not even desire, just lack of awareness. they fucking created metal gear rising. it's insulting to suggest they aren't capable of implementing resolution settings. they just need to know that people want it and that it's a worthwhile thing to implement.
Durante pls: Metal Gear Rising PC won't support higher resolutions than 1080p
- Thread starter angular graphics
- Start date
not even desire, just lack of awareness. they fucking created metal gear rising. it's insulting to suggest they aren't capable of implementing resolution settings. they just need to know that people want it and that it's a worthwhile thing to implement.
SouthernGangstaNerd
Banned
I already have used it and I don't need it to play games. They look just fine and I don't care about epeen to cry about it.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Performance-wise, they are inferior in every conceivable way. It's probably in your best interests to take some time out on your forced GAF-vacation to figure out why that bothers you so much, then make your peace with it.
right, people are complaining about resolution because of 'epeen'
great stuff
InfiniteNine
Rolling Girl
Steam page says full controller support so I imagine so.Sorry if I am uninformed, is there controller support for the PC version?
OT: Wanted to downsample this, but I guess not
Thats not possible, thats just PC Gaming Elitism of course. Right?
Actually 4K is probably the best resolution (after 1080p ofc) to display 1080p content: 4k has 4 times more pixel than 1080p, so when upscaling each pixel in the base 1080p image will take 4 pixels when displayed on screen. There isn't any interpolation needed (which is what make things look like shit when upscaling).
But yeah the if the game rendered at 4k it'd look a shitload better.
I think if it were that simple everyone would just do it. But people like Durante have a set of skills that allows them to do the things that we lack the knowledge of. And I appreciate the work they do very much.
It's one of the mainstays of PC gaming. If it can be fixed somebody, somewhere will do it. It doesn't have to be anyone in particular.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
If it was that easy to fix, that the common pc gamer could fix it, then Durante wouldn't need to fix it, hell then there would be no excuse for the devs to released it that way, if that fix would be that easy.
OP, you should add to the first post ToraShiro's post, as he actually told us to give feedback on this and not just accept the limitation. We really don't have details yet on what the particular reason behind this might be, so we should ask for an answer. And if there's no particular reason other than lack of knowledge in how to use these functions, even better, because they already have the information available on how to fix it.
EDIT: Thank you.
EDIT: Thank you.
And it continues to live up to that impression up until the very end.
I'm looking forward to it. I love the fact Platinum put in an option to up the cut count. That's awesome.
There is no excuse to release stuff that way under any circumstances. The way Durante has to fix the game is way more complex than what would be needed if he had access to the source code. The developers have access to the source code so they have no excuse (although, I do suppose it's not entirely up to programmers themselves - it's probably a managerial decision - ie. a guy that weighted the pros and cons and decided not to include higher resolutions for some reason
this guy fucked up
John Rabbit
Banned
if people want to play videogames so badly, we should all just look for ways to make our own games instead of waiting for somebody else to. i get what you're trying to say, but you don't have to walk this notion back very far for it to become ridiculous.
Durante is not some kind of panacea for console ports on the PC, but has HAS proven more than once that he is willing and interested in correcting these kinds of arbitrary limitations placed on them. if he charged money for his patches, thereby essentially creating a business entity like the studios creating these ports, would you have a different opinion? would it be okay for people to rely on him more so long as he's charging money? should PC gamers all have a basic understanding of DLLs, shaders, and run-time functions in order to be able to enjoy gaming on their PC? the problem isn't people's reliance on the generosity of others, the problem is traditionally console developers/publishers pushing half-assed ports out the door that completely negate two of the foundational pillars of PC gaming (those being customization and scalability).
Twilightzoney
Member
The problem isn't we want higher resolutions to appease us elitists. Its just that we want it to be future proofed and to support higher resolutions as we continue to grow bigger and bigger. Plus stretching a 1080p screen higher is just awful.
We just want them to come to the standard and not make them have this hardcoded nonsense.
We just want them to come to the standard and not make them have this hardcoded nonsense.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Resolution limitation aside (and I'm sure this will be resolved one way or another and appreciate JP taking our feedback), it's looking like a DMC4-level port. I'm so pumped!
