Why Are We Arguing About Ground Zeroes' Graphics?

I'm playing this on ps4, and this game looks effing awful. I find it kind of silly people are claiming their console has a superior version when the game looks this unimpressive. Don't get me wrong, it's Metal Gear, so it's a blast, but for the team that's known for pushing hardware to the max, this is seriously underwhelming visually. Almost everything is blurry and very last-gen.

It doesn't matter what system you're playing on, we're all kind of losing here.

I guess some are losing more than others.

I believe Kojima stated himself that the game was originally targeted for current gen and then optimized for "next gen".

The game does look great on both though.

even with its underwhelming visuals x1 still cant run this in 1080p. power difference between ps4/x1 is what the debate has centered around

As much as I love my ps4 and don't want to turn this into a flame bait thread, I do have to mention there's a small, but important difference between "can't run in 1080p" and "doesn't run in 1080p," of which I'm still inclined to believe -- seeing that we're less than a year in -- we're still in the "doesn't run in 1080p" territory. I want to give my unplayed Xbox One a little time before I write off its potential forever.

thank you for your candour. a very interesting tale indeed.

This is going to happen while they continue to make games on last gen consoles and current gen

Yeah, I'm hoping we see some good games at E3.

I think people are also arguing about it because the comparison video released by Konami deceptively implied that there was very little difference between the 360 and X1 versions , when the difference is the same as the differences between the PS3 and PS4.

Yeah, it looks decent, but it definitely is a last gen game with slightly enhanced visuals on the next gen consoles. Really not impressive at all, but of course everyone pisses their pants over some bloom and reflections.

Not to mention that Japanese companies are almost always given a pass when it comes to visuals and image quality, so to have a Japanese game with even remotely decent visuals is sure to get game journalists wet.

Bingo , and I think that has been an open secret for a while now.

The blood splatter and kill animations looked weak. Come on Kojima.

Well, graphics are everything. Or so I've heard.

Which typically hasn't applied for Kojima's games. When Metal Gear Solid 4 came out, the visuals were mind blowing.

Same reason we debated dmc4 last gen, the game looks better on one console then the other even though the game doesn't look great to begin with.

Personally I couldn't care less about these differences. If my friends are getting a game on the One, I'll get it on that regardless of if it looks slightly worse. I play for fun, not to nitpick over graphics. Plus if graphics are your main concern, and you area console gamer, you are doing it way wrong.

Ultimately... Crysis looks better.

If you think it looks bad on ps4, just wait until you see the Xbone version.

@IMAHAPYHIPPO: Everythigng is blurry? Perhaps you should check into Lasick eye surgery? The game looks great . Very crisp , nice textures . Most reviews seem to back me up on this.

I'm playing it on the PS3 and it actually looks pretty damn good (not as good as TLOU but it's in the top 3), so I have no idea what you're smoking if you think it looks "awful" on the PS4.

It helps that Japanese games generally have better art than western games.

There's nothing else to talk about for 2014. Witcher 3 got delayed to next year, TPP won't come out until next year... The only games worth looking forward to for the rest of the year are on Wii U!

Destiny, Arkham Knight on Wii U?

It looks last gen because it's a last gen port :|

This, and Dragon Age Inquisition?

I don't know what people expected of MGSV: GZ graphics. its a PS3/360 game, so last generation technology, UPSCALED to 1080p, possibly a bit more AA and such on the PS4 version.

And Alien Isolation?

Ground Zeroes looks like a PS2 game simply cranked up.

Crysis is trash

This is the first time Kojima had to pump out four versions of a game at the same time. Konami has limited resources. I think it looks damn good, but I wonder what Kojima could have accomplished if this was just on one or two platforms instead of four.

Imagine his whole team cranking away at one version...

The game actually looks pretty damn good, don't know what you're talking about.

Sure it is,and even the worst scoring Crysis game still has a higher metascore than this cash grab,so if that´s trash then this is even lower.

MGS Ground Zeroes on the Xbox one actually has Crysis 3 beat lmao. Try again.

With only 7 reviews? lol nice try,then the PS3 version of Crysis 3 also has a 77 wich is the version with less reviews(about half of the PC and 360 versions),and even then 23>7 LOL.

Not to mention some of the more negative reviews aren´t yet counted there and it´s already at 74(on the yellow),at this rate it will probbly go into the 60´s range.

MGS GZ trash confirmed.

Graphics look rubbery.

There were people arguing about it?

Well you didn't say "Crysis has Ground Zeroes beat except for the Xbox version which only has 7 reviews", you just simply said it had a higher metascore which at this moment is false. Also, find a post where I say MGS Ground Zeroes is incredible. As a huge Metal Gear fan I can admit that the idea behind Ground Zeroes is kind of lame, and I think the 75 metascore it has is pretty acurate considering the game is basically a tech demo. Crysis 3, however, has the metascore it has simply because it is a sub par game at best, yet PC gamers praise it continuously as if it is some sort of masterpiece. It is simply a mediocre shooter.

