-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
MGS4 resolution scaling and frame rate question? (No spoilers)
- Thread starter SS4Rob
- Start date
Sometimes man just wish that HD was never concieved.
I'm even more worried about the future threads:
"Gran Turismo 7 is not a TRUE 4K, it's JUST as 2K upscaled"
"Call of Duty 8 suffers from serious slowdowns when playing on 240fps"
"Zelda 3D does not utilise a Full-Stereoscopic with 8AA, it's just 4AA"
WTF?
Get yourself a decent TV guys - and there will be nothing to worry about.
I'm even more worried about the future threads:
"Gran Turismo 7 is not a TRUE 4K, it's JUST as 2K upscaled"
"Call of Duty 8 suffers from serious slowdowns when playing on 240fps"
"Zelda 3D does not utilise a Full-Stereoscopic with 8AA, it's just 4AA"
WTF?
Get yourself a decent TV guys - and there will be nothing to worry about.
abstract alien
Member
Yeah, it really is...but all im really getting at is that its not really a good design choice to have snake's mustache take up more polygons than the entire game of MGS3(exaggeration), and then have the game run inconsistantly. Most of the details and high poly counts(which i dont even know how they got running in the first place) could be reduced and have the game run at a constant(mostly)60fps. I think its a problem when mgs2 ran at 60fps on a machine that is probably 20x less powerful. Thats a bit of an issue for me, so the fact that the scale is bigger doesnt play as much of a factor, because the machine is a complete beast compared to the ps2.bigben85 said:
abstract alien
Member
I really dont want to seem like im bashing this game, because its absolutely amazing. Story, graphics, controls, everything is outrageously crafted. Its really a work of art, its just that i dont really understand why kojima, of all people, would make a few of the decisions that he made. Decisions that impact the gameplay and experience(which are still far beyond most other things in life, period)
supermackem
Banned
I have to say sony fans have to eat some crow after tha bashing they give halo and ng2 over the res. Mgs4 looks amazing though as does halo3 and ng2 people need to learn to just enjoy games instead of all this shite about res aa etc.
It's anamorphic. The pixels are at least conceptually not square, but stretched into rectangles.Choabac said:
Generally speaking, square pixels are the optimal solution for the widest range of content, but for some cases non-square might make sense.
a)Distributing resolution like MGS4 trades texture sharpness on near-horizontal surfaces for sharpness of near-vertical surfaces. I.e. the ground looks slightly better than it would with square pixels, while walls get a bit fuzzier.
b)Only horizontal scaling is 100% free on the PS3 while vertical (up-)scaling requires at least a chunk of memory to be set aside. When a game needs to support 1080p output, the resolution choice made here indeed slightly reduces the memory footprint of the framebuffer vs what would have been needed for an equivalent buffer holding square pixels (1182x665). But it's just a ~650kB difference, which leads me to ...
c)I'm not 100% sure but I think I read somewher (B3D?) that the horizontal hardware scaler in the PS3 requires the horizontal source resolution to be one of a fixed set of numbers. Something along the lines of 1440, 1280, 1024, 960, but no arbitrary steps in between are allowed. If I got that right, it would explain why it's not a "strange" resolution, but rather one from that set.
Och.Choabac said:
supermackem
Banned
TheBranca18 said:
Im just pointing out how stupid there res bashing was on ng2 and halo3, mgs4 looks amazing yet runs at a lower res than 720p. People should learn to play the games before they jump on and comment on things.
AndresON777
shooting blanks
well i think it looks best in 1080p, like uncharted and ratchet and clank...even if they're only 720p games....still looks better imo upscaled. some games though, like assassins creed looked better just in 720p.
either way, it's butters.
either way, it's butters.
commariodore64
Member
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Not that it matters but I though MGS4 rendered natively at 720p (1024x768)? That would not make it sub HD. I do know from Dark that NG2 is sub HD. Correct me if I'm wrong.Draft said:
JetSetRadio
Banned
It is so damn funny that the people who are bitching on the resolution and temp AA (for god's sake) never ever could have discovered it or noticed it by themselfves.
They would be clueless without that techforum. Keep on going guys, me = back to MGS4 :lol
They would be clueless without that techforum. Keep on going guys, me = back to MGS4 :lol
supermackem
Banned
LiquidMetal14 said:
720p is more than what you post its 1280*770
commariodore64
Member
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Gotcha. I do believe that MGS4 is not sub HD still. Again, 1024x768.commariodore64 said:
Ok thanks rubso.
commariodore64
Member
rubso said:HD is 1280x720
MGS4 is 1024x768 (sub-HD) 4:3 Anamorphic
NG2 is 1120x585 (sub-HD) 16:9
according to the pixel counter @ b3d.
I hope that helps.
Added aspect ratio, fwiw...
commariodore64
Member
LiquidMetal14 said:
It is sub-HD - but the scaling is the best I've seen on the PS3. The IQ is excellent - and, bottom line - the game is the shit!
Between NG2 and this game - I can safely rest easy until the big fall releases!
Yes, certainly. Just now another know-nothing is trying to "prove" to me the presence of temporal AA by showing me single, still frames, which would of course be impossible even if the technique were used, which it isn't.commariodore64 said:
UntoldDreams
Member
You guys might not recall but Kutaragi's original design for the PS3 did have 2 cell processors.