Loss for Words
Member
If Durante creates a patch for this game, then each of the games he has patched over the past 18 months will have been a better port than the last. Given this, and the fact that Dark Souls II is shaping up to have a top notch PC version, I don't think that the quoted will turn out to be an issue in the long term. In the short term, there's nothing wrong with a fan helping out a Japanese dev who is honestly inexperienced with the PC platform.
angular graphics
Banned
Done, thanks for the suggestion.
32.6% of steam users have 1080p display according to the steam survey page. Eyeballing the stats it looks like about 4% of steam users have resolution bigger than that. (Not counting multi-display setups). Ok this is only guessing but people who has larger resolution displays generally also have beefier than average PCs and are also more likely to buy new graphics heavy games than average PC owners. 4% of 65 million (current steam active user accounts) is 2,6 million. That's a lot of potential customers if the resolution was the only limiter.
Ok that's not very accurate and probably just wrong but it's stats are fun. Also the steam stats are only from people who have taken part in the steam survey.
Ok that's not very accurate and probably just wrong but it's stats are fun. Also the steam stats are only from people who have taken part in the steam survey.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
If you're downsampling and running the game higher than 1080p, you're still counted in the survey as 1080p. So no, it's not accurate for those of us who downsample games. And it still doesn't take into consideration the fact that many of us want the 1080p limit removed because we want the game to be futureproof.
I definitely agree and really appreciate these devs taking our feedback into consideration, but it's still no reason to lower our expectations, be okay with it as a precedent, or allow other developers to just rely on someone else to fix it.
I definitely agree and really appreciate these devs taking our feedback into consideration, but it's still no reason to lower our expectations, be okay with it as a precedent, or allow other developers to just rely on someone else to fix it.
Fair enough.
angular graphics
Banned
Console gamer logic: In 5 years I'll just buy the HD port or something.
blainethemono
Member
The point is that at some point in the future the majority of people might have moved on from 1080p and graduated to playing at 4k or 8k or whatever. The game could have a maximum of 1440p or 1600p and it still wouldn't be enough in the long run. Like right now, I can boot up a game I used to play back when I only had a 1280x1024 monitor and play it at 1080p because most games don't have an arbitrary limit on that
Crab Milk Mickey
Member
Wanting those features to make the most out of your hardware is perfectly understandable, but proclaiming it's a shit game / port wholesale because it didn't tick a metaphorical checkbox or two is the definition of knee-jerk hyperbole. Provided Revengeance's port doesn't have game-breaking issues of its own when released. The game isn't even a looker visually, so hypothetically speaking you wouldn't be getting the aforementioned "clear picture" either with 720p textures (or 1080p if we're lucky) made to scale accordingly for 4K monitors or televisions. Like most console games that make it to PC. Tell me otherwise with choice screenshot A:
Makes me wonder how random 2013 EA game (aimed at the PC demographic) or Diablo III are viewed like. As super shit games? Or are all their troubles that rendered them literally unplayable suddenly close to acceptable due to 120Hz? How about The Walking Dead's saving issues; A-OK because it supports resolutions higher than 1080p? ARMA III's broken promises despite Bohemia's best intentions? As someone who also thoroughly enjoys this hobby, there are far worse faults that'd be truly problematic (to put it lightly) than the omission of features that primarily cater to a very select group of the PC target audience. Anyways: strictly under the assumption that Revengeance runs smoothly (since we have no way of telling now), 15 dollars for 1080p/60 fps plus all of its DLC plus much requested bonus features exclusive to the port is a decent total package (with room for improvement no doubt given that it's PG's first attempt) and far from "shit", even if it doesn't live up to the lofty pie-in-the-sky standards of PC gaming that not even a lot of Western developers (big or small) can consistently adhere to across the board.
Note: I own 320+ PC games, I recently upgraded my rig and I downsample whenever random graphical elements don't stick out like a sore thumb (which is far too often the case with console-to-PC ports), so spare me your condescending "peasant" remark if that thought already crossed your mind given the frequent hostility in this thread.