Right, here I was thinking they improved on MGS4 graphics. Oh well.

The game looks decent in close-ups and in transitions to in-game cutscenes. Sure, looks cinematic, etc. but the foliage, the ground looks so awful...The ground also has very regular bump-mapping and the ambient lighting is also static. And then there's that clipping, when for example Snake carries Chico, Chico's arm goes through Snake...It's really amateurish. Besides, he can use binoculars while carrying him around. I know he probably puts him down for a second which we don't see anyway, but still you can do this - in and out - in a milisecond. BTW, I don't like this seeing enemies through obstacles. Makes whole game a piece of cake.

The only aspect of GZ that looks decidedly poor to me is 'da foliage'. Not so bad from a decent range, but noticeably rough up close. I was playing the HD version of Subsistence recently and it had better looking foliage which is pretty damn weird.

Otherwise, the game looks great. If they can maintain these wide open areas at 60fps I'm not going to worry if some shrubbery looks a bit off.

I was merely going by the obvious logic of using the versions that have the most reviews in and it paints the most accurate score breakdown,I didn´t think I had to explain such obvious concept.

Also,I don´t know why you´re bringing PC gamers to this and even then you´re completely wrong,Crysis 2 and even moreso Crysis 3 were panned by most PC gamers across the board with only the graphics being mentioned as a positive and certainly better than any game out there(to this day),but as the game itself I challenge you to show me where did you see that praise from "PC gamers" about Crysis 3 calling it a masterpiece(especially here on GS where most PC gamers hated it),only the first Crysis was continuously praised by PC gamers(and gamers in general) simply because it´s not only a fantastic game but one of the best in the genre in years,and one that has AAA scores and awards across the board,either here on GS(9.5 FPS GOTY vs Bioshock,CoD4 or Halo 3) as in metacritic.

But in the end the point made by uninspiredcup stands,Crysis(or Crysis 3 at least) certainly looks better than this,and that´s all it was said,nothing about the quality of the game until you came and called it trash. And even then,Crysis 3 even though it´s the worst in the serie it´s still a very decent shooter,anything but trash.

I turned that off almost immediately as well as that enemy detection ring. Along with most of the other hud stuff and the auto aim. Makes the experience sooo much better.

What in the world are you talking about,if anything PC gamers were the more vocal ones against Crysis 3(and Crysis 2 as well),just because the game is mentioned in graphical discussions it doesnt mean people think the game is amazing or anything like that,quite the opposite in fact,the only Crysis game that PC gamers were refering to as a "masterpiece" was the first game and with good reason,but the sequels? lol

Looks nothing like the reveal that was shown at Microsoft conference during the E3. They must have been using a highend PC when they showed it. All 4 versions look terrible and the fact that the game can be beaten in 10mins by some players, pretty much kills the games value. If this was at least a 6-7hr game with some decent replay values and better visuals & gameplay, I could see people paying $30 for it. In its current state, it's not worth that and it's obviously Konami & Hideo were being greedy and trying to pad their wallets months in advance to the real MGS V game.

***************************************************************************************************************************************

Doesn't really matter. It doesn't anywhere as good as it did at the reveal during Microsoft Press conference at the E3. That version blows all the console versions away. If there is a PC version it will be exceptionally better looking overall. The visuals wasn't the main reason I cancelled my preorder. Games length, content, price and Hideo's biased opinions persuaded me to keep my wallet firmly in my back pocket.

All the versions look good to me. :/ I guess I echo your conclusion albeit in a positive light.

I haven't played it yet but I do know that it's not cool to argue about the graphics.

E3 can't come soon enough I want to see some decent games this year.

Oh so PC gamers DON'T like Crysis 3? Could have fooled me, its the only game they ever talk about. And yeah, this thread had nothing to do with Crysis. Nobody in this thread said ANYTHING about Crysis until Mr. Elitist had to bring it up, so I just figured that I'd let him know that while Crysis 3 is indeed a very pretty game, it is a mediocre shooter at best. If PC gamers need to constantly use a mediocre first person shooter as an example to justify spending thousands of dollars on a rig that can actually run it at maxed out settings, I feel sorry for them. Just throwing in my two cents on Crysis as he felt the need to throw in his.

The very fact that you talk about this with such passion means you´re exactly the same as those "elitists" but for the console side,fanboys like you can be spotted a mile away.

Also,like mryaotubo said,all the other guy said was that Crysis 3 looked better...and it does,you´re the one that brought the quality of the game into the discussion and the one clearly pushing it as well as bringing up PC gamers to the discussion like a butthurt console fanboy.

And you said that PC gamers only talkl about Crysis 3 as some masterpiece or whatever and it´s all they talk about? Where´s the proof of that? I can show you countless threads of PC gamers bashing Crysis 3 for being an inferior multiplatform game unlike the first one,can you do the same to back the verbal diarreah you´re spouting?

OP, you may want to check your TVs settings. Then, you should go see an optometrist.