I'm guessing if the original design had been realized (meaning... not rushed out the door to fight with Microsoft) we might have had the PS3 one year later but it would have been MGS4 at 60 FPS and 1080p. Particularly since the Blu-ray spec wasn't even finalized when the PS3 was released is even more damning how they had to rush the PS3 out to fight with MS.
I'm not quite so happy about that since I think dual cell processors would definitely have been the the "leap in power" that people were expecting. Even a single cell processor is powerful but dual cells...
Oh well... That's history now.
I'm guessing if the original design had been realized (meaning... not rushed out the door to fight with Microsoft) we might have had the PS3 one year later but it would have been MGS4 at 60 FPS and 1080p. Particularly since the Blu-ray spec wasn't even finalized when the PS3 was released is even more damning how they had to rush the PS3 out to fight with MS.
I'm not quite so happy about that since I think dual cell processors would definitely have been the the "leap in power" that people were expecting. Even a single cell processor is powerful but dual cells...
Oh well... That's history now.
commariodore64
Member
Thanks for the insult -bcn-ron said:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
Temporal AA CAN be captured (frame buffer - no, external capture - yes)- look it up. AND it exists in DMC4 on PS3... but, by all means - keep fighting the good fight and boasting your 'superior' knowledge!
commariodore64
Member
What might have been - but the RSX is the chink in the PS3 armor - unfortunately...UntoldDreams said:
brain_stew
Member
UntoldDreams said:
A dual cell PS3 was never a serious consideration in the PS3 design, this is a common misconception. If it had been real then the PS3 would have been a disaster in terms of graphics, the Cell is not a GPU and would offer terrible performance compared to any modern solution from Nvidia or ATI, not to mention the fact it would be a nightmare for programmers. Creating your own software renderer from scratch? No, that doesn't sound too fun.
UntoldDreams
Member
commariodore64 said:
The RSX was stapled onto the PS3 after the second cell chip was removed as I understand the story.
Sigh... Oh well. I guess the original design was to put as much onto the Dual Cells as possible and leave "simple shading stuff" on the graphics chip. In other words scalability and performance would not have been GPU bound since most of the heavy lifting was not going to be done by them.
KernelPanic
Member
UntoldDreams said:
From what I've seen, Cell isn't powerful enough to act the GPU on its own, prolly why they scrapped that idea.
There's enough complaining about Cell programming going around, multiplying those complaints by 2 would've made things worse.
UntoldDreams
Member
brain_stew said:
Not exaclty true. In specific graphic operations certainly the GPU hardware will win hands down. Its dedicated hardware after all.
However, the pipeline processing of the cell has proven itself many times over in handling matrix operations (3D operations) and large grunt mathematics. The entire rendering pipeline of a GAME (not just shading pixels) requires much more than can be placed onto a GPU as I'm sure you are aware.
UntoldDreams
Member
*** Keep in mind that there is a specific reason why Supercomputers like Roadrunner and Blugene are not built from ATI and NVIDIA cards.
The reason is because those cards are very super fast at doing very specific operations.
Anything outside of those operations is either not possible or incredibly slow in performance.
As they expand those operations they will eventually have to become full CPU' or be like Intel and try to merge GPU hardware into the CPU itself.
The Cell was an attempt to bring ordered pipeline processing to solve this ugly problem.
ANYWAYS... This is now history and there is little to debate. Its in the history books already.
The reason is because those cards are very super fast at doing very specific operations.
Anything outside of those operations is either not possible or incredibly slow in performance.
As they expand those operations they will eventually have to become full CPU' or be like Intel and try to merge GPU hardware into the CPU itself.
The Cell was an attempt to bring ordered pipeline processing to solve this ugly problem.
ANYWAYS... This is now history and there is little to debate. Its in the history books already.
I love mgs4 so far and too me the game looks great, but to call it the best looking game on ps3 is downright wrong. There are times when I go holy shit that looks great then all of a sudden a background object appears that looks straight out of a ps2 game. Don't get me wrong though..the good far outweighs the bad.
BravoSuperStar
Member
I really feel like Uncharted does trump it slightly, in graphics. But Metal Gears' overall package is so damn polished it doesn't detract from the experience.
gregor7777
Banned
Chiggs said:
Going from memory here, but wasn't the RSX closer to the 7900GTX in spec? That is a fair bit more powerful than the midrange 7600 series.
commariodore64
Member
SuperEnemyCrab said:
Drake looks poor in comparison - seriously. MGS4 cut scenes are REALTIME in game engine - and the models are much more detailed. Not saying Drake is a slouch - but play MGS4 for an hour and go back to Drake to spot all of it's flaws...
What special technique did Kojipro use to get this game to look be output in 1080p without having to resort to unchecking 720p/1080i in the XMB?
I really like having the HUD and XMB Menu (Shut off system/controller) showing up in native 1080p res on my Panny.
That being said, regardless of what resolution the game is outputting, I think the game looks phenomenal.
I really like having the HUD and XMB Menu (Shut off system/controller) showing up in native 1080p res on my Panny.
That being said, regardless of what resolution the game is outputting, I think the game looks phenomenal.