MGS V is pretty barren in comparison and the addition of "4x rocks and bushes" viewable from a distance is nowhere comparable to GTA V/Witcher 3.

I'd consider TW 3/GTA V a bigger difference due to the decrease in NPCs on PS4/XBO compared to PC. The only biggest difference for me in MGSV is not these "4x rocks and bushes", it is the lack of dynamic light sources at night due to the low LOD. But we don't always play at night like in Ground Zeroes main mission.

MGSV is mostly a cross-gen game with the usual bells and whistles for current-gen/PC.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Couldn't this just be a glitch? SSS is not really expensive from what I've heard.

Could this be memory bandwidth? The xbone's memory set up continues to be a weakspot. That lack of sss is glaring.

 

[mugurumakensei]

Honestly speaking LOD and Draw Distance barely matters for MGS V.

Matters more in some cases. If you like to go the sniping route for infiltration, the extra LOD is a great thing. It means you can snipe from further away.

 

[artsi]

Matters more in some cases. If you like to go the sniping route for infiltration, the extra LOD is a great thing. It means you can snipe from further away.

No, it doesn't effect sniping at all as the LOD gets more detailed when you zoom in with binoculars or a scope. It's purely a visual effect.

Also, even unzoomed you still see the enemies and other important stuff from far away, they get priority over bushes and such.

 

[MaLDo]

You don't understand, they could run very high instead of lower than low on PS4 easily. The only reason they didn't is because... I'm still working on that part.

 

[GhostTrick]

No, it doesn't effect sniping at all as the LOD gets more detailed when you zoom in with binoculars or a scope. It's purely a visual effect.

Also, even unzoomed you still see the enemies and other important stuff from far away, they get priority over bushes and such.

To be fair, I find it bothering to see all of these elements poping. it's especially visible with vehicles.

 

[artsi]

To be fair, I find it bothering to see all of these elements poping. it's especially visible with vehicles.

Yeah for sure, it's not pretty, and can be quite immersion breaking.

 

[Windom Earle]

Time for new grassgate .gif

 

[Krappadizzle]

Honestly speaking LOD and Draw Distance barely matters for MGS V. It is not like GTA V or Witcher 3, which were more populated open world games. MGS V is pretty barren in comparison and the addition of "4x rocks and bushes" viewable from a distance is nowhere comparable to GTA V/Witcher 3.

I'd consider TW 3/GTA V a bigger difference due to the decrease in NPCs on PS4/XBO compared to PC. The only biggest difference for me in MGSV is not these "4x rocks and bushes", it is the lack of dynamic light sources at night due to the low LOD. But we don't always play at night like in Ground Zeroes main mission.

MGSV is mostly a cross-gen game with the usual bells and whistles for current-gen/PC.

It's a tech thread. It matters in that context.

 

[DarkLordMalik]

Matters more in some cases. If you like to go the sniping route for infiltration, the extra LOD is a great thing. It means you can snipe from further away.

I can't speak for you, but like artsi said, this doesn't have such an adverse affect on using binoculars or for sniping. It works as intended.

If anyone has the time, maybe they can create a comparison between PS4 and PC where this is the case e.g sniping has added benefit on PC? Because I don't really see it here.

To be fair, I find it bothering to see all of these elements poping. it's especially visible with vehicles.

Yes, it is distracting. Thankfully the pop-in is not as severe as TW3 but not as good as AK.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

Can't help but think that this is just not good motion blur all across the board, but at least the game has something better than just camera mb.

edit: yeah, that's the sky, most game can't actually do better in that case as far as I've seen.

 

[hesido]

A higher LOD threshold adds a lot of objects as you go further from the camera position, the number of objects required for display may increase in logarithmic fashion per "screen space length", due to perspective. So it's understandable to tune it down like that. That said, GPU driven pipelines they should be able to increase that a lot for future titles (single drawcall from cpu, culling done entirely on GPU).. Of course maybe MGS V is already doing it, I dunno.

Can't help but think that this is just not good motion blur all across the board, but at least the game has something better than just camera mb.

edit: yeah, that's the sky, most game can't actually do better in that case as far as I've seen.

Realtime motion blur in still shots may not look flattering unless you are The Order. I remember people disliking even the UE4 Kite Demo motion blur. Luckily at 60fps it's pleasant.

 

[Lulubop]

You don't understand, they could run very high instead of lower than low on PS4 easily. The only reason they didn't is because... I'm still working on that part.

lol. thelastword calling something out for having an agenda is the richest thing,

 

[Kezen]

Minimal doesn't mean what you think

Quite a dramatic difference right there, and not surprised some would try (and fail) to downplay it.


I have to say it's extremely fulfilling to see a Japanese console IP (like Dark Souls) now capable of delivering a much better experience on PC.

I'm certainly not going to complain, I can see the Kojima team prinding themselves in getting the best out of each platform within their ressources and time.

 

[thelastword]

Why do you say the AF is teh biggest disparity? The Very high PC image has like 4x as many rocks and bushesdue to LOD difference. While AF only affects the ground texture.

I think the AF is more significant, we're looking at 2x-4xAF on the PS4 to 16x on the PC, that's quite a bigger disparity over grass. Let's be fair here, if the PS4 version had 16xAF the image would have been much less drastic.

I have never denied the extra tufts being there, come on, below low and very high as metrics.... As for application, I just don't find it's significant enough to affect performance so much. I'm mostly looking at GTA5 when I say that, the difference from low to very high is immediately noticeable and looking at the quality of the foliage in GTA, I can easily say that it affects performance.

 

[Dictator93]

Realtime motion blur in still shots may not look flattering unless you are The Order. I remember people disliking even the UE4 Kite Demo motion blur. Luckily at 60fps it's pleasant.

I think most motionblurs are rather similar (per object). Rather, some games dirty up their image with other post processing (filmgrain is a big one). This then makes it look decided more natural in stills.

Most obmb has noticable edges and banding in a still image, but it isn't about stills anyway... but how it appears in motion.

I really like the obmb in the new call of duty games. Their rpesentation on it points out a lof cool stuff they tried to do to make it more natural.

 

[Krappadizzle]

I think the AF is more significant, we're looking at 2x-4xAF on the PS4 to 16x on the PC, that's quite a bigger disparity over grass. Let's be fair here, if the PS4 version had 16xAF the image would have been much less drastic.

I have never denied the extra tufts being there, come on, below low and very high as metrics.... As for application, I just don't find it's significant enough to affect performance so much. I'm mostly looking at GTA5 when I say that, the difference from low to very high is immediately noticeable and looking at the quality of the foliage in GTA, I can easily say that it affects performance.

You may not be denying it, but you are definitely downplaying it's significance. It's a huge, noticeable difference. And this isn't about GTA5 so I don't understand why you keep bringing that up as if it has some significance to the MGSV comparison thread.

 

[Durante]

A higher LOD threshold adds a lot of objects as you go further from the camera position, the number of objects required for display may increase in logarithmic fashion per "screen space length", due to perspective. So it's understandable to tune it down like that.

You make a good point, though you mean "exponential" rather than "logarithmic"

It's why object distance (as well as foliage etc. distance) in an open world game is generally a very impactful setting.