Crimsonclaw111
Member
God damn I can't wait for AA.
Wanting those features to make the most out of your hardware is perfectly understandable, but proclaiming it's a shit game / port wholesale because it didn't tick a metaphorical checkbox or two is the definition of knee-jerk hyperbole. Provided Revengeance's port doesn't have game-breaking issues of its own when released. The game isn't even a looker visually, so hypothetically speaking you wouldn't be getting the aforementioned "clear picture" either with 720p textures (or 1080p if we're lucky) made to scale accordingly for 4K monitors or televisions. Like most console games that make it to PC. Tell me otherwise with choice screenshot A:
Texture quality and the resolution are two completely different things. A game with low-res textures can still look really clean at high resolutions with a good amount of anti-aliasing. It might not be the best looking game around but it'll look clearer than at a lower resolution.
ebullientprism
Member
Is there any evidence of this aside from the developers saying they will put more effort in into it?
Thats hardly a confirmation of a top notch PC version. And coming off the shockingly low quality DaS, their "more effort" might just mean doing the bare minimum this time.
No. Considering their arse game was fixed by one (albeit brilliant) gaffer in a matter of hours, I can't see why they ought to be considered any good.
"I'm taking it FROM here, so says Mr. Stewart, SON!"
Resolution and texture quality are entirely different things. Look at dark souls, the texture work on armor and weapons is incredible on the PC.
Crab Milk Mickey
Member
It'll look sharp with AA, resolutions higher than 1080p et al, but I wouldn't call a lot of console-to-PC ports "clean" since the appropriate level of texture detail usually won't be there even when downsampled. Unless it's a very colorful or cartoony game, like DmC and Sonic Racing Transformed (respectively) as recent examples. Something like Dishonored is inconsistent since it switches from looking very pretty to very ugly at the drop of a hat, and then there are also games like Just Cause 2 with blurry-ass HUD's / UI's without mods.
I wish more console games were like Dark Souls with incredibly detailed textures, yes. The difference is quite something (exceptional even) for a port that's so... limited and crude. Dark Souls II unfortunately seems to be a step back based on the screenshots they've shown us thus far, but I'm hoping said images just gave off a wrong impression.
Haven't the screenshots all been from the PS3 version?
Coffee Dog
Banned
Wanting those features to make the most out of your hardware is perfectly understandable, but proclaiming it's a shit game / port wholesale because it didn't tick a metaphorical checkbox or two is the definition of knee-jerk hyperbole. Provided Revengeance's port doesn't have game-breaking issues of its own when released. The game isn't even a looker visually, so hypothetically speaking you wouldn't be getting the aforementioned "clear picture" either with 720p textures (or 1080p if we're lucky) made to scale accordingly for 4K monitors or televisions. Like most console games that make it to PC. Tell me otherwise with choice screenshot A:
Makes me wonder how random 2013 EA game (aimed at the PC demographic) or Diablo III are viewed like. As super shit games? Or are all their troubles that rendered them literally unplayable suddenly close to acceptable due to 120Hz? How about The Walking Dead's saving issues; A-OK because it supports resolutions higher than 1080p? ARMA III's broken promises despite Bohemia's best intentions? As someone who also thoroughly enjoys this hobby, there are far worse faults that'd be truly problematic (to put it lightly) than the omission of features that primarily cater to a very select group of the PC target audience. Anyways: strictly under the assumption that Revengeance runs smoothly (since we have no way of telling now), 15 dollars for 1080p/60 fps plus all of its DLC plus much requested bonus features exclusive to the port is a decent total package (with room for improvement no doubt given that it's PG's first attempt) and far from "shit", even if it doesn't live up to the lofty pie-in-the-sky standards of PC gaming that not even a lot of Western developers (big or small) can consistently adhere to across the board.
Note: I own 320+ PC games, I recently upgraded my rig and I downsample whenever random graphical elements don't stick out like a sore thumb (which is far too often the case with console-to-PC ports), so spare me your condescending "peasant" remark if that thought already crossed your mind given the frequent hostility in this thread.
