So, MGS3 demo is out...

trippingmartian said:
Just got the magazine. The game is beautiful. Does seem kind of linear, though. Can't wait till full version.

Well, Metal Gear is seemingly linear when looking at the overall picture, but the actual minute to minute gameplay is anything but...

That's the beauty of it. Each "area" is almost like a sandbox with a huge number of progression possibilities available to the player. So, while you may have to travel through, say, rooms A, B, and C in order to reach a specific destination...the gameplay within each of those rooms is quite open ended...
 
Nothing like killing a couple guys on the bridge, then hanging off one side of it, seeing the bodies slide off :P
 
Please excuse my bad english.

The demo rocks. But I think that the frame rate really hurts the game.
Today I've decided to play again the first part of MGS2 (the tanker). Call me crazy but I think that graphically is more impressive than MGS3. MGS2 looks awesome (the game is almost three years old!!!). It has heavy multitexturing (three texture layers on the tanker: base, gloss and environment), crazy amount of particles effects (rain, explosions), shadow maps, a lot of filters and runs at 60fps. It's really polished.

I know that MGS3 is pushing more geometry but I'm really pissed that the game runs at 30fps(with some heavy slowdowns in some areas). I really wanna know why did they have to go with the 30fps... What was the reason? Overdraw (grass and trees burn fillrate like nobody's business)? Improved AI of enemies?
 
I'd rather have a much more realistic environnement (the jungle is really nicely rendered here) with 30 fps (although we need it to be more solid; but remember that this demo is quite old, since it was conceived in time for E3 2004) than a simplier environnement in a game running at 60 fps. This isn't a racing game, so I don't think the framerate is that important... but hey: that's just me...

The demo blown me away. The ruins section is quite easy when you shoot everybody with either the shotgun or the riffle. Of course, you have to be hidden somewhere not too visible (the underground section or the roof for example). Once that stage is clear, take your time and admire the excellent work done by Team Kojima to recreate something historical-like. Then, blow Sokolov off through the window with a grenade! :D
 
Today I've decided to play again the first part of MGS2 (the tanker). Call me crazy but I think that graphically is more impressive than MGS3. MGS2 looks awesome (the game is almost three years old!!!). It has heavy multitexturing (three texture layers on the tanker: base, gloss and environment), crazy amount of particles effects (rain, explosions), shadow maps, a lot of filters and runs at 60fps. It's really polished.
Yes, MGS2 is undoubtedly some kind of apex of visual polish. However, I feel that the tradeoff for more complex looking environments is worth it. Otherwise, you'd get another MGS2 - looking game, which would be disappointing. You'd have to agree at least that MGS3 seems to be delivering impressive graphics more consistently than MGS2. In MGS2 you start of at tanker outside, which looks amazing, but when you get it, you lose the rain effect, and the environments are less detailed. Still great looking, but not as good as the outside. On the other hand, the jungle locations in MGS3 just keep impressing one after another, more and more. What it will look like when it starts raining in MGS3? Did you see the fire effects and explosions? Much improved over MGS2.

I know that MGS3 is pushing more geometry but I'm really pissed that the game runs at 30fps(with some heavy slowdowns in some areas). I really wanna know why did they have to go with the 30fps... What was the reason? Overdraw (grass and trees burn fillrate like nobody's business)? Improved AI of enemies?
Environments in MGS3 are really more complex looking, and much larger at that than MGS2, that's all it bows down to. Lots more polygons, textures (I'm betting MGS3 renders everything in many texture layers to avoid texture repetition - you rarely ever see any repeating textures there, also, mud has specular shine, gloss and reflections) Characters now have an extra layer of texturing as well (lightmaps) . Enemy AI is really visibly improved (try throwing a grenade among them couple of times in various situations, and see how they react)
 
One thing to remember:

MGS2's tanker surface appeared to be reflective, but the game engine was simply drawing the scene twice in order to achieve that. This is the case with ALL reflections in MGS2. It seems that, in most cases, world reflections will generally be handled this way (though not always).

Another thing about MGS3...

The grass itself is quite impressive when you look at it. Most games with grass generally rely on a number of flat textures cris-crossed about. MGS3 actually features modeled grass blades in order to allow for a greater level of interactivity.

MGS2 is a very impressive looking game, but the reason it can look so clean and polished is due to the type of environment being used. Rendering a natural, organic environment realistically is just so much more demanding.
 
Well, 30 fps only is not big deal to me as long as it looks great (like it is right now).
It's just that if they ever suceed in pushing this game outta 60 fps, the "wow" factor is going to be stronger and well, i would welcome that! ;)
 
Top Bottom