Look, no offense, but this post reads like damage control, trying to mitigate the advantages that highers reolutions provide and claiming that resolution control is "pie in the sky". Let alone the entire middle paragraph which brings up a myriad of other games with entirely different problems in a fit of strawmanning.
Let's get one thing straight. It isn't pie in the sky. It's a basic feature of a PC game. Resolution control is something that has been an industry standard for PC games for many years. Metal Gear Rising is failing to live up to the standards of nearly every PC gme out there. So yeah, when the PC version of a game is missing incrediby basic and almost standardized features, it is a bad port.
TyrantGuardian
Member
Ok. What's your point? The game still looks better with high AA and low res textures than with low AA and low res textures.
Wanting those features to make the most out of your hardware is perfectly understandable, but proclaiming it's a shit game / port wholesale because it didn't tick a metaphorical checkbox or two is the definition of knee-jerk hyperbole. Provided Revengeance's port doesn't have game-breaking issues of its own when released. The game isn't even a looker visually, so hypothetically speaking you wouldn't be getting the aforementioned "clear picture" either with 720p textures (or 1080p if we're lucky) made to scale accordingly for 4K monitors or televisions. Like most console games that make it to PC. Tell me otherwise with choice screenshot A:
Makes me wonder how random 2013 EA game (aimed at the PC demographic) or Diablo III are viewed like. As super shit games? Or are all their troubles that rendered them literally unplayable suddenly close to acceptable due to 120Hz? How about The Walking Dead's saving issues; A-OK because it supports resolutions higher than 1080p? ARMA III's broken promises despite Bohemia's best intentions? As someone who also thoroughly enjoys this hobby, there are far worse faults that'd be truly problematic (to put it lightly) than the omission of features that primarily cater to a very select group of the PC target audience. Anyways: strictly under the assumption that Revengeance runs smoothly (since we have no way of telling now), 15 dollars for 1080p/60 fps plus all of its DLC plus much requested bonus features exclusive to the port is a decent total package (with room for improvement no doubt given that it's PG's first attempt) and far from "shit", even if it doesn't live up to the lofty pie-in-the-sky standards of PC gaming that not even a lot of Western developers (big or small) can consistently adhere to across the board.
Note: I own 320+ PC games, I recently upgraded my rig and I downsample whenever random graphical elements don't stick out like a sore thumb (which is far too often the case with console-to-PC ports), so spare me your condescending "peasant" remark if that thought already crossed your mind given the frequent hostility in this thread.
You don't know what you're talking about. You are saying that somehow 1080p limit is excusable because the game may not have super high tes assets?,Downsampling makes every game look far better and makes even OK textures look stellar. Batman Arkham Origins doesnt use insanely high res assets yet it looks incredibly clean downsampled from 4k
Rising would look far better at 4K. What you're saying is complete BS.
Lol yep.
jim2point0
Banned
I was surprised myself when I overclocked this monitor from 60 to 90. I immediately saw thd difference just moving my mouse around. Switched it back to 60 and it felt choppy. Hah.
I can not understand this kind of attitude. Coming from someone that owns a 2560x1440 monitor AND downsamples on it. This is the kinda stuff that makes the PC platform shine. People put a lot of money into their machines for that very reason.
I wouldn't outright call this a shitty port but I would certainly not call it a good one either. Especially not after hearing Durante mention that including higher resolutions is absolutely trivial.
So much "I can't play games at resolutions higher than 1080p so there's no reason anyone else would want to" attitude in this thread.
evil solrac v3.0
Member
I don't know I tried Crysis at 1080p on the TV and I didn't like how it looked (although the 120Hz was aces!)
Wanting those features to make the most out of your hardware is perfectly understandable, but proclaiming it's a shit game / port wholesale because it didn't tick a metaphorical checkbox or two is the definition of knee-jerk hyperbole. Provided Revengeance's port doesn't have game-breaking issues of its own when released. The game isn't even a looker visually, so hypothetically speaking you wouldn't be getting the aforementioned "clear picture" either with 720p textures (or 1080p if we're lucky) made to scale accordingly for 4K monitors or televisions. Like most console games that make it to PC. Tell me otherwise with choice screenshot A:
Makes me wonder how random 2013 EA game (aimed at the PC demographic) or Diablo III are viewed like. As super shit games? Or are all their troubles that rendered them literally unplayable suddenly close to acceptable due to 120Hz? How about The Walking Dead's saving issues; A-OK because it supports resolutions higher than 1080p? ARMA III's broken promises despite Bohemia's best intentions? As someone who also thoroughly enjoys this hobby, there are far worse faults that'd be truly problematic (to put it lightly) than the omission of features that primarily cater to a very select group of the PC target audience. Anyways: strictly under the assumption that Revengeance runs smoothly (since we have no way of telling now), 15 dollars for 1080p/60 fps plus all of its DLC plus much requested bonus features exclusive to the port is a decent total package (with room for improvement no doubt given that it's PG's first attempt) and far from "shit", even if it doesn't live up to the lofty pie-in-the-sky standards of PC gaming that not even a lot of Western developers (big or small) can consistently adhere to across the board.
Note: I own 320+ PC games, I recently upgraded my rig and I downsample whenever random graphical elements don't stick out like a sore thumb (which is far too often the case with console-to-PC ports), so spare me your condescending "peasant" remark if that thought already crossed your mind given the frequent hostility in this thread.
for someone who owns 320 games you don't seem to realize that being able to change resolutions on a game to your monitor's native resolution is a standard feature that has been around for a long time now. a very long time.
Diablo 3 problems weren't about graphics, they were about fundamental gamepley.
a game like ARMA is always evolving and always changing and given the size of it problems will arise.
Walking Dead's save file issues were talked about non-stop, guess you missed it. it was a huge problema nd many people complained.
Well if you're used to see 4k content on there it's normal that it looks sub-par
. But it's not as bad as upscaling 720p to 1080p or 1080p to 1440p.Crab Milk Mickey
Member
Could be, but FROM has also repeatedly claimed that the PC is their main platform this time around, so...
You could make a valid argument about my examples being strawmen, and realistically speaking the option for resolutions higher than 1080p are (as you say) common for games that are developed with PC in mind. Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance? Never been one of those, no matter how standard (and welcome) the inclusion of said features would be. Since I paraphrased my stance poorly previously: I'd rank "does the game actually work?" much higher than "can I crank this up through downsampling?" when there's no precedent for PG-developed ports, lest we end up with console-to-PC ports that are legitimately bad like L.A. Noire, Deadly Premonition, GTA IV, Saint's Row 2 and so forth. Which from the sounds of it Revengeance might (emphasis on the "might") not be.
If Platinum would repeat this mistake for their next port (since by then they'll have garnered more experience and collected meaningful feedback), then I'd be with you. And just so we're clear: I'm mostly argueing about your definition about what constitutes a bad port, not so much whether ignoring a basic feature is justifiable.
Visual fidelity will be increased, but it'll still look subpar by the end of it. MGR couldn't be further from being a graphical showcase.
Revengeance'll look sharper. That's about it. And not a fan of any recent Batman games visually, so personal preferences here.
Ya don't say.
Niiiiice. I can get behind this tag.
copelandmaster
Member
@PlatinumGamesJP
Does Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance support monitor refresh rates higher than 60hz? Does said game also support frame rates higher than 60fps, or is the game capped at 60fps?
Does Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance support monitor refresh rates higher than 60hz? Does said game also support frame rates higher than 60fps, or is the game capped at 60fps?
MomoPufflet
Member
Thank you for what you are doing-- I hope the abusive comments here haven't dissuaded you. It's rare to see this sort of thing and a lot of people appreciate your effort, however it turns out.
TyrantGuardian
Member
Again, not seeing your point. It's a trivial fix that is a result of a minor development oversight. They might as well fix their product with a patch, in this case?
Crimsonclaw111
Member
So many people in the Steam Community don't seem to care, it's sad.